DETAILED ACTION
Status
This Office Action is responsive to claims filed on 02/26/2025. Please note Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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) submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “relative” should be “relative to”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “relative” should be “relative to”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the glint parameters” which lacks antecedent basis. The claim defines “one or more glint parameters” which does not necessarily include more than one parameter, while “the glint parameters” refers to a plurality of parameters. It’s unclear whether “the glint parameters” and the “one or more glint parameters” in this claim are referring to the same feature or not. Claims 2-10 are dependent from claim 1 and are therefore rejected.
Furthermore, claim 2 recites “previews the reflections at a viewing angle and from a viewing distance relative the material surface” which is ambiguous. It’s unclear whether the “viewing angle” is an angle relative to the material surface, or only the “viewing distance” is relative to the material surface while the viewing angle is independent from the material surface. Clarification is needed.
Claim 11 recites “a second glint preview at a different viewing angle or a different viewing distance relative to the material surface” which is ambiguous. It’s unclear whether the “different viewing angle” is an angle relative to the material surface, or only the “different viewing distance” is relative to the material surface while the different viewing angle is independent from the material surface. Clarification is needed. Claims 12-15 are dependent from claim 11 and are therefore rejected.
Claim 16 recites “the glint parameters” which lacks antecedent basis. The claim defines “one or more glint parameters” which does not necessarily include more than one parameter, while “the glint parameters” refers to a plurality of parameters. It’s unclear whether “the glint parameters” and the “one or more glint parameters” in this claim are referring to the same feature or not. Claims 17-20 are dependent from claim 16 and are therefore rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kirchner (US 20120098845 A1) – This reference teaches a method of displaying an image of an effect coating having texture and colour properties on an electronic display device, using measured colour data and measured texture data as input to generate the image, wherein the textured image is displayed with visual colour properties which are maintained on a prescribed level independent of possible variations in texture properties.
Lengyel (US 20050243088 A1) – This reference teaches a method comprising generating a surface detail model using a modeling technique, and rendering surface detail in accordance with the developed surface detail model over an object surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHONG WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5207. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
/CHONG WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights