DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to applicants’ arguments (QPIDS) dated 22 January 2026. Based on the QPIDS filed and the new references cited therein, prosecution is being re-opened and the previous notice of allowance dated 20 October 2025 is hereby withdrawn. Claims 1-9 and 11-15 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 9, 11, 12, and 14-15 have been amended. Claim 10 was cancelled. Claims 14-15 have previously been withdrawn.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Japan Application No. 2022-044384 was received on 08 May 2023 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 22 January 2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 08 March 2023 are accepted.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanase et al. (US PGPub 2019/0014227 A1), hereinafter Tanase, in view of Murakami et al. (JP 2004-291510 A), using a machine translation, hereinafter Murakami.
With regard to Claim 1, Tanase discloses an information processing apparatus (¶0005) comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire print data (¶0005);
a generation unit configured to generate first ink data for performing printing by first ink (¶0081), and second ink data for performing printing by second ink (¶0081) having a spectral characteristic different from a spectral characteristic of the first ink (¶0071, second ink is clear ink, first ink is colored), based on the print data acquired by the acquisition unit (¶0081); and
a changing unit configured to change an arrangement of pixels which are decided from the first ink data and in which the first ink is printed and the number of dots of the first ink in each pixel, based on the arrangement of pixels which are decided from the first ink data and in which the first ink is printed, and an arrangement of pixels which are decided from the second ink data and in which the second ink is printed (¶0132-0137),
wherein the changing unit changes the arrangement of pixels in which the first ink is printed, such that a pixel in which the first ink is printed and a pixel in which the second ink is printed do not overlap each other (¶0132-0137; 0108-0111, halftone data generated such that clear ink and color ink do not contact one another), and
the changing unit changes the number of dots in each pixel of the first ink (Color ink), such that the total number of dots of the first ink decided from the first ink data is maintained before and after the change by the changing unit (first pixel region; Figs. 12-13; ¶0108-0111, clear ink is changed; 0118).
Tanase does not explicitly disclose wherein the first ink is fluorescent ink, and the second ink is non-fluorescent ink.
The secondary reference of Murakami discloses wherein the first ink is fluorescent ink, and the second ink is non-fluorescent ink (¶0009, blending non-fluorescent ink and fluorescent ink in any ration when forming images base on an area gradation method).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first and second inks being fluorescent and non-fluorescent of Murakami, with the first and second inks of Tanase, in order to expand the color reproduction gamut and improve hues, as taught by Murakami (¶0001).
With regard to Claim 2, Tanase further discloses wherein the total number of dots of the first ink is acquired from a quantized value of the first ink, which is obtained based on a threshold mask for a predetermined region including a plurality of pixels (¶0132-0133; Fig. 16).
With regard to Claim 3, Tanase further discloses wherein the arrangement of pixels which are decided from the second ink data and in which the second ink is printed is acquired from a quantized value of the second ink in the predetermined region (¶0018-0022; 0135-0137).
With regard to Claim 4, Tanase further discloses wherein the changing unit specifies a pixel where a pixel which is decided from the first ink data and in which the first ink is printed and a pixel which is decided from the second ink data and in which the second ink is printed overlap each other (¶0132-0137), and allocates the number of dots of the first ink corresponding to the specified pixel to pixels other than the specified pixel.
Tanase does not explicitly disclose allocates the number of dots of the first ink corresponding to the specified pixel to pixels other than the specified pixel. However, Tanase discloses allocating the number of dots of the second ink corresponding to the specified pixel to pixels other than the specified pixel (¶0018-0022; 0132-0137).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reallocate pixels of either the first ink or the second ink in order to not overlap one another as a matter of design choice.
With regard to Claim 5, Tanase further discloses wherein if the specified pixel meets a condition (black ink generated in the edge region; ¶0132-0137), the changing unit decides the pixel as a pixel in which the first ink is printed (¶0132-0137).
With regard to Claim 6, Tanase further discloses wherein the condition is that the specified pixel is adjacent to a pixel in which the second ink is not printed (¶0132-0137; second ink is not printed in the edge region where the black ink is printed).
With regard to Claim 7, Tanase further discloses wherein if the arrangement of pixels in which the second ink is printed and the number of dots of the second ink are converted into the arrangement of pixels in which thick ink is printed and the number of dots of the thick ink, and the arrangement of pixels in which thin ink is printed and the number of dots of the thin ink, the changing unit changes the arrangement of pixels in which the first ink is printed, such that the pixels in which the first ink is printed and the pixels in which the thick ink is printed do not overlap each other (See Figs. 11-13 and 17-18; thickness of the ink or thinness of the ink printed results are the same as non-overlapping).
With regard to Claim 13, Tanase further discloses a control unit (Fig. 2) configured to control a printing unit to perform printing on a print medium by using the first ink and the second ink, based on the arrangement of pixels in which the first ink is printed and the number of dots of the first ink in each pixel, which are changed by the changing unit (¶0093-0106).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reasons for allowability for Claim 8 is that applicants claimed invention includes an information processing apparatus having wherein the pixels in which the first ink is printed and the pixels in which the thin ink is printed can overlap each other. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Claim 9 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The primary reasons for allowance for Claim 9 is that applicants claimed invention includes an information processing apparatus having an acquisition unit configured to acquire print data; a generation unit configured to generate first ink data for performing printing by first ink, and second ink data for performing printing by second ink having a spectral characteristic different from a spectral characteristic of the first ink, based on the print data acquired by the acquisition unit; and a changing unit configured to change an arrangement of pixels which are decided from the first ink data and in which the first ink is printed and the number of dots of the first ink in each pixel, based on the arrangement of pixels which are decided from the first ink data and in which the first ink is printed, and an arrangement of pixels which are decided from the second ink data and in which the second ink is printed, wherein the changing unit changes the arrangement of pixels in which the first ink is printed, such that a pixel in which the first ink is printed and a pixel in which the second ink is printed do not overlap each other, and the changing unit changes the number of dots in each pixel of the first ink, such that the total number of dots of the first ink decided from the first ink data is maintained before and after the change by the changing unit, wherein at least a portion of an emission wavelength region or an excitation wavelength region of the first ink falls within a range of an absorption wavelength region of the second ink. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Claim 11 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The primary reasons for allowance for Claim 11 is that applicants claimed invention includes an information processing apparatus having an acquisition unit configured to acquire print data; a generation unit configured to generate first ink data for performing printing by first ink, and second ink data for performing printing by second ink having a spectral characteristic different from a spectral characteristic of the first ink, based on the print data acquired by the acquisition unit; and a changing unit configured to change an arrangement of pixels which are decided from the first ink data and in which the first ink is printed and the number of dots of the first ink in each pixel, based on the arrangement of pixels which are decided from the first ink data and in which the first ink is printed, and an arrangement of pixels which are decided from the second ink data and in which the second ink is printed, wherein the changing unit changes the arrangement of pixels in which the first ink is printed, such that a pixel in which the first ink is printed and a pixel in which the second ink is printed do not overlap each other, and the changing unit changes the number of dots in each pixel of the first ink, such that the total number of dots of the first ink decided from the first ink data is maintained before and after the change by the changing unit, wherein at least a portion of an emission wavelength region or an excitation wavelength region of the first ink falls within a range of an absorption wavelength region of the second ink. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Claim 12 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The primary reasons for allowance for Claim 12 is that applicants claimed invention includes an information processing apparatus having an acquisition unit configured to acquire print data; a generation unit configured to generate first ink data for performing printing by first ink, and second ink data for performing printing by second ink having a spectral characteristic different from a spectral characteristic of the first ink, based on the print data acquired by the acquisition unit; and a changing unit configured to change an arrangement of pixels which are decided from the first ink data and in which the first ink is printed and the number of dots of the first ink in each pixel, based on the arrangement of pixels which are decided from the first ink data and in which the first ink is printed, and an arrangement of pixels which are decided from the second ink data and in which the second ink is printed, wherein the changing unit changes the arrangement of pixels in which the first ink is printed, such that a pixel in which the first ink is printed and a pixel in which the second ink is printed do not overlap each other, and the changing unit changes the number of dots in each pixel of the first ink, such that the total number of dots of the first ink decided from the first ink data is maintained before and after the change by the changing unit, wherein the first ink is thin ink, and the second ink is thick ink. It is this limitation, expressed in the claim combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A. RICHMOND whose telephone number is (313)446-6547. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6:00 PM.
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, Matthew Luu can be reached at 571-272-7663. 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.
/SCOTT A RICHMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853