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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 03/30/2026. Applicant has submitted Claims 1-17 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1-17 are rejected; 2) no claims objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Request for Continued Examination
Receipt is acknowledged of a Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 03/30/2026.
Response to Arguments and Remarks
Examiner respectfully acknowledges Applicant’s remarks.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended language have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
However, Examiner would specifically like to address the amendment regarding “effect pigments.” Most of Applicant’s remarks are directed towards the exterior wall amendments, which are now moot. Based on the review of the specification, [0002] has the clearest description of “effect pigment”:
Coatings with effect pigments have been known in the state of the art for some time. These have different optical properties depending on the viewing angle. A wide variety of inspection devices for inspecting such surfaces are also known. Such an inspection can be carried out, for example, to produce lacquers for damaged surfaces.
In response to Applicant’s amendment, in light of the specification, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As such, Examiner does not put any patentable weight into the limitation “inspecting surfaces having effect pigments.”
Claim Interpretation
Applicant amended into independent Claims 1 and 11 the following language, in part:
… wherein an inner wall of the common housing is light-absorbing …
Support for this limitation comes from [0054] of the amended specification, which recites the language amended in. From the FIGS., Examiner understands FIG. 1 to be the closest to showing this limitation, which shows the various components within apparatus 1.
Examiner understands “inner wall” to be a surface internal to the housing. As shown, a detector within the apparatus receives the light, and Examiner understands such a detector to qualify as an “inner wall” for the purposes. Thus, Examiner interprets “inner wall” as being any surface internal to the housing, such as detector or any such functionally equivalent system, internal to the apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20160140734 A1) in view of Pacala (US 20250362174 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kato discloses:
A method for inspecting surfaces having effect pigments (Kato, FIG. 1, [0074], coloring inspection apparatus 1),
wherein radiation is irradiated by a first radiation device (Kato, FIG. 1, [0091], lighting unit 6) onto a surface to be inspected at a first predetermined radiation angle (Kato, FIG. 3, [0088], lamp adjuster 46) and
wherein a color image recording device (Kato, FIG. 1, [0074], camera 2) records a spatially resolved image of the surface irradiated by the radiation direction at a first observation angle (Kato, FIG. 1, [0075], “The camera 2 is manually moved for imaging in at least three different angles”),
wherein this image recording device has a first predetermined sensitivity which is dependent on a wavelength of the radiation impinging on the image recording device and which is differs from a second predetermined sensitivity which is dependent on a wavelength of the radiation impinging on the human eye (Kato, FIG. 10, [0077], spectral sensitivities (S1(λ), S2(λ), S3(λ))),
wherein differences between the first sensitivity and the second sensitivity are at least partially compensated for by a filter device (Kato, FIG. 9, [0081], “The three spectral sensitivities (S1(λ), S2(λ), S3(λ)) of the camera 2 are given as the products of spectral transmittances of the optical filters 22a, 22b and 22c and the spectral sensitivity of the imaging element 23,” and [0011], “Three types of photoreceptor cells that are placed in the retina and have sensitivity characteristics of spectral tristimulus values x(λ), y(λ) and z(λ) are replaced by the optical receiver as the combination of a color filter and a photo diode”), …
Kato discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the radiation device and the observation device as well as the filter device are arranged in a common external housing of an apparatus, wherein an inner wall of the common external housing is light-absorbing and the common external housing has only one opening through which the surface is observed, and wherein the apparatus is portable.
However, Pacala, in a similar field of endeavor (MULTISPECTRAL RANGING AND IMAGING SYSTEMS), discloses:
… wherein the radiation device and the observation device (Pacala, FIG. 1A, [0110], “sensor channel 100 includes a photosensor layer 150 including one or more individual photosensors 152”) as well as the filter device (Pacala, FIG. 1A, [0109], “sensor channel 100 includes an optical filter layer 140 including an optical filter 142”) are arranged in a common external housing of an apparatus (Examiner notes that these are in the external housing), wherein an inner wall of the common external housing is light-absorbing (Pacala, FIG. 1, [0107], optically-non-transparent stop region 114”) and the common external housing has only one opening through which the surface is observed, and wherein the apparatus is portable (Pacala, FIG. 1A, [0107], optically-transparent aperture 112).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kato with the channel design of Pacala. PHOSITA would have known about the functions and designs of individual channels as disclosed by Pacala and how to use them to modify Kato. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically how to adapt scanners into a single channel device for modular use.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Kato and Pacala discloses Claim 1, and Kato further discloses:
… wherein the filter device is arranged between the surface and the image recording device (Kato, FIG. 9, [0081], “The camera 2 includes a photographic lens 21, three optical filters 22a, 22b and 22c located behind the photographic lens 21 and an imaging element 23 (for example, CCD or CMOS) located behind the optical filters 22a, 22b and 22c as shown in FIG. 9”).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Kato and Pacala discloses Claim 1, and Kato further discloses:
… wherein the filter device influences the evaluation of the image recorded up by the image recording device (Kato, FIG. 1, [0085], arithmetic processing unit 3).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Kato and Pacala discloses Claim 1, and Kato further discloses:
… wherein the filter device has, in a wavelength range of 200 nm - 1000 nm, a transmission which changes in this wavelength range as a function of the wavelength (Kato, [0040], “The curve of spectral characteristic S1 has the peak wavelength of 582 nm, the half width of 523 to 629 nm and the 1/10 width of 491 to 663 nm. The curve of spectral characteristic S2 has the peak wavelength of 543 nm, the half width of 506 to 589 nm and the 1/10 width of 464 to 632 nm. The curve of spectral characteristic S3 has the peak wavelength of 446 nm, the half width of 423 to 478 nm and the 1/10 width of 409 to 508 nm”).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Kato and Pacala discloses Claim 1, and Kato further discloses:
… wherein this changing transmission is chosen in such a way that it at least temporarily compensates for the wavelength-dependent differences between the first sensitivity and the second sensitivity (Kato, FIG. 9, [0081], “The three spectral sensitivities (S1(λ), S2(λ), S3(λ)) of the camera 2 are given as the products of spectral transmittances of the optical filters 22a, 22b and 22c and the spectral sensitivity of the imaging element 23,” and [0011], “Three types of photoreceptor cells that are placed in the retina and have sensitivity characteristics of spectral tristimulus values x(λ), y(λ) and z(λ) are replaced by the optical receiver as the combination of a color filter and a photo diode”).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Kato and Pacala discloses Claim 1, and Kato further discloses:
… wherein radiation is irradiated onto the surface by a second radiation device at a second predetermined radiation angle and the image recording device records an image of the surface irradiated by the second radiation device (Kato, FIG. 3, showing two lighting units 6).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Kato and Pacala discloses Claim 1, and Kato further discloses:
… wherein the filter device takes into account an emission spectrum L(λ) of the radiation device (Kato, [0005], “The spectral color measurement method directly measures an emission spectrum emitted from a light source with multiple sensors or measures the reflectance at each wavelength in a reflectance spectrum of a sample and uses the XYZ color matching function to calculate the sensitivity, so as to obtain tristimulus values X, Y and Z with high measurement accuracy”), an intensity course I(λ) of a standard light (Kato, [0014], “A proposed method scans the coat with a microscopic glossmeter and analyzes a reflective light intensity curve”), at least one tristimulus function X(λ) (Kato, FIG. 1, [0085], “The arithmetic processing unit 3 converts the image information into tristimulus values X, Y and Z in the XYZ color system and performs an arithmetic operation of normalizing and converting image data of the tristimulus values X, Y Z into x, y and z values”), of the human eye (Kato, [0141], “The camera uses a camera filter that is equivalent to the color matching function and allows for detection of all color data in the color gamut recognizable by human eye”), and/or one for a filter characteristic F(λ) of the image recording device (Kato, [0084], “is characterized by application of filters characteristic of spectral sensitivities (S1(λ), S2(λ), S3(λ)) on an imaging element”).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Kato and Pacala discloses Claim 1, and Kato further discloses:
… wherein the observation angle with respect to a direction perpendicular to the surface is smaller than 10°, smaller than 5°, smaller than 3° (Kato, FIGS. 13-17, [0096], “There are a plurality of imaging locations, and any adequate number of imaging locations may be selected. In this example, the panels are measured in three different directions, i.e., at the front (0 degree), 45 degrees left and 45 degrees right. At the location of panel measurement, the optical axis of the camera 2 at 0 degree is perpendicular to the body surface of the automobile 5.” (emphasis added)), and/or in that the first angle of incidence with respect to a direction perpendicular to the surface is between 70° and 20°, between 60° and 30°, between 50° and 40° (Kato, FIGS. 13-17, [0096], “There are a plurality of imaging locations, and any adequate number of imaging locations may be selected. In this example, the panels are measured in three different directions, i.e., at the front (0 degree), 45 degrees left and 45 degrees right.” (emphasis added)).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Kato and Pacala discloses Claim 1, and Kato further discloses:
… wherein: at least one radiation device directs directed or diffuse radiation onto the surfaces (Kato, [0011], “An integrating sphere corresponding to the eyeball serves to collect the diffusely reflected light from the sample and lead the collected light to an optical receiver”).
Regarding Claim 11, Kato discloses:
An apparatus for inspecting surfaces having effect pigments (Kato, FIG. 1, [0074], coloring inspection apparatus 1), the apparatus
having a first radiation device (Kato, FIG. 1, [0091], lighting unit 6) which irradiates radiation onto a surface to be inspected at a first predetermined radiation angle (Kato, FIG. 3, [0088], lamp adjuster 46), and
having a color image recording device (Kato, FIG. 1, [0074], camera 2) which records a spatially resolved image of the surface irradiated by the radiation direction at a first observation angles (Kato, FIG. 1, [0075], “The camera 2 is manually moved for imaging in at least three different angles”),
wherein this image recording device having a first predetermined sensitivity which is dependent on a wavelength of the radiation impinging on the image recording device and which differs from a second predetermined sensitivity which is dependent on a wavelength of the radiation incident on the human eye (Kato, FIG. 10, [0077], spectral sensitivities (S1(λ), S2(λ), S3(λ))),
wherein the apparatus has a filter device which at least partially compensates for differences between the first sensitivity and the second sensitivity (Kato, FIG. 9, [0081], “The three spectral sensitivities (S1(λ), S2(λ), S3(λ)) of the camera 2 are given as the products of spectral transmittances of the optical filters 22a, 22b and 22c and the spectral sensitivity of the imaging element 23,” and [0011], “Three types of photoreceptor cells that are placed in the retina and have sensitivity characteristics of spectral tristimulus values x(λ), y(λ) and z(λ) are replaced by the optical receiver as the combination of a color filter and a photo diode”), …
Kato discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the radiation device and the observation device as well as the filter device are arranged in a common external housing of an apparatus, wherein an inner wall of the common external housing is light-absorbing and the common external housing has only one opening through which the surface is observed, and wherein the apparatus is portable.
However, Pacala, in a similar field of endeavor (MULTISPECTRAL RANGING AND IMAGING SYSTEMS), discloses:
… wherein the radiation device and the observation device (Pacala, FIG. 1A, [0110], “sensor channel 100 includes a photosensor layer 150 including one or more individual photosensors 152”) as well as the filter device (Pacala, FIG. 1A, [0109], “sensor channel 100 includes an optical filter layer 140 including an optical filter 142”) are arranged in a common external housing of an apparatus (Examiner notes that these are in the external housing), wherein an inner wall of the common external housing is light-absorbing (Pacala, FIG. 1, [0107], optically-non-transparent stop region 114”) and the common external housing has only one opening through which the surface is observed, and wherein the apparatus is portable (Pacala, FIG. 1A, [0107], optically-transparent aperture 112).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kato with the channel design of Pacala. PHOSITA would have known about the functions and designs of individual channels as disclosed by Pacala and how to use them to modify Kato. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically how to adapt scanners into a single channel device for modular use.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Kato and Pacala discloses Claim 11, and Kato further discloses:
… wherein the filter device is arranged in a beam path between the surface and the image recording devices (Kato, FIG. 9, [0081], “The camera 2 includes a photographic lens 21, three optical filters 22a, 22b and 22c located behind the photographic lens 21 and an imaging element 23 (for example, CCD or CMOS) located behind the optical filters 22a, 22b and 22c as shown in FIG. 9”).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Kato and Pacala discloses Claim 1, and Kato further discloses:
… wherein the apparatus comprises at least one second radiation device (Kato, FIG. 3, showing two lighting units 6) and/or a second sensor device (Kato, [0038], “The camera may be a single camera or a plurality of cameras”).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Kato and Pacala discloses Claim 1, and Kato further discloses:
… wherein the surfaces are surfaces of motor vehicles having effect pigments (Kato, [0012], “The metamerism is attributable to the difference in type of pigment or more specifically the difference in spectral reflectance between two types of coatings. Accordingly, the spectral colorimeter should be used for measurement of the color of such coating”).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Kato and Pacala discloses Claim 11, and Kato further discloses:
… wherein the surfaces are surfaces of motor vehicles having effect pigments (Kato, [0012], “The metamerism is attributable to the difference in type of pigment or more specifically the difference in spectral reflectance between two types of coatings. Accordingly, the spectral colorimeter should be used for measurement of the color of such coating”).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20160140734 A1), in view of Pacala (US 20250362174 A1), and in further view of Oh (US 20160377483 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Kato and Pacala discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein by means of a refractive optical element, which is arranged between the surface and the filter device, the radiation impinging on the filter device is influenced and refracted.
However, Oh, in a similar field of endeavor (COLOR DIFFERENCE METER MODULE CAPABLE OF PERFORMING REAL-TIME ZERO POINT ADJUSTMENT AND COLOR MEASURING DEVICE USING SAME), discloses:
… wherein by means of a refractive optical element, which is arranged between the surface and the filter device, the radiation impinging on the filter device is influenced and refracted (Oh, FIG. 5, [0069], the incident lens module 200 refracts and transmits the incident light to the optical transmission unit 520”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kato with the refractive element of Oh. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of refractive elements as disclosed by Oh and how to use them to modify Kato. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of a refractive element to control and direct light.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Kato and Pacala discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein a refractive element and a lens is arranged between the surface and the filter device.
However, Oh, in a similar field of endeavor (COLOR DIFFERENCE METER MODULE CAPABLE OF PERFORMING REAL-TIME ZERO POINT ADJUSTMENT AND COLOR MEASURING DEVICE USING SAME), discloses:
… wherein a refractive element and a lens is arranged between the surface and the filter device (Oh, FIG. 5, [0069], the incident lens module 200 refracts and transmits the incident light to the optical transmission unit 520”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kato with the refractive element of Oh. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of refractive elements as disclosed by Oh and how to use them to modify Kato. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of a refractive element to control and direct light.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20160140734 A1), in view of Pacala (US 20250362174 A1), and in further view of Chang (US 20170275532 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Kato and Pacala discloses Claim 1, and Kato further discloses:
… wherein the first radiation device comprises a light-emitting diode (Kato, [0091], “The xenon lamp may be replaced with an LED artificial sunlight lamp. This may be mounted to a robot arm. The LED artificial sunlight lamp is significantly advantageous since it is small-size and light in weight, satisfies the conditions of the light source for color evaluation and overcomes the problem of chromatic aberration that occurs in general LEDs,” and FIG. 6, [0136], LED lighting units 606) and …
The combination of Kato and Pacala discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… a tri-phosphor LED.
However, Chang, in a similar field of endeavor (FLUORESCENT MATERIAL, A MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF, AND A PHOTO-LUMINESCENT COMPOSITION CONTAINING THE FLUORESCENT MATERIAL), discloses:
… a tri-phosphor LED (Chang, [0006], “The red, green, and blue tri-phosphor chips are assembled into a white LED. This method has the characteristics of high efficiency, controllable color temperature, and good color rendering index”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kato with the tri-phosphor LED of Chang. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of tri-phosphor LED’s as disclosed by Chang and how to use them to modify Kato. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of tri-phosphor LED’s to control the light emitted.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights