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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed on 8/27/2026 and Supplemental Response and Amendments filed on 9/21/2026. Claims 1, 11, 14, and 20 have been amended on 8/27/2026. Claims 1, 3-6, 12, 14-16, and 20 have been further amended on 9/21/2026. Claims 1-20 are present for examination.
The objection to claim 11 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/27/2026 and 9/21/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits:
PNG
media_image1.png
198
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(See Remarks filed on 9/21/2026, p. 8.)
PNG
media_image2.png
620
722
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(See Remarks filed on 8/27/2026, p. 9, last two paras.)
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1, as amended, recites:
A device for estimating a categorical color matching function, CMF, type of a user, the device being configured to:
cause a display to show a set of two or more binary color tests;
wherein each binary color test corresponds to a pair of a categorical CMF type A and a categorical CMF type B of a predetermined set of categorical CMF types, and wherein each binary color test comprises:
a first picture including a color contrast that is clear for observers of the categorical CMF type A and not clear for observers of the categorical CMF type B, and
a second picture including a color contrast that is clear for observers of the categorical CMF type B and not clear for observers of the categorical CMF type A;
the device being further configured to:
calculate a score for each categorical CMF type in the predetermined set of categorical CMF types based on input information received in response to causing the display to show the set of binary color tests; and
select, for the user, a categorical CMF type corresponding to a largest or smallest score.
According to claim 1, the device merely displays binary color tests to observers, collects the observers’ input responses to the displayed binary color tests, calculates a score based on the input information, and select a categorical CMF type based on the score for the user. The binary color tests can be interpreted as binary images under broadest reasonable interpretation, and the user can look at the displayed binary images to provide input, which are insignificant extra solution of displaying information to the user and at most are merely data gathering for the calculating step. Calculating a score based on the input is a mathematical concept and select a categorical CMF type based on the calculated score can be performed mentally or based mathematical relationship. Because any generic computer can allow user interaction such as displaying images and obtaining user input in response to viewing the displayed images, the device recited in claim 1 merely performing insignificant extra solution of displaying information for mere data gathering as generic computer functions, where such generic computer functions cannot be considered as a particular machine to integrate the abstract ideas into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejections are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Details can be found in the following relevant sections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 III provides a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for product and processes. The claim analysis following the flowchart is as follows:
Regarding claim 1, it recites:
A device for estimating a categorical color matching function, CMF, type of a user, the device being configured to:
cause a display to show a set of two or more binary color tests;
wherein each binary color test corresponds to a pair of a categorical CMF type A and a categorical CMF type B of a predetermined set of categorical CMF types, and wherein each binary color test comprises:
a first picture including a color contrast that is clear for observers of the categorical CMF type A and not clear for observers of the categorical CMF type B, and
a second picture including a color contrast that is clear for observers of the categorical CMF type B and not clear for observers of the categorical CMF type A;
the device being further configured to:
calculate a score for each categorical CMF type in the predetermined set of categorical CMF types based on input information received in response to causing the display to show the set of binary color tests; and
select, for the user, a categorical CMF type corresponding to a largest or smallest score.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. It recites a device, which is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes.
Calculating a score for each categorical CMF type can be considered as a mathematical concept because it involves mathematical calculations.
Selecting a categorical CMF type corresponding to a largest or smallest score can be considered as a mental process because a person can compare the scores and select the largest or the smallest score mentally.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Claim 1 recites showing binary color tests on a display, which can be considered as additional elements but it is insignificant extra solution of displaying pictures/images on a display. The limitations on the binary color tests are merely limiting what binary color tests should be as data being shown on the display, therefore they are just part of the insignificant extra solution of displaying information using a generic computer.
Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited in claim 1 are merely insignificant extra solutions which cannot integrate the abstract ideas recited in claim 1 into practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above, the additional elements recited in claim 1 are merely insignificant extra solution of displaying information.
Therefore, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are merely displaying information on a generic computer as insignificant extra solution.
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 2, it depends from claim 1 and further recites wherein the input information comprises for each binary color test one of: the first picture having been selected; the second picture having been selected; neither picture having been selected.
Similar to what has been discussed above with respect to claim 1, the limitations recited in claim 2 merely further limits the data/information used in the calculation of a score, which is an abstract idea of mathematical concept. Therefore, the limitations recited in claim 2 are part of the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 2 does not recite additional elements that can integrate the abstract ideas into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Therefore, claim 2 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 3, it depends from claim 2 and further recites wherein each score is calculated based on a weighted sum and each summand in each weighted sum corresponds to one binary color test and is equal to a weight if a picture was selected that corresponds to the categorical CMF type of the weighted sum or is equal to zero otherwise.
The limitations recited in claim 3 are mathematical concept involving mathematical calculations. Therefore, they are abstract ideas. No additional elements are recited in claim 3.
Therefore, claim 3 does not recite additional elements that can integrate the abstract ideas into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Therefore, claim 3 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 4, it depends from claim 1 and further recites wherein the predetermined set of categorical CMF types is based on two or more display primaries of the display, or each CMF type of the predetermined set of categorical CMF types is paired once with each other categorical CMF type to form the categorical CMF type pairs.
These limitations are limiting the data used for the information shown on the display, therefore are part of the insignificant extra solution of displaying information.
Therefore, claim 4 does not recite additional elements that can integrate the abstract ideas into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Therefore, claim 4 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 5, it depends from claim 1 and further recites wherein for each picture the color contrast is: maximized or increased for observers of the corresponding categorical CMF type, and minimized or reduced for observers of the other categorical CMF type of the pair.
Maximizing, increasing, minimizing, or reducing color contrast values are mathematical calculations/relationships. Therefore, the limitations recited in claim 5 are abstract ideas.
Therefore, claim 5 does not recite additional elements that can integrate the abstract ideas into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Therefore, claim 5 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 6, it depends on claim 1 and further recites wherein each picture comprises a color pair of two colors, and the set of binary color tests comprises, for each categorical CMF type pair, M different binary color tests and 2*M different color pairs, wherein M is a positive integer larger than one.
These limitations are merely limiting the data in the binary color tests to be displayed, therefore just part of the insignificant extra solution of displaying information.
Therefore, claim 6 does not recite additional elements that can integrate the abstract ideas into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Therefore, claim 6 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 7, it depends on claim 1 and further recites wherein the device is configured to cause the display to show each binary color test in the set two or more times.
Showing binary color tests two or more times on the display can be considered additional elements of insignificant extra solution of displaying information.
Therefore, claim 7 does not recite additional elements that can integrate the abstract ideas into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Therefore, claim 7 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 8, it depends on claim 1 and further recites wherein each score is calculated based on a weighted sum, and wherein the device is configured to determine weights of each weighted sum based on one or more of the following weight sub-types: priori weights; individual posteriori weights; general posteriori weights; and statistical posteriori weights.
The limitations of claim 8 can be considered as mathematical calculations for calculating each score based on weighted sum, and mental process for determining weights of each weighted sum because a person can mentally determine which weight sub-types for the weighted sums.
Therefore, claim 8 does not recite additional elements that can integrate the abstract ideas into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Therefore, claim 8 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 9, it depends on claim 7 and further recites wherein the device is further configured to determine one or more of: individual posteriori weights, based on a reliability of the selections of the user for each binary color test, when causing the display to show each binary color test two or more times; or general posteriori weights, based on an overall reliability of the selections of the user for all binary color tests, when causing the display to show each binary color test two or more times.
The limitations of claim 9 can be considered as mental process for determining weights because a person can mentally determine individual and general posteriori weights based on reliability of the selection of the user for binary color tests.
Therefore, claim 9 does not recite additional elements that can integrate the abstract ideas into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Therefore, claim 9 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 10, it depends on claim 8 and further recites wherein the priori weights are determined for each picture, based on comparing a calculated color contrast of the respective picture to a calculated color contrast corresponding to the respective same categorical CMF type pair and categorical CMF type, and minimizing an objective function; and the statistical posteriori weights are determined based on statistics of the reliability of the selections of a plurality of users for each binary color test, when the display is caused to show each binary color test two or more times.
The limitations of claim 10 can be considered as mathematical concept and/or mental process for determining the priori weights because comparing color contrast can be considered as mathematical relationship or mental process by comparing the color contrast in one’s mind, minimizing functions can be considered as mathematical calculations/relationship, and determining statistical posteriori weights based on statistics can be considered as mathematical calculations/relationship.
Therefore, claim 10 does not recite additional elements that can integrate the abstract ideas into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Therefore, claim 10 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 11, it depends on claim 8 and further recites wherein the weights of each weighted sum are equal to one of: the individual posteriori weights; the individual posteriori weights multiplied with a T-norm of the priori weights and the general posteriori weights; and the individual posteriori weights multiplied with the statistical posteriori weights and a T-norm of the priori weights and the general posteriori weights.
The limitations of claim 11 can be considered as mathematical calculations/relationship because it involves calculation and comparison of weights.
Therefore, claim 11 does not recite additional elements that can integrate the abstract ideas into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Therefore, claim 11 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 12, it depends on claim 1 and further recites wherein the device is further configured to: cause the display to show a picture according to the selected categorical CMF type and a picture according to a standard observer CMF type, and obtain input information regarding which CMF type is selected.
The limitations of claim 12 can be considered as additional elements but insignificant extra solutions because causing the display to show a picture is just display information and obtaining input information is merely data gathering.
Therefore, claim 12 does not recite additional elements that can integrate the abstract ideas into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Therefore, claim 12 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim 20 recites similar limitations of claim 1 discussed above in a method form. Therefore, the rationale of claim 1 rejection under 35 USC 101 has been applied to reject claim 20.
Note claim 13 is eligible because it depends from claim 1 and further recites wherein the device is further configured to configure a color imaging pipeline according to the selected CMF type.
Configuring a color imaging pipeline can be considered as an additional element. According to Specification, para. [0083], adjusting the color imaging workflow based on a CMF type can improve color contrast for each particular user. This can be considered as an improvement to the device performance and/or the technology. Therefore, claim 13 recites additional element s that can integrate the abstract ideas of claim 1 into practical application, and is eligible subject matter under 35 SUC 101.
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 1-20 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 1, it recites, inter alia, “wherein each binary color test comprises: a first picture including a color contrast that is clear for observers of the categorical CMF type A and not clear for observers of the categorical CMF type B, and a second picture including a color contrast that is clear for observers of the categorical CMF type B and not clear for observers of the categorical CMF type A.” (Emphasis added.)
The term “clear” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “clear” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite.
Claims 2-13 depend from claim 1 but fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Claims 20 recites similar limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-13 and 20 are indefinite.
Claim 10 depends from claim 8 and recites “the reliability of the selections of a plurality of users”. The term “the reliability” lacks antecedent basis. In fact, claim 9 recites “a reliability of the selections of the user” and “an overall reliability of the selections of the user”. If Applicant intends that claim 10 should depends from claim 9, Applicant should amend claim 10 accordingly.
Claim 14 recites similar limitations discussed above with respect to claim 1 regarding the term “clear. Accordingly, claim 14 is indefinite. Claims 15-19 depend from claim 14 but fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 14. Therefore, claims 14-19 are indefinite.
Claim 19 recites “a plurality of users”. It is not clear whether the user recited in claim 14, from which claim 19 ultimately depends, is included in the plurality of users recited in claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art references the examiner have found are Asano, Individual Colorimetric Observers for Personalized Color Imaging, US Patent Publication No. 20130033528 A1 to Sakar et al., and US Patent Publication No. 20220327982 A1 to Pytlarz et al., which disclose A device for estimating a categorical color matching function, CMF, type of a user (Asano, p. 20, 1sta para., disclosing estimating an observer’s own CMFs, a set of categorical observer functions is proposed as a convenient approach to personalized color imaging, p. 25, Sec. 3.1.3, disclosing a color matching experiment was designed and conducted using a device to investigate normal color vision), the device being configured to: cause a display to show a set of two or more binary color tests (Asano, p. 27, Tab. 3.3,, showing color matches including left side and right side with color selections; Pytlarz, para. [0030], disclosing two or more color patches may be respectively rendered and displayed on two or more image displays); wherein each binary color test corresponds to a pair of a categorical CMF type A and a categorical CMF type B of a predetermined set of categorical CMF types (Sakar, para. [0060], disclosing getting a classification chart of color patches, para. [0068], disclosing successively display color patches of the classification chart, para. [0071], disclosing the observer compares the displayed colored stripes based on CMF classes by sequentially displaying the seven versions of the same color patch to finally get the same results concerning the closest match) and wherein each binary color test comprises: a first picture for the categorical CMF type A of the pair and a second picture for the categorical CMF type B of the pair (Sakar, para. [0060], disclosing getting a classification chart of color patches, para. [0068], disclosing successively display color patches of the classification chart, para. [0071], disclosing the observer compares the displayed colored stripes based on CMF classes by sequentially displaying the seven versions of the same color patch to finally get the same results concerning the closest match); the device being further configured to: calculate a score based on input information received in response to causing the display to show the set of binary color tests (Sakar, para. [0072], disclosing based on observer’s selections for each of the displayed color patches of the classification chart, one of the classes of observer CMFs can be identified as being the class to which the observer belongs); and select, for the user, a categorical CMF type corresponding to a largest or smallest score (Sakar, para. [0071], disclosing the observer compares the displayed colored stripes based on CMF classes by sequentially displaying the seven versions of the same color patch to finally get the same results concerning the closest match, para. [0072], disclosing based on observer’s selections for each of the displayed color patches of the classification chart, one of the classes of observer CMFs can be identified as being the class to which the observer belongs).
However, none of the prior art references on the record discloses a first picture including a color contrast that is clear for observers of the categorical CMF type A and not clear for observers of the categorical CMF type B, and a second picture including a color contrast that is clear for observers of the categorical CMF type B and not clear for observers of the categorical CMF type A; the device being further configured to: calculate a score for each categorical CMF type in the predetermined set of categorical CMF types based on input information received in response to causing the display to show the set of binary color tests.
Claims 2-13 depend from claim 1 with respective additional limitations.
Claim 20 recites similar limitations discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the closest prior art references the examiner have found are Asano, Pytlarz, and Sakar, which discloses A device for creating a set of binary color tests (Asano, p. 20, 1sta para., disclosing estimating an observer’s own CMFs, a set of categorical observer functions is proposed as a convenient approach to personalized color imaging, p. 25, Sec. 3.1.3, disclosing a color matching experiment was designed and conducted using a device to investigate normal color vision), the device being configured to: determine a set of categorical color matching function, CMF, types based on two or more display primaries of a display; create one or more categorical CMF type pairs (Asano, p. 27, Tab. 3.3,, showing color matches including left side and right side with color selections; Pytlarz, para. [0030], disclosing two or more color patches may be respectively rendered and displayed on two or more image displays), each categorical CMF type pair comprising a categorical CMF type A and a categorical CMF type B, wherein out of the set of categorical CMF types each categorical CMF type is paired once with each other categorical CMF type (Sakar, para. [0060], disclosing getting a classification chart of color patches, para. [0068], disclosing successively display color patches of the classification chart, para. [0071], disclosing the observer compares the displayed colored stripes based on CMF classes by sequentially displaying the seven versions of the same color patch to finally get the same results concerning the closest match); create, for each categorical CMF type pair, two pictures including a first picture and a second picture, the first picture corresponding to the categorical CMF type A and including a second picture corresponding to the categorical CMF type B (Pytlarz, para. [0030], disclosing two or more color patches may be respectively rendered, Sakar, para. [0060], disclosing getting a classification chart of color patches, para. [0068], disclosing successively display color patches of the classification chart); and create a first set of binary color tests, each binary color test corresponding to a categorical CMF type pair and comprising the corresponding two created pictures (Pytlarz, para. [0030], disclosing two or more color patches may be respectively rendered, Sakar, para. [0060], disclosing getting a classification chart of color patches, para. [0068], disclosing successively display color patches of the classification chart, para. [0071], disclosing the observer compares the displayed colored stripes based on CMF classes by sequentially displaying the seven versions of the same color patch to finally get the same results concerning the closest match).
However, none of the prior art references on the record discloses to determine, for each categorical CMF type pair, a first pair of colors having a color contrast that is clear for observers of the categorical CMF type A and not clear for observers of the categorical CMF type B, and a second pair of colors having a color contrast that is clear for observers of the categorical CMF type B and not clear for observers of the categorical CMF type A; create, for each categorical CMF type pair, two pictures including a first picture and a second picture, comprising a pattern of the first pair of colors, and the second picture comprising a pattern of the second pair of colors; and create a first set of binary color tests, each binary color test corresponding to a categorical CMF type pair and comprising the corresponding two created pictures.
Claims 15-19 depend from claim 14 with respective additional limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HAIXIA DU whose telephone number is (571)270-5646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am-4:00 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, Kee Tung can be reached at 571-272-7794. 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.
/HAIXIA DU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
