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 12/11/2023. Applicant has submitted Claims 1-15 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1-15 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.
Claim Interpretation
Generally: The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 14, provided for reference:
… 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 and/or which is suitable and intended for this purpose.
Regarding “and/or,” Examiner find the language unclear as to what the other option is. The first part is appears to be “calibrates them taking into account the values determined by the evaluation device.” However, the second part is “which is suitable and intended for this purpose.” In a sense, Examiner understands Applicant to be claiming a specific function and then simply anything that does that function in addition to, but also somehow also in the alternative to, the specific function. Clarification is required.
Regarding the “is suitable and intended for this purpose,” Examiner is unclear as to what “this purpose” is, and therefore is unclear what “is suitable and intended.” As written, Examiner is unclear if “this purpose” refers to the “calibrates further images recorded by the image recording device” or the “calibrates them taking into account the values determined by the evaluation device.” In some interpretations, Examiner is unsure if Applicant is refering to the “filtering device” which is doing these calibrations. Clarification 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai (US 20160040985 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.
Regarding Claim 2, Nagai discloses Claim 1,
… 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 a 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, NAME discloses Claim 2, and Nagai further discloses:
… wherein a 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”).
Regarding Claim 4, Nagai 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, Nagai 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, Nagai discloses Claim 2,
… 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, Nagai 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, Nagai 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, Nagai 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, NAME 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, Nagai 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, Nagai 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.
Regarding Claim 14, Nagai 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 and/or which is suitable and intended for this purpose (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, Nagai 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”).
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