DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0030], the third sentence will be read as “The controlled regional distribution system (122) leverages a secure database of authorized recipients (170), a comprehensive tracking system (172) utilizing GPS and geofencing technologies to monitor the distribution and use of the color samples (124), and a robust digital rights management system (174) employing encryption and watermarking techniques to enforce strict restrictions on the sale and use of the color samples (124) outside the designated geographical territory.”
In [0049], [0050] and [0055], “the group” will be read as “a group”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
in Figure 1, reference numeral 152 is missing, first recited in [0027];
in Figure 1, reference numeral 160 is missing, first recited in [0028];
in Figure 1, reference numerals 126, 128, 136, 168 are missing, first recited in [0032];
in Figure 2, reference numeral 180 is missing, first recited in [0033];
in Figure 2, reference numerals 182, 184 are missing, first recited in [0034];
in Figure 2, reference numerals 186, 178, 246 are missing, first recited in [0035];
in Figure 2, reference numerals 262, 264, 266 are missing, first recited in [0037];
in Figure 2, reference numerals 250, 252, 190 are missing, first recited in [0038];
in Figure 2, reference numerals 232, 234, 236 are missing, first recited in [0040].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7, 9 and 12-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-2 will be read without bulleted indentations.
In Claim 1, line 10 will be read as “a computer processor; and”
In Claim 2, line 1 will be read with a colon (“:”) at the end as “The system of claim 1, wherein the paint production system comprises:”
In Claim 2, lines 2-4 will be read as “a paint mixing device configured to produce a paint batch according to the received paint color formula, thereby reproducing the color of the selected original paint chip; [[
In Claim 2, lines 5-7 will be read as “a sample production device configured to produce a plurality of color samples from the paint batch, the color samples selected from [[a group comprising a color card, a color chip and a color board; and”
In Claim 3, the only sentence therein will be read as “The system of claim 1, wherein the spectrometer device is selected from [[a group consisting of a portable spectrometer, a benchtop spectrometer, and a hyperspectral imaging system, and wherein the spectrometer device is calibrated using a standardized color reference chart.”
In Claim 4, the only sentence therein will be read as “The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions executed by the computer processor employs a color matching algorithm selected from [[a group consisting of a Delta E formula, a color appearance model, and a spectral reconstruction algorithm, to convert the digital color profile into the paint color formula.”
In Claim 5, lines 3-7 will be read as properly indented.
In Claim 6, the only sentence therein will be read as “The system of claim 2, wherein the sample production device is selected from [[a group consisting of a color card printer, a color chip cutting machine, and a paint board coating apparatus, [[
In Claim 7, lines 3-6 will be read as properly indented.
In Claim 9, lines 3-9 will be read as properly indented.
In Claim 9, lines 8-9 will be read as “display [[
In Claim 12, lines 3-9 will be read as properly indented.
Claim 13 will be read without bulleted indentations.
In each of claims 14-20, the preamble will be read as “The method of claim 13”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a paint mixing device” in claim 2; “a sample production device” in claim 2; “a controlled regional distribution system” in claim 2; “a dispensing mechanism” in claim 5; “a mixing apparatus” in claim 5; “a tracking system” in claim 7; “a digital rights management system” in claim 7; “a paint mixing device” in claim 14; and “a sample production device” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION — The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Specifically, claim 12 recites the phrase “extract unique identifying features, such as watermarks, signatures, or printing patterns”, wherein it is unclear whether “watermarks, signatures, or printing patterns” are within the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. For examination purposes, said phrase will be read as “extract unique identifying features, [[comprising at least one of watermarks, signatures, [[and printing patterns”.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Specifically, claim 20 recites the phrase “extract unique identifying features, such as watermarks, signatures, or printing patterns”, wherein it is unclear whether “watermarks, signatures, or printing patterns” are within the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. For examination purposes, said phrase will be read as “extract unique identifying features, [[comprising at least one of watermarks, signatures, [[and printing patterns”.
See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Postle et al. (US 2006/0012810 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 1, Postle discloses a system for providing accurate historical architectural paint color samples, comprising:
a database (Figure 3; [0007] “database tables used in an embodiment of the present invention”) storing a digital collection of authenticated original architectural paint-related source materials, including paint catalogs, brochures, and color paint chips originating from a plurality of paint manufacturers, the source materials corresponding to a plurality of historical time periods (Figure 3: element 24 is a color library table; [0012] “color library table 24 preferably contains records regarding colors”, wherein “records regarding colors” is interpreted to comprise paint catalogs, brochures, and color paint chips originating from a plurality of paint manufacturers, the source materials corresponding to a plurality of historical time periods);
a spectrometer device ([0012] “a color measuring device, for example, a spectrocolorimeter”) configured to analyze a selected original color paint chip (a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)) from the collection (Figure 3: element 24 is a color library table; [0012] “color library table 24 preferably contains records regarding colors”) to determine a digital color profile of the color of the paint chip ([0012] “data from a color measuring device, for example, a spectrocolorimeter”, wherein “data” is interpreted to comprise a digital color profile of the color of the paint chip);
a computer processor (Figure 2: element 10 is a CPU; [0012] “CPU 10 in user terminal 6”; [0012] “user terminals 6 may be personal computers such as Intel Pentium-class computers or Apple Macintosh computers, but are not limited to such computers”); and
a memory (Figure 2: element 14 is random access memory (RAM); [0012]) coupled to the processor (Figure 2: element 10 is a CPU; [0012]), the memory storing instructions (implicit for memory to store instructions in the form of code) that, when executed by the processor (Figure 2; [0012] “one or more central processing unit(s) (CPU) 10 used to execute software code”), cause the system to:
receive the digital color profile from the spectrometer device (Figure 1; [0012] “user terminal 6 receives data from a color measuring device, for example, a spectrocolorimeter”, wherein “data” is interpreted to comprise a digital color profile);
convert the digital color profile into a paint color formula for reproducing the color of the paint chip (Figure 5: step S112; [0012] “System 2, in step S112, produces a formula (e.g., ink or colorant) for reproducing the selected color”); and
transmit the paint color formula to a paint production system (Figure 5: step S120; [0012] “the process continues to step S120, and the optimized formulas are transmitted to respective recipients. For example, an ink manufacturer 44”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 5-7 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Postle et al. (US 2006/0012810 A1) in view of Kent (US 2018/0126342 A1) and Chan (US 2006/0215195 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Postle discloses the system of claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the paint production system comprises:
a paint mixing device configured to produce a paint batch according to the received paint color formula, thereby reproducing the color of the selected original paint chip;
a sample production device configured to produce a plurality of color samples from the paint batch, the color samples selected from a group comprising a color card, a color chip and a color board; and
a controlled regional distribution system configured to:
distribute the plurality of color samples exclusively to at least one of a client, a paint store, and an authorized sales representative located within a predefined geographical territory; and
restrict the sale and use of the plurality of color samples to within the predefined geographical territory, thereby ensuring consistent color representation within the predefined geographical territory.
However, Kent, in the same field of mixing devices, teaches a paint mixing device (Figure 1: element 101 is an exemplary color matching device; [0015]) configured to produce a paint batch (Figure 1; [0025] “the color is mixed in mixing reservoir 113”) according to the received paint color formula ([0002] “a formula for color matching”), thereby reproducing the color of the selected original paint chip ([0025] “an object to which the color is to be matched” is interpreted as the selected original paint chip).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Postle with the teachings of Kent, for a paint mixing device configured to produce a paint batch according to the received paint color formula, thereby reproducing the color of the selected original paint chip, “for an improved, color-matching device that can create small, but accurate, batches of matched color for various applications.” (Kent, para 5)
Postle is also silent with respect to: a sample production device configured to produce a plurality of color samples from the paint batch, the color samples selected from a group comprising a color card, a color chip and a color board; and
a controlled regional distribution system configured to:
distribute the plurality of color samples exclusively to at least one of a client, a paint store, and an authorized sales representative located within a predefined geographical territory; and
restrict the sale and use of the plurality of color samples to within the predefined geographical territory, thereby ensuring consistent color representation within the predefined geographical territory.
However, Chan, in the same field of color matching, teaches a sample production device ([0009] “manufacturing equipment”) configured to produce a plurality of color samples from the paint batch ([0041] “a set or subset of color bases can be used to produce an ink”), the color samples selected from a group comprising a color card, a color chip and a color board ([0026] “The colors may be shown as an array of color chips or boxes, as a continuum of colors such as a color space, or in any other suitable way”); and
a controlled regional distribution system ([0022] “mode for shipping, the customer's location” implies a distribution system) configured to:
distribute the plurality of color samples exclusively to at least one of a client ([0045] “The manufactured ink is then shipped to the customer”), a paint store, and an authorized sales representative located within a predefined geographical territory ([0021] “the customer at the remote location”); and
restrict the sale and use of the plurality of color samples (this can be implemented by human operators) to within the predefined geographical territory ([0021] “the remote location”), thereby ensuring consistent color representation ([0002] “printing uniform colors”) within the predefined geographical territory ([0021] “the remote location”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Postle with the teachings of Chan, for a sample production device configured to produce a plurality of color samples from the paint batch, the color samples selected from a group comprising a color card, a color chip and a color board; and a controlled regional distribution system configured to: distribute the plurality of color samples exclusively to at least one of a client, a paint store, and an authorized sales representative located within a predefined geographical territory; and restrict the sale and use of the plurality of color samples to within the predefined geographical territory, thereby ensuring consistent color representation within the predefined geographical territory, because “the time needed to match a customer's color, produce an ink of the correct color, and ship the ink to the customer is greatly reduced over the current process in which the customer sends a color sample to the ink manufacturer, who develops a formula for an ink that matches the color of the sample, and finally manufactures the formula and sends the ink to the customer.” (Chan, para 47)
Regarding Claim 5, modified Poste discloses the system of claim 2, and the paint mixing device in the paint production system (see claim 2 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the paint mixing device in the paint production system is a computerized color matching system comprising:
a plurality of base paint colorants;
a dispensing mechanism for dispensing precise amounts of the base paint colorants according to the paint color formula; and
a mixing apparatus for homogeneously mixing the dispensed base paint colorants to produce the paint batch.
However, Chan, in the same field of color matching, teaches a computerized color matching system ([0009] “a computerized system with remote access capabilities in which a desired ink color is input to a color matching program”) comprising:
a plurality of base paint colorants ([0007] “ink base colors”);
a dispensing mechanism (Figure 1: element 24 is an automated dispensing equipment; [0021]) for dispensing precise amounts of the base paint colorants according to the paint color formula ([0007] “a dispensing system having the ink base colors of the formulation”); and
a mixing apparatus for homogeneously mixing the dispensed base paint colorants ([0021] “The automated dispensing equipment 24 dispenses and mixes the ink color bases”) to produce the paint batch ([0007] “for mixing the color bases of the formulation to make the ink”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Postle with the teachings of Chan, for a computerized color matching system comprising: a plurality of base paint colorants; a dispensing mechanism for dispensing precise amounts of the base paint colorants according to the paint color formula; and a mixing apparatus for homogeneously mixing the dispensed base paint colorants to produce the paint batch, because “The advantage of the invention, …, is that the locations for inputting the desired color, for matching the desired color to an ink formulation, and for manufacturing the ink according to that formulation can be located in different parts of the world, and yet the system of the invention can carry out the process from the initial input of the desired color through manufacture of the ink in a day or even in hours.” (Chan, para 13)
Regarding Claim 6, modified Postle discloses the system of claim 2, and the sample production device (see claim 2 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the sample production device is selected from a group consisting of a color card printer, a color chip cutting machine, and a paint board coating apparatus, wherein each color sample includes a unique identification code linking it to the specific paint batch and original color paint chip.
However, Chan, in the same field of color matching, teaches that the sample production device is selected from a group consisting of a color card printer ([0048] “sheetfed printing equipment”), a color chip cutting machine, and a paint board coating apparatus, wherein each color sample includes a unique identification code linking it to the specific paint batch and original color paint chip ([0008] “the generated ink formulation is identified with the print buyer code or with a product code”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Postle with the teachings of Chan, such that the sample production device is selected from a group consisting of a color card printer, a color chip cutting machine, and a paint board coating apparatus, wherein each color sample includes a unique identification code linking it to the specific paint batch and original color paint chip, because unique ID codes for paints and colors ensure consistency across manufacturing and design, categorized by pigment, digital, or brand-specific systems.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Postle discloses the system of claim 2, and the controlled regional distribution system (see claim 2 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the controlled regional distribution system comprises:
a database of authorized recipients within the predefined geographical territory;
a tracking system for monitoring the distribution and use of the color samples; and
a digital rights management system for enforcing restrictions on the sale and use of the color samples outside the predefined geographical territory.
However, Chan, in the same field of color matching, teaches a database of authorized recipients ([0042] “a database in connection with the print buyer information supplied by the customer, the customer's identity and order information, date of approval by the printer, print buyer, or designer, or other information”) within the predefined geographical territory ([0021] “the remote location”);
a tracking system for monitoring the distribution and use of the color samples ([0022] “information input by the customer includes the specific color needed and the identity of the printer, and preferably also includes the identity of the print buyer for which the printing is being done. Additional information regarding an order of the ink may also be input, for example the volume of ink needed, mode for shipping, the customer's location”, wherein the information can be used to track where specific color samples are being shipped); and
a digital rights management system for enforcing restrictions on the sale and use of the color samples ([0042] “a database in connection with the print buyer information supplied by the customer, the customer's identity and order information, date of approval by the printer, print buyer, or designer, or other information” can be used to limit the sale of color samples) outside the predefined geographical territory ([0021] “the remote location”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Postle with the teachings of Chan, such that the controlled regional distribution system comprises: a database of authorized recipients within the predefined geographical territory; a tracking system for monitoring the distribution and use of the color samples; and a digital rights management system for enforcing restrictions on the sale and use of the color samples outside the predefined geographical territory, because “Using the computerized system with remote access capabilities, each of the color selection, selection of an ink formula matching the selected color, color match approval, and ink manufacturing components can be remotely located but still controlled to produce printing of uniform quality and color.” (Chan, para 13)
Regarding Claim 10, modified Postle discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the paint color formula (Figure 5: step S112; [0012] “System 2, in step S112, produces a formula (e.g., ink or colorant) for reproducing the selected color”) transmitted to the paint production system (Figure 5: step S120; [0012] “the process continues to step S120, and the optimized formulas are transmitted to respective recipients. For example, an ink manufacturer 44”) includes a list of base paint colorants and their respective proportions ([0012] “a colored material producer will optimize (i.e., adjust the colorant type and amount) the formulas”; [0012] ‘color formulas that define appropriate color weights and combinations of pigment”) required to reproduce the color of the selected original paint chip ([0012] “reproducing the selected color”), as well as any additional additives (Figure 5; [0012] “a determination is made in step S116 whether additional criteria have been selected”) or processing instructions specific to the historical time period (Figure 3: element 24 is a color library table; [0012] “color library table 24 preferably contains records regarding colors”, wherein “records regarding colors” is interpreted to correspond to historical time periods).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Postle discloses the system of claim 2, and the controlled regional distribution system (see claim 2 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the controlled regional distribution system further comprises an e-commerce platform for facilitating online ordering, payment, and delivery of the color samples and reproduced paint products exclusively within the predefined geographical territory.
However, Chan, in the same field of color matching, teaches an e-commerce platform ([0022] “information is preferably input via a graphical user interface by the customer and transmitted from the first computer (client) to the second computer (server)”, wherein “a graphical user interface” being used “by the customer” to place an order is interpreted as pertaining to an e-commerce platform) for facilitating online ordering ([0022] “an order of the ink may also be input”), payment ([0022] “customer's authorization of payment”), and delivery of the color samples and reproduced paint products ([0022] “mode for shipping, the customer's location”) exclusively within the predefined geographical territory ([0021] “the remote location”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Postle with the teachings of Chan, such that the controlled regional distribution system further comprises an e-commerce platform for facilitating online ordering, payment, and delivery of the color samples and reproduced paint products exclusively within the predefined geographical territory, because e-commerce platforms offer significant advantages, including 24/7 availability, lower operational costs compared to physical stores, and a global reach that breaks geographical barriers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Postle et al. (US 2006/0012810 A1) in view of Dumitrescu et al. (US 2019/0239752 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Postle discloses the system of claim 1, and the spectrometer device (see claim 1 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the spectrometer device is selected from the group consisting of a portable spectrometer, a benchtop spectrometer, and a hyperspectral imaging system, and wherein the spectrometer device is calibrated using a standardized color reference chart.
However, Dumitrescu, in the same field of imaging systems, teaches that the spectrometer device is selected from the group consisting of a portable spectrometer, a benchtop spectrometer, and a hyperspectral imaging system (Figure 8: element 100 is an example of a hyperspectral system; [0055]), and wherein the spectrometer device is calibrated ([0060] “The system may be calibrated daily, prior to each use, or at any other suitable periodicity, as desired”) using a standardized color reference chart ([0060] “Calibration may be done according to any suitable calibration method known in the art. For example, the image may be calibrated with a known standard gray scale chart (e.g., a KODAK brand Gray Scale Q-13 calibration chart, a MUNSELL brand gray scale chart, or a MUNSELL brand neutral color chart)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Postle with the teachings of Dumitrescu, wherein the spectrometer device is selected from the group consisting of a portable spectrometer, a benchtop spectrometer, and a hyperspectral imaging system, and wherein the spectrometer device is calibrated using a standardized color reference chart, because “The present system also provides excellent spectral and spatial resolution, for example, by providing at least 10 spectral bands and reducing or eliminating color averaging.” (Dumitrescu, para 17)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Postle et al. (US 2006/0012810 A1) in view of Steenhoek et al. (US 2021/0201513 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Postle discloses the system of claim 1, and the instructions executed by the computer processor (see claim 1 rejection), to convert the digital color profile into the paint color formula (see claim 1 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the instructions executed by the computer processor employs a color matching algorithm selected from the group consisting of a Delta E formula, a color appearance model, and a spectral reconstruction algorithm, to convert the digital color profile into the paint color formula.
However, Steenhoek, in the same field of matching color, teaches that the instructions executed by the computer processor (Figure 2; [0055] “the one or more data processors 24 are configured to execute the instructions”) employs a color matching algorithm selected from the group consisting of a Delta E formula, a color appearance model, and a spectral reconstruction algorithm (Figure 26; [0129] “The optimization routine 1912 can include, for example, a numerical algorithm”), to convert the digital color profile into the paint color formula ([0129] “to generate a formula that optimizes the predicted color difference relative to a standard”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Postle with the teachings of Steenhoek, wherein the instructions executed by the computer processor employs a color matching algorithm selected from the group consisting of a Delta E formula, a color appearance model, and a spectral reconstruction algorithm, to convert the digital color profile into the paint color formula, because “In this way, empirical models relating formula and various localized color features can be used for color matching.” (Steenhoek, para 129)
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Postle et al. (US 2006/0012810 A1) in view of Caruso et al. (US 2012/0170840 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Postle discloses the system of claim 1, and the digital collection of authenticated original architectural paint-related source materials (see claim 1 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the digital collection of authenticated original architectural paint-related source materials includes high-resolution scans of paint catalogs, brochures, and color paint chips, each associated with metadata indicating the manufacturer, production date, and collection origin.
However, Caruso, in the same field of architectural color selection systems, teaches that the digital collection of authenticated original architectural paint-related source materials (Figure 2: element 26 is a digital image library; [0020]) includes high-resolution scans (Figure 2; [0020] “high resolution images can be stored in an image library 26”) of paint catalogs ([0022] “high quality digital images of colors can be captured and used in a searchable web-based catalog of the colors”), brochures, and color paint chips ([0016] “high resolution digital representations (e.g., images) of color chips, panels or color swatches”), each associated with metadata ([0020] “images can be grouped in different “collections” and each “collection” can be further categorized by a set of descriptive data (metadata)”) indicating the manufacturer, production date, and collection origin ([0020] “A collection includes attribute descriptive data which relates to a digital image”, wherein “attribute descriptive data” is interpreted to comprise manufacturer, production date, and collection origin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Postle with the teachings of Caruso, such that the digital collection of authenticated original architectural paint-related source materials includes high-resolution scans of paint catalogs, brochures, and color paint chips, each associated with metadata indicating the manufacturer, production date, and collection origin, because “a user can search using multiple criteria and retrieve the desired information quickly and accurately.” (Caruso, para 20)
Regarding Claim 9, Postle discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a graphical user interface (Figure 7; [0012] “an example display screen of a graphic user interface (“GUI”)”), but does not specifically teach a graphical user interface configured to:
display a timeline of historical time periods for client selection;
present a digitized version of the original source materials corresponding to the selected time period;
allow the client to select a specific original color paint chip from the presented source materials; and
display provenance information associated with the selected original color paint chip.
However, Caruso, in the same field of architectural color selection systems, teaches a graphical user interface (Figure 1: elements 10, 12, 14 are a computer, terminal, tablet computer, smart phone, PDA, or other device having a user interface; [0018]) configured to:
display a timeline of historical time periods for client selection (a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987));
present a digitized version of the original source materials (Figure 2: element 26 is a digital image library; [0020]) corresponding to the selected time period ([0016] “an architectural color application” is interpreted to comprise time period information);
allow the client to select a specific original color paint chip ([0007] “selecting a color of interest from the displayed colors”) from the presented source materials ([0016] “high resolution digital representations (e.g., images) of color chips, panels or color swatches”); and
display provenance information ([0020] “attribute descriptive data which relates to a digital image”, wherein “attribute descriptive data” is interpreted to comprise provenance information) associated with the selected original color paint chip ([0007] “selecting a color of interest from the displayed colors”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Postle with the teachings of Caruso, for a graphical user interface configured to: display a timeline of historical time periods for client selection; present a digitized version of the original source materials corresponding to the selected time period; allow the client to select a specific original color paint chip from the presented source materials; and display provenance information associated with the selected original color paint chip, because “A web-based system provides a broad set of users with an easy solution to finding information relevant to available colors.” (Caruso, para 22)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent Claim 13, the prior art or record does not teach or suggest a computer-implemented method for providing authenticated historical architectural paint colors comprising, among other essential steps, receiving, via a graphical user interface, a client selection of at least one of a historical time period and a year for a desired architectural paint color; querying the digital database to identify a plurality of original source materials corresponding to the client selection; displaying, via the graphical user interface, the identified plurality of original source materials; and receiving, via the graphical user interface, a client selection of an original source material from the displayed plurality of original source materials.
Claims 14-19 are dependent thereupon, and also included in the allowable subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-2015/0120492-A1 discloses computer-implemented systems and methods for determining an amount of color additive to add to paint. Color measurement data is transmitted via a network is received at a server. A color formulation is identified based on the color measurement data. Historical color recommendation data is accessed from a data repository, where the data repository contains color data that is based on previous color recommendations. The color formulation is adjusted based on the historical color recommendation data, and the adjusted color formulation is transmitted from the server via the network.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akbar H Rizvi whose telephone number is (571) 272-5085. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AKBAR H. RIZVI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877