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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Prakash et al1 (“Prakash”).
Regarding claim 1, Prakash teaches a computer-implemented method for displaying the appearance of at least one effect coating on a screen of a display device (note that the limitations as addressed in the rejections below constitute such a computer-implemented method such that these limitations of the preamble are fully addressed through the rejections of the limitations below), said method comprising:
(i) providing, to a computer processor via a communication interface (see Prakash, paragraphs 0050-0052 teaching “computing device used herein can refer to a data processing chip, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a pocket PC, a personal digital assistant (PDA), an handheld electronic processing device, a smart phone that combines the functionality of a PDA and a mobile phone, or any other electronic devices that can process information automatically. A computing device can be built into other electronic devices, such as a built-in data processing chip integrated into an imaging device, color measuring device, or an appearance measuring device such as a sparkle measuring device. A computing device can have one or more wired or wireless connections to a database, to another computing device, or a combination thereof. A computing device can be a client computer that communicates with a host computer in a multi-computer client-host system connected via a wired or wireless network including intranet and internet. A computing device can also be configured to be coupled with a data input or output device via wired or wireless connections. For example, a laptop computer can be operatively configured to receive color data and images through a wireless connection. A “portable computing device” includes a laptop computer, a pocket PC, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a handheld electronic processing device, a mobile phone, a smart phone that combines the functionality of a PDA and a mobile phone, a tablet computer, or any other electronic devices that can process information and data and can be carried by a person” and such devices that process such information are computer processors that are provided information via a communication interface where for example as in paragraph 0047 the relevant information may be retrieved from a database comprising “color data” where “color data comprising color values can be stored and retrieved from one or more databases. In another example, appearance characteristics, sparkle values and related measurements, coating formulations, vehicle data, or a combination thereof, can be stored and retrieved from one or more databases”) at least one digital representation of an effect coating, each digital representation including CIEL*a*b* values of the effect coating obtained at a plurality of measurement geometries (see Prakash, paragraph 0025 teaching “D1) receiving target coating identification data of said target coating when available, target color values and target sparkle values of said target coating and specimen color data values and specimen sparkle values of said specimen coating” where as in paragraphs 0092-0093 teaching “target color data can be selected from: measured target color values obtained by measuring a target coating produced from a target coating composition, retrieved target color values retrieved based on the target coating composition from a color database comprising color characteristics associated with coating compositions, predicted target color values obtained based on the target coating composition from a color predicting computing program product that predicts coating colors based on coating compositions, or a combination thereof” where such target color data is a digital representation of an effect coating where “color values can be selected from L,a,b color values, L*,a*,b* color values, XYZ color values, L,C,h color values, spectral reflectance values, light absorption (K) and scattering (S) values (also known as “K,S values”), or a combination thereof”), wherein the plurality of measurement geometries includes at least one gloss measurement geometry and at least one non-gloss measurement geometry (note that a “measurement geometry” is considered equivalent to a measurement angle and if a measurement geometry is able to measure gloss in any manner then such geometry is gloss geometry and if non-gloss information is able to be measured from some angle then this is non-gloss measurement geometry, and thus no specific angles are required but rather functionally some geometry must correspond to an angle in which gloss and/or non-gloss information can be measured; see Prakash, paragraph 0054 teaching “obtaining target color data of the target coating and specimen color data of the specimen coating produced from a specimen coating composition, wherein the target color data comprise target color values measured at three or more color viewing angles and the specimen color data comprise specimen color values measured at the three or more color viewing angles” and as in paragraphs 0089-0090 “Color and appearance of a coating can vary in relation to illumination. An example of a standard procedure can include those described in ASTM E-2194. Briefly, when a coating (11) is illuminated by an illumination source (12), such as a light bulb or sun light, at an illumination angle as shown in FIG. 1A and FIG. 1B, a number of viewing angles can be used, such as, 1) near aspecular angles (14), that are color or sparkle viewing angles from about 15° to about 25° from the specular reflection (13) of the illumination; 2) mid aspecular angles (15), that are the viewing angles about 45° from the specular reflection (13) of the illumination; and 3) far aspecular angles (also known as flop angle) (16), that are the viewing angles from about 75° to about 110° from the specular reflection (13) of the illumination” and “viewing angle can be any angles, continuously or discretely, in a range of from 0° from the specular reflection (13) to the surface of the coating (11) on either side of the specular reflection (13) (FIG. 1A), or in a range of from 0° from the specular reflection (13) to the tangent (11 a) of the surface of the coating (FIG. 1B)” such that here for example geometries corresponding to angles such as 10-25 degrees can be considered gloss geometry and far aspecular angles such as 75-110 degrees can be considered non-gloss geometry);
(ii) generating, with the computer processor, one or more color images by calculating corresponding CIEL*a*b* values for each pixel in each of the one ore more generated color images based on
an ordered list of measurement geometries generated from the at least one digital representation provided in step (i), and the at least one digital representation provided in step (i),(note that the claim does not define or limit the “ordered list of measurement geometries” nor specify a format, nor how such entries in such a list are “ordered” such that if measurement geometries are provided in any order and a created image is based on this and the digital representation then the limitation is met, and thus an ordered list of measurement geometries is interpreted as any sequence or set of angles used to map the optical properties to the display; see Prakash, paragraphs 0163-0167, teaching “producing at least a target image of the target coating, the target image comprises target display R,G,B values based on the target color data, the target sparkle data and the target flop data” and “displaying the target image, the specimen image, or a combination thereof, on a display device based on the target display R,G,B values” where “one or more target images representing the target coating at one or more viewing angles can be generated” as so-called “realistic matching images” of “coating color and appearance based on coating formulas and color and appearance characteristics” where these are generated color images using the corresponding CIEL*a*b* color values where “the images are produced by converting color data such as the L,a,b, or L*,a*,b*, color values at at least three angles to corresponding XYZ color values, calculating a range of aspecular angles required for display, and calculating corresponding R, G, B values from the corresponding XYZ color values and the angles for display” such that this uses an ordered list of geometries corresponding to the set of geometries used to calculate the color values such that measurement geometries are tied to specific color and appearance values as well as the ordered list of geometries corresponding to “calculating a range of aspecular angles required for display” and for each pixel “R,G,B values from the corresponding XYZ color values and the angles for display” are determined such that the color image is based on the measurement geometries to be displayed as well as the digital representation of the data used to generate the color image showing different color properties in the image according to the differing angle where “one…target images representing the target coating at one or more viewing angles can be generated” meaning that a single image can represent the target coating at a plurality of viewing angles) or, if at least one L*value included in at least one provided digital representation is greater than 90—scaled (note that this limitation is not required by the claim if the color images are generated based on the “ordered list” and “digital representation in step (i)” as it is recited in the alternative and thus no L*value in relation to 90 is required nor are any scaled digital representations);
(iii) generating, with the computer processor, appearance data of the effect coating by adding a texture layer pixel-wise to each generated color image using a lightness scaling factor sL, an aspecular-dependent scaling function sfaspecular and optionally a contrast scaling factor sc (note that the manner in which the texture layer is added is not specified other than it being “pixel-wise” such that it is considered applied to pixels in the image, furthermore a “lightness scaling factor” is any data used that might scale data in some manner in relation to “lightness” in any manner where “lightness” is understood in the art to refer to perception of brightness in some manner; see Prakash, paragraphs 0163-0167 teaching generating appearance data of the effect coating by adding a texture layer where “producing at least a target image of the target coating, the target image comprises target display R,G,B values based on the target color data, the target sparkle data and the target flop data” where such “sparkle data” and “flop data” are appearance data relating to the texture of the coating and this sparkle and flop data is used to generate the RGB values for the color image in connection with the color values at the same angles such that it is added as a texture pixel-wise to each generated color image when generating the “realistic matching images” which are the color images “by converting color data such as the L,a,b, or L*,a*,b*, color values at at least three angles to corresponding XYZ color values, calculating a range of aspecular angles required for display, and calculating corresponding R, G, B values from the corresponding XYZ color values and the angles for display” and these are added to each color image using a lightness scaling factor corresponding to the sparkle measurements which measure the lightness characteristics of the sparkle elements in the coating appearing brighter in contrast to the background/non-sparkling spots based on the angle such that for example greater lightness would be reflected in the realistic image if a greater sparkle is measured and converted into the image with the colors, and as the target sparkle data is obtained at a plurality of aspecular angles, then because the target image is based on these aspecular angles, which change the values of the target image, such texture added pixelwise uses an aspecular-dependent scaling function as the appearance of the text changes as a function of the viewing angle which is aspecular);
(iv) optionally repeating steps (ii) and (iii) with a second ordered list of measurement geometries being different from the ordered list of measurement geometries used in step (ii) (note as “optionally” is recited that such limitation is not required by the claim language); and
(v) displaying on the screen of the display device the generated appearance data of the effect coating(see Prakash, paragraphs 0163-0167 teaching “displaying the target image… on a display device based on the target display R,G,B values”).
Regarding claim 2, Prakash teaches all that is required as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches wherein providing the at least one digital representation of the effect coating comprises
determining CIEL*a*b* values and optionally one or more texture images and/or texture characteristics of the effect coating at the plurality of measurement geometries with a measuring device and providing the determined CIEL*a*b* values, the determined one or more texture images and texture characteristics, and the used measurement geometries, optionally in combination with further meta data and/or user input via the communication interface, to the computer processor (note that here only the limitations that have been bolded are given patentable weight as the remaining limitations are only “optionally” recited; see Prakash, paragraphs 0092-0093 teaching “target color data can be selected from: measured target color values obtained by measuring a target coating produced from a target coating composition, retrieved target color values retrieved based on the target coating composition from a color database comprising color characteristics associated with coating compositions, predicted target color values obtained based on the target coating composition from a color predicting computing program product that predicts coating colors based on coating compositions, or a combination thereof” and “color data values can be obtained at one or more color illumination angles, one or more color viewing angles, or a combination thereof. In one example, the color data values can be obtained at a viewing angle of about 15°, about 25°, about 45°, about 110°, or a combination thereof, the color viewing angle being an aspecular angle and can be measured with a color measuring device. The color measuring device can be a colorimeter, a spectrophotometer, or a goniospectrophotometer. Any suitable colorimeter or spectrophotometer, such as Model SP64 manufactured by X-Rite, Grandville, Mich. can be used. A goniospectrophotometer is also known as multi-angle spectrophotometer. Any suitable Goniospectrophotometers, such as Model MA68II from X-Rite, Grandville, Mich., or the ones provided by Murakami Color Research Laboratory, Tokyo, Japan, or by IsoColor Inc., Carlstadt, N.J., USA, can be used” such that here the CIEL*a*b* are determined at a plurality of measurement geometries with a measuring device and then are provided along with the used measurement geometries via the communication interface to the computer processor as in paragraph 0277 teaching “computing device functionally in communication with the color measuring device and the sparkle measuring device, when in operation;” and paragraph 0050 teaching “computing device can be built into other electronic devices, such as a built-in data processing chip integrated into an imaging device, color measuring device, or an appearance measuring device such as a sparkle measuring device. A computing device can have one or more wired or wireless connections to a database, to another computing device, or a combination thereof. A computing device can be a client computer that communicates with a host computer in a multi-computer client-host system connected via a wired or wireless network including intranet and internet. A computing device can also be configured to be coupled with a data input or output device via wired or wireless connections”), and
optionally obtaining at least one further digital representation of the effect coating based on the provided determined CIEL*a*b* values, and optionally based on the determined one or more texture images and/or texture characteristics and/or the further meta data and/or the user input and providing the obtained at least one further digital representation of the effect coating via the communication interface to the computer processor.
Regarding claim 3, Prakash teaches all that is required as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches wherein providing the at least one digital representation of the effect coating comprises providing effect coating identification data, obtaining the digital representation of the effect coating based on the provided effect coating identification data, and providing the obtained digital representation (see Prakash, paragraph 0266 teaching “D1) receiving target coating identification data of the target coating when available, target color values and target sparkle values of the target coating and specimen color values and specimen sparkle values of the specimen coating” and as in paragraph 0188 Prakash explains “target coating identification data can be selected from a name or a code of the target coating, color values of the target coating measured at one or more viewing angles, a vehicle identification number (VIN) of the vehicle, a part of the VIN, make of the vehicle, model and model year of the vehicle, manufacturing site information of the vehicle, manufacturer's paint code of the vehicle, or a combination thereof” such that as in paragraph 0092 it is taught that the digital representation can be retrieved where “target color data can be selected from: …retrieved target color values retrieved based on the target coating composition from a color database comprising color characteristics associated with coating compositions, predicted target color values obtained based on the target coating composition from a color predicting computing program product that predicts coating colors based on coating compositions, or a combination thereof” and for example as in paragraph 0280 Prakash teaches “a color database (44) functionally in communication with the computing device, the color database comprise coating formulations interrelated to and retrievable based on names or codes of coatings, color characteristics of coatings, appearance characteristics of coatings, vehicle identification numbers (VINs) of vehicles, parts of the VINs, makes of vehicles, models and model years of vehicles, manufacturing sites information of vehicles, manufacturer's paint codes of vehicles, or a combination thereof” such that here this provides the digital representation to the user which was obtained based on coating ID data that was provided by a user or the system).
Regarding claim 4, as rendered definite as explained above, Prakash teaches all that is required as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches wherein calculating the corresponding CIEL*a*b* values for each pixel in each of the one or more generated color images comprises:
correlating one axis of the one or more generated color images with the generated ordered list of measurement geometries; and mapping the ordered list of measurement geometries and associated digital representation or scaled digital representation to a each of the one or more generated color images (see Prakash, paragraphs 0163-0167 teaching “producing at least a target image of the target coating, the target image comprises target display R,G,B values based on the target color data, the target sparkle data” and “one or more target images representing the target coating at one or more viewing angles can be generated” and these images can be generated “by converting color data such as the L,a,b, or L*,a*,b*, color values at at least three angles to corresponding XYZ color values, calculating a range of aspecular angles required for display, and calculating corresponding R, G, B values from the corresponding XYZ color values and the angles for display” and thus in the “calculating a range of aspecular angles required for display” and “calculating corresponding R,G,B values from the…angles for display” such that this correlates an axis of the image with the ordered list of geometries providing the values at a respective angle as this is an “R,G,B” image and thus has R,G,B values at pixel locations of the image where of course pixels are arranged in rows and columns such that when mapping to the RGB of the image this assigns the respective value of the realistic matching target image so that the system defines the coordinate space of the image in terms of the angular geometry and thus any time an RGB value is assigned from the CIELAB color values obtained for the realistic matching target image this correlates the axis in some manner to the angles for display and as such pixels are mapped to correlated rows as pixel values (which must be on some row in the image) are calculated from the “angles for display”).
Regarding claim 5, Prakash teaches all that is required as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches wherein generating the ordered list of measurement geometries from the provided at least one digital representation comprises:
selecting at least one pre-defined measurement geometry from the plurality of measurement geometries contained in each provided digital representation (see Prakash, paragraphs 0092-0093 teaching selection of measurement geometries for the color values where “color data values can be obtained at one or more color illumination angles, one or more color viewing angles, or a combination thereof. In one example, the color data values can be obtained at a viewing angle of about 15°, about 25°, about 45°, about 110°, or a combination thereof, the color viewing angle being an aspecular angle and can be measured with a color measuring device” and as in paragraphs 0163-0167 the color images “are produced by converting color data such as the L,a,b, or L*,a*,b*, color values at at least three angles to corresponding XYZ color values, calculating a range of aspecular angles required for display, and calculating corresponding R, G, B values from the corresponding XYZ color values and the angles for display” such that here this selects these angle measurement geometries for display from the measurement geometries that were used to for each provided digital representation ) and optionally sorting the selected measurement geometries according to at least one pre-defined sorting criterium if more than one measurement geometry is selected, and
optionally calculating an note these steps are recited as performed “optionally” and thus are given no patentable weight).
Regarding claim 6, Prakash teaches all that is required as applied to claim 5 above and further teaches wherein a defined order of the plurality of measurement geometries is 45°>25°>15°>25°>45°>75° or −15°>15°>25°>45°>75°>110° (note that the instant claim limitation is not specifically recited as performing any function and as it lacks antecedent basis it fails to define any previous limitation, and thus all the claim requires is that measurement geometries could be in some defined order, but such order is not necessary to be used and thus merely describes some capability of the system; see Prakash, paragraphs 0089-0091 and figures 1A and 1B teaching “a number of viewing angles can be used, such as, 1) near aspecular angles (14), that are color or sparkle viewing angles from about 15° to about 25° from the specular reflection (13) of the illumination; 2) mid aspecular angles (15), that are the viewing angles about 45° from the specular reflection (13) of the illumination; and 3) far aspecular angles (also known as flop angle) (16), that are the viewing angles from about 75° to about 110° from the specular reflection (13) of the illumination” and “Although specific view angles are specified above and can be preferred, viewing angles can include any viewing angles that are suitable for viewing the coating or detecting reflections of the coating. A viewing angle can be any angles, continuously or discretely, in a range of from 0° from the specular reflection (13) to the surface of the coating (11) on either side of the specular reflection (13) (FIG. 1A), or in a range of from 0° from the specular reflection (13) to the tangent (11 a) of the surface of the coating (FIG. 1B). In one example, when the specular reflection (13) is at about 45° from the normal (Z-Z′), viewing angles can be any angles in the range of from about 0° to about −45° from the reflection, or from about 0° to about 135° from the reflection (FIG. 1A). In another example, when the specular reflection (13) is at about 75° from the normal (Z-Z′), viewing angles can be any angles in the range of from about 0° to about −15° from the specular reflection, or from about 0° to about 165° from the specular reflection. Depending on the specular reflection (13), the range of viewing angles can be changed and determined by those skilled in the art“ such that here the range of angles defined by Prakash comprise any combination of the above angles which can be measured to any side of a specular reflection and can be any “combination thereof” of these angles including in the defined order as recited).
Regarding claim 7, Prakash teaches all that is required as applied to claim 5 above and further teaches wherein the accumulated delta aspecular angle is an absolute difference angle between an aspecular angle associated with a first measurement geometry and the aspecular angle associated with a second measurement geometry following the first measurement geometry (note that crucially this limitation merely further describes an optional embodiment which is not required as it defines further “optionally calculating an accumulated delta aspecular angle…” as in claim 5 but does not require any use of such angle as recited and thus as Prakash teaches all that is required as applied to claim 5, and the instant limitations define optional limitations that limit the scope of the claim but do not require the limitations such that Prakash still teaches all that is required as applied to claim 7, as it requires the prior art to teach no more than the non-optional limitations as in claims 5 and 7).
Regarding claim 8, Prakash teaches all that is required as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches wherein each scaled digital representation is obtained prior to generating the one or more color images by scaling all L* color values included in the digital representations provided in step (i) using at least one lightness scaling factor sL (note that like claim 7 above, this limitation merely further describes an optional embodiment which is not required as it defines further the “scaled digital representation” which is optional as in parent claim 1, thus like above, the instant limitations define optional limitations that limit the scope of the claim but do not require the limitations such that Prakash still teaches all that is required as applied to claim 8, as it requires the prior art to teach no more than the non-optional limitations as in claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Prakash teaches all that is required as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the aspecular-dependent scaling function sfaspecular weights each pixel of the texture layer in correlation with the aspecular angles corresponding to the measurement geometries present in the generated ordered list of measurement geometries (see Prakash, paragraph 0167 teaching generating the target image representing multiple viewing angles by “calculating a range of aspecular angles required for display” which is an ordered list of measurement geometries and in paragraph 0096 for example Prakash teaches obtaining “measured sparkle values” at specific aspecular angles and “sparkle illumination angles” and as in paragraphs 0163-0167 the realistic matching image showing the measurement data at multiple angles is “based on…the target sparkle data” such that here when generating the realistic matching image consisting of the pixels with RGB values corresponding to measurements at the aspecular angles, then angle-specific sparkle texture measurements that are combined with the color values at that angle function to weight each pixel of the texture layer in correlation with the aspecular angles as the various aspecular angles will show the texture weights influencing the target realistic matching data at the corresponding angle for display).
Regarding claim 11, Prakash teaches all that is required as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches wherein steps (iii) and (v) do not comprise using 3D object data of a virtual object (see Prakash, paragraphs 0162-0167 and rejection of claim 1 where steps iii and v do not comprise using 3D object data of a virtual object, as rather only the measurement data is utilized and may be with respect to only real objects being measured).
Regarding claim 12, the instant claim recites a “system for displaying the appearance of an effect coating on the screen of a display device, said system comprising a plurality of elements which have all been addressed with respect to the “computer-implemented method” of claim 1 which requires the same system components where such system components have already been addressed in the rejection of claim 1. Thus the system of Prakash as reflected in the rejection of claim 1 above corresponds to the claimed system of claim 12. Note that claim 12 recites “optionally an interaction element for detecting a user input” which is not recited in claim 1, however as it is only “optionally” recited it is given no patentable weight for prior art purposes and thus the rejection of claim 1 corresponds to the rejection of claim 12. In light of this, the limitations of claim 12 correspond to the limitations of claim 1; thus it is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Prakash teaches all that is required as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the steps according to the method of claim 1 (see Prakash, paragraphs 0050-0052 teaching “computing device used herein can refer to a data processing chip, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a pocket PC, a personal digital assistant (PDA), an handheld electronic processing device, a smart phone that combines the functionality of a PDA and a mobile phone, or any other electronic devices that can process information automatically. A computing device can be built into other electronic devices, such as a built-in data processing chip integrated into an imaging device, color measuring device, or an appearance measuring device such as a sparkle measuring device. A computing device can have one or more wired or wireless connections to a database, to another computing device, or a combination thereof. A computing device can be a client computer that communicates with a host computer in a multi-computer client-host system connected via a wired or wireless network including intranet and internet. A computing device can also be configured to be coupled with a data input or output device via wired or wireless connections. For example, a laptop computer can be operatively configured to receive color data and images through a wireless connection. A “portable computing device” includes a laptop computer, a pocket PC, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a handheld electronic processing device, a mobile phone, a smart phone that combines the functionality of a PDA and a mobile phone, a tablet computer, or any other electronic devices that can process information and data and can be carried by a person” where computing devices such as these would have have mediums to perform the steps and paragraphs 00265 and 00273 teach “a computing program product comprises computer executable codes stored on a computer readable storage medium, the computing program product causes a computing device to perform a computing process” and “computer readable storage medium can be one or more digital data storage media, such as a smart phone or PDA (personal digital assistant) (31), a compact disc or DVD (32), a flash memory device such as a USB drive (33) or SD card (34), or a combination thereof (FIG. 3). Any other computer readable storage medium known to or developed by those skilled in the art can be suitable”).
Regarding claim 14, Prakash teaches all that is required as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches a method of using appearance data generated according to the method of claim 1, wherein the method comprises using the appearance data as button, icon, color preview, for color comparison and/or for color communication (Prakash, paragraphs 0163-0167 where such display of the realistic matching images may be for color comparison to other “specimens” generated and when displayed the appearance data communicates this color to the user for example).
Regarding claim 15, Prakash teaches a client device, (see Prakash, paragraphs 0047-0050 teaching “computing device used herein can refer to a data processing chip, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a pocket PC, a personal digital assistant (PDA), an handheld electronic processing device, a smart phone that combines the functionality of a PDA and a mobile phone, or any other electronic devices that can process information automatically” and “computing device can have one or more wired or wireless connections to a database, to another computing device, or a combination thereof. A computing device can be a client computer that communicates with a host computer in a multi-computer client-host system connected via a wired or wireless network including intranet and internet” such that here this “computing device” is a “client device” in communication with a server device such as a “host computer” and for example as in paragraph 0282 it is explained that “system can comprise a computing device (41) that can have the computing program product installed thereon or accessed therefrom and can be functionally coupled to a sparkle measuring device (42), a sparkle measuring device (43) and a database (44) such as the color database (FIG. 4A)”) for generating a request to determine the appearance of an effect coating (see Prakash, paragraph 0054 teaching “obtaining target color data of the target coating…wherein the target color data comprise target color values measured at three or more color viewing angles” such that that the client device initiates a process to match color and appearance and display information related to color and appearance data of some target data where the client device sends target data to a server device to retrieve matching formulations, color data, and to generate appearance images from data at remote server devices as in paragraph 0092 teaching “target color data can be selected from… retrieved target color values retrieved based on the target coating composition from a color database comprising color characteristics associated with coating compositions” where such color database may be considered a server (see paragraph 0047)) at a server device (see Prakash, paragraph 0092 as explained above teaching “target color data can be selected from… retrieved target color values retrieved based on the target coating composition from a color database comprising color characteristics associated with coating compositions” where such color database may be considered a server (see paragraph 0047)), the client device comprising: the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13 (see rejections of claim 13 as well as claim 1 above for teachings of these limitations); and a processor configured to execute the instructions to provide the digital representation of at least one the effect coating and the texture layer to the server device (see Prakash, paragraphs 0163-0167 teaching “producing at least a target image of the target coating, the target image comprises target display R,G,B values based on the target color data, the target sparkle data and the target flop data” and “displaying the target image…on a display device based on the target display R,G,B values” such that this provides a digital representation of at least one of the effect coating coating and texture layer; and as in paragraph 0047 the device is in communication with at database at a server and “appearance characteristics, sparkle values, and related measurements, coating formulations, vehicle data, or a combination thereof, can be stored and retrieved from one or more databases and as in paragraphs 0050-0051 this additionally teaches ”computing device can have one or more wired or wireless connections to a database, to another computing device, or a combination thereof” and “computing device can be a client computer that communicates with a host computer in a multi-computer client-host system connected via a wired or wireless network including intranet and internet” and paragraphs 0281-0282 further teaches providing digital representations of one of the effect coating and texture layer to the server device in a client-server type embodiment where “output device can be selected from a digital display device, a printer, a digital data storage device, a database, a second computing device, or a combination thereof” and “the system can be a portable device (45) that can comprise one or more functionally coupled components selected from a computing device that can have the computing program product installed thereon or accessed therefrom, a sparkle measuring device, a sparkle measuring device, a display device (46), or a combination thereof, and a database (44) such as the color database functionally coupled to the portable device via wired or wireless connections (47) (FIG. 4C)” such that here the output to a second computing device can be considered output to a server and when in a client-server relationship than such second computing device could be such a computing device).
Regarding claim 16, Prakash teaches all that is required as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches wherein calculating the corresponding CIEL*a*b* values for each pixel in each of the one or more generated color images comprises correlating one axis of each of the one or more generated color images with the generated ordered list of measurement geometries and mapping the ordered list of measurement geometries and the associated CIEL*a*b* values or scaled CIEL*a*b* values to the correlated row in the each of the one or more generated color images (Prakash, paragraphs 0163-0167 teaching “producing at least a target image of the target coating, the target image comprises target display R,G,B values based on the target color data, the target sparkle data” and “one or more target images representing the target coating at one or more viewing angles can be generated” and these images can be generated “by converting color data such as the L,a,b, or L*,a*,b*, color values at at least three angles to corresponding XYZ color values, calculating a range of aspecular angles required for display, and calculating corresponding R, G, B values from the corresponding XYZ color values and the angles for display” and thus in the “calculating a range of aspecular angles required for display” and “calculating corresponding R,G,B values from the…angles for display” such that this correlates an axis of the image with the ordered list of geometries providing the values at a respective angle as this is an “R,G,B” image and thus has R,G,B values at pixel locations of the image where of course pixels are arranged in rows and columns such that when mapping to the RGB of the image this assigns the respective value of the realistic matching target image so that the system defines the coordinate space of the image in terms of the angular geometry and thus any time an RGB value is assigned from the CIELAB color values obtained for the realistic matching target image this correlates the axis in some manner to the angles for display and as such pixels are mapped to correlated rows as pixel values (which must be on some row in the image) are calculated from the “angles for display”).
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash in view of Kirchner et al2 (“Kirchner”).
Regarding claim 10, Prakash teaches all that is required as applied to claim 1 above and further teaches wherein adding a texture layer pixel-wise to the generated one or more color images using a lightness scaling factor sL, an aspecular-dependent scaling function sfaspecular and optionally a texture contrast scaling factor sc comprises (see above rejection of claim 1 for these limitations) providing at least one acquired or synthetic texture image (see Prakash, paragraphs 0163-0167 teaching that in adding the texture layer so that the target image is “based on…the target sparkle data”, this sparkle data is provided as acquired texture image data of the target when measured by the sparkle measurement device as in paragraphs 0095-0098 where the image is analyzed to provide image data in the form of the sparkle data for a corresponding angle),
generating modified at least one texture images (see Prakash, paragraphs 0163-0167 as explained above where the generation of the modified texture images corresponds to the generation of the sparkle texture values as analyzed from images of the target as in paragraphs 0095-0098 and the calculated sparkle values are modified texture images then which are added to the color image when generating the realistic matching image by angles chosen for the range of display) by computing the average color of each provided texture image and subtracting the average color from the respective provided texture image, and
adding the respective modified texture image pixel-wise weighted with the lightness scaling factor sL, the aspecular dependent scaling function sfaspecular and optionally the contrast scaling factor sc to the respective generated color image (see Prakash, paragraphs 0162-0167 teaching as above the modified texture image and values from the provided texture image are added pixel-wise as explained above in the rejection of claim 1). Prakash teaches all of the above but is silent with respect to whether the modified texture image is generated by computing the average color of each provided texture image and subtracting the average color from the respective provided texture image. Thus Prakash stands as a base device upon which the claimed invention can be considered an improvement through a technique which normalizes acquired data so that when added to other data it does not artificially alter the data being added.
In the same field of endeavor relating to obtaining and displaying paint coatings and appearance of paint coatings, Kirchner teaches that it is known that when displaying the image of an effect coating, a change in texture properties of the image will generally lead to a simultaneous change in the perceived colour properties (see Kirchner, paragraph 0004 teaching “when displaying the image of an effect coating, a change in the texture properties of the image will generally lead to a simultaneous change in the perceived colour properties, for example when a texture is superimposed over a coloured image”) and teaches to overcome such issues by subtracting the average value of a texture measurement/property from the image values of the properties so that when it is added to other information this average information does not alter the measurements of the color data to which it is being added (see Kirchner, paragraphs 0046-0050 teaching that data in the context of texture type data where “grayscale image with glint impression as specified for a certain geometry g has pixel values that are denoted here as GI, which are obviously equal for the red, green, and blue channels. These values vary for different pixels x, y. The values averaged over all pixel coordinates will be denoted as GIavg. Any unintended colour difference between generated grayscale images is accounted for by subtracting the average value” and “Also, the resulting pixel values are limited to a fixed range of values, which is here taken to be normalized to the range from zero to unity. In this way, an intermediate digital image is generated with pixel values Rsa, Gsa, and Bsa for the red, green, and blue channels, respectively” and also teaches the same concept applied in paragraphs 0051-0054 teaching “another intermediate digital image with pixel values Rsd(x, y) is generated in which the texture aspect of diffuse coarseness is taken into account, based on the generated grayscale digital image DC(x, y) and its average value DCavg. Rsd(x,y)=max(0,min(1,Rmd+DC(x,y)−DCavg)) Gsd(x,y)=max(0,min(1,Gmd+DC(x,y)−DCavg)) Bsd(x,y)=max(0,min(1,Bmd+DC(x,y)−DCavg))”). Thus Prakash teaches known techniques adaptable to various types of data in which an average of an image being measured for certain properties has this average subtracted from the measured properties.
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Prakash by applying the known technique of Kirchner as doing so would yield predictable results and result in an improved system. The predictable result of applying Kirchner to Prakash would be that the sparkle target data captured and provided would be prepared as in Kirchner where the average value of the measurement is subtracted in order to isolate the contribution of the layer being added such that when added to the color image as a texture layer as in Prakash the texture data would have been normalized to isolate the effect of the texture and the combined target data would then reflect the texture realistically. This would result in an improved system as it would be ensured that the texture data would not alter the color measurement data obtained as suggested by Kirchner (see Kirchner, paragraph 0004 teaching “when displaying the image of an effect coating, a change in the texture properties of the image will generally lead to a simultaneous change in the perceived colour properties, for example when a texture is superimposed over a coloured image” and “Any unintended colour difference between generated grayscale images is accounted for by subtracting the average value”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “REMARKS”, filed 4/3/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims. The rejections of claim 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 12 have been withdrawn under said statute, although other rejections remain.
Applicant's arguments, see “REMARKS”, filed 4/3/2026, on pages 9-10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Prakash “does not describe or suggest a method including generating…one or more color images by calculating corresponding CIEL*a*b* values for each pixel in each of the one or more generated color images” but “merely describes that provided L*a*b*, color values can be used to determine X, Y, Z color values” and converts these to determine R,G,B values. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim limitation at issue requires “generating…one or more color images by calculating corresponding CIEL*a*b* values for each pixel in each of the one or more generated color images” and then later “displaying, on the screen, the generated appearance data” where this appearance data relies on these color images that must have been generated by calculating corresponding CIEL*a*b* values for each pixel in each of the one or more generated color images. Thus it appears that perhaps Applicant is conflating the pixel level display conversion steps with the generation of the color image upon which the RGB display images will be based. Regardless of if the data is converted to X,Y,Z, and then RGB, the CIELAB values can be considered calculated in multiple ways in order to generate the color images upon which the eventual RGB display data could be displayed if desired. As in paragraphs 0092-0093 the color data “can be selected from: measured target color values obtained by measuring a target coating produced from a target coating composition” and “color values can be selected from L,a,b color values, L*a*b* color values” where these are “obtained at one or more color illumination angles, one or more color viewing angles, or a combination thereof” where “color measuring device can be a colorimeter, a spectrophotometer, or a goniospectrophotometer” such that here these CIELab values that are measured and assigned to different viewing angles have been generated by calculating the CIELab values to assign to each pixel corresponding to the color data values that are obtained. Thus this assignment of the color data values to the various angles is a calculation of CIELab values which can then be used in other processes. Additionally, when the light values are measured by the sensor and converted to the CIELab values which are provided this measurement of the value and assignment to a specific CIELab value is also a calculated CIElab value used in generating the color images. It is these calculated CIELab values that have been generated to form color images which are then provided to the display conversion step as in paragraphs 0163-0168. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as Prakash does disclose calculating corresponding CIEL*a*b* values for each pixel in each of the one or more generated color images.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SCOTT E SONNERS whose telephone number is (571)270-7504. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 9-5.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-7761. 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.
/SCOTT E SONNERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2613
/XIAO M WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613
1 US PGPUB NO. 20160005187
2 US PGPUB No. 20120098845
Prosecution Insights