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 .
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the program can exist only in signal form, or be represented in pseudocode and has no structural foundation. Examiner recommends adding the terms “non-transitory computer readable medium.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauchamp (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0170097) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2007/0273765).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 7, Beauchamp discloses (Figs.; [0034]) a diagnosis device for diagnosing a damage state (cleaned/uncleaned) of a coating material (30) coated on a surface of a member (14), the diagnosis device comprising: a unit (36) configured to set, in an image (from 34) obtained by capturing the surface of the member, a diagnosis target portion (22) that is a portion where the damage state is to be diagnosed; a unit (36) configured to designate, in the image, a reference portion ([0034]; reference pixels) that is a portion without the damage state; a unit (36) configured to individually calculate color RGB values of the diagnosis target portion and the reference portion; a unit (36) configured to calculate a color difference ([0034] color comparison) between the values of the diagnosis target portion and the values of the reference portion; and a unit (36) configured to diagnose the damage state (histogram) of the diagnosis target portion from the color difference. The method steps and the program or algorithm to carry out the steps are inherent in the apparatus as the steps are automated by a computer processor. Beauchamp does not disclose using LAB values. Wang et al. teach ([0072]) using LAB color values over RGB to better mimic eye responses and improve segmentation results. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide LAB values in the apparatus and method of Beauchamp in view of Wang et al. to improve the device or method as taught, known and predictable.
Claim(s) 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauchamp in view of Wang et al., further in view of Kondo (U.S. PGPUB 2014/0355016).
Regarding claims 2, 3, Beauchamp in view of Wang et al. disclose the claimed invention as set forth above. Beauchamp and Wang et al. do not disclose determining whether the target or reference portion is appropriate from the LAB values. Kondo teaches ([0078]) determining (color difference) whether the target or reference portion is appropriate (applicable) from the LAB values. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to provide such a step in the apparatus and method of Beauchamp in view of Wang et al. to provide further verification as taught, known and predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH LUU whose telephone number is (571)272-2441. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/THANH LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights