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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 2 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is considered by examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is an example suggestion: Image processing for mapping and updating material color to target color.
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, 9, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peters et al (US 2007/0242877).
Regarding Claim 1, Peters et al teach an image processing method (method of identifying color in a digital image based on color standard template; Fig 1-6 and ¶ [0041]-[0046], [0081]-[0086]), comprising:
obtaining an image to be processed and a target color card (a user takes a digital image 2, which is loaded into a program 4, and is assessed as compared to a color standards template 12; Fig 1-3 and ¶ [0041], [0085]),
wherein the image to be processed comprises a target layer set, and the target layer set comprises a material layer (the digital image contains colors of a dataset of desired colors representing a given object, with a particular region to be matched based on a given material of the object, with the material containing given color, texture, pattern; ¶ [0040]-[0041], [0050]),
wherein the material layer comprises target materials of the image to be processed (the given material of the object to be matched may be within a given material group with a given color group or theme; ¶ [0043]-[0047], [0050];
grouping the target materials based on material attributes of the target materials, to obtain at least one material group (the sub-systems for a given material are grouped such that the associated swatch color array is within the given dynamic range of the group; ¶ [0050], [0059]); and
determining a mapping relationship between the at least one material group and candidate colors in the target color card (for multi-color or pattern matching, colors within the physical swatch array may be constrained to span the dynamic range of the type of items in the image with mapping numeric color values in the image to numeric color values in the corresponding standard color data set for the particular array; ¶ [0049]-[0050]),
obtaining a target color corresponding to each material group of the at least one material group based on the mapping relationship (at least one target (standard) color within a color space is identified for a given dataset based on the swatch array of the control colors; ¶ [0040], [0045], [0049]), and
updating colors of the target materials in each material group based on the target color (the standardized color is used as a comparison for the digital image color and a color transformation is performed after color matching to normalize the colors; ¶ [0052], [0059]).
Regarding Claim 9, Peters et al teach an electronic device (computer 16; Fig 2 and ¶ [0082], [0085]), comprising: one or more processors (computer contains a processer to execute program 6, 8; Fig 1, 2 and ¶ [0082], [0085]); and a storage apparatus, configured to store one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs (programs 4, 6, 8 stored on computer; Fig 1, 2 and ¶ ¶ [0082], [0085]), when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement an image processing method (method of identifying color in a digital image based on color standard template; Fig 1-6 and ¶ [0041]-[0046], [0081]-[0086]), which comprises: steps identical to claim 1 (as described above).
Regarding Claim 17, Peters et al teach a non-transitory storage medium containing computer-executable instructions (programs 4, 6, 8 stored on computer; Fig 1, 2 and ¶ [0082], [0085]), wherein the computer- executable instructions, when executed by a computer processor, perform an image processing method (method of identifying color in a digital image based on color standard template; Fig 1-6 and ¶ [0041]-[0046], [0081]-[0086]), which comprises: steps identical to claim 1 (as described above).
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.
Claims 5, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters et al (US 2007/0242877) in view of Furui et al (US 2009/0040542).
Regarding Claim 5, Peters et al teach the method according to claim 1 (as described above), including updating the colors of the target materials in each material group based on the target color (the standardized color is used as a comparison for the digital image color and a color transformation is performed after color matching to normalize the colors; ¶ [0052], [0059]) and obtaining an original color of the target material in the material group, and determining an original hue based on the original color (the digital image is sampled to identify the given color, including an a given group or theme by color (hue understood equivalent to “tones”); ¶ [0043]-[0044], [0050].
Peters et al does not teach determining a target hue based on the target color, and determining a hue rotation matrix based on the target hue and the original hue; and updating pixel values of the target materials in each material group based on the hue rotation matrix.
Furui et al is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in the current application and teaches determining a target hue based on the target color (a color of an image is determined based on a reference color and a hue color may be identified as associated with the color in the color space information 132; ¶ [0049]-[0050]) , and determining a hue rotation matrix based on the target hue and the original hue (a hue adjustment may be determined using a rotation matrix in the correction unit 140; ¶ [0051]-[0055]); and updating pixel values of the target materials in each material group based on the hue rotation matrix (the hue value of the image may be adjusted based on the rotation matrix using the correction unit calculation; ¶ [0052]-[0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Peters et al with Furui et al including determining a target hue based on the target color, and determining a hue rotation matrix based on the target hue and the original hue; and updating pixel values of the target materials in each material group based on the hue rotation matrix. By using a rotation matrix to determine the variation in the color hue, the adjustment is adjusted consistently with all values in an efficient manner without adjusting brightness, as recognized by Furui et al (¶ [0017]-[0018]).
Regarding Claim 13, Peters et al teach the electronic device of claim 9 (as described above), with further limitations identical to claim 5 (as described above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18-20 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.
Regarding Claims 2, 10, 18, the prior art was not identified to teach the entirety of the following limitations in combination with the base claim in a non-obvious manner (claim 2 recited below and claimed in parallel for claims 10, 18):
wherein the grouping the target materials based on the material attributes of the target materials, to obtain the at least one material group comprises: in response to material content corresponding to a target layer satisfying a preset material selection condition, determining the target layer as the material layer; and obtaining image areas corresponding to the target materials in the material layer, and grouping the target materials based on the image areas, to obtain the at least one material group.
Claims 3-4 are dependent on claim 2 and therefore allowable for similar reasons.
Claims 11-12 are dependent on claim 10 and therefore allowable for similar reasons.
Claims 19-20 are dependent on claim 18 and therefore allowable for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 6, 14, the prior art was not identified to teach the entirety of the following limitations in combination with the base claim in a non-obvious manner (claim 6 recited below and claimed in parallel for claims 14):
wherein the target color card comprises an auxiliary color sequence; and the determining the mapping relationship between the at least one material group and the candidate colors in the target color card comprises: in response to a number of the at least one material group being greater than a number of candidate auxiliary colors in the auxiliary color sequence, merging the at least one material group, to obtain merged material groups, wherein a number of the merged material groups is equal to the number of the candidate auxiliary colors; and determining a mapping relationship between the merged material groups and the candidate auxiliary colors in the auxiliary color sequence based on an order of the merged material groups and an order of the candidate auxiliary colors in the auxiliary color sequence.
Regarding Claims 7, 15, the prior art was not identified to teach the entirety of the following limitations in combination with the base claim in a non-obvious manner (claim 7 recited below and claimed in parallel for claims 15):
wherein the target color card comprises an auxiliary color sequence; and the determining the mapping relationship between the at least one material group and the candidate colors in the target color card comprises: in response to a number of the at least one material group being less than or equal to a number of candidate auxiliary colors in the auxiliary color sequence, determining an order of the at least one material group based on image areas of the target materials in each material group; and determining a mapping relationship between each material group and the candidate auxiliary colors in the auxiliary color sequence based on the order of the at least one material group and an order of the candidate auxiliary colors in the auxiliary color sequence.
Regarding Claims 8, 16, the prior art was not identified to teach the entirety of the following limitations in combination with the base claim in a non-obvious manner (claim 8 recited below and claimed in parallel for claims 16):
wherein the target layer set further comprises a text layer, and after the obtaining the image to be processed and the target color card, the method further comprises: determining a target word color of text in the text layer based on the candidate colors in the target color card; determining a target shadow color, a target outline color and a target background color of the text based on an original word color, the target word color, an original shadow color, an original outline color and an original background color of the text in the text layer; and determining a text color of the text in the text layer based on the target word color, the target shadow color, the target outline color, and the target background color of the text.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nishizawa (US 2014/0153824) teach a system and method for color conversion processing in image data based on identifying a color value in a target image and identifying a corresponding color value as a candidate replacement color.
Krishnaswamy et al (US 2014/0099026) teach a method and system for a color correction performed on image data based on identifying characteristics of a plurality of images and using the similarities and differences to group the images with color corrections performed to images in at least one of the groups of images.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN M BROUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/KATHLEEN M BROUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights