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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/24/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
1 Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
2 The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds over 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3 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.
4 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5 Claim(s) 1-2, 6-9, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ershov, S., Kolchin, K., & Myszkowski, K. (2001, September). Rendering pearlescent appearance based on paint‐composition modelling. In Computer Graphics Forum (Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 227-238). Oxford, UK and Boston, USA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. (hereinafter Ershov).
6 Regarding claim 1, Ershov teaches a computer-implemented method of modifying a texture image, the texture image representing a texture of a coating, the texture image comprising a plurality of pixels, each pixel having a pixel value in a color space, each pixel being associated with a surface position on a surface of the coating ([Page 10; Section 8] reciting “This BRDF is then used by the parametrized ray tracing [25] for rendering of a number of predefined views of an coated object. For every view and for every pixel all data required by the local illumination model is pre-computed and stored to a disc file prior to the paint design session.”; [Page 3; Section 1.2] reciting “The sparkles can be understood as a texture of paint, and this texture essentially depends on viewing and illumination conditions, thus being an example of a BTF [5]. We can compute and visualise this texture; but again this is an approximation valid for not too large flakes of not too high density.”), the method comprising, for at least one pixel in the texture image,
a) defining a depth at which a virtual reflecting object is located below the surface of the coating at the surface position associated with the pixel ([Page 4; Section 4] reciting “Let us subdivide the layer into a power of two imaginary sublayers whose thickness h0 is small enough to neglect multiple scattering. Then let us compute scattering operators for such sublayers, and apply iteratively equations…The procedure is repeated for each of M paint films, and the corresponding scattering operators are computed.”);
b) for at least one coordinate of the color space, determining an attenuation factor for light that has entered the coating through the surface as incident light and has been reflected at the virtual reflecting object at said depth to form reflected light, the attenuation factor being indicative of attenuation of said light along a light path from the surface to the virtual reflecting object and, after reflection, from the virtual reflecting object to the surface, the attenuation factor being determined based on a simulation of light transport through the coating along said light path ([Page 3; Section 2] reciting “Let Iinc be radiant power (of incident light) emitted in a given direction per unit solid angle per a unit surface area (so that it differs from radiance by the cosine of a ray’s direction with the surface normal) falling on the object surface, and let Ir and It be the same quantities reflected from and transmitted through the object…”; [Page 9; Section 7] reciting “Under directional illumination, paint surface looks as “dusted” with tiny shining sparkles, usually differing in color from the “background” paint.”); and
c) modifying the pixel value of the pixel to obtain a modified pixel value using the attenuation factor ([Page 10; Section 8] reciting “Parameters of flakes, pigment particles, binder are specified for every paint layer. The values of the parameters can be interactively changed within the technologically feasible limits…This makes possible very rapid update of pixel luminance based on the BRDF of currently designed paint”).
7 Regarding claim 2, Ershov teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above),
wherein the texture image represents the texture of the coating for a predetermined direction of incident light and a predetermined direction of reflected light, wherein the attenuation factor is a product of a first attenuation factor and a second attenuation factor, wherein the first attenuation factor is indicative of attenuation of the incident light along a light path from the surface to the virtual reflecting object, the first attenuation factor depending on the direction of the incident light, and wherein the second attenuation factor is indicative of attenuation of the reflected light along a light path from the virtual reflecting object to the surface, the second attenuation factor depending on the direction of the reflected light ([Page 4; Section 3] reciting “Let us consider two adjacent layers 1 (left) and 2 (right) with reflection and transmission operators R+k and T+k for illumination from the left, and R¡k and T¡k for illumination from the right. We must distinguish these cases: imagine a perfect mirror whose rear side is absolutely black. Then R+ is the identity operator, while R¡ = 0. However, for a symmetric layer, these operators coincide. Let the incident light with angular distribution of energy Iinc comes from the left. By tracing how it bounces between layers and summing all components, we find that the scattering operators for the two-layer system”).
8 Regarding claim 6, Ershov teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above), comprising:
analyzing brightness of the unmodified pixel values in the texture image ([Page 3; Section 1.2] reciting “The sparkles can be understood as a texture of paint, and this texture essentially depends on viewing and illumination conditions, thus being an example of a BTF [5].”);
based on the analysis of brightness, defining a surface position at which the virtual reflecting object is located below the surface of the coating ([Page 9; Section 7] reciting “Under directional illumination, paint surface looks as “dusted” with tiny shining sparkles, usually differing in color from the “background” paint.”).
9 Regarding claim 7, Ershov teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above), wherein the depth is defined by a random selection according to a predetermined depth distribution ([Page 5; Section 5.1] reciting “Flakes are assumed to be smooth (specularly reflecting) platelets of random orientation. They may have interference coating, thus wave theory must be employed to compute reflectance and transmittance of flake rp(a) and tp(a) as functions of angle a between ray and flake normal.”).
10 Regarding claim 8, Ershov teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above),
wherein the coating comprises effect pigment particles, and wherein steps a) to c) are carried out for a plurality of pixels associated with surface positions at which effect pigment particles are expected to be located below the surface of the coating, each effect pigment particle representing a virtual reflecting object ([Page 9; Section 7] reciting “Each sparkle is illuminated with incident light attenuated by Fresnel paint-air boundary and pigments in paint. Reflected light is also attenuated en route to observer, so the reflected energy which reaches for the eye pupil is where the first line describes attenuation in paint and the second line describes reflectance by flake.”).
11 Regarding claim 9, Ershov teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above),
wherein the coating is present on a substrate having a non-uniform surface topography, a thickness of the coating varying with surface position, and wherein steps a) to c) are carried out for a plurality of pixels associated with different surface positions, the substrate representing the virtual reflecting object (See Fig 1 (“coating”) and 2; [Page 7 Section 6] reciting “It is remarkable that for every term of (18) the correspondence to the paint appearance attributes [19] (refer also to Figure 2) can be found: the first term (the Fresnel reflectance) corresponds to gloss, the second (reflection by flakes) to glitter, and the third (reflection by substrate) to shade. Due to the roughness of painted surface the first term is not a purely specular operator, but exhibits some diffuse properties as well”).
PNG
media_image1.png
796
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
294
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
12 Regarding claim 13, Ershov teaches a computer-implemented method of rendering a surface element of a coating, the method comprising:
computing a color value for the surface element, neglecting texture ([Page 10; Section 8] reciting “This makes possible very rapid update of pixel luminance based on the BRDF of currently designed paint… The computation requirements increase with the complexity of the paint structure. For example, a three-layer paint with two types of flakes and two types of pigment particles requires about 1–9 seconds… Shade depends on the color of layer substrate…”;
13 The remainder of claim 13 has similar limitations as of claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14 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.
15 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.
16 Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ershov, S., Kolchin, K., & Myszkowski, K. (2001, September). Rendering pearlescent appearance based on paint‐composition modelling. In Computer Graphics Forum (Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 227-238). Oxford, UK and Boston, USA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. (hereinafter Ershov) in view of Kokemohr et al (US 20180124283 A1) and Mistretta et al. (US 20190099146 A1).
17 Regarding claim 3, Ershov teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above), and although it could teach wherein the modified pixel value is obtained by multiplying the unmodified pixel value with the attenuation factor (See equation and statement below), Kokemohr and can teach this limitation further.
PNG
media_image3.png
153
443
media_image3.png
Greyscale
18 Kokemohr teaches wherein the modified pixel value is obtained by multiplying the unmodified pixel value with the attenuation factor ([Claim 4] reciting “…wherein applying the scaled color change includes multiplying the scaled color change by the unmodified pixel values to produce the modified pixel values.”; [0019] reciting “The image is filtered with an edge-preserving detail-reducing filter (EPRDF). At each pixel to be modified, the selected change of color, scaled by a measure of color similarity to the selected reference color in the corresponding pixel in the EPRDF image, is added to the unmodified corresponding pixel value.”) normalized by a normalization factor.
19 It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method (taught by Ershov) to incorporate the teachings of Kokemohr to provide a clearer method that provides a multiplication for the unmodified or the modified pixel values taught by Ershov, alongside with attenuation factors and/or methods. Doing so would allow a desired change of contrast as stated by Kokemohr ([0019] recited).
20 Ershov in view of Kokemohr does not explicitly teach wherein the modified pixel value is obtained by multiplying the unmodified pixel value with the attenuation factor normalized by a normalization factor.
21 Mistretta teaches wherein the modified pixel value is obtained by multiplying the unmodified pixel value with the attenuation factor normalized by a normalization factor ([0044] reciting “The weighted attenuation value is deposited at image location x, y, z in the Radon plane 121 based on the value at the corresponding location x, y, z in the composite image. This is a simple multiplication of the backprojected ray sum value P by the corresponding composite image pixel value. This product is then normalized by dividing the product by the ray sum attenuation value from the corresponding image space projection view of the composite image.”).
22 It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method (taught by Ershov in view of Kokemohr) to incorporate the teachings of Mistretta to provide a method that involves the attenuation factors that can be taught by Ershov in view of Kokemohr to have methods that involve normalizing. Doing so would allow a type of normalization to be performed on each pixel as stated by Mistretta ([0043] recited).
23 Regarding claim 4, Ershov in view of Kokemohr and Mistretta teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 3 (see claims 1 and 3 rejections above), wherein the normalization factor is a reference attenuation factor is indicative of attenuation of light along a light path from the surface to a virtual reflective reference object at a reference depth and, after reflection, from the virtual reflective reference object to the surface (Ershov; [Page 3; Section 1.2] reciting “For example, light scattered by a flake may then be reflected by another flake (or substrate) and then hit the first flake again. Despite that the probability of such an event is low, it may be essential in some cases, which we cannot be sure a priori. Another simplification in our approach relies on considering just the total area of flakes per unit paint volume instead of separate treatment of the flake size and density. This means that our BRDF can be identical for few large flakes and many small flakes, which is a good approximation only within certain limits imposed on the maximum size and density of flakes.”; [Page 5; Section 5.1] reciting “Flakes are assumed to be smooth (specularly reflecting) platelets of random orientation. They may have interference coating, thus wave theory must be employed to compute reflectance and transmittance of flake rp(a) and tp(a) as functions of angle a between ray and flake normal…In absence of multiple scattering the scattering operator for an ensemble of flakes equals that for a single flake averaged over its size and orientation, and scaled by the flake density (like for rough surface built of facets [4]). Orientation of flakes is described by the distribution P(b) of angle b between the normal vectors to flake and paint surfaces.”) (See claim 3 regarding “normalization”).
24 Regarding claim 5, Ershov in view of Kokemohr and Mistretta teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 4 (see claims 1 and 3-4 rejections above), wherein the virtual reflective reference object is a substrate on which the coating is disposed (Ershov; [Page 6; Section 6] reciting “Two-layer paint, made of substrate (color base) covered with a single paint film, is the simplest metallic paint that has its basic visual and composition features. Many real paints are actually two-layer ones, or can be well approximated by them (e.g., neglecting multiple layers of a transparent resin used to protect the paint from weathering). One can treat two-layer paint as a paint with flakes and pigments separated: flakes are in the top layer and pigments are in the bottom layer (substrate which is a solid paint).”).
25 Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ershov, S., Kolchin, K., & Myszkowski, K. (2001, September). Rendering pearlescent appearance based on paint‐composition modelling. In Computer Graphics Forum (Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 227-238). Oxford, UK and Boston, USA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. (hereinafter Ershov) in view of Qiao et al. (US 20120212753 A1).
26 Regarding claim 10, Ershov teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above), wherein the , and wherein the method comprises a step of determining the unmodified texture image based on at least one measurement and/or based on a synthesis operation, wherein the measurement and/or synthesis operations do not take the presence of the at least one non-effect pigment into account (See Fig 1; [Page 10, Section 8] reciting “Parameters of flakes, pigment particles, binder are specified for every paint layer. The values of the parameters can be interactively changed within the technologically feasible limits.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
796
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
27 Although Ershov could teach wherein the coating comprises at least one non-effect pigment ([Page 6; Section 6] reciting “One can treat two-layer paint as a paint with flakes and pigments separated: flakes are in the top layer and pigments are in the bottom layer (substrate which is a solid paint).”), Qiao can teach this limitation further.
28 Qiao teaches wherein the coating comprises at least one non-effect pigment ([0008] reciting “A perceived texture image may be produced on a generally uniform substrate by rendering toner at variable halftone dot orientations.”; [0046] reciting “For illustration purposes, a first texture description may be formed to include a pattern for covering an entire surface area portion of the substrate.”)…
29 It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method (taught by Ershov) to incorporate the teachings of Qiao to provide a clearer method that can provide a non-effect pigment with the coatings taught by Ershov. Doing so would generate electronic data representing a three-dimensional texture as stated by Qiao ([Abstract] recited).
30 Regarding claim 11, Ershov in view of Qiao teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 10 (see claims 1 and 10 rejections above), wherein the unmodified texture image is determined based on at least one measurement of at least one reference coating, wherein the reference coating does not comprise the at least one non-effect pigment (Ershov; See Fig. 1 from claim 9; [Page 8, Section 6.3] reciting “…thus if we neglect absorption in the binder (i.e., k=0), and then the optical thickness (21) can be approximated as … and therefore for mirror flakes…”).
31 Regarding claim 12, Ershov in view of Qiao teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 11 (see claims 1 and 10-11 rejections above), wherein the reference coating comprises an effect pigment while not comprising the at least one non-effect pigment (Ershov; [Page 8; Section 6.3] reciting “…thus if we neglect absorption in the binder (i.e., k=0), and then the optical thickness (21) can be approximated as … and therefore for mirror flakes…”; See Fig. 1 from claim 9 and Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image4.png
439
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
32 Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ershov, S., Kolchin, K., & Myszkowski, K. (2001, September). Rendering pearlescent appearance based on paint‐composition modelling. In Computer Graphics Forum (Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 227-238). Oxford, UK and Boston, USA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. (hereinafter Ershov) in view of Martin et al. (US 20190385344 A1).
33 Regarding claim 14, Ershov teaches the method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
34 Ershov does not explicitly teach a device for modifying a texture image, the device comprising a processor and a memory comprising program instructions configured to cause the processor to carry out the method of claim 1.
35 Martin teaches a device for modifying a texture image, the device comprising a processor and a memory comprising program instructions configured to cause the processor to carry out the method of claim 1 ([0040] reciting “Turning now to the figures, FIG. 1 illustrates a schematic diagram of one embodiment of an exemplary environment 100 in which a procedural texture modification system 106 can operate. As illustrated in FIG. 1, the exemplary environment 100 includes server device(s) 102, a network 108, and a client device 110.”; [0136] reciting “Furthermore, according to various design variants, the microprocessor 906, as well as the working memory with instructions 910 can be centralized for all the modules or be externally arranged, with connection to the different modules, or be distributed locally in such a way that one or more modules can each have a microprocessor and/or a memory including instructions.”).
36 It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method (taught by Ershov) to incorporate the teachings of Martin to provide a device that contains a processor and program instructions for texture modification methods like the ones taught by Ershov. Doing so would provide digital content (e.g., digital images), one or more generated color palettes, one or more textures, one or more procedural materials, one or more modified procedural textures, and/or one or more modified procedural materials to a client device as stated by Martin ([0041] recited).
Conclusion
37 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNY TRAN LE whose telephone number is (571)272-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu: 7:30am-5pm; First Fridays Off; Second Fridays: 7:30am-4pm.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571) 272-7667. 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.
/JOHNNY T LE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2614
/KENT W CHANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2614