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 application filed on 06/23/2026. Applicant has submitted Claims 1-20 for examination. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1-20 are rejected; 2) no claims objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Application No. DE10 2021 115 728.5, filed on 06/17/2021, has been filed in this matter.
Response to Arguments and Remarks
Examiner respectfully acknowledges Applicant's arguments, remarks, and amendments.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01.
From Claim 16 (emphasis added):
… wherein the results of the evaluation are used or taken into account for future measurements by the apparatus used in the evaluation.
Additionally from Claim 17 (emphasis added):
… wherein the evaluation determines and/or generates a software filter device, which is taken into account and/or used for future measurements
Additionally from Claim 20 (emphasis added):
… wherein the colour effect of the absorption pigment is assessed with an image taken at a first pre-determined angle at which the falsification of the colour measurement by the effect pigment is negligible to a good approximation.
It is unclear what steps or in what manner such results of the evaluation could or should be “taken into account” under the limitations of the claims. Additionally, it is unclear what would constitute as “a good approximation.” Such language makes is unclear, vague, and makes it difficult to determine what would or would not infringe upon the claim were it issued as a patent. As such, it is rejected and further clarification is required. Further, the term “negligible to a good approximation” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation " the colour effect of the absorption pigment” and “the falsification of the colour measurement by the effect pigment.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 20, provided for reference (emphasis added):
… wherein the colour effect of the absorption pigment is assessed with an image taken at a first pre-determined angle at which the falsification of the colour measurement by the effect pigment is negligible to a good approximation.
Examiner is not drawing attention to these limitations for using the UK spelling of “colour” over the US spelling of “color.” That is a known and self-evident difference PHOSITA would be reasonably aware of. Examiner would prefer these updated to the US spelling for consistency.
Examiner is drawing attention to how Claim 20 introduces these limitations without providing antecedent basis. They are obviously related to the “one or more layers with absorption pigments and/or effect pigments” from Claim 1, but have not been established or introduced properly. They lack antecedent basis and correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai (US 20160040985 A1) in view of Kato (US 20160140734 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nagai discloses:
A method for inspecting … surfaces (Nagai, FIG. 14, [0101], specimen 61) which comprise
one or more layers with absorption pigments and/or effect pigments (Nagai, [0163], “The specimen measuring device according to the first embodiment can calculate the measurement value of the respective evaluation items such as the deflection angle spectral information, the deflection angle color information, the BRDF information, the glittering feeling, the graininess, the gloss, the haze, the image clarity, and the orange peel of a paint including a glittering material that looks a different color according to an observation angle such as a pearlescent color or a metallic color. Thus, it is possible to perform a comprehensive quantitative evaluation of a paint including a glittering material that looks a different color according to an observation angle at a time”),
wherein radiation is irradiated by a first radiation device onto a surface to be inspected at a first predetermined irradiation angle (Nagai, FIG. 14, [0101], “acquires 2D spectral information of the specimen 61 through a single image capturing operation (one shot) for each irradiation angle of light of the illumination units 15a to 15e”) and
wherein a color image recording device records a spatially resolved image of the surface irradiated by the irradiation direction at a first observation angle (Nagai, FIG. 14, [0101], “acquires 2D spectral information of the specimen 61 through a single image capturing operation (one shot) for each irradiation angle of light of the illumination units 15a to 15e”),
wherein this image recording device having a first predetermined sensitivity dependent on a wavelength of the radiation impinging on the image recording device (Nagai, [0080], “since a sensor has its own spectral sensitivity, it is divided by S(λ) in order to remove non-uniformity,” and FIGS. 1-2, [0107], “the information processing device 4 performs the image capturing control of the spectral camera device 1 through the image capturing control unit 32 illustrated in FIG. 2”),
wherein an image evaluation device carries out a section-by-section, evaluation of the image recorded by the image recording device (Nagai, FIGS. 25-26, [0138], “As illustrated in FIG. 25, the number of pixels at a peak at the aspecular angle 10° is assumed to be a “glittering area AR1,” the number of pixels at a peak at the aspecular angle 20° is assumed to be a “glittering area AR2,” and the number of pixels at a peak at the aspecular angle 30° is assumed to be a “glittering area AR3.” Further, in FIG. 26, glittering strength at a peak at the aspecular angle 10° is assumed to be “glittering strength K1,” glittering strength at a peak at the aspecular angle 20° is assumed to be “glittering strength K2,” and glittering strength at a peak at the aspecular angle 30° is assumed to be “glittering strength K3.” Furthermore, glittering variance of the histogram at the aspecular angle 10° is assumed to be “glittering variance B1,” glittering variance of the histogram at the aspecular angle 20° is assumed to be “glittering variance B2,” and glittering variance of the histogram at the aspecular angle 30° is assumed to be “glittering variance B3””), …
Nagai discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… inspecting lacquered surfaces …
Examiner has debated whether “lacquers” and “paints” are sufficiently similar to consider this a section 102 inherency rejection. However, due to the differences in creation and uses, Examiner can see considerations that any PHOSITA would need to make to adjust Nagai to account for the differences between paints and lacquers. That said, Examiner finds it within the reasonable skill of PHOSITA to be able to make the aforementioned adjustments to adapt Nagai to work with lacquers.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagai to work on lacquered surfaces. PHOSITA would have known about the uses and properties of lacquers as is known in the art and how to use them to modify Nagai. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as adapting a system to analyze related surfaces.
Nagai discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein a wavelength-dependent sensitivity of the image recording device is determined section by section.
However, Kato, in a similar field of endeavor (COLORING INSPECTION APPARATUS AND COLORING INSPECTION METHOD), discloses:
… wherein a wavelength-dependent sensitivity of the image recording device is determined section by section (Kato, [0074], “The coloring inspection apparatus 1 includes a camera 2 that is configured to have three spectral sensitivities (S1(λ), S2(λ), S3(λ)) linearly and equivalently converted to a CIE XYZ color matching function, an arithmetic processing unit 3 that is configured to obtain and compute coloring data by conversion of an image which has three spectral sensitivities and is obtained by the camera 2 into tristimulus values X, Y and Z in a CIE XYZ color system, and lighting units 6 that are configured to illuminate an automobile 5 as an example of measuring object. The arithmetic processing unit 3 sets a specified inspection area K in coloring data obtained by imaging a measuring object, computes x and y values of the inspection area K normalized from X, Y and Z values of each pixel in the inspection area K with regard to an inspection object Q and a reference object R as measuring objects, and divides the inspection area K by grids G in xyz coordinates of an xyz chromaticity diagram. The arithmetic processing unit 3 then integrates the numbers of pixels included in each grid G with regard to the inspection object Q and the reference object R to create respective xyz chromaticity histogram distributions, and computes a color distribution consistency index that represents a ratio of overlap of the two xyz chromaticity histogram distributions of the inspection object Q and the reference object R, so as to inspect the color”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagai with the wavelength analysis of Kato. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of wavelength analysis as disclosed by Kato and how to use them to modify Nagai. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of wavelength-dependent system with different sensitivities for analysis.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Nagai and Kato discloses Claim 1, and Nagai further discloses:
… wherein the evaluation is carried out as a function of the wavelength of the radiation impinging on the image recording device and/or as a function of the wavelength-dependent sensitivity of the image recording device (Nagai, [0080], “In Formulas (1) to (3), since a sensor has its own spectral sensitivity, it is divided by S(λ) in order to remove non-uniformity. In Formulas (1) to (3), transmittance standardized under the assumption that each maximum value is transmittance of 100% is T.sub.X(λ), T.sub.Y(λ), and T.sub.Z(λ). Particularly, the SN ratios of the color filters corresponding to x(λ) and y(λ) can be improved through the standardization”).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Nagai and Kato discloses Claim 2, and Nagai further discloses:
… wherein the wavelength-dependent sensitivity of the image recording device is determined and in particular is determined (Nagai, [0080], “In Formulas (1) to (3), since a sensor has its own spectral sensitivity, it is divided by S(λ) in order to remove non-uniformity. In Formulas (1) to (3), transmittance standardized under the assumption that each maximum value is transmittance of 100% is T.sub.X(λ), T.sub.Y(λ), and T.sub.Z(λ). Particularly, the SN ratios of the color filters corresponding to x(λ) and y(λ) can be improved through the standardization”) …
Additionally, Kato further discloses:
… pixel by pixel (Kato, [0074], “The coloring inspection apparatus 1 includes a camera 2 that is configured to have three spectral sensitivities (S1(λ), S2(λ), S3(λ)) linearly and equivalently converted to a CIE XYZ color matching function, an arithmetic processing unit 3 that is configured to obtain and compute coloring data by conversion of an image which has three spectral sensitivities and is obtained by the camera 2 into tristimulus values X, Y and Z in a CIE XYZ color system, and lighting units 6 that are configured to illuminate an automobile 5 as an example of measuring object. The arithmetic processing unit 3 sets a specified inspection area K in coloring data obtained by imaging a measuring object, computes x and y values of the inspection area K normalized from X, Y and Z values of each pixel in the inspection area K with regard to an inspection object Q and a reference object R as measuring objects, and divides the inspection area K by grids G in xyz coordinates of an xyz chromaticity diagram. The arithmetic processing unit 3 then integrates the numbers of pixels included in each grid G with regard to the inspection object Q and the reference object R to create respective xyz chromaticity histogram distributions, and computes a color distribution consistency index that represents a ratio of overlap of the two xyz chromaticity histogram distributions of the inspection object Q and the reference object R, so as to inspect the color”).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Nagai and Kato discloses Claim 1, and Nagai further discloses:
… wherein results of the evaluation carried out by the image evaluation device are used and/or taken into account for measurements (Nagai, [0155], “The user can comprehensively evaluate the specimen based on the displayed measurement values”), determined and/or generated by the evaluation of a filter device which is taken into account or used for measurements (Nagai, FIG. 36, [0171], “a graph of a solid line illustrates spectral transmittance characteristics of the filter 91, a graph of a dotted line illustrates spectral transmittance characteristics of the filter 92, and a graph of an alternate long and short dash line illustrates spectral transmittance characteristics of the filter 93. As can be seen from FIG. 36, wavelengths of light to be transmitted in the filters 91, 92, and 93 are deviated by a certain degree”).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Nagai and Kato discloses Claim 1, and Nagai further discloses:
… wherein the color image recording device is also used for evaluating and/or assessing the effect pigments, and/or the influence of effect pigments on the image recording and/or the integral color measurement is taken into account and/or eliminated within the scope of the image evaluation (Nagai, FIGS. 25-26, [0138], “As illustrated in FIG. 25, the number of pixels at a peak at the aspecular angle 10° is assumed to be a “glittering area AR1,” the number of pixels at a peak at the aspecular angle 20° is assumed to be a “glittering area AR2,” and the number of pixels at a peak at the aspecular angle 30° is assumed to be a “glittering area AR3.” Further, in FIG. 26, glittering strength at a peak at the aspecular angle 10° is assumed to be “glittering strength K1,” glittering strength at a peak at the aspecular angle 20° is assumed to be “glittering strength K2,” and glittering strength at a peak at the aspecular angle 30° is assumed to be “glittering strength K3.” Furthermore, glittering variance of the histogram at the aspecular angle 10° is assumed to be “glittering variance B1,” glittering variance of the histogram at the aspecular angle 20° is assumed to be “glittering variance B2,” and glittering variance of the histogram at the aspecular angle 30° is assumed to be “glittering variance B3””).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Nagai and Kato discloses Claim 2, and Nagai further discloses:
… wherein the wavelength-dependent sensitivity of the image recording device is determined by a spectrometer and/or a monochromator and/or the evaluation of the image recorded by the image recording device is carried out by a spectrometer and/or a monochromator (Nagai, FIG. 7, [0084], “The light receiving element array 55 is a monochrome sensor in which a color filter of each pixel is not mounted. Hereinafter, a light receiving element array is also referred to as a “monochrome sensor.””).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Nagai and Kato discloses Claim 2, and Nagai further discloses:
… wherein for determining the wavelength-dependent sensitivity of the image recording device, radiation is irradiated onto the surface at a predetermined angle onto a set of reference surfaces with known reflectance (Nagai, FIG. 7, [0087], “the spectral camera device 1 is configured to obtain the accurate tristimulus values of the 2D plane which are corrected for each light receiving position using a reference value and a value calculated from an output value from the spectral camera device 1”).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Nagai and Kato discloses Claim 1, and Nagai further discloses:
… wherein the evaluation takes into account a sensitivity of the human eye which is dependent on a wavelength of the radiation incident on the human eye (Nagai, [0130], “When the deflection angle color measurement information is calculated, the measurement value calculating unit 36 calculates the tristimulus values X, Y, and Z using the deflection angle spectral information as defined in a Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIE),”) and [0146], “When the measurement value of the gloss is calculated, the measurement value calculating unit 36 uses the spectral strength information of 555 nm serving as human visibility for the pixel in which an image of specular reflected light is captured. Further, the measurement value calculating unit 36 calculates the measurement value of the gloss by performing an operation of the following Formula (8) according to Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS) Z8741-1997 Specular Glossiness Methods of Measurement”).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Nagai and Kato discloses Claim 1, and Nagai further discloses:
… wherein radiation is irradiated onto the surface by means of a second radiation device at a second predetermined irradiation angle and the image recording device records an image of the surface irradiated by the second radiation device (Nagai, FIG. 14, [0101], “acquires 2D spectral information of the specimen 61 through a single image capturing operation (one shot) for each irradiation angle of light of the illumination units 15a to 15e”).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Nagai and Kato discloses Claim 4, and Nagai further discloses:
… wherein the filter device takes into account an emission spectrum of the radiation device, an intensity curve of a standard light, at least one tristimulus function in particular of the human and/or one for a filter characteristic of the image recording device (Nagai, [0130], “When the deflection angle color measurement information is calculated, the measurement value calculating unit 36 calculates the tristimulus values X, Y, and Z using the deflection angle spectral information as defined in a Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIE),”) and [0146], “When the measurement value of the gloss is calculated, the measurement value calculating unit 36 uses the spectral strength information of 555 nm serving as human visibility for the pixel in which an image of specular reflected light is captured. Further, the measurement value calculating unit 36 calculates the measurement value of the gloss by performing an operation of the following Formula (8) according to Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS) Z8741-1997 Specular Glossiness Methods of Measurement”).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Nagai and Kato discloses Claim 1, and Nagai further discloses:
… wherein the angle of observation with respect to a direction perpendicular to the surface is smaller than 10° and/or in that the first angle of incidence with respect to a direction perpendicular to the surface is between 70° and 20° (Nagai, FIG. 17, showing the imaging angle as perpendicular to the surface and showing multiple radiation angles, including one that appears to be about 45°).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Nagai and Kato discloses Claim 1, and Nagai further discloses:
… wherein a data reduction of the data recorded in the course of the evaluation is carried out (Nagai, FIG. 26, “when the description proceeds with the example illustrated in the strength histogram of FIG. 26, [0143], the measurement value calculating unit 36 reconstructs an image using only pixels except for the “glittering area AR2” and the “glittering area AR3” of the number of pixels at the peak”).
Regarding Claim 13, Nagai discloses:
An apparatus for inspecting … surfaces (Nagai, FIG. 14, [0101], specimen 61)
one or more layers with absorption pigments and/or effect pigments (Nagai, [0163], “The specimen measuring device according to the first embodiment can calculate the measurement value of the respective evaluation items such as the deflection angle spectral information, the deflection angle color information, the BRDF information, the glittering feeling, the graininess, the gloss, the haze, the image clarity, and the orange peel of a paint including a glittering material that looks a different color according to an observation angle such as a pearlescent color or a metallic color. Thus, it is possible to perform a comprehensive quantitative evaluation of a paint including a glittering material that looks a different color according to an observation angle at a time”),
having a first radiation device which irradiates radiation onto a surface to be inspected at a first predetermined irradiation angle (Nagai, FIG. 14, [0101], “acquires 2D spectral information of the specimen 61 through a single image capturing operation (one shot) for each irradiation angle of light of the illumination units 15a to 15e”),
and having a color image recording device which records a spatially resolved image of the surface irradiated by the irradiation direction at a first observation angle (Nagai, FIG. 14, [0101], “acquires 2D spectral information of the specimen 61 through a single image capturing operation (one shot) for each irradiation angle of light of the illumination units 15a to 15e”),
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 (Nagai, [0080], “since a sensor has its own spectral sensitivity, it is divided by S(λ) in order to remove non-uniformity,” and FIGS. 1-2, [0107], “the information processing device 4 performs the image capturing control of the spectral camera device 1 through the image capturing control unit 32 illustrated in FIG. 2”),
wherein the apparatus has an image evaluation device which carries out a section-by-section evaluation of the image recorded up by the image recording device (Nagai, FIGS. 25-26, [0138], “As illustrated in FIG. 25, the number of pixels at a peak at the aspecular angle 10° is assumed to be a “glittering area AR1,” the number of pixels at a peak at the aspecular angle 20° is assumed to be a “glittering area AR2,” and the number of pixels at a peak at the aspecular angle 30° is assumed to be a “glittering area AR3.” Further, in FIG. 26, glittering strength at a peak at the aspecular angle 10° is assumed to be “glittering strength K1,” glittering strength at a peak at the aspecular angle 20° is assumed to be “glittering strength K2,” and glittering strength at a peak at the aspecular angle 30° is assumed to be “glittering strength K3.” Furthermore, glittering variance of the histogram at the aspecular angle 10° is assumed to be “glittering variance B1,” glittering variance of the histogram at the aspecular angle 20° is assumed to be “glittering variance B2,” and glittering variance of the histogram at the aspecular angle 30° is assumed to be “glittering variance B3””), …
Nagai discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… inspecting lacquered surfaces …
Examiner has debated whether “lacquers” and “paints” are sufficiently similar to consider this a section 102 inherency rejection. However, due to the differences in creation and uses, Examiner can see considerations that any PHOSITA would need to make to adjust Nagai to account for the differences between paints and lacquers. That said, Examiner finds it within the reasonable skill of PHOSITA to be able to make the aforementioned adjustments to adapt Nagai to work with lacquers.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagai to work on lacquered surfaces. PHOSITA would have known about the uses and properties of lacquers as is known in the art and how to use them to modify Nagai. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as adapting a system to analyze related surfaces.
Nagai discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein a wavelength-dependent sensitivity of the image recording device is determined section by section.
However, Kato, in a similar field of endeavor (COLORING INSPECTION APPARATUS AND COLORING INSPECTION METHOD), discloses:
… wherein a wavelength-dependent sensitivity of the image recording device is determined section by section (Kato, [0074], “The coloring inspection apparatus 1 includes a camera 2 that is configured to have three spectral sensitivities (S1(λ), S2(λ), S3(λ)) linearly and equivalently converted to a CIE XYZ color matching function, an arithmetic processing unit 3 that is configured to obtain and compute coloring data by conversion of an image which has three spectral sensitivities and is obtained by the camera 2 into tristimulus values X, Y and Z in a CIE XYZ color system, and lighting units 6 that are configured to illuminate an automobile 5 as an example of measuring object. The arithmetic processing unit 3 sets a specified inspection area K in coloring data obtained by imaging a measuring object, computes x and y values of the inspection area K normalized from X, Y and Z values of each pixel in the inspection area K with regard to an inspection object Q and a reference object R as measuring objects, and divides the inspection area K by grids G in xyz coordinates of an xyz chromaticity diagram. The arithmetic processing unit 3 then integrates the numbers of pixels included in each grid G with regard to the inspection object Q and the reference object R to create respective xyz chromaticity histogram distributions, and computes a color distribution consistency index that represents a ratio of overlap of the two xyz chromaticity histogram distributions of the inspection object Q and the reference object R, so as to inspect the color”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagai with the wavelength analysis of Kato. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of wavelength analysis as disclosed by Kato and how to use them to modify Nagai. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of wavelength-dependent system with different sensitivities for analysis.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Nagai and Kato discloses Claim 13, and Nagai further discloses:
… wherein the apparatus has a filter device which calibrates further images recorded by the image recording device and calibrates them taking into account the values determined by the evaluation device (Nagai, FIG. 26, “when the description proceeds with the example illustrated in the strength histogram of FIG. 26, [0143], the measurement value calculating unit 36 reconstructs an image using only pixels except for the “glittering area AR2” and the “glittering area AR3” of the number of pixels at the peak”).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Nagai and Kato discloses Claim 13, and Nagai further discloses:
… wherein the filter device performs a pixel-by-pixel calibration of the values or signals output by the individual pixels of the çolor imaging recording device (Nagai, FIG. 26, “when the description proceeds with the example illustrated in the strength histogram of FIG. 26, [0143], the measurement value calculating unit 36 reconstructs an image using only pixels except for the “glittering area AR2” and the “glittering area AR3” of the number of pixels at the peak”).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Nagai and Kato discloses Claim 1, and Nagai further discloses:
… wherein the results of the evaluation are used or taken into account for future measurements by the apparatus used in the evaluation (Nagai, FIG. 19, S15).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Nagai and Kato discloses Claim 1, and Nagai further discloses:
… wherein the evaluation determines and/or generates a software filter device, which is taken into account and/or used for future measurements (Nagai, FIG. 2, [0069], “The CPU 11 implements functions of a light source control unit 31, an image capturing control unit 32, a pattern control unit 33, a correction information acquiring unit 34, an information correcting unit 35, and a measurement value calculating unit 36 serving as a calculating unit in a software manner as illustrated in FIG. 2”).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Nagai and Kato discloses Claim 1, and Nagai further discloses:
… wherein at least one calibration value can be assigned to each pixel or each range of pixels for future measurements (Nagai, FIG. 19, S15).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Nagai and Kato discloses Claim 5, and Nagai further discloses:
… wherein the spectral sensitivity for each pixel is determined by a monochromator and/or spectrometer and deviations (Nagai, FIG. 7, ]0084], “The light receiving element array 55 is a monochrome sensor in which a color filter of each pixel is not mounted”).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Nagai and Kato discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the colour effect of the absorption pigment is assessed with an image taken at a first pre-determined angle at which the falsification of the colour measurement by the effect pigment is negligible to a good approximation.
Based on review of the specification, Examiner understands the above limitation to, generally, mean:
… wherein the user takes a measurement at an angle where the absorption pigments and/or effect pigments are not triggered and, thus, such effects are negligible.
As Examiner understands it, this is intended to confirm that the absorption pigments and/or effect pigments are operating properly, or perhaps to calibrate the system with a measurement that does not include the absorption pigments and/or effect pigments.
However, Nagai discloses examining using various angles (see FIG. 14). The angle of the detection and lighting of the absorption pigments and/or effect pigments is a result-effective variable. In that, the angle of the detection and lighting inherently changes the detection of the absorption pigments and/or effect pigments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before Applicant's filing date to include “wherein the user takes a measurement at an angle where the absorption pigments and/or effect pigments are not triggered and, thus, such effects are negligible,” since determining the optimum angle to where the effect is negligible is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
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 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