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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 7/20/2026 is entered and fully considered.
In view of the amendment the 101 rejection is removed. The amendment requires the method to be computer implemented. The use of a computer alone does not make the subject matter eligible. However, the computer system itself is performing a particular application, specifically, the reducing of deltas between a target coating and test coating using a spectrophotometer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach all the limitations of the amended claims. Specifically, applicant argues the computer system uses spectrophotometric data to compare coatings. However, upon review of the DATILLO reference, the electronic sensor data/module for quality control is taught to include sepctrophotometers claims 11 and 39. The previous rejection also noted the reference teaches using thermometers and pressure sensors because climatic conditions are result effective variables [0008] and [0029].
Applicant argues there is no reason to combine the DATILLO and RODRIGUES references. However, the RODRIGUES reference is only incorporated to teach the displaying the target and test coatings on an interface. DATILLO teaches the coating measurements and using a computer to reduce differences between coatings. The examiner maintains that offering different solutions to a user instead of automating a coating matching would be prima facie obvious because the matching process can be subjective in terms of determining what qualities matter more than others to match the best. Offering multiple solutions to a user allows them to choose which closest match they “like” the best.
The examiner further notes that the “generating… rendering instructions” can be met by saving an image as an image file (e.g. JPEG, SVG, PNG, EPS). When producing multiple solutions the images of those solutions must be held in a format that are instructions for rendering.
Additional pertinent prior art includes NORRIS (US 2015/0134300) which makes spectrophotometer measurements and communication between computer and server/database for making matching coatings, see fig. 7.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are 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.
Claim 1 adds limitations and steps by amendment that include antecedent basis issues which make the claim difficult to interpret. Depending claim limitations incorporate the same issues.
Specifically, in the first step of claim 1, spectrophotometric data for a target coating is received and one more coatings are determined to match the target coating.
In the second step a test coating that has been applied according to “the one or more coatings” (determined above) is measured and transmitted along with the environmental data.
The new amended step then requires generating rendering instructions for “the first target coating” and “the second target coating”. These terms lack antecedent basis. It is not clear if they are referring to the one more coatings that are applied to make test coating(s). There is only one target coating, but multiple test coatings could be determined to be “matching”. The one or more coatings would then be applied and measured to the second asset. This generating rendering instructions may then be used to deposit multiple test coatings that are deposited and measured in the previous step.
However, the subsequent step requires displaying of “the first surface” corresponding to the target coating and “the second surface” corresponding to the test coating. Accordingly, the first and second surface appear to refer to the target coating and the test coating, respectively. This also does not really make sense because the target coating was already applied, meaning the rendering instructions already exist and do not need to be “generated”.
Claim 17 incorporates the same antecedent basis issues as claim 1 and requires amendment for clarification. Depending limitations incorporate the same issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DATTILO et al. (US 2018/0149634) in view of RODRIGUES et al. (US 2013/0071015).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 11, 17, 19 and 20,
DATTILO teaches a method of ensuring quality control for paint coatings [0007]-[0011] that includes using a camera to measure a finished paint product [0033]. The finished product is compared with data of other deposited coating (target coatings applied and analyzed at a remote facility) [0035]. The “remote facility” can include all parts/places in communication of the quality control system. The camera can further include thermometers and pressure sensors because climatic conditions are result effective variables [0008] and [0029]. The sensor suite can be electronic (digital) [0007]. The electronic sensor data/module for quality control can include sepctrophotometers claims 11 and 39. The quality assurance processing module can detect if a paint coating falls within a tolerance (detecting deltas) then propose specific changes need to correct any undesirable outcome (providing feedback to reduce the deltas) [0036]-[0037]. The process can be interfaced on a mobile computing device 142 (user interface).
DATTILO teaches offering corrections to the coating based upon the database, but does not expressly teach spraying a test coating and displaying both the target coating and the test coating values on an interface. However, RODRIGUES similarly teaches a method of matching coatings abstract. The method includes identifying the target coating and comparing to a coatings from a supply center (remote facility) abstract while a test coat is made and measured (determining a test coating was applied to a second asset at the remote facility) Fig. 2. The method includes obtaining repair data from the repair facility and transmitting to a supply center which can generate a matching formula (reducing deltas) [0058]-[0061]. The color characteristics are prestored (coatings have been applied) in a database [0085]. The coating attributes are defined by images and RGB values (digital measurement) and both the test and target coats can be displayed such that a choice can be made [0071]-[0076] and [0083]. By displaying the prestored data, representations of the coatings are retrieved/copied (generated) and rendered on the display. DATTILO teaches that coating attributes can include spectrophotometric data as described above. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to display the corrective values and coatings to allow a user to select an option that they believe to be best suited.
When making the selection of the coating that is the closest match (reduced deltas), the DATTILO reference teaches including the climatic conditions (environmental conditions) as pertinent data to obtain the coating (feedback).
Regarding claims 2, 13, and 18,
RODRIGUES teaches the RGB values can be LAB values [0081].
Regarding claim 5,
DATTILO teaches the curing energies can be controlled [0029]. “Curing energies” is interpreted to overlap with the scope of “lighting attributes”.
Regarding claims 7 and 12,
RODRIGUES teaches displaying both test and target coats but does not expressly teach display in a grid format. However, the alignment of the display is considered to be prima facie obvious as an aesthetic design choice, MPEP 2144.04.I.
Regarding claims 8 and 9,
DATTILO teaches storing and sharing coating data between different paint facilities to identify trends and changes [0045].
Regarding claim 10,
When making a selection for correcting coating attributes, the deposition conditions are “saved” and only executed (automatically) if selected.
Regarding claim 14,
RODRIGUES teaches including data for more than one view angles [0083].
Regarding claim 15,
DATILLO teaches the corrective feedback can include spray rate [0038].
Regarding claim 16,
RODRIGUES teaches controlling appearance characteristics such as flake appearance (content) [0082].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21 and 24 of copending Application No. 18/292,032 in view of DATILLO et al. (US 2018/0149634).
The copending claim 21 is directed to matching a “standard coating” and a “test coating” which corresponds to the claimed “target coating on a first asset” and “test coating on a second asset”, respectively. The matching is done by using digital measurements to determine coating “attributes”. The copending application identifies the mismatch but does not require any additional steps for feedback to reduce the mismatch (reducing deltas) or using environmental conditions as a variable. However, as described in the rejection above, DATILLO teaches a quality assurance processing module can detect if a paint coating falls within a tolerance (detecting deltas) then propose specific changes (including climatic changes) needed to correct any undesirable outcome (providing feedback to reduce the deltas). At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to generate and offer corrective actions to ensure matching between coatings to improve quality control.
Copending claim 24 is directed to the computer system with stored instructions to do the color matching method and can be similarly improved with the quality assurance corrective system of DATILLO.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights