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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…applying at least one color filter the screen composition.” It should read “…applying at least one color filter on the screen composition.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more. The flow chart in MPEP 2106, Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, will be referred to establish ineligible subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, in Step 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2016, the claim recites “applying one or more filters to a subject in a screen composition; testing the filtered subject in the screen composition for accessibility issues; and providing an evaluation of the accessibility issues of the screen composition.” which would be categorized as a process under the four statutory categories. In Step 2A Prong One, the claim is further directed to abstract ideas (mental process) of:
testing the filtered subject in the screen composition for accessibility issues (accessibility issues for visual impairment can be tested by a group of people with feedback given. Thus, this can be done with the human mind (see MPEP 2106))
providing an evaluation of the accessibility issues of the screen composition (similar to testing, an evaluation can be provided by the human mind)
Step 2A Prong Two: Additional elements include “applying one or more filters to a subject in a screen composition…” This limitation generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as stated in MPEP 2106(h). Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible.
Step 2B: The additional claim elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With regards to, “applying one or more filters to a subject in a screen composition…” This limitation generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and is claimed in a way that is well understood, routine, and conventional. With regards to, “testing the filtered subject in the screen composition for accessibility issues” this is mere mental processing, and is claimed in a way that is well understood, routine, and conventional. With regards to, “providing an evaluation of the accessibility issues of the screen composition,” this is mere mental process, and is claimed in a way that is well understood, routine, and conventional.
Regarding claim 2, it is dependent upon claim 1 and thereby incorporates the limitations of and corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 2 recites applying the one or more filters to the subject in the screen composition includes applying at least one color filter the screen composition. Additional limitations are to judicial exception (mental process with a technological environment) of applying at least one color filter the screen composition, which can be done with any computer. The addition of a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, this claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 3, it is dependent upon claim 2 and thereby incorporates the limitations of and corresponding analysis applied to claim 2. Further, claim 3 recites wherein testing the filtered subject in the screen composition for accessibility issues includes extracting one or more screen pixel colors from the filtered subject and comparing the one or more screen pixel colors to one or more color elements in a test object to generate a color contrast ratio. Additional limitations are to judicial exception (mathematical process) of comparing the one or more screen pixel colors to one or more color elements in a test object to generate a color contrast ratio. The addition of a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, this claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 4, it is dependent upon claim 3 and thereby incorporates the limitations of and corresponding analysis applied to claim 3. Further, claim 4 recites wherein providing the evaluation of the accessibility issues of the filtered subject includes evaluating the color contrast ratio with a color contrast standard. Additional limitations are to judicial exception (mental process) of evaluating the color contrast ratio with a color contrast standard. The addition of a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, this claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 5, it is dependent upon claim 2 and thereby incorporates the limitations of and corresponding analysis applied to claim 2. Further, claim 5 recites wherein the at least one color filters includes at least one of the following filters: color inversion, Rod monochromacy, Blue Cone monochromacy, red-green protanomaly color blindness, red-green protanopia color blindness, red-green deuteranomaly color blindness, red- green deuteranopia color blindness, blue-yellow tritanomaly color blindness, blue-yellow tritanopia color blindness, tetrachromacy, or high color contrast. Additional limitations are to judicial exception (mental process with a technological environment) of applying at least one color filter the screen composition, which can be done with any computer. The addition of a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, this claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 13, it is dependent upon claim 1 and thereby incorporates the limitations of and corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, claim 13 recites wherein the filtered subject includes a sequence of image frames. Additional limitations are to judicial exception (technological environment) of including a sequence of images. The addition of a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, this claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 14, the rationale provided for claim 13 is incorporated herein. The use of a still image is to the judicial exception of a technological environment. The addition of a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, this claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 15, Regarding claim 14, the rationale provided for claim 13 is incorporated herein. The use of a readable text is to the judicial exception of a technological environment. The addition of a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, this claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 16, it is dependent upon claim 1 and thereby incorporates the limitations of and corresponding analysis applied to claim 1. Further, the rationale provided for claim 1 is incorporated herein. The claim is to judicial exception (mental process) of including a testing and evaluating. The addition of a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, this claim is ineligible.
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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “filtered image” in page 4 of the Claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is supposed to read a filtered image or the filtered image. Additionally, if it is “the filtered image,” claim 1 does not include a filtered image, but a filtered subject.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jan Knoulich US-20170024308-A1, hereinafter Jan.
As per claim 1, Jan discloses a method comprising:applying one or more filters to a subject in a screen composition (see Jan ¶86, wherein color filters are employed on the rendered data elements, the data elements are on a display as disclosed in ¶61);testing the filtered subject in the screen composition for accessibility issues (see Jan ¶86, wherein the testing module checks readability of the rendered data elements); and providing an evaluation of the accessibility issues of the screen composition (see Jan ¶86, wherein a readability score is acquired).
As per claim 2, Jan discloses the method of claim 1 wherein applying the one or more filters to the subject in the screen composition includes applying at least one color filter the screen composition (see Jan ¶86, wherein color filters are employed on the data elements).
As per claim 15, Jan discloses the method of claim 1 wherein filtered image includes readable text (see Jan ¶86, wherein the filtered data elements, which includes rendered text, on the display screen are disclosed).
As per claim 16, Jan discloses the method of claim 15 wherein testing the filtered subject in the screen composition for accessibility issues includes testing a determination of a readability of text in the filtered image (see Jan ¶86, wherein the testing module checks the readability of the data elements, which includes the text in the emulated rendering) and providing the evaluation of the accessibility issues of the filtered subject includes evaluating the readability of the text based on a readability standard (see Jan ¶86-87, wherein a readability score is determined from the rendered data elements and compared against a minimum score).
Claim Rejections - 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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jan, in further view of Hsin-Han Lu US-20250252891-A1, hereinafter Lu.
As per claim 3, Jan fails to explicitly disclose where Lu teaches:The method of claim 2 wherein testing the filtered subject in the screen composition for accessibility issues includes extracting one or more screen pixel colors from the filtered subject (see Lu ¶29, wherein each pixel in the image is acquired for color adjustment) and comparing the one or more screen pixel colors to one or more color elements in a test object to generate a color contrast ratio (see Lu ¶29, wherein the pixel feature value in the color adjustment process is compared against a first threshold value to retain the best color ratio. These color ratios are obtained, as in generated, in the color calibration process as disclosed in ¶18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jan’s method by using Lu’s teaching by including the extraction of the screen pixel colors to the filtered subject in order to further test if the colors on the screen are readable for a user.
As per claim 4, Jan, in combination with Lu, discloses the method of claim 3 wherein providing the evaluation of the accessibility issues of the filtered subject includes evaluating the color contrast ratio with a color contrast standard (see Lu ¶21-29 and FIG. 2, wherein a satisfactory contrast ratio for the color calibration using the first threshold is disclosed. The first threshold behaves as the color contrast standard, ensuring the contrast ratio and color saturation are at an appropriate level).
Claims 5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jan, in combination with Rebecca Rosenberg US-20240104706-A1, hereinafter Rosenburg.
As per claim 5, Jan fails to explicitly disclose where Rosenburg teaches:The method of claim 2 wherein the at least one color filters includes at least one of the following filters: color inversion (see Rosenberg ¶53, wherein an inversion layer which includes a color inversion filter), Rod monochromacy, Blue Cone monochromacy, red-green protanomaly color blindness, red-green protanopia color blindness, red-green deuteranomaly color blindness, red- green deuteranopia color blindness, blue-yellow tritanomaly color blindness, blue-yellow tritanopia color blindness, tetrachromacy, or high color contrast.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jan’s method by using Rosenburg’s teaching by including a color inversion to the filters in order to further test the readability while using the color inversion filter.
As per claim 13, Jan fails to explicitly disclose where Rosneburg teaches:The method of claim 1 wherein the filtered subject includes a sequence of image frames (see Rosenburg ¶89-93, wherein the video contains the inversion filter or RGBA color filter. The filtered subject, as similarly disclosed in Applicant Specification page 4 lines 30-31, would be the filtered video).
Though Rosenburg uses a filtered video for its filtered subject, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to understand that the rendered data elements of Jan contain the same elements of text and color to be displayed, similar to Rosenburg’s graphical interface as shown in ¶73-74 and FIG. 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jan’s method by using Rosenburg’s teaching by including a sequence of image frames to the filtered subject in order to further test the filtered subject over a series of frames to ensure the readability is maintained.
As per claim 14, Jan fails to explicitly disclose where Rosneburg teaches:The method of claim 1 wherein the filtered subject includes a still image (see Rosenburg ¶89-93, wherein an image contains the inversion filter or RGBA color filter. The filtered subject, as similarly disclosed in Applicant Specification page 4 lines 30-31, would be the filtered still image).
Though Rosenburg uses a filtered still image for its filtered subject, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to understand that the rendered data elements of Jan contain the same elements of text and color to be displayed, similar to Rosenburg’s graphical interface as shown in ¶73-74 and FIG. 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Jan’s method by using Rosenburg’s teaching by including a still image to the filtered subject in order to further test readability on only a singular image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradley Obas Felix whose telephone number is (703)756-1314. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 5712728243. 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.
/BRADLEY O FELIX/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights