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 .
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 13-18 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 14, the phrase "possibly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the hue tone subfamily…" and “the lightness subfamily…” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. A “computer program product…” is recited, however, a “computer program product…” can possibly include either a transitory medium or a non-transitory medium. It is not clear as to which one of the two media these claims are referring to; therefore there is a reasonable speculation as to this “computer program product…” being a transitory medium.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. A “computer-readable storage medium…” is recited, however, a “computer-readable storage medium…” can possibly include either a transitory medium or a non-transitory medium. It is not clear as to which one of the two media these claims are referring to; therefore there is a reasonable speculation as to this “computer-readable storage medium…” being a transitory medium. Examiner suggests amending claim 20 to "Non-transitory computer-readable storage medium...".
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.
Claim(s) 1, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Payonk et al. (US 2008/0080766).
(1) regarding claims 1, 19, and 20:
Payonk ‘766 discloses computer implemented method (100) for automatically classifying a color of a makeup product (102) (paragraph [0024]), comprising:
- providing input coordinates data in the L*a*b* space (104) of a makeup product color (paragraph [0023]-[0024], where cosmetic color shades are analyzed);
- assigning a color family label (106) to the makeup product color according to an identification of a color family volume, amongst a set of color family volumes in the L*a*b* space (ORG, PNK, RD, PRP, BRN), containing the input coordinates data (paragraph [0024], where the numerical divisions of the shade/brightness gradations, will serve as the target colors for assigning color labels);
the color family volumes (ORG, PNK, RD, PRP, BRN) being designed according to a subjective perception of makeup colors, and the makeup product color being classified according to the assigned labels (paragraph [0024]-[0025], where the color families are selected using the color classification previously obtained, using a subjective way to classifying them in accordance with skin tones and how “unnatural” it might look).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A. Claim 2 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “wherein the set of color family volumes in the L*a*b* space (ORG, PNK, RD, PRP, BRN )is generated from a data base (302) including a finite number of points in the L*a*b* space, each point being labelled with a respective family label according to the subjective perception of makeup colors, and from a mathematical calculation comprising a triangulation (304) generating envelopes enclosing all the points of each respective family and an interpolation (306) spreading the envelopes until the respective facing surfaces of neighboring envelopes matches with each other, the envelopes defining the enclosure of the respective color family volumes”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter.
B. Claim 3 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “wherein the color family volumes (BRN, PNK, ORG, PRP, RD) are configured to delimit brown, pink, orange, purple, and red colors in the L*a*b* space according to the subjective perception of makeup colors.”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter.
C. Claim 4 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “assigning a lightness subfamily label (108) to the makeup product color according to an identification of the position of the input coordinates data in comparison with at least one lightness boundary value (BndVall, BndVal2) in the lightness coordinate axis L* of the L*a*b* space; the at least one lightness boundary value (BndVall, BndVal2) being designed according to a subjective perception of makeup colors, and the makeup product color being classified according to the assigned labels”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter. Claims 5-6 depend on claim 4, therefore a similar analysis applies.
D. Claim 7 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “assigning a chroma subfamily label (108) to the makeup product color according to the position of the input coordinates data in comparison with at least one chroma boundary line (BndCrcll, BndCrcl2) in an a*b* plane of the L*a*b* space; the at least one chroma boundary line (BndCrcll, BndCrcl2) being designed according to a subjective perception of makeup colors, and the makeup product color being classified according to the assigned labels”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter. Claims 8-9 depend on claim 7, therefore a similar analysis applies.
E. Claim 10 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “assigning a hue tone subfamily label (108) to the makeup product color according to the position of the input coordinates data in comparison with at least one hue tone boundary surface (BndSrfcl, BndSrfc2) inside the respective color family volume in the L*a*b* space; the at least one hue tone boundary surface (BndSrfcl, BndSrfc2) being designed according to a subjective perception of makeup colors, and the makeup product color being classified according to the assigned labels”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter. Claims 11-12 depend on claim 10, therefore a similar analysis applies.
F. Claim 13 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “wherein the makeup product color is classified hierarchically according to the color family label firstly, to the hue tone subfamily label secondly, and then to the lightness subfamily label and the chroma subfamily label”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter.
*Examiner’s Note*:
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b), however if those issues are resolved, the claims could be considered as allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENNIN R RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-7:00pm.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at 571-270-5254. 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.
/LENNIN R RODRIGUEZGONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights