DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s remarks received on 12/29/2025 with respect to the amended independent claims have been acknowledged and are moot in view of a new ground of rejection necessitated by the corresponding amendment. Currently claims 1-17 are rejected.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
41066.. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirohata (US Pub: 2009/0067727) and Robinson et al (US Pub: 2015/0339553); and in further view of Abdel-Mottaleb et al (US Patent: 6,285,995).
Regarding claim 1 (currently amend), Hirohata teaches: An image processor comprising: a first hardware processor that extracts irreversible first image feature information from a read image of a printed matter [p0020]; and a second hardware processor that selects second image feature information most similar to the first image feature information among a plurality of pieces of irreversible second image feature information extracted by the first hardware processor from read images of a plurality of printed matters printed previously [p0068, p0151-p0154].
Hirohata does not acquire print setting after identify similar features between the first image feature information and the second feature information. In the same field of endeavor, Robinson et al teaches: and acquires, as a comparison result, print setting information associated with the second image feature information [fig. 1]. Therefore, given Robinson et al’s prescription on applying previously used and stored print setting associated with matching image parameters/features identified, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the two to identify and apply corresponding print setting associated with a previous job having the matching feature information with the current job for output consistency purpose.
Hirohata in view of Robinson et al does not disclose image feature including number of pixels having RGB value. In the same field of endeavor, Abdel-Mottaleb et al teaches: the irreversible first image feature information comprising: number of pixels having a predetermined RGB value [col 1: lines 38-53]. Therefore, given Abdel-Mottaleb et al’s prescription on applying color histogram by quantizing colors with number of pixels as a feature vector for image comparison, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to record pixel amounts having RGB value as image’s irreversible feature (not having spatial arrangement) in combination with print setting for unique identification for comparison purpose.
Regarding claim 2 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Robinson et al further teaches: The image processor according to claim 1, wherein the second hardware processor outputs the print setting information acquired as the comparison result to a printer that prints the printed matter [fig. 1: 108 and 110].
Regarding claim 4 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Hirohata further teaches: The image processor according to claim 1, wherein the second hardware processor selects the second image feature information having a highest similarity to the first image feature information among the plurality of pieces of second image feature information [p0020, p0153].
Regarding claim 5 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Hirohata further teaches: The image processor according to claim 1, wherein the first image feature information and the second image feature information include pixel information of the read image of the printed matter [claim 1].
Claim 9 (currently amended) has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Robinson et al’s further teaching on: A non-transitory recording medium storing a computer-readable image processing program causing an image processor to implement and execute processing [p0044].
Claim 10 (currently amended) has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12 (new), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Abdel-Mottaleb et al further teaches: The image processor according to claim 1, wherein the irreversible first image feature information further comprises second number of pixels having a second predetermined RGB value [col 1: lines 42-47].
Regarding claim 13 (new), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Abdel-Mottaleb et al further teaches: The image processor according to claim 1, wherein the irreversible first image feature information comprises a plurality of numbers of pixels having predetermined RGB values, respectively [col 1: lines 42-47].
Regarding claims 14 and 15 (new), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 9 has been incorporated herein. Claims 14 and 15 have been analyzed and rejected with regard to claims 12 and 13 respectively.
Regarding claims 16 and 17 (new), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 10 has been incorporated herein. Claims 16 and 17 have been analyzed and rejected with regard to claims 12 and 13 respectively.
51066.. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirohata (US Pub: 2009/0067727), Robinson et al (US Pub: 2015/0339553), and Abdel-Mottaleb et al (US Patent: 6,285,995); and in further view of Imai et al (US Pub: 2019/0114125).
Regarding claim 3 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Hirohata in view of Robinson et al and Abdel-Mottaleb et al does not explicitly record image feature and print setting in association with each other although saving print setting corresponding to a print job would have been an obvious practice well known in the art. In the same field of endeavor, Imai et al teaches: The image processor according to claim 1, further comprising a third hardware processor that records the first image feature information and the print setting information at a time of printing of the printed matter in association with each other [p0042, p0043]. Therefore, given Hirohata and Abdel-Mottaleb et al’s teaching on storing image feature, Robinson’s disclosure on storing print setting, and Imai al’s teaching on storing image data and print setting, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to store print setting associated with image feature during or after printing operation for record keeping or updating purpose.
61066.. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirohata (US Pub: 2009/0067727), Robinson et al (US Pub: 2015/0339553), and Abdel-Mottaleb et al (US Patent: 6,285,995); and in further view of Ferreri et al (US Pub: 2020/0108621).
Regarding claim 6 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Robinson et al further teaches: The image processor according to claim 1, wherein the print setting information includes setting information related to image formation of the printer, and print job information in the printer that has output the printed matter [p0002-p0004, p0030].
Robinson does not specify printer information in setting. In the same field of endeavor, Ferreri et al teaches: wherein the print setting information includes identification information of the printer that has output the printed matter [p0046]. Therefore, the combined teaching of all would have made print setting including printer information obvious to a skilled in the art for printer selection.
Regarding claim 7 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 6 has been incorporated herein. Ferreri et al further teaches: The image processor according to claim 6, wherein the setting information related to the image formation of the printer includes setting information of density and tone of an image [p0046].
Regarding claim 8 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 6 has been incorporated herein. Robinson et al and Ferreri et al further teach: The image processor according to claim 6, wherein the print job information includes setting information of a recording medium [Robinson: p0021], setting information of a color profile [Ferreri: p0019], and setting information related to drawing [Robinson: p0038].
71066.. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirohata (US Pub: 2009/0067727), Robinson et al (US Pub: 2015/0339553), and Abdel-Mottaleb et al (US Patent: 6,285,995); and in further view of Roscoe et al (US Pub: 20100097669).
Regarding claim 11 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 10 has been incorporated herein. Hirohata in view of Robinson et al and Abdel-Mottaleb et al does not compare image feature re-output with that been recorded. In the same field of endeavor, Roscoe et al teaches: The image processing system according to claim 10, wherein the printer re-outputs the printed matter with the print setting information that is the comparison result acquired by the second hardware processor, the second hardware processor extracts the image feature information of the printed matter having been re-output, compares the image feature information of the printed matter having been re-output with the image feature information having been recorded and associated with the print setting information that is the comparison result, and calculates a similarity, and when the similarity is less than a predetermined threshold value, the printer automatically corrects the print setting information so that the image feature information of the printed matter to be re-output matches the image feature information having been recorded and associated with the print setting information that is the comparison result [p0020-p0021]. Therefore, given Roscoe et al’s teaching on comparing color feature of the re-output image with that been stored and correcting the color setting to reduce color difference accordingly, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to automatically correct print setting information to reduce the difference for optimal result.
Conclusion
8. There is a new ground of rejection necessitated by the corresponding amendment 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 extension fee 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.
Contact
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached on 571-272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights