DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim(s) 1, 4-10, 16-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1).
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.
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: “a computing unit” in claim 1.
Because this claim limitation(s) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 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 being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-23 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The claims recite the term “for example”. It is unclear to the examiner whether the limitations following this term are intended to be incorporated into the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitations following the term “for example” are understood to NOT be incorporated into the claim.
The claims recite the limitation of: “two or more measuring spots or under two or more measuring angles from the test object”. However, the limitation contains grammatical errors and contradictory limitations. For the purpose of examination, the limitation was understood as “two or more measurement spots”.
Claim 19 recites the term “on the one hand”. The examiner has no basis of context for this limitation in the claim. It appears to be a translation error. For the purpose of examination, the term is deemed to by unnecessary and not present within the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-10, 16-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by US Publication 2021/0127046 to Kamm.
In regards to claims 1, 4-10, 16-19 and 21-23, Kamm discloses and shows in Figures 1-7, an imaging system which is designed for two-dimensional, spatially resolved measurement of radiometric and/or photometric measured variables, for example the color coordinates of light, which is emitted by a test object, comprising:
a beam splitter (70) (applicant’s splitting optic) provided to split the light incident from the test object into at least a first part and at least a second part, wherein the second part comprises light which is emitted from two or more measuring spots or under two or more measuring angles from the test object (par. 36, 39-40, 52, 66; wherein a beam splitter is utilized to send a first portion of light to a color imaging sensor and a second portion to a conventional spectrometer),
an image sensor (30) provided to receive the first part of the light and to generate a two-dimensional digital image of the light emission of the test object (par. 5, 7, 19, 52, 70, wherein a CCD image sensor obtains a color image of an object),
a conventional spectrometer (60) (applicant’s at least one measuring unit), provided to receive the second part of the light and to detect radiometric and/or photometric measured variables, for example color coordinates of the emitted light for each measuring spot or each measuring angle (par. 3, 21-22, 52-54; wherein a conventional spectrometer obtains a spectral intensity distribution (any radiometric or photometric quantity) from an object), and
a processor (501) (applicant’s computing unit), provided to transform the image values of at least a few, for example all, image points of the two-dimensional digital image, for example into color coordinates, wherein the transformation takes into account the radiometric and/or photometric measured variables detected for the measuring spots or measuring angles (par. 20, 25, 35, 52-56; wherein conventional digital image processing is performed to determine a region of interest within a 2D image, and provide: motion compensation, object recognition and/or segmenting of the region of interest; wherein the spectrometer obtains a spectral intensity distribution, i.e. any radiometric or photometric quantity, for the region of interest),
wherein the measuring unit comprises an imaging spectrometer and each measuring spot or measuring angle is assigned to a different image area of the imaging spectrometer (Figure 2), so that the imaging spectrometer is able to determine the measured variables separately for each measuring spot or measuring angle, or two or more measuring units are provided, wherein a measuring unit is assigned to each measuring spot or measuring angle (par. 3, 21-22, 52-54, 56; wherein a conventional spectrometer utilizes a diffraction grating to spread the spectral components of a region of interest across a linear photodiode);
[claim 4] wherein the imaging spectrometer comprises a dispersive optical element, for example a grating or a prism, and a further image sensor (par. 3);
[claim 5] wherein a liquid crystal micro-display (40, 41) (applicant’s perforated mask) defining the measuring spots or measuring angles is provided being arranged in the beam path of the second part of the incident light (par. 41-45, 52);
[claim 6] wherein the splitting optic comprises a beam splitter or a movable mirror (par. 39-40, 46);
[claims 7] wherein the image sensor has more than three, for example at least five, for example at least nine spectral channels (Figure 2) (par. 19, 64, 70; wherein the CCD image sensor is comprised of a two-dimensional array of a plurality of pixels, and each pixel is viewed as a spectral channel);
[claim 8] wherein the number of measuring spots or measuring angles is at least equal to the number of spectral channels of the image sensor (Figure 2) (par. 19, 64, 70; wherein the CCD image sensor is comprised of a two-dimensional array of a plurality of pixels and the field of view of the device object the entire sensor, wherein each spot or angle from the object is imaged onto a different pixel);
[claim 9] wherein the system comprises a focusing lens (20) (applicant’s conoscopic optic) which is provided to image the light emitted from an area on the test object under different angles onto the image sensor in such a way that an emission angle is associated with each image point of the two-dimensional digital image (par. 38, 52, 67; wherein the focused beam will include an illumination cone of angles);
[claim 16] wherein the two-dimensional digital image comprises at least three, for example at least five, for example at least nine image values for each image point (Figure 2) (par. 19, 64, 70; wherein the CCD image sensor is an RGB sensor (applicant’s three values) and is comprised of a two-dimensional array of a plurality of pixels);
[claim 17] wherein the measuring spots on the test object are located at different radial distances from the detecting axis of the image sensor (Figures 1-3) (par. 19, 64, 70; wherein the field of view of the object is a circular beam and the CCD image sensor is comprised of a two-dimensional array of a plurality of pixels);
[claim 18] wherein the measurement variables for the two or more measuring spots or measuring angles are detected simultaneously (Figure 2) (par. 19, 64, 70; wherein the CCD image sensor is comprised of a two-dimensional array of a plurality of pixels for sensing the entire field of view of the object);
[claim 19] wherein the color systems of the color coordinates on the one hand and the image values of the two-dimensional digital image generated by the image sensor on the other hand differ from each other (par. 3, 5, 19, 22, 54; wherein the spectrometer measures the average spectral intensity distribution and the CCD image sensor obtains RGB images);
[claim 21] wherein the color system of the image values of the two-dimensional digital image is the RGB color system or another color system corresponding to three or more spectral channels of the image sensor (par. 5; wherein the CCD image sensor obtains RGB images);
[claim 22] wherein the measuring spots are positioned spaced apart from each other within the detecting area of the image sensor on the test object (Figure 2) (par. 19, 64, 70; wherein the CCD image sensor is comprised of a two-dimensional array of a plurality of pixels and the field of view of the object covers the entire sensor, wherein the light incident onto each pixel is viewed as a separate measurement spot or angle);
[claim 23] wherein the number of measuring spots or measuring angles is at least three, for example at least five, for example at least nine, wherein the number of measuring spots is at least equal to the number of spectral channels of the image sensor (Figure 2) (par. 19, 64, 70; wherein the CCD image sensor is comprised of a two-dimensional array of a plurality of pixels and the field of view of the object covers the entire sensor, wherein the light incident onto each pixel is viewed as a separate measurement spot or angle).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamm, in view of US Publication 2017/0010153 to Vezard et al.
In regards to claim 3, Kamm differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the imaging system, wherein the imaging spectrometer has an entrance slit, wherein two or more optical fibers are provided, each of which is associated with a different measuring spot or measuring angle and the light emitted from the respective measuring spot or under the respective measuring angle leads to a different position on the entrance slit.
However, Vezard teaches and shows in Figures 1-2, a spectroscopic mapping system and method, wherein a first array of apertures (108, 208) is utilized to establish a plurality of object imaging spots which are individually provided to an optical fiber bundle (112, 212) of a plurality of optical fibers (par. 5-6, 8), the light from the fiber bundle is provided to a second mask (116, 216) (par. 23), which may have an aperture or slit of various sizes and shapes for adjusting the resolution and bandwidth of the imaging spectrometer (par. 5-6, 27-29, 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kamm to include the spectroscopic mapping system discussed above for the advantage of providing a high resolution and bandwidth configuration, capable of simultaneously or sequentially imaging a plurality of spots of an object, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 2, 11-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamm, in view of “Imaging tristimulus colorimeter for the evaluation of color in printed textiles” by Hunt et al.
In regards to claims 2 and 20, Kamm differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system and method further comprising:
[claim 2] wherein the measuring unit/measuring units is a colorimeter/are a colorimeter;
[claim 20] wherein the color system of the color coordinates is the CIE standard valence system.
However, Hunt teaches and shows in Figure 5, an imaging tristimulus colorimeter, which provides accurate and repeatable measurement of a product, based upon the CIE color standard (Abstract; Section 1; Section 5). Further, colorimetric and the CIE color standard are well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kamm to obtain colorimetric measurements based upon the CIE color standard for the advantage of providing accurate and repeatable quality measurements of an object, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 11, Kamm differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system and method, wherein the transformation of the image values into color coordinates takes place in two steps:
i) transforming the image values into color coordinates on the basis of a transformation rule determined in advance by calibration,
ii) correction of the color coordinates obtained in step i), wherein the correction is derived from a comparison of the color coordinates obtained in step i) with the color coordinates detected for the measuring spots or measuring angles.
However, Hunt teaches and shows in Figure 5, an imaging tristimulus colorimeter, wherein a projection onto convex sets (POCS) algorithm (applicant’s transformation) for mapping component color measurements to standard tristimulus values is utilized (Abstract; Section 1). The standard tristimulus values are predetermined based upon the well-known CIE standard (Section 2) and the measured color values are corrected by a transformation algorithm (Equations 1 and 2) to provide a reliable system for measuring color differences (Abstract; Section 1; Section 2). Further, it is recognized that a fundamental task of an imaging colorimeter is to derive a mapping that converts a color vector to match the CIE tristimulus response (Section 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kamm to include the imaging tristimulus colorimeter discussed above for the advantage of providing a reliable system for measuring color differences, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 12, Kamm differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system and method, wherein the correction comprises dividing the two-dimensional digital image into spatially separate zones, wherein each zone is assigned to a different measuring spot or a different measuring angle and wherein the correction for each zone is derived from a comparison of the color coordinates obtained in step i) within this zone with the color coordinates detected for the measuring spot or measuring angle assigned to this zone.
However, Hunt teaches and shows in Figure 5, an imaging tristimulus colorimeter, wherein a projection onto convex sets (POCS) algorithm (applicant’s transformation) for mapping component color measurements to standard tristimulus values is utilized (Abstract; Section 1). The standard tristimulus values are predetermined based upon the well-known CIE standard (Section 2) and the measured color values are corrected by a transformation algorithm to provide a reliable system for measuring color differences (Abstract; Section 1; Section 2). Further, it is recognized that a fundamental task of an imaging colorimeter is to derive a mapping that converts a color vector to match the CIE tristimulus response (Section 3).
The system utilizes image segmentation (applicant’s dividing into separate zones) to extract color measurements from a desired region (Section 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kamm to include the imaging tristimulus colorimeter discussed above for the advantage of providing a reliable system for measuring color differences with improved precision and accuracy, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 13, Kamm differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system and method, wherein the correction applies an interpolation corresponding to the positions of the measuring spots or measuring angles within the two-dimensional digital image.
However, Hunt teaches and shows in Figure 5, an imaging tristimulus colorimeter, wherein a projection onto convex sets (POCS) algorithm (applicant’s transformation) for mapping component color measurements to standard tristimulus values is utilized (Abstract; Section 1). The standard tristimulus values are predetermined based upon the well-known CIE standard (Section 2) and the measured color values are corrected by a transformation algorithm to provide a reliable system for measuring color differences (Abstract; Section 1; Section 2). Further, it is recognized that a fundamental task of an imaging colorimeter is to derive a mapping that converts a color vector to match the CIE tristimulus response (Section 3).
The system utilizes equation 2 to define the measured spectral response for each measurement location (Section 2). Further, spectral reflectance, spectral transmission and XYZ values are all available from the instrument (Section 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kamm to include the imaging tristimulus colorimeter discussed above for the advantage of providing a reliable system for measuring color differences with improved precision and accuracy, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 14-15, Kamm differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system and method, [claim 14] wherein the transformation of the image values is based on a transformation rule derived from the image values of the digital image captured by the test object and the color coordinates captured by the same test object for the measuring spots or measuring angles; [claim 15] wherein the transformation of the image values takes place on the basis of a transformation rule which is derived from the image values of the digital image captured by the test object and the measured variables captured by the same test object for the measuring spots or measuring angles, wherein the transformation rule is derived without prior calibration.
However, Hunt teaches and shows in Figure 5, an imaging tristimulus colorimeter, wherein a projection onto convex sets (POCS) algorithm (applicant’s transformation) for mapping component color measurements to standard tristimulus values is utilized (Abstract; Section 1). The standard tristimulus values are predetermined based upon the well-known CIE standard (Section 2) and the measured color values are corrected by a transformation algorithm to provide a reliable system for measuring color differences (Abstract; Section 1; Section 2). Further, it is recognized that a fundamental task of an imaging colorimeter is to derive a mapping that converts a color vector to match the CIE tristimulus response (Section 3).
The system utilizes the standard tristimulus values (equation 1) and the spectral response of the colorimeter instrument (equation 2) to derive a color space vector (Section 2). Further, spectral reflectance, spectral transmission and XYZ values are all available from the instrument (Section 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kamm to include the imaging tristimulus colorimeter discussed above for the advantage of providing a reliable system for measuring color differences with improved precision and accuracy, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
JONATHAN M. HANSEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2877
/JONATHAN M HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877