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 .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO 1449.These IDS has been considered.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/02/2025, with respect to regarding restriction/election arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, restriction/election are related as process of making and product has been withdrawn.
Claim objections
Claim 5 is/are objected to because: As per claim 5, claim recites “an integrator device”, there is no antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim.
The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of expediting the processing of the application, Claims have been rejected in view of the prior art (see below) based on a broader interpretation that meets the claimed subject matter as interpreted by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first illumination device, second illumination device, radiation analysis device” in claim 1; “third illumination device” in claim 6; “forth illumination device” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EHBETS et al. (US 20190049304 A1) (herein after EHBETS) [cited in the IDS filed by the applicant] in view of KAWANO et al. (US 20160258865 A1) (herein after KAWANO) [cited in the IDS filed by the applicant].
As to claim(s) 1, EHBETS discloses an apparatus for examining surface properties of lacquered surfaces, comprising:
a first illumination device [21-27] which illuminates a surface to be examined at a first illumination angle [¶0100,0102; figs. 2-3][The seven illumination means 21 to 27 illuminate a measurement spot or measurement field MF (FIGS. 9 and 14) on the surface of a measurement object MO, directed at different illumination angles in relation to the device normal DN, nominally at −60°, −45°, −30°, −20°, 0°, +30° and +65° …¶0101],
a second illumination device [21-27] which illuminates the surface a second illumination angle [¶0100,0102; figs. 2-3][The seven illumination means 21 to 27 illuminate a measurement spot or measurement field MF (FIGS. 9 and 14) on the surface of a measurement object MO, directed at different illumination angles in relation to the device normal DN, nominally at −60°, −45°, −30°, −20°, 0°, +30° and +65° …¶0101],
a first sensor device [33a] which detects radiation reflected and/or scattered by the surface illuminated by the second illumination device at a first recording angle [The locally resolving measurement channel 33 comprises a colour-enabled (RGB) camera 33a to which measurement light can be applied via a beam splitter 33b and a lens 33c (FIG. 3) …¶0102] [¶0110], and
a radiation analysis device [31a/32a] [¶0110].
[Note: while each unit configured to perform as claimed may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does].
EHBETS discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “the radiation analysis device which analysis radiation scattered and/or reflected by the surface with respect to its wavelength”.
However, KAWANO from the same field of endeavor discloses a radiation analysis device [52] which analysis radiation scattered and/or reflected by the surface with respect to its wavelength [The calculation unit 52 performs calculation processing for obtaining a reflection characteristic value, that is, the evaluation value about gloss (hereinafter, referred to as “gloss evaluation value”) of the object S to be measured, based on output signals from the diffuse reflection light receiving unit 20 and the specular light reception unit 30…¶0040].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of EHBETS such that the radiation analysis device which analysis radiation scattered and/or reflected by the surface with respect to its wavelength; as taught by KAWANO, for the advantages such as: in order to obtain an optimum measurement.
As of claims 2 and 14, EHBETS discloses the apparatus/method wherein the radiation analysis device comprises a spectrometer [The two spectral measurement channels 31 and 32 comprise two spectrometers 31a and 32a to which the measurement light is fed by means of feed lenses 31b and 32b…¶0102].
As of claims 3, 8 and 13, EHBETS discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The apparatus wherein the radiation analysis device is arranged such that it records the radiation irradiated onto the surface by at least one of the first or second illumination devices and scattered and/or reflected by the surface.
the apparatus/method according to claim 1, wherein the radiation analysis device is suitable and intended for analyzing radiation which has been irradiated onto the surface by the first and/or the third illumination device and has been scattered by the surface with respect to its wavelength”.
However, KAWANO from the same field of endeavor discloses a radiation analysis device [52] is arranged such that it records the radiation irradiated onto the surface by at least one of the first or second illumination devices [10@¶0028] and scattered and/or reflected by the surface [The calculation unit 52 performs calculation processing for obtaining a reflection characteristic value, that is, the evaluation value about gloss (hereinafter, referred to as “gloss evaluation value”) of the object S to be measured, based on output signals from the diffuse reflection light receiving unit 20 and the specular light reception unit 30…¶0040];
wherein the radiation analysis device is suitable and intended for analyzing radiation which has been irradiated onto the surface by the first and/or the third illumination device and has been scattered by the surface with respect to its wavelength [¶0030, 0040].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of EHBETS such that the radiation analysis device is arranged such that it records the radiation irradiated onto the surface by the at least one of the first or second illumination devices and scattered and/or reflected by the surface; wherein the radiation analysis device is suitable and intended for analyzing radiation which has been irradiated onto the surface by the first and/or the third illumination device and has been scattered by the surface with respect to its wavelength; as taught by KAWANO, for the advantages such as: to measure the optical property with higher precision and also facilitate focusing at the object.
As of claim 4, EHBETS discloses the apparatus wherein the radiation analysis device is a component of the sensor device [33a] [The two spectral measurement channels 31 and 32 comprise two spectrometers 31a and 32a to which the measurement light is fed by means of feed lenses 31b and 32b…¶0102].
As of claim 5, EHBETS discloses the apparatus wherein the apparatus has an integrator device [21-27] which integrates a signal output by the radiation analysis device [¶0101,0102].
As of claims 6 and 15, EHBETS discloses the apparatus wherein the apparatus has a third illumination device [21-27] which is arranged with respect to the surface at a third illumination angle [¶0101,0102].
As of claim 7, EHBETS discloses the apparatus wherein at least one illumination angle is between 30° and 60°, preferably between 35° and 55°, preferably between 40° and 50° and particularly preferably at 45°, and/or in that at least one illumination angle is greater than 60°, preferably greater than 65°, preferably greater than 70°, preferably greater than 75° and particularly preferably greater than 80° [¶0101,0102].
As of claim 9, EHBETS discloses the apparatus wherein the apparatus has a fourth illumination device [21-27], which is arranged with respect to the surface at a fourth illumination angle [¶0101,0102].
As of claim 10, EHBETS discloses the apparatus wherein at least one illumination device [21-27] is suitable and intended for irradiating radiation of different wavelengths onto the surface [¶0101,0102].
As to claim(s) 11, EHBETS discloses a method for examining surface properties of lacquered surfaces, comprising:
a first illumination device [21-27] which illuminates a surface to be examined at a first illumination angle [¶0100,0102; figs. 2-3][The seven illumination means 21 to 27 illuminate a measurement spot or measurement field MF (FIGS. 9 and 14) on the surface of a measurement object MO, directed at different illumination angles in relation to the device normal DN, nominally at −60°, −45°, −30°, −20°, 0°, +30° and +65° …¶0101],
a second illumination device [21-27] which illuminates the surface a second illumination angle [¶0100,0102; figs. 2-3][The seven illumination means 21 to 27 illuminate a measurement spot or measurement field MF (FIGS. 9 and 14) on the surface of a measurement object MO, directed at different illumination angles in relation to the device normal DN, nominally at −60°, −45°, −30°, −20°, 0°, +30° and +65° …¶0101],
a first sensor device [33a] records radiation reflected and/or scattered by the surface illuminated by the second illumination device at a first recording angle [The locally resolving measurement channel 33 comprises a colour-enabled (RGB) camera 33a to which measurement light can be applied via a beam splitter 33b and a lens 33c (FIG. 3) …¶0102] [¶0110], and
a radiation analysis device [31a/32a] [¶0110].
[Note: while each unit configured to perform as claimed may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does].
EHBETS discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “outputs at least one value which is characteristic of the radiation reaching the first sensor device from the surface,
the radiation analysis device which analysis radiation scattered and/or reflected by the surface with respect to its wavelength”.
However, KAWANO from the same field of endeavor discloses a radiation analysis device [52] which analysis radiation scattered and/or reflected by the surface with respect to its wavelength [The calculation unit 52 performs calculation processing for obtaining a reflection characteristic value, that is, the evaluation value about gloss (hereinafter, referred to as “gloss evaluation value”) of the object S to be measured, based on output signals from the diffuse reflection light receiving unit 20 and the specular light reception unit 30…¶0040] and outputs at least one value which is characteristic of the radiation reaching the first sensor device from the surface [¶0028, 0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of EHBETS such that the radiation analysis device which analysis radiation scattered and/or reflected by the surface with respect to its wavelength; the first sensor device outputs at least one value which is characteristic of the radiation reaching the first sensor device from the surface, as taught by KAWANO, for the advantages such as: in order to obtain an optimum measurement.
As of claim 12, EHBETS discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The method according to claim 11, wherein both the value determined by the sensor device and data recorded by the radiation analysis device are taken into account for an evaluation of the surface properties”.
However, KAWANO from the same field of endeavor discloses the method wherein both the value determined by the sensor device and data recorded by the radiation analysis device are taken into account for an evaluation of the surface properties [¶0040, 0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of EHBETS such that both the value determined by the sensor device and data recorded by the radiation analysis device are taken into account for the evaluation of the surface properties, as taught by KAWANO, for the advantages such as: in order to obtain an optimum measurement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur.
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, TARIFUR CHOWDHURY can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
MD M. RAHMAN
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2886
/MD M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877