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 .
The restriction remains in effect as set forth in the previous action(s). Claims 11 and 18-22 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The response of the applicant has been reads and given careful consideration. Responses to the arguments of the applicant are presented after the first rejection they are directed to. The examiner notes the discussion of the prosecution. The examiner notes that there are longer image appearance times within the 30 minute to 120 hour range not taught in the prior art.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by “Impossible Project Polaroid Instant Lab Collage”, posted by Aim Shoot Develop on 09/19/2019 (downloaded 3/11/2024), as evidenced by “Impossibly long development times from Impossible film AKA not-so-instant-film” posted by Rob Lim (03/17/2020) (downloaded 3/11/2024) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over “Impossible Project Polaroid Instant Lab Collage”, posted by Aim Shoot Develop on 09/19/2019 (downloaded 3/11/2024) in combination with “Impossibly long development times from Impossible film AKA not-so-instant-film” posted by Rob Lim (03/17/2020) (downloaded 3/11/2024).
“Impossible Project Polaroid Instant Lab Collage”, posted by Aim Shoot Develop on 09/19/2019 (downloaded 3/11/2024) is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWNMWkwD1QU . demonstrates the use of the Instant Lab produced by impossible with an iPhone to produce an instant photograph of an image displayed on an iPhone screen (see clipped images form video) using impossible project SX-70 film.
PNG
media_image1.png
342
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
324
517
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
708
789
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The image of an African American wearing an orange sweater (top left image) is modified in illustrator to add a whites lines to the brown background (top middle and right images) and the orange shirt/sweater and then emailed to an iPhone which is then imported into the impossible project app, which allows cropping of the image. Four images are made using (expired) impossible color instant film (for SX-70) and physically overlaid (see lower images).
PNG
media_image4.png
657
605
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
666
593
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
676
673
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
718
778
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
723
683
media_image8.png
Greyscale
“Impossibly long development times from Impossible film AKA not-so-instant-film” posted by Rob Lim (03/17/2020) is available at the web address
https://photographyconcentrate.com/impossibly-long-development-times-from-impossible-film-aka-not-so-instant-film/ . While the video is not available, there are still images of the impossible SX-70 color instant film (left) and Fuji Instax at 5, 15, 25,35 and 45 minute development times (reproduced below).
PNG
media_image9.png
573
751
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
563
736
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
593
785
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
774
1019
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
700
1024
media_image13.png
Greyscale
The blue outfit of the baby is not visible/recognizable in the 25 minute image, but the black hair is the mother is clearly visible, so would have been “recognizable” and have significant optical density as discussed in the specification before the blue outfit of the baby had significant optical density. The examiner holds that the evidence fairly establishes that the mothers black hair has an appearance timing of between 5 seconds and 12 hours before the blue outfit on the baby (see prepub of the instant specification at [0011]). The prepub describes “drawing” in the silver halide photographic material as performed by exposure [0056].
The anticipation position of the examiner is the original image was modified in illustrator to add whites lines to the brown background (first image region) and the orange short/sweater (second image region) which are clearly visible in two of the four printed polaroid images formed in the impossible project SX-70 color instant film in “Impossible Project Polaroid Instant Lab Collage”, posted by Aim Shoot Develop on 09/19/2019 (downloaded 3/11/2024) (“recognizable” and during the development process inherently have differences in the evolution/development of recognizable images in a brown colored region (first image region) relative to orange regions or white line regions (second image region) as evidenced by the time lapse performance of the impossible project SX-70 color instant film established in “Impossibly long development times from Impossible film AKA not-so-instant-film” posted by Rob Lim (03/17/2020) differences between evolution/development of black tones and various brown, orange or white regions. The image of the orange shirt/sweater with the white lines is held to meet the recited CIE LAB color values as the regions which are white clearly have a color difference form the original image and the average color value of the regions including the colored portions and the white lines. This rejection addresses embodiments where composition of the image and manipulation occurs digitally (in illustrator).
The original image/photograph acquired/taken (input image) includes several image regions,
PNG
media_image4.png
657
605
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, including a hair region, a beard region, a facial/profile region, a brown background region (first image region) and an orange sweater/shirt region (second image region). As the claims do not specify the size or layout of the first image (region) or the second image (region), the first image (region) or the second image (region) can be a portion of the identified regions. The use of an image of a person and a single image as the input image is specifically described in the specification (see prepub at [0181,0183]). The means for capturing/acquiring the original image can use a digital camera or smartphone (prepub at [0187]).
Image processing, including the addition of the white lines to at least a portion of the brown background image region (first image region) using the illustrator computer program adjusts the average color space condition of the brown background region. At least a portion of the brown background region where the white lines are added or to be added corresponds to the “first image” and the “first image region” recited in claim 1. The use of the computer program in adding the white lines is considered to meet the image processing which adjusts the average color space of the first image from the original brown to a lighter brown color/hue based upon the area of the white lines added relative to the total area of the at least a portion of the brown background region making up the first image region. As white is added, the image/color density is reduced form the original, which is described in the instant specification (prepub at [0152,0257]). The collection of the image on a personal computer for image processing is specifically described in the instant specification (see prepub at [0282-0296]), including the addition of lines in the form of text.
Image processing, including the addition of the white lines to at least a portion of the sweater/shirt image region using the illustrator computer program adjusts the overall color space condition of the orange sweater/shirt region (second image region). At least a portion of the orange sweater/shirt region where the white lines are added or to be added corresponds to the “second image” and the “second image region” recited in claim 1. The use of the computer program in adding the white lines is considered to meet the image processing which adjusts the average color space of the second image from the original orange to a lighter orange based upon the area of the white lines added relative to the total area of the at least a portion of the orange sweater/shirt region making up the second image region. As white is added, the image/color density is reduced form the original, which is described in the instant specification (prepub at [0152,0257]). The collection of the image on a personal computer for image processing is specifically described in the instant specification (see prepub at [0282-0296]), including the addition of lines in the form of text.
The first drawing condition and the second drawing condition are met by the exposure using the image processed image displayed on the cellular phone (iphone) with the “instant lab” exposure device which uses the impossible project single/mono sheet as evidenced in the video. This is congruent with the description of drawing conditions in the instant specification (see prepub at [0145-0146, 0150,0266]) which describes the diffusion transfer photography used in the impossible project single/mono sheet as a drawing condition. The image appearance recognition timings corresponding to the “first image region” and the “second image region” identified above are based upon the different times of color evolution for the orange and brown colored areas inherent to the impossible project single/mono sheet used in the “instant lab” exposure device. The difference in the evolution times of different colors for the impossible project single/mono sheet is evidenced to be inherent in the teachings of “Impossibly long development times from Impossible film AKA not-so-instant-film” posted by Rob Lim (03/17/2020) which show differing color evolution times for different colors using this film at 5,15,25,35 and 45 minutes. The image formed using the impossible project single/mono sheet at the end of the process is considered to be the “observation image” of the claims. The “instant lab” exposure device is considered an instant photoprinter within the scope of coverage sought.
If the anticipation position articulated above is not upheld, Alternatively it would have been obvious to modify the process of “Impossible Project Polaroid Instant Lab Collage”, posted by Aim Shoot Develop on 09/19/2019 (downloaded 3/11/2024) by replacing a portion of the original image with a darker color (to define a first image region) and a second portion of the original image with a second lighter color (to define a second image region) using illustrator, exporting the image to a smartphone/iphone and printing them on non-expired impossible project SX-70 film with a reasonable expectation of forming images where the dark tones are visible between 5 seconds and 120 hours before lighter colored tones based upon the teachings of in “Impossibly long development times from Impossible film AKA not-so-instant-film” posted by Rob Lim (03/17/2020). This rejection addresses embodiments where composition of the image and manipulation occurs digitally (in illustrator).
In the arguments of 12/9/2024 on page 2, the applicant points out that the final observation image is required to have a first image region and the second image region with different image appearance recognition timings. The reference clearly teaches the brown background which has been image processed by the addition of white lines to change its average color space, which is considered to be the first image region and orange shirt/sweater which has been image processed by the addition of white lines top change its average color space and is considered to be the second image region. The difference in these colors/hues (brown vs. orange) inherently results in different image appearance recognition times as evidence by “Impossibly long development times from Impossible film AKA not-so-instant-film” posted by Rob Lim (03/17/2020).
In the arguments of 12/9/2024 on page 2, the applicant points out that from the original images a first image and a second image corresponding to the first image region or a second image region. The examiner points out that the language of the claim is “a step of acquiring one or a plurality of original images and determining, from the acquired original images, a first image and a second image respectively corresponding to the first image region and the second image region’, so the original image may be one or several images and the language of the claims also divides the original image(s) into “a first image” and “a second image” corresponding to “a first image region” and “a second image region”. The examiner holds that the (portrait) image including a hair region, a beard region, a facial/profile region, a brown background region (first image region) and an orange sweater/shirt region (second image region) meets this limitation of the claims.
In the arguments of 12/9/2024 on page 2, the applicant points out that the claims recite “a first drawing condition for the first image satisfying a condition of the image appearance recognition timing of the first image region” and “a second drawing condition for the second image satisfying a condition of the image appearance recognition timing of the second image region”. The examiner holds that the exposure of the impossible project single/mono diffusion transfer sheet using the image processed by the addition of white lines in the brown background (first image region) and the orange shirt/sweater (second image region) meets that limitation, noting that the instant specification describes the exposure of instant (diffusion transfer) film for this step (see prepub at [0145-0146, 0150,0266]). The video illustrates dividing the image processed image into 4 regions and exposing each of these regions on a separate impossible project diffusion transfer single/mono sheet. The impossible project diffusion transfer single/mono sheet images including both a portion of the image processed brown background (first image region) and the image processed shirt/sweater (second image region) when exposed using a smartphone/iphone display with the different colors (brown vs. Orange) of the altered background and the orange shirt/sweater with the extended development times evidenced meet the drawing condition limitations which produce the observation image (developed impossible project diffusion transfer single/mono sheet).
In the arguments of 12/9/2024 on pages 2-3, the applicant argues that the lines added in illustrator are another original image and do not meet the image processing resulting in the adjustment of the color space of each of the first image (region) and the second image (region). The examiner disagrees, and holds that the added lines change the average color space of the brown background (first image region) and the orange shirt/sweater (second image region). The examiner does not accept the assertion that the added white lines drawings alone correspond to either the first image region or the second image region. The interpretation of the examiner is that the addition of the white lines to a portion of the brown background (first image region) changes the average color space of the first image region and similarly, the addition of the white lines to a portion of the orange shirt/sweater (second image region) changes the average color space of the second image region. In choosing to apply white lines over portions of the brown background (first image region) and the orange shirt/sweater (second image region), these regions have been chosen/determined, the average color space of these regions has been changed and the input image for the exposures using a smartphone/iphone display with the different colors (Brown vs. Orange) of the altered background and the orange shirt/sweater with the extended development times evidenced meet the drawing condition limitations which produce the observation image (developed impossible project diffusion transfer single/mono sheet).
In the arguments of 12/9/2024 on page 3, the applicant argues as if “Impossibly long development times from Impossible film AKA not-so-instant-film” posted by Rob Lim (03/17/2020) does not teach extended development times of the impossible project diffusion transfer single/mono sheet used in “Impossible Project Polaroid Instant Lab Collage”, posted by Aim Shoot Develop on 09/19/2019 (downloaded 3/11/2024). The impossible SX-70 color instant film shown on the left of the images at different times during development is representative of the impossible project diffusion transfer single/mono sheet used in “Impossible Project Polaroid Instant Lab Collage”, posted by Aim Shoot Develop on 09/19/2019 (downloaded 3/11/2024). The Instax film on the right develops more quickly and seems to be shown as a comparison.
The applicant has folded the limitations of claim 2 into claim 1. The process of “Impossible Project Polaroid Instant Lab Collage”, posted by Aim Shoot Develop on 09/19/2019 (downloaded 3/11/2024), as evidenced by “Impossibly long development times from Impossible film AKA not-so-instant-film” posted by Rob Lim clearly forms a multicolored image using the instant film and the brown background and the orange sweater have image appearance recognition times which differ in the 5 seconds to 12 hour range with the instant film used.
In the response of 5/8/2025, the applicant argues that when the white line is added to a portion of the brown background, the brown color and white color cannot be mixed and a lighter brown color cannot be generated. This is not exactly what the statement of rejection states. The rejection states that when the white lines are added to the brown background and the orange sweater, the color space of each of the background and the sweater are modified and the white lines themselves are modified image spaces. The color space of the background now includes white in addition to the brown and the average color space value of the brown background is changed (lightened/desaturated) by the amount of white added. Similarly, the color space associated with the orange sweater now includes white in addition to the original orange and the average color space value of the orange sweater is changed (lightened/desaturated) by the amount of white added. Also the white lines themselves represent areas of changes from the original color. The areas corresponding to the first image region and the second image region are fixed and the modifications within these areas adjust the color space of these. The claims specifically describe areas/regions of the image which correspond to the first image region and the second image region and permit any manipulation of these regions, including changing portions of them to form white lines. The first and second image regions are established/fixed and do not change merely by changing the color of a portion of them. The claims do not require that the image processing change the image appearance recognition timing, only that the exposures of the instant film (containing color dye precursors) resultant images in the first image region and the second image region have different appearance times. This is inherent to the different colors present in these areas (brown vs orange).
The applicant argues in page 16 of the response of 5/8/2025 as if the panel decided that the rejection was in error. The examiner was present and reviewing the arguments advanced by the applicant in the pre-appeal request felt that the issues were not ripe for appeal and that the statement of rejection could be more precise and the record more fully developed. Lines of any color could have been added to the image.
The claims recites that the image timing represents a timing when the highest density portion of the image region is recognizable. The examiner believes that an image region can correspond to the highest density of a particular color as the highest density is of a image region and not the entire image. The specification describes image recognition being different based upon the color and the density region of each color at [0086]. The use of differences in the color are described as improving the visibility of the final image and increasing image appearance differences [0118]. The applicant argues that the white lines added to the image in Aim Shoot develop does not change the image appearance time of the color to which they are applied. The claims does not actually state that the image processing changes the image recognition timing of the processed area. It merely require that the first region and the second region in the printed image have different image recognition times. The white lines themselves represent areas changed from the original color. The claims also do not require changing the hue by adding as other colorants as discussed at [0147,0118]. Additionally, the lightening of a region (increasing brightness) is described in the instant specification at [0261]. Darkening the image is also described as having an effect on the recognition time [0258]. The examiner points out that the claims do not require that the lightening of the region be uniform, but believes that it may embrace adding a (white) overlay which changes the overall color of the area including the base color and the overlay, but does not change the image recognition timing. Choice of the image may be what imparts an intentional difference in the image recognition timing. The claims do not require the image processing to change the timing. The examiner also points out that illustrator, which is used in Aim shoot develop, allows for areas of the digitized images to be selected and the color/ hue/value to be changed/modified (adobe illustrator calls this recolor). A link to the YOUTUBE video " How to recolour your artwork in adobe illustrator" (04/2018) is cited and copies of screen shots from this are attached in a word document. This video clearly evidences that adobe illustrator 2018 allows for selection of areas of the same color and changing the hue, value and chroma of the selected areas. The applicant might consider amending claims 1 to recite the image processing as modifying the color of the second image region to have a difference in the image appearance recognition timing of 30 minutes to 120 hours
The examiner notes that the “impossible project” image is originally a black square and the colors evolve by lightning of the image, while the Fuji Instax begins as a white background with the colors formed on this background. The applicant might have a basis for excluding the “impossible project” film by identifying language in the specification describing the white background and the increase in color density on the white background. Some language may be associated with figure 1. This would obviate this rejection.
In the response of 1/23/2026, the applicant argues that the added limitation are not taught by the references. The polaroid is a mono-sheet as the exposure, development and image evolution are all in the same sheet (the other type is the peel apart). The silver halide emulsions in the impossible project color instant photographic film used include at least three separate emulsions which are each sensitized to red, green or blue (as is conventional), so that the appropriate couplers can be released to form an instant color photographic image which corresponds to the mixture of red, green and blue light used in the exposure. Clearly the evolution time of the image is within the 5 second to 12 hour range recited in the claims as evidenced by the images in “Impossibly long development times from Impossible film AKA not-so-instant-film” posted by Rob Lim (03/17/2020). The applicant might want to consider the reproduced figure of Kingsley et al. 5571656 which can be found on page 31 of the previous action.
The applicant notes the examiner prior after of 30 minutes to 120 hours, which they have declined. As an alternative, the applicant could amendment the claims to recite a white colorant receiving layer (see prepub at [0061,0080] and the observation image increases in density with increasing time. This shifts the invention away from the polaroid/impossible project film.
The request for rejoinder is denied as the claims are not considered allowable at this time and is unlikely to be granted as the instant photography and ink jet species are quite different..
Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Impossible Project Polaroid Instant Lab Collage”, posted by Aim Shoot Develop on 09/19/2019 (downloaded 3/11/2024), in view of “How to recolour your artwork in Adobe Illustrator”, Bring you own laptop, (04/2018), and “Impossibly long development times from Impossible film AKA not-so-instant-film” posted by Rob Lim (03/17/2020) (downloaded 3/11/2024).
“Impossible Project Polaroid Instant Lab Collage”, posted by Aim Shoot Develop on 09/19/2019 (downloaded 3/11/2024) does not teach changing the chromatic color of a portion of the image to another chromatic color.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the process taught in “Impossible Project Polaroid Instant Lab Collage”, posted by Aim Shoot Develop on 09/19/2019 (downloaded 3/11/2024) by using the adobe illustrator program used to digitally modify the image to change the color of the sweater to another paler, lower contrast color as taught in the YOUTUBE video “How to recolour your artwork in Adobe Illustrator”, Bring you own laptop, (04/2018), rather than adding the lines before transferring the image to the iphone and using it to expose the impossible project film, which has the long development times evidenced in “Impossibly long development times from Impossible film AKA not-so-instant-film” posted by Rob Lim (03/17/2020) (downloaded 3/11/2024) with a reasonable expectation of forming the image in the impossible project film.
The examiner notes that the “impossible project” image is originally a black square and the colors evolve by lightning of the image, while the Fuji Instax begins as a white background with the colors formed on this background. The applicant might have a basis for excluding the “impossible project” film by identifying language in the specification describing the white background and the increase in color density on the white background. Some language may be associated with figure 1. This would obviate this rejection.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by “Instax mini 8 9 double exposure”, posted by Matejphoto posted on Youtube on 06/7/2019, as evidenced by “Instax film development time-video # 1 -everythinginstax.com”, posted by everythinginstax best source for everything instax (01/28/2019) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over “Instax mini 8 9 double exposure”, posted by Matejphoto posted on Youtube on 06/7/2019 in combination with “Instax film development time-video # 1 -everythinginstax.com”, posted by everythinginstax best source for everything instax (01/28/2019)
“Instax mini 8 9 double exposure”, posted by Matejphoto posted on Youtube on 06/7/2019 (downloaded 3/11/2024) is viewable at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezP11IxJAlY teaches how to do double exposures by defeating the hook which pushes the exposed film onto the rollers after exposure. The video teaches control of the exposure by underexposing for each exposure of the double exposure at where light and dark images are taken. Examples of double exposures include a side by side where two exposures of images of his daughter wearing a white and red dress with a black background are side by side.
PNG
media_image14.png
633
766
media_image14.png
Greyscale
“Instax film development time-video # 1 -everythinginstax.com”, posted by everythinginstax best source for everything Instax (01/28/2019) was downloaded from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIX2bguXm_Y . The zero times for development is at 1:24, first images of the red in the lower lip of the open mouth is at ~1:26, yellow background seems to be first observable at ~1:38. The time difference is 6x (1:38-1:26), which yields ~50 seconds. An array of the images is shown at 3:08 of the video (reproduced below).
PNG
media_image15.png
545
715
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
883
764
media_image16.png
Greyscale
The position of the examiner is that the red lower lip was clearly visible in the image created between 5 seconds and 120 hours before the yellow background as evidenced in the time lapse video. Chromatic colors, such as red, yellow and flesh tones are held to meet the recited CIE LAB color values.
The 102/anticipation position of the examiner is that the black/dark tones of the eye in the right image was clearly visible in the image created in “Instax mini 8 9 double exposure”, posted by Matejphoto posted on Youtube on 06/7/2019 (downloaded 3/11/2024) 5 seconds to 120 hours before the lighter tones such as the red portions of the dress of the girl in the left image based upon the inherent differences between evolution/development of dark/intense tones and lighter colored tones evidenced in “Instax film development time-video # 1 -everythinginstax.com”, posted by everythinginstax best source for everything Instax (01/28/2019). The exact Instax film used is not disclosed, so the exact development performance is not known.. The red portions of the dress, the brown hair and the fleshtone are held to meet the recited CIE LAB color values. This rejection addresses embodiments where double exposures are used, the positioning is adjusted between the exposures and each exposure is controlled.
If the anticipation position articulated above is not upheld, alternatively it would have been obvious to modify the process of in “Instax mini 8 9 double exposure”, posted by Matejphoto posted on Youtube on 06/7/2019 (downloaded 3/11/2024) by using other commercially available Instax color film such as that used in “Instax film development time-video # 1 -everythinginstax.com”, posted by everythinginstax best source for everything Instax (01/28/2019) with a reasonable expectation of forming images where the black/dark tones of the eye in the right image was clearly visible between 5 seconds and 120 hours before the lighter tones such as the red portions of the dress of the girl in the left image based upon the inherent differences between evolution/development of dark/intense tones and lighter colored tones based upon the teachings of in “Instax film development time-video # 1 -everythinginstax.com”, posted by everythinginstax best source for everything Instax (01/28/2019). This rejection addresses embodiments where double exposures are used and the exposure of each is controlled.
The position of the examiner is that the double exposure of the girl meets the limitations as the repositioning affects the overall exposure.
In the arguments of 12/9/2024 on pages 3-4, the applicant points out that the observation image (final image formed on the diffusion transfer instant film) includes one of more of a first image regions and a second image region having different image appearance recognition timings. The position of the examiner is that the side by side double exposure include a dark background, the girl’s face (facial tones), the girl’s dark eye, the girl’s brown hair and the girl’s red and white dress, where the positioning of the girl (the subject or display) in the frame is adjusted between the first exposure (first capturing environment) and the second exposure (second capturing environment). As an example, the dark eye of the girl in the right image corresponds to a first image region and the red portions of the dress in the left image correspond to a second image region. This position is congruent with the adjustment of the coloring, make-up, lighting conditions described in the specification (see prepub at 0170-0171]). The positioning of the girl changes the overall exposure condition.
In the arguments of 12/9/2024 on page 4, the applicant argues that the two exposures of the girl do not include a plurality of regions including a first region and a second region. The examiner disagrees, pointing out that each of the images of the girl include a dark background, the girl’s face (facial tones), the girl’s dark eyes, the girl’s brown hair and the girl’s red and white dress. As an example, the dark eye of the girl in the right image corresponds to a first image region and the red portions of the dress in the left image correspond to a second image region. The difference in the color/hue of the eye in the right image and the red portions of the dress in the left image inherently result in different development times (image appearance recognition times) as evidenced in “Instax film development time-video # 1 -everythinginstax.com”, posted by everythinginstax best source for everything Instax (01/28/2019). The claims are open to other, unrecited elements which are common to the two images resulting from exposure of the Instax film with the first capturing environment and the second capturing environment.
In the arguments of 12/9/2024 on page 5, the “Instax film development time-video # 1 -everythinginstax.com”, posted by everythinginstax best source for everything Instax (01/28/2019) is relied upon the establish the difference in image development (image appearance recognition) times based upon differences in the density/color of an image region.
The applicant has folded the limitations of claim 2 into claim 1. The process of “Instax mini 8 9 double exposure”, posted by Matejphoto posted on Youtube on 06/7/2019 clearly forms a multicolored image using the instant film and the black/dark of the eye of the right image and the red patterns/portions of the dress inherently have image appearance recognition times which differ in the 5 seconds to 12 hour range with the instant film used.
The applicant argues in page 18 of the response of 5/8/2025 as if the panel decided that the rejection was in error. The examiner was present and reviewing the arguments advanced by the applicant in the pre-appeal request felt that the issues were not ripe for appeal and that the statement of rejection could be more precise and the record more fully developed.
The applicant argues that the first and second exposures of the double exposure occur at different times. The examiner points out that the claims do not require that the capturing under the first capturing environment and the capturing under the second capturing environment occur at the same time. The position of the girl/subject is adjusted between the exposures. The development to generate the image from the exposures does not occur until both exposures have occurred and the film passed through the rollers. This position is congruent with the adjustment of the coloring, make-up, lighting conditions described in the specification (see prepub at 0170-0171]). It is not clear how the adjustments described in the specification could occur if the exposures of the same subject occurred at the same time. The applicant argues that the image recognition of the entire image is the same for both images of the girl. This is not what the claims require. The claims require two images of the same subject having a common first image region and a common second image region. It is the first and second image regions which have different image appearance recognition timing. The claims also do not require any difference between the first capturing environment and the second capturing environment to modify the image appearance recognition times.
In response to the arguments of 9/25/2025, the applicant argues that Matjephoto does not intentionally change the exposure conditions. The claims do not require that change in capturing environment result in a color change in any particular portion of the image. The prepub of the specification describe adjusting the coloring, make-up or lighting conditions , but the claims are not limited to these [0170]. The secondary references clearly evidence color evolution times for different colors with differences of approximately one half hour or less. Differences in the image recognition times during the self-development which are greater than a half hour are not taught in the prior art.
The examiner notes that Instax is made by Fujifilm Corp, the assignee has likely characterized the color evolution of that film using a standardized color image and could provide a declaration of the color evolution times for the various colors using the Instax which was available in the 2011-2019 timeframe and amend the claims to exclude color evolution time differences between a pale (low chroma, optical density and high lightness) color tone which is more difficult to see due to low contrast with a white background (such as a pale yellow) and a darker color (high density, high chroma and low lightness such as black/green whichever evolves first) which will have a high contrast against the white background.
In the response of 1/23/2026, the applicant argues that the added limitation are not taught by the references. Instax is a mono-sheet as the exposure, development and image evolution are all in the same sheet (the other type is the peel apart). The silver halide emulsions in the impossible project color instant photographic film used include at least three separate emulsions which are each sensitized to red, green or blue (as is conventional), so that the appropriate couplers can be released to form an instant color photographic image which corresponds to the mixture of red, green and blue light used in the exposure. Clearly the evolution time of the image is within the 5 second to 12 hour range recited in the claims as evidenced by the images in “Instax film development time-video # 1 -everythinginstax.com”, posted by everythinginstax best source for everything Instax (01/28/2019)
The applicant could amendment the claims to recite a white colorant receiving layer (see prepub at [0061,0080] and the observation image increases in density with increasing time. This shifts the invention away from the polaroid/impossible project film and specify the difference in image appearance recognition timing is 2 minutes to 12 hours which appear to be outside the showing of “Instax film development time-video # 1 -everythinginstax.com”, posted by everythinginstax best source for everything Instax (01/28/2019)
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by DEARJME, “MX With the Fujifilm Instax!”
https://www.lomography.com/magazine/80235-mx-with-the-fujifilm-instax (clipped images 01/2025, archived 07/2011), as evidenced by “Instax film development time-video # 1 -everythinginstax.com”, posted by everythinginstax best source for everything instax (01/28/2019) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over “Instax mini 8 9 double exposure”, posted by Matejphoto posted on Youtube on 06/7/2019 in combination with “Instax film development time-video # 1 -everythinginstax.com”, posted by everythinginstax best source for everything instax (01/28/2019)
DEARJME, “MX With the Fujifilm Instax!”
https://www.lomography.com/magazine/80235-mx-with-the-fujifilm-instax (clipped images 01/2025, archived 07/2011)
PNG
media_image17.png
1041
713
media_image17.png
Greyscale
The 102/anticipation position of the examiner is that the black/dark tones of the eye in right/fleshtone image was clearly visible in the image created in https://www.lomography.com/magazine/80235-mx-with-the-fujifilm-instax 5 seconds to 120 hours before the lighter tones such as the flesh tones or pink shadow in the left image based upon the inherent differences between evolution/development of dark/intense tones and lighter colored tones evidenced in “Instax film development time-video # 1 -everythinginstax.com”, posted by everythinginstax best source for everything Instax (01/28/2019). The exact Instax film used is not disclosed, so the exact development performance is not known.. The pink background, pink tinged face, lipstick and the fleshtone are held to meet the recited CIE LAB color values. This rejection addresses embodiments where double exposures are used, the positioning of the subject/woman is adjusted between the exposures and the lighting in each exposure is different.
If the anticipation position articulated above is not upheld, alternatively it would have been obvious to modify the process of https://www.lomography.com/magazine/80235-mx-with-the-fujifilm-instax by using other commercially available Instax color film such as that used in “Instax film development time-video # 1 -everythinginstax.com”, posted by everythinginstax best source for everything Instax (01/28/2019) with a reasonable expectation of forming images where the black/dark tones of the eye in right/fleshtone image was clearly visible 5 seconds to 120 hours before the lighter tones such as the flesh tones or pink shadow in the left image based upon the inherent differences between evolution/development of dark/intense tones and lighter colored tones evidenced in “Instax film development time-video # 1 -everythinginstax.com”, posted by everythinginstax best source for everything Instax (01/28/2019). This rejection addresses embodiments where double exposures are used and the exposure of each is controlled.
In the response of 5/8/2025, the applicant argues that the rejection based upon DEARJME, “MX With the Fujifilm Instax!”
https://www.lomography.com/magazine/80235-mx-with-the-fujifilm-instax
(clipped images 01/2025, archived 07/2011) with the previous rejection. The examiner relies upon the responses above, particularly the point that the claims allow for the first capturing and the second capturing to occur at different times with the adjustments disclosed occurring between these times. The development of the composite (both images) occurs at the same time after the exposures when the film is passed through the rollers. Additionally, the pink tones only in portions of the DEARJME, “MX With the Fujifilm Instax!”
https://www.lomography.com/magazine/80235-mx-with-the-fujifilm-instax
(clipped images 01/2025, archived 07/2011) clipped image clearly are indicative of different lighting between the exposures.
In response to the arguments of 9/25/2025, the applicant argues that Matjephoto does not intentionally change the exposure conditions. The claims do not require that change in capturing environment result in a color change in any particular portion of the image. The prepub of the specification describe adjusting the coloring, make-up or lighting conditions , but the claims are not limited to these [0170]. In the DEARJME, "MX with the fujifilm instax", there is a difference in the lighting, which is evidenced by the pick shadow on the right of the image (you can see this in the image on the website, it is not clear from the image in the office action. The face of the right image (facing observer) is naturally colored, while the face on the left (turned to show 3/4 profile) has a pink tone. The secondary references clearly evidence color evolution times for different colors with differences of approximately one half hour or less. Differences in the image recognition times during the self-development which are greater than a half hour are not taught in the prior art.
Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Impossible Project Polaroid Instant Lab Collage”, posted by Aim Shoot Develop on 09/19/2019 (downloaded 3/11/2024), in view of “How to recolour your artwork in Adobe Illustrator”, Bring you own laptop, (04/2018), and “Impossibly long development times from Impossible film AKA not-so-instant-film” posted by Rob Lim (03/17/2020) (downloaded 3/11/2024), further in view of
“Instax film development time-video # 1 -everythinginstax.com”, posted by everythinginstax best source for everything Instax (01/28/2019).
It would have been obvious to modify the process of “Impossible Project Polaroid Instant Lab Collage”, posted by Aim Shoot Develop on 09/19/2019 (downloaded 3/11/2024) by replacing a portion of the original image with a darker color (to define a first image region) and a second portion of the original image with a second lighter color (to define a second image region) using illustrator, exporting the image to a smartphone/iphone and printing them on Instax film with a reasonable expectation of forming images where the dark tones are visible between 5 seconds and 120 hours before lighter colored tones based upon the teachings in“Instax film development time-video # 1 -everythinginstax.com”, posted by everythinginstax best source for everything Instax (01/28/2019), noting the comparison of development times in “Impossibly long development times from Impossible film AKA not-so-instant-film” posted by Rob Lim (03/17/2020).
The applicant could amendment the claims to recite a white colorant receiving layer (see prepub at [0061,0080] and the observation image increases in density with increasing time. This shifts the invention away from the polaroid/impossible project film and specify the difference in image appearance recognition timing is 2 minutes to 12 hours which appear to be outside the showing of “Instax film development time-video # 1 -everythinginstax.com”, posted by everythinginstax best source for everything Instax (01/28/2019)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Martin J Angebranndt whose telephone number is (571)272-1378. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3:30 pm 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, Mark F Huff can be reached on 571-272-1385. 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.
MARTIN J. ANGEBRANNDT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/MARTIN J ANGEBRANNDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 February 11, 2026