Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 16, 2026
Application No. 18/782,126

PERSONALIZED CONTENT GRADIENT CREATION

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jul 24, 2024
Examiner
NGUYEN, DUNE NGOC
Art Unit
2618
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Lemon Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 0% of cases
0%
Career Allowance Rate
0 granted / 0 resolved
-62.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
Avg Prosecution
9 currently pending
Career history
6
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
88.2%
+48.2% vs TC avg
§112
11.8%
-28.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 0 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Claim Rejection – 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2024/0345853 A1) hereinafter referenced as Li, in view of the following: Microsoft (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/graph/api/profilephoto-get?view=graph-rest-1.0) hereinafter referenced as Microsoft, Brown (US 20230368435 A1) hereinafter referenced as Brown, and Peng (CN115686697) hereinafter referenced as Peng. Regarding claim 8, Li teaches the following: A systems comprising: one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: “a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored on the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor, when executing the computer program” (Li, [10]); “the apparatus may be implemented by software and/or hardware, and may be generally integrated in an electronic device.” (Li, [27]); receiving user generated content from a user device of a user; “A background image setting option may be provided for a user, so that when the option is triggered, an image locally selected by the user, a currently shot image, or an image selected from a template image set of a preset application may be received, and the received image may be determined as the target image.” (Li, [59]); Li teaches the preset application (reads on user device of a user) receives an image shot by the user (reads on user generated content from a user device). identifying an image associated with a user account of the user that provided the user generated content, wherein the image is obtained from account data; “the personalized background image display requirement of the user is met, it is ensured that information such as the user identifier and the entry of the function that need to be displayed in the first presentation area is clear and visible, and the solid color layer and the gradient layer are generated according to the theme color of the target image uploaded by the user” (Li, [54]); “an image locally selected by the user, a currently shot image, or an image selected from a template image set of a preset application may be received, and the received image may be determined as the target image” (Li, [59]); Li teaches the user can set a custom personalized background image on their device or app by uploading their own background image. The user uploaded the image so therefore the image is associated with the user account and is user generated content. identifying one or more key colors from the image; “The theme color of the image can be determined by a preset color-picking algorithm, which can include, for example, minimum difference, median cut, Octree, clustering, color modeling, and the like.” (Li, [54); Li teaches the theme color of an image (reads on one or more key colors from the image) can be determined via a preset color-picking algorithm (reads on identifying one or more key colors from the image). generating a gradient based on one of the one or more key colors by determining a second color value that decrease a lightness value of the one or more key colors by a specified amount; and “gradient layer are generated according to the theme color of the target image” Li, (¶ 54]); “obtaining the theme color of the target image; and performing a dimming processing on a brightness component in the theme color to obtain the target color.” (Li, [55]); “when the current brightness value is greater than or equal to a second preset brightness threshold and less than the first preset brightness threshold, the dimming magnitude is a second brightness value, the second brightness value being less than the first brightness value; and when the current brightness value is less than the second preset brightness threshold, the dimming magnitude is a third brightness value, the third brightness value being less than the second brightness value; optionally, the second brightness value is equal to the second preset brightness threshold” (Li, [56]); Li teaches a gradient is generated based on the theme color of the target image. The theme color is determined by performing a dimming process on a brightness competent in which the second color value that decreases a brightness value of the one or more key colors by a specified amount. generating, as a generated gradient, content for delivery to user devices using the user generated content, the image, and the generated gradient. “a page processing method, comprising: displaying a first personal homepage of a first user in a preset application (Li, [5]); “an embodiment of the present specification provides an electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored on the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor, when executing the computer program, implements the page processing method provided in the embodiment of the present specification (Li, [10]); “the preset application is provided with a personal homepage, where entries of various functions can be displayed, information such as the user identifier (Li, [30]); “a background image may be displayed in the personal homepage” (Li, [52]) “the background image comprises a solid color layer, the target image and a gradient layer” (Li, [54]); However, Li fails to teach the following: wherein the image is obtained from account data; generating an image by determining a second color value that increases a lightness value of the one or more key colors by a specified amount; and identify an image associated with the user; But Microsoft does. Microsoft teaches wherein the image is obtained from account data; “GET /users/{id | userPrincipalName}/photo/$value” (Microsoft, Section HTTP request) Microsoft teaches of an API call which gets a photo of a user given the user's unique Object ID or their User Principal Name (reads on image is obtained from account data). Microsoft BASE is analogous art with respect to Li because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image processing. Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li with the feature of Microsoft to incorporate an API call to get an image from an account data. A person of ordinary skill in the art would do such in order to improve image processing. However, Li in view of Microsoft fails to teach the following: generating an image by determining a second color value that increases a lightness value of the one or more key colors by a specified amount; and identify an image associated with the user; But Brown does. Brown teaches the following: generating an image by determining a second color value that increases a lightness value of the one or more key colors by a specified amount “renders image data of the second region 132 so as to increase the brightness of the second region 132. In some implementations, the brightness increase of the second region 132 is based on a gradient function. For example, the amount of brightness increase of the second region 132 is based on the gradient function, wherein the gradient function is based on the distance from the first region 106 (e.g., larger brightness increase for a portion of the second region 132 that is nearer to the first region 106).” (Brown, [34]); Brown teaches rendering an image by increasing the brightness of the second region (reads on second color value) based on a gradient function which defines the distance between the first and the second region (reads on increasing a lightness value of the one or more key colors by a specified amount). Brown BASE is analogous art with respect to Li because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image processing. Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li with the feature of Brown to incorporate rendering an image by increasing the brightness of the second region based on a gradient function which defines the distance between the first and the second region. A person of ordinary skill in the art would do such in order to improve color display. Li in view of Microsoft and Brown fail to fully disclose how to identify an image associated with the user; Peng teaches the following: an image associated with the user; “this disclosure provides an image processing method that, upon receiving a user-associated image display request, first obtains the user-associated image identifier corresponding to the user-associated image display request. Among them, the user-associated image identifier includes the user identifier and the associated image application identifier.” (Peng, [53]); Peng teaches how to determine a user-associated image for a user-associated image display request. Peng is analogous art with respect to Li because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image processing. Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to identify an image associated with the user when generating a personalized gradient for the user in order to improve optimization of displays and image visualization. Claim(s) 1 and 15 is/are rejected using the same rationale or bases as applied to claim 8. Regarding claim 12, Li in view of Microsoft, Brown, and Peng teach the system of claim 8. Li also teaches the following: wherein the gradient comprises generating a gradient comprises generating one of a linear gradient or a radial gradient based on the one or more key colors. “the target color is determined according to a theme color of the target image (Li, [54]); “Optionally, the process of generating the gradient layer according to the target color may comprise: obtaining a gradient layer template, and by using the target color, performing linear gradient filling” (Li, [54]); Li teaches how a linear gradient is generated based on the target color. The target color is derived from the theme color. Claim(s) 5 and 19 is/are rejected using the same rationale or bases as applied to claim 12. Claim(s) 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Microsoft, Brown, Peng, and in view of Vallespi et al. (US 2020/0357146 A1), hereinafter referenced as Vallespi. Regarding claim 9, Li in view of Microsoft, Brown, and Peng teach the system of claim 8. Li also teaches the following: wherein the one or more key colors identified from the image "The theme color can be understood as a color that plays a major role in a screen. The theme color of the image can be determined by a preset color-picking algorithm" (Li, [54]); Li teaches how to identify a key color which plays a major role in the screen. and wherein the operations further comprise “performing a dimming processing on a brightness component in the theme color," (Li, [55]); Li teaches how to dim a color, therefore changing and converting a color. However, Li in view of Microsoft, Brown, and Peng fail to teach how to use one of more key color in the first color space or one or more key colors in a second color space. Vallespi teaches the following: A color in the first color space “The software maps the first color to a first end of the range of data values” (Vallespi, [25]); Colors in the second color space "maps the second color to a second end of the range of data values, and maps the additional colors respectively to additional values within the range of data values." (Vallespi, [25]) Vallespi is analogous art with respect to Li in view of Microsoft, Brown, and Peng because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image processing and generation. Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the first and second color space wherein the theme color is in the first color space and to use the dimming process to change and convert the color to another color space in order to improve the color quality for visualization. Claim(s) 2 and 16 is/are rejected using the same rationale or bases as applied to claim 9. Regarding claim 13, Li in view of Microsoft, Brown, and Peng teach the system of claim 8. Li also teaches the following: a key color “The theme color can be understood as a color that plays a major role in a screen. The theme color of the image can be determined by a preset color-picking algorithm" (Li, [54]); Li teaches how to identify a key color which plays a major role in the screen. However, Li in view of Microsoft, Brown, and Peng fail to teach how to define generating a specified number of gradient colors to include the key color, in which each gradient color defines a transition color within the color gradient at a respective location within a gradient region. But Vallespi does. Vallespi teaches the following: generating a specified number of gradient colors in which each gradient color defines a transition color within the color gradient at a respective location within a gradient region. "The color selection engine selects the first point, the second point, and the additional points such that a color gradient including the first color, second color, and additional colors has uniform transitions between the one or more of lightness, chroma, and hue (Vallespi, [07]); “maps the first color to a first end of the range of data values (Vallespi [25]); “the color-selection engine 102 can build a color gradient 109 by storing sets of color values that define a set of colors, where the set of colors corresponds to portions of the color space element 106 intersected by the color map path 108” (Vallespi, [40]); Vallespi teaches how to select a set of color of color gradients, including the first color and transition colors. Within the set of colors, the colors correspond to the portions of color space respective to their location within the gradient region. Vallespi is analogous art with respect to Li in view of Microsoft, Brown, and Peng because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image generation and processing. Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the key colors when defining gradient colors in order to improve the color quality for visualization. Claim(s) 6 and 20 is/are rejected using the same rationale or bases as applied to claim 13. Regarding claim 14, Li in view of Microsoft, Brown, Peng, and Vallespi teach the system of claim 13. Li also teaches the following: key colors. "The theme color can be understood as a color that plays a major role in a screen. The theme color of the image can be determined by a preset color-picking algorithm" (Li, [54]); Li teaches how to identify a key color which plays a major role in the screen. Vallespi does and teaches the following: wherein the specified number of gradient colors comprise a first gradient color and one or more second gradient colors corresponding to the first gradient color with one or more modified attribute values "The color selection engine selects the first point, the second point, and the additional points such that a color gradient including the first color, second color, and additional colors has uniform transitions between the one or more of lightness, chroma, and hue. (Vallespi, [07]); The software maps the first color to a first end of the range of data values, maps the second color to a second end of the range of data values, and maps the additional colors respectively to additional values within the range of data values.” (Vallespi, [25]); Vallespi teaches that the first color is mapped to the first end of the range of data values. Second color and additional colors are mapped with respect to the changes in between lightness, chroma, and hue. Vallespi BASE is analogous art with respect to Li in view of Microsoft, Brown, and Peng because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image generation and processing. Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use key colors in the gradient colors in order to improve the color quality for visualization. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected using the same rationale or bases as applied to claim 14. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Microsoft, Brown, Peng, Vallespi, and Lilley (Color on the Web, Chapter 16), hereinafter referenced as Lilley. Regarding claim 10, Li in view of Microsoft, Brown, and Peng teach the system of claim 9, but Li in view of Microsoft, Brown, and Peng do not explicitly teach the second color space or that the second color space is OKLCH color space. Vallespi teaches the following: wherein the second color space is LCH color space. “maps the second color to a second end of the range of data values” (Vallespi, [25]) Vallespi is analogous art with respect to Li in view of Microsoft, Brown, and Peng because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image generation and processing. Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a second color space when generating a gradient in order to improve the color quality for visualization. Lilley teaches the following: the benefits of OKLCH “Oklab (and Oklch, the polar form) were added to CSS Color 4 and it was resolved that the gamut mapping algorithm would operate in Oklch and use a hue-preserving MINDE (HPMINDE) approach [71]. This produces more acceptable gamut mapping results, particularly in the blues, and also leads to more perceptually uniform gradients” (Lilley [pg 281]). Lilley BASE is analogous art with respect to Li, Peng, and Vallespi because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image processing and colors. Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use OKLCH in the second color space in order to improve color quality for visualization and uniform gradient. Claim(s) 3 and 17 is/are rejected using the same rationale or bases as applied to claim 10. Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Li in view of Microsoft, Brown, Peng, and Kazuya Yago (JP2008099149A), hereinafter referenced as Yago. Regarding claim 11, Li in view of Microsoft, Brown, and Peng teach the system of claim 8. Li also teaches the following: wherein identifying the one or more key colors from the image comprises: applying a median cut algorithm to “The theme color of the image can be determined by a preset color-picking algorithm, which can include, for example, minimum difference, median cut, Octree, clustering, color modeling, and the like” (Li, [54]); Li in view of Microsoft, Brown, and Peng fail to teach removing preprocessing an image to remove low density colors. Yago teaches the following: wherein identifying the one or more key colors from the image comprises: preprocessing “The pre-processing unit 301 performs a background removal process to remove the background portion of the color image, a brightness conversion process to convert the color image from which the background has been removed into a brightness image, and a smoothing process to smooth the brightness image, and outputs the smoothed brightness image to the character area extraction unit 310 and the photo/graphic area extraction unit. The background removal process removes the low density background color of the color image and enhances the contrast. Thereby, the tendency of a color image can be adjusted” (Yago, [46]); Yago BASE is analogous art with respect to Li in view of Microsoft, Brown, and Peng because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image processing. Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to preprocess an image to remove low density color and apply a median cut algorithm to determine a key color in order to detect the color with more easily and accurate. Claim(s) 4 and 18 is/are rejected using the same rationale or bases as applied to claim 11. Response to Argument Applicant argues: On p. 4, the Office Action relies on Li in view of Peng to reject the independent claims. Li discloses a page processing method that displays a "personal homepage" comprising a "user identifier," a "target image," and a "gradient layer" (Li, paras. [0052] and [0054]). Li further states that the gradient layer is "generated according to the theme color of the target image" (Li, para. [0054]). To address the "image associated with the user" limitation, the Office Action on p. 6 cites to Peng, which teaches an image processing method that "obtains the user-associated image identifier corresponding to the user-associated image display request" (Peng, para. [0053]). Applicant respectfully disagrees. Even if the Examiner's combination of Li and Peng were considered to be proper, which Applicant does not concede, the combined references have not been shown to teach or to suggest the specific, affirmative operations for generating the gradient as in amended claim 1. Specifically, neither Li nor Peng has been shown to teach or to suggest at least "generating a gradient based on one of the one or more key colors by determining a second color value that increases alightness value of the one of the one or more key colors by a specified amount." Li appears to teaches generating a gradient layer "according to the theme color" (Li, para. [0054]) and optionally performing "linear gradient filling" using a "target color" (Li, para. [0066]). However, Li is silent regarding a technical mechanism of how the gradient transition colors are actually calculated or derived from the theme color. Li has not been shown to disclose determining a second color value by increasing a lightness value of a key color by a specified amount. Peng is similarly silent on gradient generation, as it is directed merely to retrieving a user-associated image identifier (Peng, para. [0053]). Li does disclose generating gradients on a high level: “the gradient layer are generated according to a target color, the target color is determined according to a theme color of the target image, and transparency of the gradient layer gradually decreases from top to bottom” (Li, [54]). Li directly teaches a gradient wherein the gradient may gradually decrease from top to bottom. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a gradually decreases from top to bottom corresponds to an increase a lightness value of the one or more key colors. For example, a vertical linear gradient transitioning from dark red at the top to light red at the bottom exhibits increasing lightness as the color transitions downward. Brown (US 20230368435 A1) further explicitly teaches this: “renders image data of the second region 132 so as to increase the brightness of the second region 132. In some implementations, the brightness increase of the second region 132 is based on a gradient function. For example, the amount of brightness increase of the second region 132 is based on the gradient function, wherein the gradient function is based on the distance from the first region 106 (e.g., larger brightness increase for a portion of the second region 132 that is nearer to the first region 106).” (Brown, [34]); Vallespi additionally discloses the technical mechanism of how the gradient transition colors are calculated or derived from the theme color. “Color map path within the color space element between the start point and the end point constrained to traverse colors having uniform transitions between one or more of lightness, chroma, and hue. The computing system selects a color gradient having a first color corresponding to the start point of the color map path and a second color corresponding to the end point of the color map path, and additional colors corresponding to additional points along the color map path.” (Vallespi, Abstract); Vallespi fully discloses a mathematical path to generate gradients from starting point of color A to ending point of color B with traverse colors in between. A person of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate the teaches of Vallespi to make color transitions smoother. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefit of combining Vallespi, Lilley, and Yago with Li to improve gradients based on a detected color. Vallespi teaches a computing system to generate a color gradient to improves the quality of the colors used for data visualizations. Lilley teaches the benefit of using the OKLCH color space to produces more acceptable gamut mapping results. Yago teaches how to detect the colors of characters to improved accuracy for extracting a region where characters are represented from an image. For the above reasons, it is believed that the rejections should be sustained. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNE NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8919. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:00AM - 5:00PM. 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, Devona E Faulk can be reached at (571) 272-7515. 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. /DUNE NGOC NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2618 /DEVONA E FAULK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2618
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 24, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
May 26, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 28, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
Grant Probability
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 0 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month