DETAILED ACTION
The action is responsive to the Application filed on 01/25/2024. Claims 21-40 are pending in the case. Claims 21, 24 and 34 are independent claims.
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 § 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 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beymore et al. (US 20170242570 A1, hereinafter Beymore).
As to claim 21, Beymore discloses a method for comparing a test coating against a standard coating, said method comprising:
selecting a standard coating to operate as a standard for comparison with a test coating to determine whether the test coating sufficiently matches the standard coating ("The computing device 160 can also display a number indicating an amount of potential matches of the target coating to predetermined coating information stored in a database," Beymore paragraph 0098);
determining coating attributes of the test coating, wherein the coating attributes of the test coating are based on received digital measurements of the test coating, wherein the test coating was previously applied to an asset, and wherein the digital measurement is received from a remotely-located coating system (“FIG. 1 further shows that the software application 100 is in communication with camera-enabled spectrophotometer 110 via data input module 120. To accomplish this communication, one will appreciate that the data input module 120 can be in communication with (or otherwise implement) one or more application program interfaces (“API(s)”) (not shown) that enable the software application 100 to receive input into and/or send output out of the coating texture calculating software application 100. This communication between data input module 120 and spectrophotometer 110 (and any intervening APIs) can be accomplished via any physical or wireless connection means and corresponding communication interface layers. In any case, camera-enabled spectrophotometer 110 provides the software application 100 with a set of target coating texture variables for a target coating,” Beymore paragraph 0030; "a graphical user interface 600 that enables an end user to match a target coating to another coating based on raw spectrophotometer data relevant to coating texture. The computer device 160 can display an icon 615 on a graphical user interface 600 that indicates a color of a target coating. The icon 615 can be selected by the computing device 160 in response to raw spectrophotometric data (e.g., coating texture variables) taken for a target coating applied to a target object (not shown)," Beymore paragraph 0097; “Returning to FIG. 1, in at least one embodiment, data input module 120 can be configured to receive from camera-enabled spectrophotometer 110 (or, herein, “spectrophotometer 110”) certain “target coating texture variables” and coating color variables from an image taken from a target coating (not shown). As understood herein, a “target coating” generally means a coating, such as a paint, gloss, stain, or other applied treatment after application to a target object (not shown), such as a device, automobile, wall, etc. However, a target coating is not so limited, and in some implementations may include primarily unapplied solutions,” Beymore paragraph 0026; “The invention may also be practiced in distributed system environments where local and remote computer systems, which are linked (either by hardwired data links, wireless data links, or by a combination of hardwired and wireless data links) through a network, both perform tasks,” Beymore paragraph 0116, receiving digital measurements of a test coating applied to an asset from a separate spectrophotometer that can be remote);
determining coating attributes of the standard coating (“As understood more fully herein, coating information databases 140 can include a wide variety of information relevant to various coating characteristics, and human-perceptions of the coating characteristics, and can include data related to one or more “relative texture characteristic databases.” FIG. 1 further shows that the one or more coating information databases 140 may be integrated within system 105, such as a data structure within coating texture calculation software application 100,” Beymore paragraph 0024; “The computing device 160 can also display a number indicating an amount of potential matches of the target coating to predetermined coating information stored in a database,” Beymore paragraph 0098; “A used herein, “ratings” comprise various visual depictions, numerical and graphical, used to display coating information about a particular coating, including relative texture characteristics, color measurements, absolute measurements of coating characteristics, and other similar coating information,” Beymore paragraph 0065, database of coating characteristics and information of standard coatings);
within a user interface, displaying (1) a rendering representative of the test coating and (ii) a rendering representative of the standard coating ("The computer device 160 can display an icon 615 on a graphical user interface 600 that indicates a color of a target coating. The icon 615 can be selected by the computing device 160 in response to raw spectrophotometric data (e.g., coating texture variables) taken for a target coating applied to a target object (not shown)," Beymore paragraph 0097; "For each potential match, the computing device 160 displays on the graphical user interface 600 an icon (shown in column 630) that visually represents the potential match," Beymore paragraph 0098);
performing a comparison between the coating attributes of the test coating and the coating attributes of the standard coating ("As shown in FIG. 1, the texture calculation module 130 can then access, from within the coating information database 140, the coating texture variables that are associated with each of the one or more proposed coating matches. Using the coating texture variables associated with the proposed coating matches and the coating texture variables associated with the target coating, the texture calculation module 130 can calculate a correlation between the target coating and each of the proposed coating matches. Based upon the calculated correlation, the texture calculation module 130 can calculate a set of relative texture characteristics for the proposed coating matches that indicate relative differences in texture between the proposed coating matches and the target coating. Each of the relative texture characteristics can comprise an assessment over all angles of the target coating," Beymore paragraph 0035; "In at least one implementation, the computing system 160 can display a visual depiction of a slider bar (as shown in column 660). The location of the slider in the slider bar indicates a relative texture difference between the target coating and the potential match. For example, when the slider is in the middle of the slider bar, the target coating and the potential match have little or no relative texture difference. In contrast, if the slider is to the side of the middle, the potential match has either more or less texture than the target coating, depending upon the position of the slider," Beymore paragraph 0099);
determining whether one or more differences between the coating attributes of the test coating and the coating attributes of the standard coating are within a defined difference threshold ("Similarly, in at least one implementation, when generating a user interface 600 the system can receive from a user one or more rating thresholds. The one or more rating thresholds may comprise user-defined acceptable thresholds relating to effect texture ratings, sparkle color ratings, coating color ratings, color travel ratings, or any other rating of interest. The overall rankings, or ordering, of the proposed coating matches may then be sorted based upon the user-defined acceptable thresholds received from the user," Beymore paragraph 0095; "For example, a user may be particularly interested in matching the effect texture of a target paint. To ensure a close match, the user can set a user-defined acceptable threshold for effect texture ratings of +/−3. In at least one implementation, the system will exclude all proposed coating matches that fail to meet the user-defined acceptable thresholds," Beymore paragraph 0096); and
based on said comparison and based on the defined difference threshold, displaying a match status between the test coating and the standard coating ("In at least one implementation, the computing system 160 can display a visual depiction of a slider bar (as shown in column 660). The location of the slider in the slider bar indicates a relative texture difference between the target coating and the potential match. For example, when the slider is in the middle of the slider bar, the target coating and the potential match have little or no relative texture difference. In contrast, if the slider is to the side of the middle, the potential match has either more or less texture than the target coating, depending upon the position of the slider," Beymore paragraph 0099).
As to claim 22, Beymore further discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising generating a notification indicating a set of calibration parameters that, if implemented, modify conditions at the remotely-located coating system to cause a subsequent application of the test coating to more closely align with the standard coating ("For example, in FIG. 6, the color coating ratings are depicted as a textual description of the match. In particular, the texture descriptions comprise descriptions such as ‘OK,’ ‘Face: Lighter,’ ‘Face: Bluer,’ ‘Flop: Yellower,’ and ‘Flow: Redder, Yellower.’ As such, a user may be provided with an indication that the color travel is a match (i.e., ‘OK’) or a description of the differences in the color travel," Beymore paragraph 0089).
As to claim 23, Beymore further discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the test coating is a sample of the standard coating such that both the test coating and the standard coating originate from a same source ("In short, an image of a coating can be obtained from a camera, a camera-enabled spectrophotometer, or any other source," Beymore paragraph 0066; "Although one will readily appreciate that different camera-enabled spectrophotometers (e.g., brands thereof) will relay different raw data and different variables as an output for any particular coating texture, the raw data between different camera-enabled spectrophotometers can still be processed in accordance with the present invention to provide a unique ‘signature’ (or set of ‘target coating texture variables’) from one coating to the next. This will generally be the case when a given camera-enabled spectrophotometer comprises an internally consistent scheme for measuring texture variables from a target coating. Hence, one will appreciate as understood more fully herein that the exact value of the data taken from any given spectrophotometer is not ordinarily as relevant as the variances in the data that are consistent among coatings with particular types of texture elements," Beymore paragraph 0028; "match a target coating to another coating based on raw spectrophotometer data relevant to coating texture," Beymore paragraph 0097, all test coating and standard coating variables originate from a spectrophotometer (i.e., from the same source)).
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 24, 28, 29-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beymore et al. (US 20170242570 A1, hereinafter Beymore) in view of Steenhoek et al. (US 20200387742 A1, hereinafter Steenhoek).
As to claim 24, Beymore discloses a computer system configured to compare multiple different test coatings against a standard coating, where the multiple different test coatings are applied at multiple different coating systems, said computer system comprising:
one or more processors (“Computer-executable instructions comprise, for example, instructions and data which, when executed at one or more processors, cause a general-purpose computer system, special-purpose computer system, or special-purpose processing device to perform a certain function or group of functions,” Beymore paragraph 0115); and
one or more computer-readable hardware storage devices that store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computer system (“One will appreciate that the software application program(s) 100, in turn, can comprise any number of computer-executable modules configured to execute the steps and functions described herein,” Beymore paragraph 0024; “Embodiments within the scope of the present invention also include physical and other computer-readable media for carrying or storing computer-executable instructions and/or data structures,” Beymore paragraph 0111) to at least:
receive a first digital measurement of a first coating that was previously applied to a first asset at a first coating system (“FIG. 1 further shows that the software application 100 is in communication with camera-enabled spectrophotometer 110 via data input module 120. To accomplish this communication, one will appreciate that the data input module 120 can be in communication with (or otherwise implement) one or more application program interfaces (“API(s)”) (not shown) that enable the software application 100 to receive input into and/or send output out of the coating texture calculating software application 100. This communication between data input module 120 and spectrophotometer 110 (and any intervening APIs) can be accomplished via any physical or wireless connection means and corresponding communication interface layers. In any case, camera-enabled spectrophotometer 110 provides the software application 100 with a set of target coating texture variables for a target coating,” Beymore paragraph 0030; "a graphical user interface 600 that enables an end user to match a target coating to another coating based on raw spectrophotometer data relevant to coating texture. The computer device 160 can display an icon 615 on a graphical user interface 600 that indicates a color of a target coating. The icon 615 can be selected by the computing device 160 in response to raw spectrophotometric data (e.g., coating texture variables) taken for a target coating applied to a target object (not shown)," Beymore paragraph 0097; “Returning to FIG. 1, in at least one embodiment, data input module 120 can be configured to receive from camera-enabled spectrophotometer 110 (or, herein, “spectrophotometer 110”) certain “target coating texture variables” and coating color variables from an image taken from a target coating (not shown). As understood herein, a “target coating” generally means a coating, such as a paint, gloss, stain, or other applied treatment after application to a target object (not shown), such as a device, automobile, wall, etc. However, a target coating is not so limited, and in some implementations may include primarily unapplied solutions,” Beymore paragraph 0026, receiving digital measurements of a test coating applied to an asset from a spectrophotometer);
within a user interface, display:
a first rendering representative of the first coating and the first digital measurement of the first coating ("The computer device 160 can display an icon 615 on a graphical user interface 600 that indicates a color of a target coating. The icon 615 can be selected by the computing device 160 in response to raw spectrophotometric data (e.g., coating texture variables) taken for a target coating applied to a target object (not shown)," Beymore paragraph 0097);
a third rendering representative of the standard coating ("For each potential match, the computing device 160 displays on the graphical user interface 600 an icon (shown in column 630) that visually represents the potential match," Beymore paragraph 0098);
display a first match status between the first coating and the standard coating, wherein the match status is based on a comparison between coating attributes of the first coating and coating attributes of the standard coating ("As shown in FIG. 1, the texture calculation module 130 can then access, from within the coating information database 140, the coating texture variables that are associated with each of the one or more proposed coating matches. Using the coating texture variables associated with the proposed coating matches and the coating texture variables associated with the target coating, the texture calculation module 130 can calculate a correlation between the target coating and each of the proposed coating matches. Based upon the calculated correlation, the texture calculation module 130 can calculate a set of relative texture characteristics for the proposed coating matches that indicate relative differences in texture between the proposed coating matches and the target coating. Each of the relative texture characteristics can comprise an assessment over all angles of the target coating," Beymore paragraph 0035; "In at least one implementation, the computing system 160 can display a visual depiction of a slider bar (as shown in column 660). The location of the slider in the slider bar indicates a relative texture difference between the target coating and the potential match. For example, when the slider is in the middle of the slider bar, the target coating and the potential match have little or no relative texture difference. In contrast, if the slider is to the side of the middle, the potential match has either more or less texture than the target coating, depending upon the position of the slider," Beymore paragraph 0099).
However Beymore does not appear to explicitly disclose:
receiving a second digital measurement of a second coating that was previously applied to a second asset at a second coating system, which is different from the first coating system;
within a user interface, display:
a second rendering representative of the second coating and the second digital measurement of the second coating;
display a second match status between the second coating and the standard coating, wherein the second match status is based on a comparison between coating attributes of the second coating and the coating attributes of the standard coating.
Steenhoek teaches:
receiving a second digital measurement of a second coating that was previously applied to a second asset at a second coating system, which is different from the first coating system ("The one or more data processors 24 may be configured to execute the instructions to receive, by the one or more data processors 24, sample image data 38 of the sample images 32. The sample image data 38 may be generated by the electronic imaging device 16. The sample image data 38 may define RGB values, L*a*b* values, or a combination thereof, representative of the sample images 32. In certain embodiments, the sample image data 38 defines the RGB values representative of the sample images 32, such as shown in FIG. 4B for the first sample image 34 and FIG. 5B for the second sample image 36. The one or more data processors 24 may be further configured to execute the instructions to transform the RGB values of the sample image data 38 to L*a*b* values representative of the sample images 32. The system 10 may be configured to normalize the sample image data 38 of the plurality of sample images 32 for various electronic imaging devices 16 thereby improving performance of the system 10," Steenhoek paragraph 0077; “Once the sample coating formula 70 is produced, a sample coating 60 is produced with the sample coating formula 70. This is typically done by applying the material from the sample coating formula 70 onto a substrate 14, such as by spray painting, applying with a brush, dip coating, digital printing, or any other coating technique. In an embodiment, the sample coating 60 is formed by spray painting, where the spray painting utilizes recommended spray painting conditions for the grade of coating in the sample coating formula 70,” Steenhoek paragraph 0105);
within a user interface, display:
a second rendering representative of the second coating and the second digital measurement of the second coating (“With reference to FIGS. 6 and 7, in embodiments, the electronic imaging device 16 further includes a display 52 configured to display the calculated match sample image 44. In certain embodiments, the display 52 is further configured to display a target image 58 of the target coating 12 adjacent the calculated match sample image 44. In an embodiment, the display 52 is further configured to display the one or more alternate match sample images 48 related to the calculated match sample image 44,” Steenhoek paragraph 0086);
a second match status between the second coating and the standard coating, wherein the second match status is based on a comparison between coating attributes of the second coating and the coating attributes of the standard coating (“The one or more data processors 24 are configured to execute the instructions to retrieve, by one or more data processors, a machine-learning model 42 that identifies a calculated match sample image 44 from the plurality of sample images 32 utilizing the target image features 26,” Steenhoek paragraph 0081).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Beymore to capture and test multiple samples as taught by Steenhoek. One would have been motivated to make such a combination so that the user could more easily and more quickly determine which paint and coating technique would result in match, thus reducing steps for the user.
As to claim 28, Beymore as modified by Steenhoek further discloses the computer system of claim 24, wherein the first coating is a sample of the standard coating such that the first coating and the standard coating originate from a same source, and wherein the second coating is another sample of the standard coating such that the first coating, the second coating, and the standard coating all originate from the same source ("In short, an image of a coating can be obtained from a camera, a camera-enabled spectrophotometer, or any other source," Beymore paragraph 0066; "Although one will readily appreciate that different camera-enabled spectrophotometers (e.g., brands thereof) will relay different raw data and different variables as an output for any particular coating texture, the raw data between different camera-enabled spectrophotometers can still be processed in accordance with the present invention to provide a unique “signature” (or set of “target coating texture variables”) from one coating to the next. This will generally be the case when a given camera-enabled spectrophotometer comprises an internally consistent scheme for measuring texture variables from a target coating. Hence, one will appreciate as understood more fully herein that the exact value of the data taken from any given spectrophotometer is not ordinarily as relevant as the variances in the data that are consistent among coatings with particular types of texture elements," Beymore paragraph 0028; "match a target coating to another coating based on raw spectrophotometer data relevant to coating texture," Beymore paragraph 0097, all test coating and standard coating variables originate from a spectrophotometer (i.e., from the same source)).
As to claim 29, Beymore as modified by Steenhoek further discloses the computer system of claim 24, wherein the first match status includes a mathematical representation of a mathematical difference between the coating attributes of the first coating and the coating attributes of the standard coating (“The graphical slider may comprise various colors and/or increments that visually depict the similarity (or dissimilarity) between the effect texture of the target coating the effect textures of the various respective proposed coating matches. In at least one implementation, the graphical slider values may be derived using the human-perceived relative texture characteristics described above. For example, the relative values associated with the graphical slider may be derived using a correlation similar to that depicted and described within respect to FIGS. 3 and 5. Additionally, in at least one implementation, the resulting values from the human-derived correlation function can be normalized to fit a particular scale (e.g., −2 to +2),” Beymore paragraph 0087, numerical and mathematical scale to show the match status).
As to claim 30, Beymore as modified by Steenhoek further discloses the computer system of claim 24, wherein the second match status includes a difference in CIELab color space values between the first coating and the standard coating ("In contrast, in at least one implementation, the ratings 720, 730, 740, 750, 760 can be calculated with respect to a specific color space, defined either automatically or by a user," Beymore paragraph 0104; “As described above, the target image data 18 is generated by the electronic imaging device 16. The target image data 18 may define RGB values, L*a*b* values, or a combination thereof, representative of the target coating 12,” Steenhoek paragraph 0068, can compare based on color space values where in the combination one color space can be L*a*b* (i.e., CIELab color space)).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Beymore to use the CIELab color space as taught by Steenhoek. One would have been motivated to make such a combination so that the finished product could support more kinds of color spaces, thus resulting in greater utility for the finished product.
As to claim 31, Beymore as modified by Steenhoek further discloses the computer system of claim 24, wherein the user interface further displays a calibration parameter that is applicable to modify one or more conditions at the first coating system to more closely align subsequent applications of the first coating at the first coating system with the standard coating ("For example, in FIG. 6, the color coating ratings are depicted as a textual description of the match. In particular, the texture descriptions comprise descriptions such as ‘OK,’ ‘Face: Lighter,’ ‘Face: Bluer,’ ‘Flop: Yellower,’ and ‘Flow: Redder, Yellower.’ As such, a user may be provided with an indication that the color travel is a match (i.e., ‘OK’) or a description of the differences in the color travel," Beymore paragraph 0089).
As to claim 32, Beymore as modified by Steenhoek further discloses the computer system of claim 24, wherein execution of the instructions further causes the computer system to:
determine whether one or more differences between the coating attributes of the first coating and the coating attributes of the standard coating are within a defined difference threshold ("When describing the color travel of various proposed match coating, a description 'OK' can be used to describe colors that fall within a desired threshold of the target coating. Color travel ratings associated with proposed match coatings that fall outside the threshold can then be described with a color difference, as determined by the human-perceived correlations," Beymore paragraph 0090); and
upon determining that the one or more differences are within the defined difference threshold, cause the first match status to indicate that the first coating sufficiently matches the standard coating ("When describing the color travel of various proposed match coating, a description 'OK' can be used to describe colors that fall within a desired threshold of the target coating. Color travel ratings associated with proposed match coatings that fall outside the threshold can then be described with a color difference, as determined by the human-perceived correlations," Beymore paragraph 0090).
As to claim 33, Beymore as modified by Steenhoek further discloses the computer system of claim 24, wherein the first rendering, the second rendering, and the third rendering are displayed proximately with one another ("With reference to FIGS. 6 and 7, in embodiments, the electronic imaging device 16 further includes a display 52 configured to display the calculated match sample image 44. In certain embodiments, the display 52 is further configured to display a target image 58 of the target coating 12 adjacent the calculated match sample image 44. In an embodiment, the display 52 is further configured to display the one or more alternate match sample images 48 related to the calculated match sample image 44," Steenhoek paragraph 0086).
As to claim 34, Beymore discloses a method for visually displaying multiple different test coatings on a user interface to facilitate comparison against a standard coating, where the multiple different test coatings are received from multiple different coating systems, said method comprising:
receiving a first digital measurement of a first coating that was previously applied to a first asset at a first coating system (“FIG. 1 further shows that the software application 100 is in communication with camera-enabled spectrophotometer 110 via data input module 120. To accomplish this communication, one will appreciate that the data input module 120 can be in communication with (or otherwise implement) one or more application program interfaces (“API(s)”) (not shown) that enable the software application 100 to receive input into and/or send output out of the coating texture calculating software application 100. This communication between data input module 120 and spectrophotometer 110 (and any intervening APIs) can be accomplished via any physical or wireless connection means and corresponding communication interface layers. In any case, camera-enabled spectrophotometer 110 provides the software application 100 with a set of target coating texture variables for a target coating,” Beymore paragraph 0030; "a graphical user interface 600 that enables an end user to match a target coating to another coating based on raw spectrophotometer data relevant to coating texture. The computer device 160 can display an icon 615 on a graphical user interface 600 that indicates a color of a target coating. The icon 615 can be selected by the computing device 160 in response to raw spectrophotometric data (e.g., coating texture variables) taken for a target coating applied to a target object (not shown)," Beymore paragraph 0097; “Returning to FIG. 1, in at least one embodiment, data input module 120 can be configured to receive from camera-enabled spectrophotometer 110 (or, herein, “spectrophotometer 110”) certain “target coating texture variables” and coating color variables from an image taken from a target coating (not shown). As understood herein, a “target coating” generally means a coating, such as a paint, gloss, stain, or other applied treatment after application to a target object (not shown), such as a device, automobile, wall, etc. However, a target coating is not so limited, and in some implementations may include primarily unapplied solutions,” Beymore paragraph 0026, receiving digital measurements of a test coating applied to an asset from a spectrophotometer);
within a user interface, displaying:
a first rendering representative of the first coating and the first digital measurement of the first coating ("The computer device 160 can display an icon 615 on a graphical user interface 600 that indicates a color of a target coating. The icon 615 can be selected by the computing device 160 in response to raw spectrophotometric data (e.g., coating texture variables) taken for a target coating applied to a target object (not shown)," Beymore paragraph 0097);
a third rendering representative of the standard coating ("For each potential match, the computing device 160 displays on the graphical user interface 600 an icon (shown in column 630) that visually represents the potential match," Beymore paragraph 0098);
displaying a first match status between the first coating and the standard coating, wherein the match status is based on a comparison between coating attributes of the first coating and coating attributes of the standard coating ("As shown in FIG. 1, the texture calculation module 130 can then access, from within the coating information database 140, the coating texture variables that are associated with each of the one or more proposed coating matches. Using the coating texture variables associated with the proposed coating matches and the coating texture variables associated with the target coating, the texture calculation module 130 can calculate a correlation between the target coating and each of the proposed coating matches. Based upon the calculated correlation, the texture calculation module 130 can calculate a set of relative texture characteristics for the proposed coating matches that indicate relative differences in texture between the proposed coating matches and the target coating. Each of the relative texture characteristics can comprise an assessment over all angles of the target coating," Beymore paragraph 0035; "In at least one implementation, the computing system 160 can display a visual depiction of a slider bar (as shown in column 660). The location of the slider in the slider bar indicates a relative texture difference between the target coating and the potential match. For example, when the slider is in the middle of the slider bar, the target coating and the potential match have little or no relative texture difference. In contrast, if the slider is to the side of the middle, the potential match has either more or less texture than the target coating, depending upon the position of the slider," Beymore paragraph 0099).
However Beymore does not appear to explicitly disclose:
receiving a second digital measurement of a second coating that was previously applied to a second asset at a second coating system;
within a user interface, display:
a second rendering representative of the second coating and the second digital measurement of the second coating;
display a second match status between the second coating and the standard coating, wherein the second match status is based on a comparison between coating attributes of the second coating and the coating attributes of the standard coating.
Steenhoek teaches:
receiving a second digital measurement of a second coating that was previously applied to a second asset at a second coating system ("The one or more data processors 24 may be configured to execute the instructions to receive, by the one or more data processors 24, sample image data 38 of the sample images 32. The sample image data 38 may be generated by the electronic imaging device 16. The sample image data 38 may define RGB values, L*a*b* values, or a combination thereof, representative of the sample images 32. In certain embodiments, the sample image data 38 defines the RGB values representative of the sample images 32, such as shown in FIG. 4B for the first sample image 34 and FIG. 5B for the second sample image 36. The one or more data processors 24 may be further configured to execute the instructions to transform the RGB values of the sample image data 38 to L*a*b* values representative of the sample images 32. The system 10 may be configured to normalize the sample image data 38 of the plurality of sample images 32 for various electronic imaging devices 16 thereby improving performance of the system 10," Steenhoek paragraph 0077; “Once the sample coating formula 70 is produced, a sample coating 60 is produced with the sample coating formula 70. This is typically done by applying the material from the sample coating formula 70 onto a substrate 14, such as by spray painting, applying with a brush, dip coating, digital printing, or any other coating technique. In an embodiment, the sample coating 60 is formed by spray painting, where the spray painting utilizes recommended spray painting conditions for the grade of coating in the sample coating formula 70,” Steenhoek paragraph 0105);
within a user interface, display:
a second rendering representative of the second coating and the second digital measurement of the second coating (“With reference to FIGS. 6 and 7, in embodiments, the electronic imaging device 16 further includes a display 52 configured to display the calculated match sample image 44. In certain embodiments, the display 52 is further configured to display a target image 58 of the target coating 12 adjacent the calculated match sample image 44. In an embodiment, the display 52 is further configured to display the one or more alternate match sample images 48 related to the calculated match sample image 44,” Steenhoek paragraph 0086);
a second match status between the second coating and the standard coating, wherein the second match status is based on a comparison between coating attributes of the second coating and the coating attributes of the standard coating (“The one or more data processors 24 are configured to execute the instructions to retrieve, by one or more data processors, a machine-learning model 42 that identifies a calculated match sample image 44 from the plurality of sample images 32 utilizing the target image features 26,” Steenhoek paragraph 0081).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Beymore to capture and test multiple samples as taught by Steenhoek. One would have been motivated to make such a combination so that the user could more easily and more quickly determine which paint and coating technique would result in match, thus reducing steps for the user.
As to claim 35, Beymore as modified by Steenhoek further discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the coating attributes of the standard coating are retained in a database of coatings ("The computing device 160 can also display a number indicating an amount of potential matches of the target coating to predetermined coating information stored in a database," Beymore paragraph 0098).
As to claim 36, Beymore as modified by Steenhoek further discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the method further includes:
determining whether one or more differences between the coating attributes of the first coating and the coating attributes of the standard coating are within a defined difference threshold ("When describing the color travel of various proposed match coating, a description ‘OK’ can be used to describe colors that fall within a desired threshold of the target coating. Color travel ratings associated with proposed match coatings that fall outside the threshold can then be described with a color difference, as determined by the human-perceived correlations," Beymore paragraph 0090).
Claims 25-27, 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beymore et al. (US 20170242570 A1, hereinafter Beymore) in view of Steenhoek et al. (US 20200387742 A1, hereinafter Steenhoek) in further view of McClanahan (US 20070035554 A1).
As to claim 25, Beymore as modified by Steenhoek discloses the computer system of claim 24, however neither Beymore nor Steenhoek appear to explicitly disclose a limitation wherein the first rendering includes a first three-dimensional rendering in which the first coating is applied to a first curved surface.
McClanahan teaches a limitation wherein the first rendering includes a first three-dimensional rendering in which the first coating is applied to a first curved surface ("As shown in FIG. 3, the reference color image is displayed on the input screen of the monitor. The reference color image corresponds to the reference color values. Preferably, the reference color image is displayed in the shape of a sphere, a representation of a vehicle, or any other three-dimensional shape which allows the user to visually examine the reference color at various angles," McClanahan paragraph 0036).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Beymore to display the renderings as 3D dimensional curved surface renderings as taught by McClanahan. One would have been motivated to make such a combination so that the user could visually examine the color at various angles thus aiding the user in confirming that the color is correct (McClanahan paragraph 0036).
As to claim 26, Beymore as modified by Steenhoek and McClanahan further discloses the computer system of claim 25, wherein the second rendering includes a second three-dimensional rendering in which the second coating is applied to a second curved surface ("As shown in FIG. 3, the reference color image is displayed on the input screen of the monitor. The reference color image corresponds to the reference color values. Preferably, the reference color image is displayed in the shape of a sphere, a representation of a vehicle, or any other three-dimensional shape which allows the user to visually examine the reference color at various angles," McClanahan paragraph 0036).
As to claim 27, Beymore as modified by Steenhoek and McClanahan further discloses the computer system of claim 26, wherein the third rendering includes a third three-dimensional rendering in which the standard coating is applied to a third curved surface ("As shown in FIG. 3, the reference color image is displayed on the input screen of the monitor. The reference color image corresponds to the reference color values. Preferably, the reference color image is displayed in the shape of a sphere, a representation of a vehicle, or any other three-dimensional shape which allows the user to visually examine the reference color at various angles," McClanahan paragraph 0036).
As to claim 25, Beymore as modified by Steenhoek discloses the method of claim 34, however neither Beymore nor Steenhoek appear to explicitly disclose a limitation wherein the first rendering includes a three- dimensional (3D) rendition of a vehicle that is coated with the first coating.
McClanahan teaches a limitation wherein the first rendering includes a three- dimensional (3D) rendition of a vehicle that is coated with the first coating ("As shown in FIG. 3, the reference color image is displayed on the input screen of the monitor. The reference color image corresponds to the reference color values. Preferably, the reference color image is displayed in the shape of a sphere, a representation of a vehicle, or any other three-dimensional shape which allows the user to visually examine the reference color at various angles," McClanahan paragraph 0036).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Beymore to display the rendering as a 3D dimensional rendition of a vehicle as taught by McClanahan. One would have been motivated to make such a combination so that the user could visually examine the color at various angles thus aiding the user in confirming that the color is correct (McClanahan paragraph 0036).
As to claim 27, Beymore as modified by Steenhoek and McClanahan further discloses the method of claim 39, wherein the first coating, the second coating, and the standard coating originate from a same coating source ("In short, an image of a coating can be obtained from a camera, a camera-enabled spectrophotometer, or any other source," Beymore paragraph 0066; "Although one will readily appreciate that different camera-enabled spectrophotometers (e.g., brands thereof) will relay different raw data and different variables as an output for any particular coating texture, the raw data between different camera-enabled spectrophotometers can still be processed in accordance with the present invention to provide a unique “signature” (or set of “target coating texture variables”) from one coating to the next. This will generally be the case when a given camera-enabled spectrophotometer comprises an internally consistent scheme for measuring texture variables from a target coating. Hence, one will appreciate as understood more fully herein that the exact value of the data taken from any given spectrophotometer is not ordinarily as relevant as the variances in the data that are consistent among coatings with particular types of texture elements," Beymore paragraph 0028; "match a target coating to another coating based on raw spectrophotometer data relevant to coating texture," Beymore paragraph 0097, all test coating and standard coating variables originate from a spectrophotometer (i.e., from the same source)).
Claims 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beymore et al. (US 20170242570 A1, hereinafter Beymore) in view of Steenhoek et al. (US 20200387742 A1, hereinafter Steenhoek) in further view of Ueno (US 9964445 B1).
As to claim 37, Beymore as modified by Steenhoek discloses the method of claim 34, however neither Beymore nor Steenhoek appear to explicitly disclose a limitation wherein receiving the first digital measurement further includes receiving environmental condition data for an environment in which the first coating system is located or where the first coating was applied.
Ueno teaches a limitation wherein receiving the first digital measurement further includes receiving environmental condition data for an environment in which the first coating system is located or where the first coating was applied ("In a case where the color of the painting plate 20 is measured, painting plate data reflecting differences depending on the repair site such as the automobile repair shop or the operator in a painting method, a painting environment, and the like is obtained, and by calculation of the color-matching amount on the basis of the error/error rate between the colorimetric data of the painting plate 20 and the colorimetric data of the painting object portion 10, it is possible to obtain the color-matching amount compatible with the painting method, the painting environment, and the like at each repair site such as the automobile repair shop or for each operator," Ueno column 15 lines 39-50).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Beymore to capture painting environment data as taught by Ueno. One would have been motivated to make such a combination so that color matching could be made more accurate (Ueno column 15 45-50).
As to claim 38, Beymore as modified by Steenhoek and Ueno discloses the method of claim 37, wherein receiving the second digital measurement further includes receiving environment condition data for an environment in which the second coating system is located or where the second coating was applied ("In a case where the color of the painting plate 20 is measured, painting plate data reflecting differences depending on the repair site such as the automobile repair shop or the operator in a painting method, a painting environment, and the like is obtained, and by calculation of the color-matching amount on the basis of the error/error rate between the colorimetric data of the painting plate 20 and the colorimetric data of the painting object portion 10, it is possible to obtain the color-matching amount compatible with the painting method, the painting environment, and the like at each repair site such as the automobile repair shop or for each operator," Ueno column 15 lines 39-50).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20090021524 A1 to Lenart-Weary et al. discloses a color selection system and method where multiple color samples are obtained from the user and the color samples are compared to a target color from a database to determine match statuses;
US 20150228086 A1 to Maurer et al. discloses a system and method for automatically identifying and matching a color of a structure’s external surface where multiple color samples are used to match to a target color;
US 20190035359 A1 to Barnes et al. discloses a displaying colors on an electronic display where a user-supplied color sample is matched to candidate reference colors and displaying the color sample alongside the reference colors; and
US 6502049 B1 to Takada et al. discloses a user's color matching system, thinned pigment dispersion set for color matching, paint color matching method, color matching data base for user and method of using the same where environment data such as temperature and humidity at the time of painting is used to correct for errors when color matching.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL SAMWEL whose telephone number is (313) 446-6549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:00-6:00 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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/DANIEL SAMWEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights