Detailed Action
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to applicant response filed on March 26, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, namely abstract ideas including mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, and, for certain dependent claims, mathematical concepts, without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception.
Step 1: Claims 1, 15, and 18 fall within a statutory category because claim 1 is directed to a process, claim 15 to a machine, and claim 18 to a manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Representative claim 1 recites abstract mental processes, including the steps of: “defining a coloring project using the graph structure,” “receiving … input user data,” “organizing elements … using the graph structure,” “selecting a target color,” “finding a respective paint that has a color matching the selected target color,” “comparing the paint applied … with the respective target color,” and “making an adjustment to the selection of the paint.”
These limitations amount to collecting information, organizing information, evaluating information, making judgments, and revising decisions, all of which can be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
Further, claims 4–6, 17, and 20 recite certain methods of organizing human activity, including product/SKU searching, availability determination, user selection, and online ordering. Claims 11–13 additionally recite mathematical concepts, including threshold distance comparisons, color-coordinate/gamut relations, and 3-dimensional color-space modeling.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements—e.g., graph structure, database, AI based chat application, application interface, user device, processor, memory, colorimeter, digital camera, and non-transitory computer-readable medium—are recited generically and merely apply the abstract idea using conventional computer tools.
The claims do not recite an improvement to computer functionality or to another technology. The graph structure is used as a generic data-organization tool rather than a specific improvement to data storage or retrieval. The AI/LLM limitations are recited functionally and do not specify any particular model architecture or technical improvement. The colorimeter/camera limitations merely gather input data. The recitation in claim 1 that comparison occurs “after the selected paint is applied” is only a conditional context, not a meaningful technical transformation. Even claims 2, 16, and 19, which affirmatively recite applying paint and measuring color difference, do so at a high functional level without reciting a specific technological process or particular machine integral to the claim.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The specification itself describes the computing environment as conventional. For example, the user device may be an “iPad, iPhone, etc.” with processor, memory, and I/O ([0039]–[0040]), and FIG. 13 / [0253]–[0262] describes a generic general-purpose computer system. The voice recognizer may be “commercially available”.
The additional claim elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, amount only to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity and therefore do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims:
Claims 2-3, these claims add: determining target color, applying paint, executing control measurements, analyzing color difference, recommending correction, user selection from commercially available color systems. These are still abstract evaluative/recommendation steps combined with routine physical and measurement activity. No specific technical mechanism is claimed.
Claims 4-7, these add SKU database search, parameter filtering, availability checking, list presentation, and online ordering. These are classic commercial/product-selection steps performed on generic databases and networks. No inventive concept.
Claims 8-10, these add AI chat, verbal input, image/color coordinate input, and color naming /description generation. These merely automate mental processes using generic AI and data acquisition. No integration, no inventive concept.
Claims 11-13, these add threshold-distance matching, color-library gamut determination, and 3D coordinate modeling. These recite mathematical/evaluative concepts with data gathering. No recited technical improvement to color science hardware, image capture, or paint formulation machinery.
Claim 14, this claim recites generic project organization in a tree structure. It is information organization and workflow management, not a technical improvement to computing.
Claims 16-20, these mirror the same deficiencies in system/CRM form.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaas (WO 2023/076032), in view of Lewis (WO 2023/023427), and further in view of Flam (US 2012/0096389).
Regarding claims 1, 15, and 18: Klaas discloses a method for matching color
receiving, from a user, input user data for the coloring project (Inputting a coating formulation into a trained ML model..., Fig.4, ¶¶ 16 & 23);
selecting a target color for each element or group of elements of the coloring project (Selecting target color for a coating formulation... ¶¶ 16 & 23);
for each element or group of elements, finding a respective paint that has a color matching the selected target color of the element or group of elements (ML model finds paint formulation matching target color... ¶¶ 16 & 23);
Klaas teaches automated color matching, receiving user input, selecting a target color, and finding a paint that matches the target color using a machine learning model and a paint product database. Klaas does not appear to explicitly teach post-application comparison and iterative adjustment/optimization.
However, Lewis teaches the following:
after the selected paint is applied to the element or group of elements, comparing the paint applied to the element or group of elements with the respective target color (abstract, Figs.5, 6, ¶¶ 21, 26, 29, 85, 86, 89); and
making an adjustment to the selection of the paint when further optimization of the selection of the paint is needed based on the comparison of the paint applied to the element or group of elements with the respective target color (abstract, Figs.5, 6, ¶¶ 21, 26, 29, 85, 86, 89).
In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the teachings of Lewis into the disclosure of Klaas, for the advantage of enhancing the reliability and real-world accuracy of color matching by incorporating iterative post-application measurement and adjustment, as taught by Lewis (¶¶ 26 & 89). This would ensure that the selected paint not only matches the target color in theory, but also in practice after application, addressing known issues with color appearance variability due to substrate, lighting, or application conditions.
Also, Klaas does not, but Flam does teach a hierarchical project structure and user input, and in particular the following:
defining a (abstract, ¶¶ 15, 22, 46, 64-68 & 245);
organizing elements of the (abstract, ¶¶ 15, 22, 46, 64-68 & 245);
In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the teachings of Flam into the disclosure of Klaas, for the advantage of improving management of complex coloring projects by organizing project elements (such as rooms, walls, or objects) and their associated color selections in a hierarchical tree structure, as taught by Flam, thereby allowing scalable, flexible project management for color matching systems as in Klaas.
Combining Flam’s hierarchical project management with Klaas’s color matching system would yield predictable results, as organizing project elements in a tree structure is a well-known technique for managing complex projects and is motivated by Flam’s desire for unified data management.
The overall combination yields a system that allows users to define and manage complex coloring projects hierarchically, select and match colors for each project element, and iteratively optimize the real-world color outcome through measurement and adjustment, a predictable and desirable improvement over the prior art.
Regarding claims 2, 16, and 19: Klaas in view of Lewis, and further in view of Flam substantially discloses the claimed invention, Flam teaches a tree structure with folders/subfolders, user-defined hierarchy (Flam, abstract, ¶¶ 15, 22, 46, 64-68 & 245). Wherein the coloring project is managed via an automated management system, wherein the managing of the coloring project comprises, for each element or group of elements of the coloring project: determining the target color; applying a selected best match paint on the element or group of elements; executing control measurements on color samples of applied paint; analyzing a color difference between the color samples of the applied paint and the respective target color, and providing recommendation as to a need for a correction based results of the analysis; and correcting (adjusting) the selected best match paint when the recommendation indicates a need for the correction (Klaas, Fig.4, ¶¶ 16 & 23); (Lewis, abstract, Figs.5, 6, ¶¶ 21, 26, 29, 85, 86, 89); (Flam, abstract, ¶¶ 15, 22, 46, 64-68 & 245).
Regarding claim 3: Klaas in view of Lewis, and further in view of Flam substantially discloses the claimed invention, wherein the management of the coloring project further comprises, for each element or group of elements of the coloring project: providing to a user a selection of one or more potential matches from commercially available color systems using an advanced paint matching to a customer query algorithm via an application interface; and receiving a selection from the user, wherein the received selection comprises the selected best match paint (Klaas, Fig.4, ¶¶ 16 & 23); (Lewis, abstract, Figs.5, 6, ¶¶ 21, 26, 29, 85, 86, 89); (Flam, abstract, ¶¶ 15, 22, 46, 64-68 & 245).
Regarding claim 4, 17, and 20: Klaas in view of Lewis, and further in view of Flam substantially discloses the claimed invention, wherein the paint that has a color matching the selected target color is automatically found by: storing a list of paint Stock Keeping Units (SKUs) in a database, wherein the list further includes information about each paint that has a paint SKU stored in the database; receiving a query from the user, wherein the query includes the target color; matching the target color to a paint color; searching in the database for at least one paint SKU associated with the matched paint color; selecting all paint SKUs associated with the matched paint color; determining availabilities of each of the selected paint SKUs; and creating a list of selected and available paint SKUs, and presenting the created list to the user for selecting, by the user, a preferred paint SKU form among paint SKUs on the list (Klaas, Fig.4, ¶¶ 16 & 23); (Lewis, abstract, Figs.5, 6, ¶¶ 21, 26, 29, 85, 86, 89); (Flam, abstract, ¶¶ 15, 22, 46, 64-68 & 245).
Regarding claim 5: Klaas in view of Lewis, and further in view of Flam substantially discloses the claimed invention, wherein the selecting of all paint SKUs associated with the matched paint color further comprises: querying for additional paint parameters in information associated with the coloring project;
when the additional parameters are not described in the coloring project, receiving the additional paint parameters from the user in response to querying the user for the additional paint parameters; and selecting all paint SKUs associated with both the matched paint color and the additional paint parameters (Klaas, Fig.4, ¶¶ 16 & 23); (Lewis, abstract, Figs.5, 6, ¶¶ 21, 26, 29, 85, 86, 89); (Flam, abstract, ¶¶ 15, 22, 46, 64-68 & 245).
Regarding claim 6: Klaas in view of Lewis, and further in view of Flam substantially discloses the claimed invention, further comprising: offering, to the user, options for ordering a selected paint online for a quantity needed for the painting project; when the offer is accepted by the user, placing an order for the selected paint, wherein a quantity of the paint needed for the coloring project is determined based on an area of a surface to be painted and a coverage of the paint having the selected paint SKU (Klaas, Fig.4, ¶¶ 16 & 23); (Lewis, abstract, Figs.5, 6, ¶¶ 21, 26, 29, 85, 86, 89); (Flam, abstract, ¶¶ 15, 22, 46, 64-68 & 245).
Regarding claim 7: Klaas in view of Lewis, and further in view of Flam substantially discloses the claimed invention, wherein information about a paint that has a paint SKU stored in the database comprises one or more of: a unique identifier of the paint; a brand; a sub-brand or collection; a manufacturer SKU corresponding to the paint SKU, if applicable; a color coordinate; a color name; a color number; a Light Reflectance Value (LRV); a color collection; a finish or sheen; a type of paint indicative of whether the paint is an exterior paint or an interior paint; a chemistry of the paint indicative of whether the paint is latex type or acrylic; a container of the paint; a base of the paint; a type of surface on which the paint can be used; coverage of the paint; drying time of the paint; a recommended number of coats of the paint; a Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) content of the paint; a feature of the paint; and a price of the paint (Klaas, Fig.4, ¶¶ 16 & 23); (Lewis, abstract, Figs.5, 6, ¶¶ 21, 26, 29, 85, 86, 89); (Flam, abstract, ¶¶ 15, 22, 46, 64-68 & 245).
Regarding claim 8: Klaas in view of Lewis, and further in view of Flam substantially discloses the claimed invention, wherein the selection of the target color comprises:
receiving the input user data from the user via an AI based chat application, the input data comprising at least one of: a textual description of a color of paint, color coordinates obtained using a colorimeter or a digital camera, or color coordinates of digital color data from a photograph; presenting to the user, via the AI based chat application, a selected patch representative of a paint matching the input user data; interacting with the user, via the AI based chat application, to adjust the selection of the patch when an adjustment is requested by the user; and when confirmation is received from the user indicating that the presented patch matches the input user data, selecting the paint represented by the patch as the target color (Klaas, Fig.4, ¶¶ 16 & 23); (Lewis, abstract, Figs.5, 6, ¶¶ 21, 26, 29, 85, 86, 89); (Flam, abstract, ¶¶ 15, 22, 46, 64-68 & 245).
Regarding claim 9: Klaas in view of Lewis, and further in view of Flam substantially discloses the claimed invention, further comprising, interacting with the user via an AI based chat application and receiving a context for the coloring project; and generating names for colors that are obtained from the input user data based on the context of the coloring project (Klaas, Fig.4, ¶¶ 16 & 23); (Lewis, abstract, Figs.5, 6, ¶¶ 21, 26, 29, 85, 86, 89); (Flam, abstract, ¶¶ 15, 22, 46, 64-68 & 245).
Regarding claim 10: Klaas in view of Lewis, and further in view of Flam substantially discloses the claimed invention, wherein the input user data is obtained by at least one of: physically scanning colors using a colorimeter or a spectrophotometer communicatively coupled to a device of the user; extracting colors from one or more digital images; manually entering color data in a standard format by the user; selecting color from a library of colors; and picking a color from among previously stored color data (Klaas, Fig.4, ¶¶ 16 & 23); (Lewis, abstract, Figs.5, 6, ¶¶ 21, 26, 29, 85, 86, 89); (Flam, abstract, ¶¶ 15, 22, 46, 64-68 & 245).
Regarding claim 11: Klaas in view of Lewis, and further in view of Flam substantially discloses the claimed invention, wherein, for each element or group of elements, the finding of the respective paint that has a color matching the selected target color of the element or group of elements comprises: when a match between the target color and at least one paint color in a database is found, selecting the respective paint from among paints that meet a threshold criterion based on a distance between the target color and particular paints that meet the threshold criterion; when no match between the target color and at least one color in the database is found, determining whether a custom color can be created within a color library; when no match between the target color and at least one color in the color library is found and the custom color can be created within the color library, recommending a custom paint based on a respective color Gamut of a matched paint color; and when no match between the target color and at least one color in the color library is found and the custom color cannot be created within the color library, recommending an inspired paint color (Klaas, Fig.4, ¶¶ 16 & 23); (Lewis, abstract, Figs.5, 6, ¶¶ 21, 26, 29, 85, 86, 89); (Flam, abstract, ¶¶ 15, 22, 46, 64-68 & 245).
Regarding claim 12: Klaas in view of Lewis, and further in view of Flam substantially discloses the claimed invention, wherein the determination of whether the custom color can be created within a color library is based on color coordinates of the target color being within a color Gamut of at least one paint brand in the color library (Klaas, Fig.4, ¶¶ 16 & 23); (Lewis, abstract, Figs.5, 6, ¶¶ 21, 26, 29, 85, 86, 89); (Flam, abstract, ¶¶ 15, 22, 46, 64-68 & 245).
Regarding claim 13: Klaas in view of Lewis, and further in view of Flam substantially discloses the claimed invention, wherein the determination of whether the custom color can be created within the color library comprises: for each paint or paint brand of a coloring system, modeling color Gamuts of the color library to describe respective entire ranges of each color and tone achievable by the coloring system, wherein the modeling of the color Gamut is based on color measurements of commercially available color samples of a color system; mapping measured color coordinates of the measured color samples on a 3-dimensional color space; and creating a model of the color Gamut of the color system based on the color samples farthest from a center of the 3-dimensional color space (Klaas, Fig.4, ¶¶ 16 & 23); (Lewis, abstract, Figs.5, 6, ¶¶ 21, 26, 29, 85, 86, 89); (Flam, abstract, ¶¶ 15, 22, 46, 64-68 & 245).
Regarding claim 14: Klaas in view of Lewis, and further in view of Flam substantially discloses the claimed invention, wherein the graph structure is a tree structure that allows the user to: organize elements of a coloring project hierarchically; store color data and metadata in elements of the coloring project; assign custom names and naming systems to elements or groups of elements of the coloring project; navigate the structure using collapsible branches; evaluate projects by scrolling through an entire tree structure or by focusing on different branches of the tree structure; search for elements and groups of elements using search filters; group and regroup elements into branches according to current needs of the user for the coloring project; and assign status to elements or groups of elements, where the status includes at least one of: priority, current progress, assignment of a person responsible for a project or for an element (Klaas, Fig.4, ¶¶ 16 & 23); (Lewis, abstract, Figs.5, 6, ¶¶ 21, 26, 29, 85, 86, 89); (Flam, abstract, ¶¶ 15, 22, 46, 64-68 & 245).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHD A OBEID whose telephone number is (571)270-3324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-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.
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.
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights