DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . It is responsive to the submission dated 12/02/2025. Claims 1-7, 9-10, 12, and 14-23 are presented for examination, of which, claims 1, 16 and 20 are independent claims.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-12, filed 12/02/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 102(a1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly found reference to Lanfer et al. (US 20240233210).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rodrigues et al. (US 20050128484) in view of Lanfer et al. (US 20240233210).
Considering claim 1, Rodrigues discloses a method of displaying a modified coating image (for example, Rodrigues discloses a computer-implemented method for matching paint on vehicles which utilizes a video monitor display to assist the user/finisher in selecting an optimum color matched color coating. See paras. 1 and 6, wherein the displayed result of the optimum color matched color coating corresponds to the displayed modified coating image. see also para. 51) , the method comprising the steps of:
entering a starting coating (e.g., target color paint or original target colorcoat) into a computer with an input device, wherein the computer comprises the input device, a memory, a processor, and an output device, and wherein a person enters the starting coating into the computer (for examples, Rodrigues discloses a target color to be matched can identified, inputted, and display to assist a user with selecting the best match. See abstract. Rodrigues further teaches the method uses a video monitor for display (e.g., output device), a computer equipped with a color database reference (e.g., memory and processor), and an apparatus or technique for inputting (intrinsic to the input device) target color characteristics for assisting a user. See para. 15. See also paras. 55 and 59);
providing a starting color additive formulation for the starting coating by the computer, wherein the starting color additive formulation comprises a starting color additive and a starting color additive quantity (e.g., a computer-implemented method for determining a color matched repair paint formula, wherein: color characteristics of a target color to be matched are identified and processed in such way as to enable a visual display of the target color. See paras. 7-8. the computer-implemented method is useful for simulating on a video monitor a variety of color alternates, including alternate repair of refinish paint color coatings (e.g., starting color additive quantity) available to best match a particular original target colorcoat (e.g., starting color additive). See para. 15);
entering a modified color additive formulation into the computer, wherein the modified color additive formulation is different than the starting color additive formulation (for examples, Rodrigues teaches: the computer-implemented method is useful for simulating on a video monitor a variety of color alternates, including alternate repair of refinish paint color coatings available to best match a particular original target colorcoat. See para. 15. Alternates that are candidate matches are selected by the user, color data converted to chrominance signals, and displayed as virtual color chips on the video monitor. Within step 24, the tristimulus X, Y, Z values of those candidate alternates selected are derived from L*, a*, and b* data, and then converted to chrominance signals R(.theta.), G(.theta.) and B(.theta.). The chrominance signals are used to display alternate paint formula color on a video monitor as a virtual color chip. The user chooses the best color match alternate. A paint formulation of this best match alternate may then be made available for preparing an optimum color matched color coating. See paras. 37-38. A desired alternate color is selected and a formulation determined thereof. See para. 10. See also para. 31 and 33-35);
generating the modified coating image by the computer, where the modified coating image is generated based on the modified color additive formulation; and displaying the modified coating image on the output device by the computer (for examples, Rodrigues teaches: after the formulation of the selected alternate color is determined, the target color may be superimposed over an image of a vehicle to be repaired, and alternate candidate may even be superimposed over the target color in the area of the vehicle to be repaired, in order to assist the user with selecting the best match. See paras. 10-11. Rodrigues further teaches: the user can use any basis for making a selection of the best match alternate.... flake appearance options may be displayed as visually displayed images, which the user may superimpose with "best match" color RGB data, in order to select the best flake appearance. The flake appearance option images are preferably black and white electronic images showing flake appearance characteristics. Also, the image may be sized according to the distance at which the color is viewed and superimposed with the color displayed in the video image. The electronic photograph may be taken at a plurality of a specular angles and the images interpolated to show the change in flake appearance as the panel is tilted. See paras. 40-41).
Although the Rodrigues reference discloses most claimed features of the invention, Rodrigues fails to explicitly disclose entering a modified color additive formulation into the computer with the input device, which is disclosed by Lanfer (see abstract).
Particularly, Lanfer discloses providing a method and system for designing the appearance of a coated object using a display device by modifying the displayed formulation of the coating material used to prepare the colored coating layer via an interaction element and using said modified formulation to generate and display the corresponding modified color of the coating layer. See para. 1. Specifically, Lanfer discloses that the method and system is computer-implemented (see para. 5) and the Interaction element refers to an element configured to receive a user input (see para. 9). See also paras. 13-18 and 22-44, 52-62 and 97-103.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Rodrigues to include entering a modified color additive formulation into the computer with the input device, in the same conventional manner as taught by Lanfer; in order to allow the designer to design the desired color himself, thus avoiding the involvement of several people during the color design process such that the time and costs associated with such a process can be reduced. See para. 5 of Lanfer.
As per claim 2, Rodrigues, as modified by Lanfer, discloses the modified coating image comprises a depiction of the modified coating in three dimensions (e.g., multi-view angles display of alternate virtual chips information). See paras. 28-30, 33, 43, 50-51 and 62-63. See the rationale above with respect to claim 1 for reason of obviousness.
As per claim 3, Rodrigues, as modified by Lanfer, discloses displaying a target component of a target motor vehicle (area or spot of the vehicle to be repaired) in 3 dimensions, where the target component is coated with a modified coating that corresponds to the modified color additive formulation. See paras. 40-43 and 50-53. See the rationale above with respect to claim 1 for reason of obviousness.
As per claims 5 and 6, Rodrigues, as modified by Lanfer, discloses selecting a modified coating based on the modified coating image displayed according to the method of claim 1; producing an updated coating composition corresponding to the modified coating, wherein the updated coating composition comprises the modified color additive formulation to give the updated coating composition an appearance corresponding to the modified coating image; and coating at least a portion of the motor vehicle with the modified coating. See paras. 7-11 and 31-38. See the rationale above with respect to claim 1 for reason of obviousness.
As per claim 7, Rodrigues, as modified by Lanfer, discloses choosing the starting coating prior to entering the starting coating into the computer (e.g. a particular original target colorcoat is identified and inputted in the computer). See paras. 15 and 59. See the rationale above with respect to claim 1 for reason of obviousness.
As per claim 9, Rodrigues, as modified by Lanfer, discloses providing a starting coating list (e.g., paint formulation database), wherein the computer provides the starting coating list; and choosing the starting coating from the starting coating list. See paras. 53 and 59-61. See the rationale above with respect to claim 1 for reason of obviousness.
As per claim 10, Rodrigues, as modified by Lanfer, discloses choosing a target motor vehicle by the person (see para. 6); providing an OEM coating color list by the computer, wherein the OEM coating color list is specific to the target motor vehicle; and choosing the starting coating from the OEM coating color list (see paras. 6, 15, 31 and 52-53 and 55). See the rationale above with respect to claim 1 for reason of obviousness.
As per claim 14, Rodrigues, as modified by Lanfer, discloses the modified color additive formulation comprises an updated color additive that is absent from the starting color additive formulation. See paras. 33-40 and 62-63. See the rationale above with respect to claim 1 for reason of obviousness.
As per claim 15, Rodrigues, as modified by Lanfer, discloses the modified color additive formulation comprises an updated color additive that is selected from the starting color additive formulation. See paras. 33-40. See the rationale above with respect to claim 1 for reason of obviousness.
The invention of claim 16 contains features that correspond in scope with the limitations recited claim 1. As the limitations of claim 1 were found obvious over the combined teachings of Rodrigues and Lanfer, it is readily apparent that the applied prior arts perform the underlying elements. As such, the limitations of claim 16 are, therefore, subject to rejections under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
As per claim 19, Rodrigues, as modified by Krause, discloses the input device is selected from the group consisting of a keyboard, a mouse, a touchscreen, a microphone, and a combination thereof. See para. 58 in view of para. 34. See the rationale above with respect to claim 1 for reason of obviousness.
The invention of claim 20 contains features that correspond in scope with the limitations recited claim 1. As the limitations of claim 1 were found obvious over the combined teachings of Rodrigues and Lanfer, it is readily apparent that the applied prior art performs the underlying elements. As such, the limitations of claim 20 are, therefore, subject to rejections under the same rationale as claim 1. In addition, Rodrigues discloses:
providing a starting coating list, wherein a computer provides the starting coating list, and wherein the computer comprises a processor, an input device, a memory, and an output device (See paras. 53 and 59-61);
choosing a starting coating from the starting coating list, wherein a person chooses the starting coating from the starting coating list (e.g. a particular original target colorcoat is identified and inputted in the computer. See paras. 15 and 59);
entering the starting coating into the computer with the input device by the person, and wherein the input device is selected from group consisting of a keyboard, a mouse, a touchscreen, a microphone, and a combination thereof (See para. 58 in view of para. 34); and
retrieving a starting coating image from the memory by the computer, wherein the starting coating image corresponds to the starting coating (see paras. 3-4, 9, 15, 31 and 61). See also paras. 5, 9-11 and 13-24 of Lanfer.
As per claims 21 and 22, Rodrigues fails to explicitly teach that the person enters the modified color additive formulation into the computer, which is disclosed by Lanfer (see paras. 5 and 9). See also paras. 13-18 and 22-44, 52-62 and 97-103 of Lanfer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Rodrigues to include a person entering the modified color additive formulation into the computer, in the same conventional manner as taught by Lanfer; in order to allow the designer to design the desired color himself, thus avoiding the involvement of several people during the color design process such that the time and costs associated with such a process can be reduced. See para. 5 of Lanfer.
As per claim 23, Rodrigues fails to particularly teach modifying the starting color additive formulation, by the person, to form the modified color additive formulation, by modifying the starting color additive quantity; removing the starting color additive; and/or
adding an additional color additive, which is disclosed by Lanfer.
Specifically, Lanfer discloses modifying the starting color additive formulation, by the person, to form the modified color additive formulation, by modifying the starting color additive quantity (see paras. 20 and 78-79 and 102-104); removing the starting color additive (see paras. 116 and 200); and/or adding an additional color additive (see paras. 80 and 115-116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Rodrigues to include modifying the starting color additive formulation, by the person, to form the modified color additive formulation, by modifying the starting color additive quantity; removing the starting color additive; and/or adding an additional color additive, in the same conventional manner as taught by Lanfer; in order to allow the user to select a colored coating layer having a color which is close to the desired color, thus reducing the need of significant changes to the colored coating material in order to obtain the desired color and therefore increasing the chances that the desired color can be obtained quickly from the selected color by making only minor modifications.. See para. 97 of Lanfer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rodrigues and Lanfer in view of Krause et al. (US 20140239234).
Regarding claim 12, Rodrigues, as modified by Krause, discloses most claimed features of the invention but together they fail to teach displaying the modified coating image comprises printing the modified coating image on a piece of paper, which is disclosed by Krause. See paras. 28 and 43 of Krause.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have modified the teachings of Rodrigues and Lanfer to include printing the modified coating image on a piece of paper, in the same conventional manner as taught by Krause; in order to provide the user with flexible way of comparing the modified paint coating side-by-side with the existing color to be matched on the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, after correcting the indefiniteness issues raised above, because the method of claim 1, further comprising: imaging a test coating with an imaging device to create a test coating image; measuring color data for the test coating; repeating the imaging of the test coating and the measuring color data of the test coating to produce a library of test coatings; and wherein generating the modified coating image comprises utilizing the library of test coatings.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Foderaro et al. (US 20250037270) discloses a computer system for mapping coatings to a spatial appearance space may receive coating spatial appearance variables of a target coating from a coating-measurement instrument. The computer system may generate spatial appearance space coordinates for the target coating by mapping each of the coating spatial appearance variables to an individual axis of a multidimensional coordinate system. The computer system may identify particular spatial appearance space coordinates from the identified spatial appearance space coordinates associated with the potentially matching reference coatings that are associated with a smallest spatial-appearance-space distance from the spatial appearance space coordinates of the target coating. Further, the computer system may display a visual interface element indicating a particular reference coating that is associated with the particular spatial appearance space coordinates as a proposed spatial appearance match to the target coating.
Steenhoek et al. (US 20210201535) discloses a system and method include receiving target image data associated with a target coating. A color model and a local color model are used to predict color differences between the target coating and a sample coating. The color model and local color model includes a feature extraction analysis process that determines image features by analyzing target pixel feature differences within the target coating. Performing an optimization routine upon the color differences for determining automotive paint components for spraying a substrate.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESNER SAJOUS whose telephone number is (571) 272-7791. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:00 TO 7:30 (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 or email the Examiner directly at wesner.sajous@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Said Broome can be reached on 571-272-2931. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WESNER SAJOUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
WS
02/26/2026