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 .
Applicant’s response to the Non-Final Office Action dated 01/26/2026, filed with the office on 04/26/2026, has been entered and made of record.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 6-9, and 11-20 are pending. Claims 3-5 and 10 are cancelled.
Response to Amendments
In light of Applicant’s amendment of the specification, the objection of record with respect to the drawings is withdrawn.
In light of Applicant’s amendments, the objections of record with respect to claims 12 and 14 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of independent claim 1 and 12, presented on Pages 9-12, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 102 rejection of claims 1 and 12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments of independent claim 9, which has altered the scope of the claims of the instant application, has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action with respect to claims of the instant application. Accordingly, in response to Applicant’s arguments that are merely directed to the amended portion of the claims, new analyses have been presented below, which make Applicant’s arguments moot.
Consequently, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bischoff in view of BYK-Gardner ("Automatchic Vision User Manual & How To Use Video - 2016).
Regarding claim 9, Bischoff teaches “A method for investigating visual appearance of a sample surface using a spectrophotometer having an integrated camera and at least one spectrally resolving detector (Bischoff page 23 lines 11-19 "a device 400 which may be used to identify pigments and/or pigment classes of pigments of a coating mixture of a target coating. A user 40 may utilize a user interface 41, such as a graphical user interface, to operate at least one measuring device 42 to measure the properties of a target coating 43, i. e. to capture digital images of the target coating by means of a camera, each image being obtained at a different image based texture measurement geometry, e. g. at a different angle, and to determine color values and texture values for different spectral measurement geometries, using, for instance, a spectrophotometer"), the method comprising:
acquiring at least one image of a measurement area of the sample surface for at least one measurement geometry, using the integrated camera of the spectrophotometer (Bischoff page 21 lines 17-19 "Traditional photospectrometers and image capturing devices consider as possible image-based measurement geometries light sources 111 to 115 and camera 120 represented in Figure 1" and page 21 lines 28-30 ""After obtaining the digital images of the target coating, it may be useful to perform first a pre-analysis of the digital images for identifying defects, such as scratches");
determining a defect indicator that is indicative of defects of the sample surface in the measurement area, the step of determining the defect indicator comprising analyzing pixel values of the at least one image, using at least one processor (Bischoff page 21 lines 28-32 and page 22 lines 1-2 "After obtaining the digital images of the target coating, it may be useful to perform first a pre-analysis of the digital images for identifying defects, such as scratches. Therefore, using an electronic computer processor in an operative connection with at least one filtering unit, a first image analysis on the obtained digital images is performed to look for and to determine within each digital image at least one bright region by isolating image foreground data from image background data")The method of claim 8, wherein the spectrophotometer comprises at least one spectrally resolving detector for obtaining spectral information from the measurement area, and wherein the method comprises:,
obtaining spectral information from the measurement area, using the at least one spectrally resolving detector (Bischoff page 23 lines 11-19 "a device 400 which may be used to identify pigments and/or pigment classes of pigments of a coating mixture of a target coating. A user 40 may utilize a user interface 41, such as a graphical user interface, to operate at least one measuring device 42 to measure the properties of a target coating 43, i. e. to capture digital images of the target coating by means of a camera, each image being obtained at a different image based texture measurement geometry, e. g. at a different angle, and to determine color values and texture values for different spectral measurement geometries, using, for instance, a spectrophotometer"); and
However Bischoff is not relied on to teach “correcting the obtained spectral information for defects if the defect indicator indicates that the sample surface has defects in the measurement area”
BYK-Gardner teaches “correcting the obtained spectral information for defects if the defect indicator indicates that the sample surface has defects in the measurement area (BYK-Gardner page 20-21 section 8.2 Rotating during measurements "To optimize search results Automatchic Vision always averages 4 rotated measurements. The measurement direction is explained to the user. Each rotation is shown on the instrument display and the user is instructed to point the instrument in a fixed direction and rotate the device in that way. Rotating during measurements is important for metallics and pearls to minimize the various fliptones. This also minimizes the effect of 'micro' scratches" - where the spectral information is corrected by further analyzing the measurement area and then averaging the spectral information).”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine an spectrophotometer for visual attribute of a sample with defect detection as taught by Bischoff to include steps to correct the impact defects have on the spectral information as taught by BYK-Gardner.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “Rotating during measurements is important for metallics and pearls to minimize the various flip-tones. This also minimizes the effect of 'micro' scratches” as noted by the BYK-Gardner disclosure in page 21 paragraph 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Bischoff with
the BYK-Gardner disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9 as there is a
reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art
elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Bischoff and BYK-Gardner teaches “A method for investigating visual appearance of a sample surface (Bischoff page 3 lines 9-10 "The present invention refers to a computer-implemented method and a device 10 for identification of effect pigments in a target coating") using a spectrophotometer having an integrated camera (Bischoff page 21 lines 17-19 "Traditional photospectrometers and image capturing devices consider as possible image-based measurement geometries light sources 111 to 115 and camera 120 represented in Figure 1"), the method comprising:
acquiring at least one image of a measurement area of the sample surface for at least one measurement geometry, using the integrated camera of the spectrophotometer (Bischoff page 21 lines 17-19 "Traditional photospectrometers and image capturing devices consider as possible image-based measurement geometries light sources 111 to 115 and camera 120 represented in Figure 1" and page 21 lines 28-30 ""After obtaining the digital images of the target coating, it may be useful to perform first a pre-analysis of the digital images for identifying defects, such as scratches");
determining a defect indicator that is indicative of defects of the sample surface in the measurement area, the step of determining a defect indicator comprising analyzing pixel values of the at least one image, using at least one processor (Bischoff page 21 lines 28-32 and page 22 lines 1-2 "After obtaining the digital images of the target coating, it may be useful to perform first a pre-analysis of the digital images for identifying defects, such as scratches. Therefore, using an electronic computer processor in an operative connection with at least one filtering unit, a first image analysis on the obtained digital images is performed to look for and to determine within each digital image at least one bright region by isolating image foreground data from image background data"); and
measuring appearance attributes of the sample surface in the measurement area using the spectrophotometer, wherein the measurement of the appearance attributes using the spectrophotometer is automatically initiated (Bischoff page 20 lines 22-28 "after measuring/obtaining, using at least one measuring device, color values, texture values and digital images of a target coating at step 10, one or more preliminary matching formulas are retrieved at step 12 from a database which comprises formulas for coating compositions and interrelated color values, interrelated texture values, and interrelated digital images") when:
i) the defect indicator indicates that the sample surface does not have unacceptable defects in the measurement area (Bischoff page 8 lines 25-29 "pre-analysis allows detecting defects in an image of the target coating. The basic strategy of the proposed pre-analysis is to (1) find defects in the image by searching for typical structure properties of e. g. finger prints and scratches and to (2) decide to either reject the image or to ignore the detected corrupted/defective areas in the image for further image processing"), and
ii) the spectrophotometer has not been moved for a predetermined period of time (BYK-Gardner page 17 Section 7. Measurement techniques "In order to obtain accurate and repeatable measurements, the bottom of the instrument must be aligned flat on the surface to be measured. Do not move the instrument while measuring ").”
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Bischoff and BYK-Gardner references presented in the rejection of claim 9, applies to claim 18. Finally the method recited in claim 18 is met by Bischoff and BYK-Gardner.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bischoff and BYK-Garner in view of Chevassus et al. (US 2015/0339819 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Bischoff and BYK-Garner teaches “The method of claim 18, wherein detecting whether the spectrophotometer has been (Bischoff page 21 lines 17-19 "Traditional photospectrometers and image capturing devices consider as possible image-based measurement geometries light sources 111 to 115 and camera 120 represented in Figure 1").”
However, the combination of Bischoff and BYK-Garner does not teach detecting if a device has been “moved is based on a comparison of images”
Chevassus teaches “detecting whether the spectrophotometer has been moved is based on a comparison of images (Chevassus paragraph [0092] "Step 13-2 of estimation of the relative movement between the images captured at one instant and the images captured at a later instant is an image processing step. More particularly, a recognition of the semantic structures is effected in the two images. By comparing the positions of these structures in the image, it is possible to determine an estimation of the movement of the device")”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine a spectrophotometer for visual appearance analysis and defect detection as taught by Bischoff and BYK-Gardner to include an image comparison to determine whether a device has been moved.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “These embodiments have the advantage of having a position that is as precise as possible. The estimation of the relative movement between two captured images and the estimation of the movement of the inertial unit minimize an estimation error for the position” as noted by the Chevassus disclosure in paragraph 20.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Bischoff and BYK-Gardner with the Chevassus disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bischoff and BYK-Garner in view of Marvit et al. (US 2005/0212757 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Bischoff and BYK-Garner teaches “The method of claim 18, wherein detecting whether the spectrophotometer(BYK-Gardner page 20 section 8.2 rotating during measurement "The measurement direction is explained to the user. Each rotation is shown on the instrument display and the user is instructed to point the instrument in a fixed direction and rotate the device in that way").”
However, the combination of Bischoff and BYK-Garner does not teach detecting if a device “has been moved is based on signals from at least one motion sensor”
Marvit teaches “has been moved is based on signals from at least one motion sensor (Marvit paragraph [0044] "Accelerometers 24a, 24b, and 24c detect movement of the device by detecting acceleration along a respective sensing axis. A particular movement of the device may comprise a series, sequence or pattern of accelerations detected by the accelerometers. When the handheld device is tilted along a sensing axis of a particular accelerometer, the gravitational acceleration along the sensing axis changes. This change in gravitational acceleration is detected by the accelerometer and reflects the tilt of the device. Similarly, translation of the handheld device, or movement of the device without rotation or tilt also produces a change in acceleration along a sensing axis which is also detected by the accelerometers")”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine a spectrophotometer for visual appearance analysis and defect detection as taught by Bischoff and BYK-Gardner and accelerometer for determining device movement as taught by Marvit because such features is the result of applying known techniques to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, including a motion sensor, such as the accelerometer allows the spectrophotometer to accurately determine whether the user has moved the device in order to accurately inspect visual appearance of a sample area. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying the spectrophotometer to include all the features of an accelerometer would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the reference applied shows the ability to incorporate an accelerometer to a spectrophotometer device and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Bischoff and BYK-Gardner with the Marvit disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20 as there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 6-8, and 11-17 are allowable.
Regarding claims 1-2, 6-8, 11, and 16-17 are allowable in light of Applicant’s amendments and arguments presented on Pages 9-10.
The following is a statement of reasons for indications of allowable subject matter. The closest prior art of record are as follows:
Bischoff et al. (WO 2021/094496 A1) discloses detecting a defected area of a measurement area and capturing spectral information of the measurement area. When a defected area is determined the user is instructed to remeasure the coating.
BYK-Gardner ("Automatchic Vision User Manual & How To Use Video - 2016) discloses a spectrophotometer to measure an area. The user is instructed to rotate the spectrophotometer in order for the device to calculate an average value to minimize the impact defects have.
Boes et al. (US 10,909,723 B2) discloses a method and system for determining visual characteristics of a surface using a spectrophotometers. During analysis excluding pixels within a measurement area containing reflections and shadows and using the remaining pixels to determine the color.
However, none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, provide a motivation to teach the ordered combination of the limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 16. At best, the cited references would provide a device and method for analyzing a measurement area for defects and obtain visual attributes of the measurement area using only the pixels not containing any defects. The cited references would not provide a method “outputting instructions to an operator to move the spectrophotometer to a different location on the sample surface if the defect indicator indicates that the sample surface has unacceptable defects in the measurement area, wherein the instructions include an indication of a direction into which the spectrophotometer should be moved.”
Dependent claims 2, 6-8, 11, and 17 include the above-described allowable subject matter, and therefore are allowable.
Regarding claims 12-13, Applicant’s arguments presented on Pages 11-12 of the Reply are found to be persuasive. As Applicant states the prior art of record “does not teach or require that the second number of geometries be larger than the first”. Therefore, none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, provide a motivation to teach the ordered combination of claim 12 “ A method for investigating visual appearance of a sample surface using a spectrophotometer having an integrated camera, the method comprising: acquiring at least one image of a measurement area of the sample surface for at least one measurement geometry, using the integrated camera of the spectrophotometer; and determining a defect indicator that is indicative of defects of the sample surface in the measurement area, the step of determining a defect indicator comprising analyzing pixel values of the at least one image, using at least one processor The method of determining a defect indicator that is indicative of defects of the sample surface in the measurement area, the step of determining a defect indicator comprising analyzing pixel values of the at least one image, using at least one processor wherein the pre-measurement portion comprises analyzing pixel values of at least one image of the measurement area for a first number of measurement geometries to derive a pre- measurement defect indicator, wherein the pre-measurement portion is carried out in real time before a measurement of visual appearance of the sample surface in the measurement area has been completed ,wherein the pre-measurement defect indicator is used for controlling operation of the spectrophotometer; and wherein the post-measurement portion comprises analyzing pixel values of a plurality of images of the measurement area for a second number of measurement geometries to derive a post-measurement defect indicator, wherein the post-measurement portion is carried out subsequently to the pre- measurement portion, and wherein the second number of measurement geometries is larger than the first number of measurement geometries.”
Dependent claim 15 include the above-described allowable subject matter, and therefore is allowable.
Regarding claims 14-15, in light of Applicant’s amendments of claim 14, rewriting previously indicated allowable subject matter in independent form including all the limitation of the based claim and any intervening claims, claim 14 is allowable. Similarly claim 15, dependent on claim 14 is allowable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASPREET KAUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am - 5:30 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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571)272-3382. 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.
/JASPREET KAUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2662 /AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights