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 .
Status of Claims
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed5/6/2026. Claims 1, 10 and 19 were amended. Claim 4 is cancelled. Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/6/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/6/2026, with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-20 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “That is, for example, an automated device, such as a system with a scanner or the like, provides an operation that automatically detects the inputs needed by the system to determine the amount of paint needed for the target surface operation. The inputs are automatically input to the system, which then outputs the coating type and amount, and the automated system uses that data to prepare the coating, such as color matching and quantity, to complete the target surface operation. As such, the system provides for an improvement to a paint preparation system, which is not merely a generic computer process. That is, for example, current car repair painter would an amount of coating needed for the final paint color that is specific to the project or job, with any paint not used being wasted. Because an individual (e.g., a paint mixer) uses an estimated size of the paint job and the individual's experience (e.g., to determine if extra paint should be mixed to allow for the color to be blended or if the paint is limited to, for example, a repair area) to estimate the amount of paint needed for the paint job, and wasted paint is not uncommon. This automated process automatically generates the needed inputs for the paint estimation, the generates the estimated amount for both the covering and repair, and automatically generates the appropriate amount in the right color. As such, this is an improvement on the whole paint preparation process and user experience, which was previously flawed and led to waste. This automated process can provide the appropriate amount of paint in the right color for the repair and coverage job from start to finish. This automated system provides automation of tasks that previously requiring human judgment, which led to more work, cost, and waste”, (see remarks , pg. 8-9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for providing an estimate for surface coating application usage estimation, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping, as the an individual can compute the amount of material required for an area and provide the estimation. The computing elements such as “processor, computer-readable medium, application, interface of claim 1; application of claim 10; application, user interface, input/output device, control unit, processor, memory, interface of claim 19” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Examiner attempted a call and left a voicemail to Attorney Evan T. Perry, on 6/2/2026. Examiner stated a review of the Applicant’s specification, attempting to find a suggestion from the output limitation, during the scan of the application, was only finding output to be coordinated with an estimation and/or prediction of an amount to be used, but if there was physical integration of the claims such as after estimating the amount needed for surface area, for this material to be poured/provided based on this estimation, it would greatly assist the situation. Examiner welcomes an interview when possible to further discuss.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for estimating amount of coating for a surface.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1, 10 and 19 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “system for a surface coating usage estimation, the system comprising: receive a plurality of inputs associated with a surface coating , the plurality of inputs comprising one or more of a target coating surface area, a method of the coating, a surface substrate type, and a coating type; determine properties for the surface coating based on the received plurality of inputs; estimate an amount of coating sufficient to complete the surface coating based on the determined properties; and output the estimated amount of coating corresponding to a total amount of coating to be prepared for the surface coating; wherein target coating surface area comprises an area to be coated and a repair area, and further operative to determine the application properties for the surface coatinq application based at least in part on a hidinq ability of a color for the surface coatinq application and a predicted color match accuracy, wherein the estimated amount of the basecoat is based at least in part on the repair area, the hidinq ability of the color for the surface coatinq application and the predicted color match accuracy; wherein the received plurality of inputs is provided automatically by an operation that automatically detects one or more of the plurality of inputs for the surface coating, and the output is received by a surface coating preparation operation that automatically prepares the coating for the surface coating application” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (processor, computer-readable medium, application, interface of claim 1; application of claim 10; application, user interface, input/output device, control unit, processor, memory, interface of claim 19) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-3 and 5-20 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (processor, computer-readable medium, application, interface of claim 1; application of claim 10; application, user interface, input/output device, control unit, processor, memory, interface of claim 19). The processor, computer-readable medium, application, interface of claim 1; application of claim 10; application, user interface, input/output device, control unit, processor, memory, interface of claim 19, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-9, 11-18 and 20 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the processor in claims 2, 5, 7-8; computer-readable medium in claims 2, 5, 7-9; application of claim 2, 8-9, 11, 13, 17-18, 20; spectral readings and coating measuring device of claims 6 and 15, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Closest Prior Art on record:
Bipes, teaches receiving inputs for surface coating application, determining application properties for surface coating based on inputs, and estimating an amount of coating to cover the area.
Labrie, 20170345069, teaches an estimate, is received by the automated quality assurance review system and subsequently analyzed.
Rattner, 20170323319, teaches providing AI-based cost estimates for services are disclosed. The method may comprise receiving, at one or more processors, data from a scanning of a location, the scanning performed by one or more of a camera, a computer vision device, an inertial measurement unit, or a depth sensor. Data may be received, at one or more processors, related to the identification of one or more key elements at the location. An itemized statement and quote of work to be performed may be generated at one or more processors.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination of elements/limitations in that claim, including the particular configuration of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 5712725587. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights