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 .
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment to the title, the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claims 1-16, the corresponding 35 USC 112(b) rejection(s) are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 102/103 rejection of claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazunori (JP Pub No. 2014099703) in view of Rolleston et al., (US Pub No. 20100293458).
Claim 1: Kazunori disclose an information processing device comprising: at least one processor [Figure 1, p0023] programmed to:
receive a print instruction including print data [a predetermined operation is performed on the input device 14 to cause the image forming apparatus 1 to start an output process. At this time, the user can perform a predetermined operation on the input device 14 to designate the highlighter mode, p0054];
read figure information included in the print data [color area 111 as shown in Figure 3A and fluorescent color region 132 of Figure 3B, p0043];
search for and find a figure which has a width extending in a direction intersecting with a reading direction of text to be drawn and which is disposed along the reading direction, based on the figure information included in the print data [a fluorescent color region 132 including the character image 131 is formed as shown in Figure 3B, p0043];
in response to (i) the print data indicating that the figure is superimposed on at least part of the text [a character image 131 is printed in advance on the registration sheet 121 … as shown in Figure 3B, p0043] and (ii) the figure being drawn with a color corresponding to a first predetermined color [e.g., fluorescent color], replace the color of the figure by a spot color [only when the predetermined highlighter pen mode is designated by the user, the color conversion unit 32 generates image data of the image of the document in the color coordinate system of the printing apparatus 11 from the image data of the read image by using the color value of the color patch corresponding to the registered fluorescent color for the fluorescent color in the image of the document … the fluorescent color of the fluorescent pen possessed by the user and the CMYK value of the general color preferred by the user corresponding to the fluorescent color (that is, the color by the color material of the image forming apparatus 1) are registered in association with each other, p0038 & p0051]; and
output the print data reflecting the color of the figure replaced by the spot color [in a printed matter such as a copy, the fluorescent color in the document is reproduced with a general color that matches the user's preference, p0062].
Although Kazunori discloses utilizing a user specified color when a predetermined color area is present in the document data [p0038 & p0051], Kazunori does not disclose utilizing a spot color.
Rolleston discloses in a related system from the same field of endeavor [Abstract] providing a means for a user to select a spot color to be applied in a print job [for spot colors, the user 110 can be presented with and can choose from available spot colors, which are both within the color profile of the printer 160 and which are considered close to the first color, p0042].
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have included in Kazunori the support for utilizing a spot color as disclosed by Rolleston because it allows the user to select any color available, including a spot color, in the printer to represent predetermined color of the print data to thereby produce an output intended by the user.
Claim 2: Kazunori in view of Rolleston discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the figure has a quadrilateral shape defined by two line segments disposed along the reading direction [111/132 as shown in Figure 3].
Claim 4: Kazunori in view of Rolleston discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is programmed to set the color of the figure to be a preset standard color, which is not the spot color, and to output the print data reflecting the color of the figure set to the preset standard color if the figure is not superimposed even on at least part of the text [determined that the fluorescent color does not exist in the document image [e.g., no fluorescent color area can mean that no such may figure exist and if it doesn’t exist there can be no superimposition onto text], the color conversion unit 32 uses a predetermined color conversion method (for example, a default color conversion based on a predetermined look-up table or a predetermined conversion formula), p0034].
Claim 5: Kazunori in view of Rolleston discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is programmed to maintain the color of the figure as a second predetermined color and to output the print data reflecting the color of the figure maintained as the second predetermined color if the color of the figure is not expressed by the spot color which is able to be printed [color conversion unit 32 determines whether or not the fluorescent color registered by the fluorescent color registration unit 31 as color conversion data exists in the image of the original read by the image reading device 12 … if the original image does not have the same color as the fluorescent color (L .sup.* a .sup.* b .sup.* value) registered as color conversion data for the user (step S14), the fluorescent pen mode is designated. If not (step S13), the color conversion unit 33 performs color conversion on all colors in the document image by a predetermined color conversion method, and generates CMYK data of the document image (step S16), p0033-0034 & p0058].
Claim 8: the apparatus herein has been executed or performed by the device of claim 1 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 9: the apparatus herein has been executed or performed by the device of claim 2 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 11: the apparatus herein has been executed or performed by the device of claim 4 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 12: the apparatus herein has been executed or performed by the device of claim 5 and is likewise rejected.
Claims 15 and 16: the method and program herein have been executed or performed by the device of claim 1 and are therefore likewise rejected.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazunori (JP Pub No. 2014099703) in view of Rolleston et al., (US Pub No. 20100293458) and in further view of Ito (US Pg Pub No. 20150317547).
Claim 3: Kazunori in view of Rolleston discloses the information processing device according to claim 1.
Neither Kazunori nor Rolleston appear to disclose wherein the figure has a shape defined by two curved line segments disposed along the reading direction.
Ito discloses in a related system from the same field of endeavor [Abstract] wherein PDL data may include information on various shapes present including one with curved segments [the system renders, on the entire page, a triangle, circle, and rectangle, p0053].
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have included in Kazunori in view of Rolleston the recognition in PDL data a curved shape as disclosed by Ito because it allows for proper rendering of the included data as taught by Ito in consideration of Ikeda for identifying data to be rendered in a special color.
Claim 10: the apparatus herein has been executed or performed by the device of claim 3 and is likewise rejected.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazunori (JP Pub No. 2014099703) in view of Rolleston et al., (US Pub No. 20100293458) and in further view of Japanese Patent 6844296 (known as JP6844296).
Claim 6: Kazunori in view of Rolleston discloses the information processing device according to claim 1.
Neither Kazunori nor Rolleston appear to disclose wherein the at least one processor is programmed to execute background processing if the figure is a translucent figure superimposed on at least part of the text, the background processing being processing for replacing only a background color of the text on which the translucent figure is superimposed by the spot color while maintaining a character portion color of the text in accordance with a combination of a specified color of the figure and the character portion color of the text.
JP6844296 discloses in a related system from the same field of endeavor wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute background processing if the figure is a translucent figure superimposed on at least part of the text, the background processing being processing for replacing only a color of a background of the text on which the translucent figure is superimposed by a spot color while maintaining a color of a character portion of the text in accordance with a combination of a specified color of the figure and the color of the character portion of the text [overprint [i.e., translucent] process is a process of adding a color to the background color (leaving the background color) when processing an object for which overprint is specified. The color correction process is, for example, a process of correcting a color according to the characteristics of a print processing unit to obtain a device (print processing unit) -dependent color. After the overprint process or the like is executed, a spot color name indicating the spot color is extracted from the spot color plate data, and alternative color information is acquired from the storage unit based on the extracted spot color name … a spot color object (spot color = 100%, alternative color is CMYK (10/10/10/50)) is superimposed on the basic color object (C = 60%), and the spot color is concerned. When overprint is set for the object, the color of the two overlapping parts is not CMYK (70/10/10/50) but CMYK (60/10/10/50) … page interpretation unit 38 generates PDL data for each basic color plate data (for example, C plate, M plate, Y plate, K plate) corresponding to each basic color, and spot color plate data corresponding to the spot color. The spot color version data is generated for each spot color included in the PDL data … the spot color object to be processed has a portion that overlaps with another object, the drawing unit 52 performs overprint processing or transparency effect processing on the spot color object before converting the spot color of the spot color object to an alternative color … the overprint processing or the spot color correction processing is executed before the spot color is converted into the alternative color. Therefore, these processes can be appropriately or. Therefore, these processes can be appropriately executed, pages 1, 5-6 & 10-11 - NOTE: this is a contingent limitation. Though cited with prior art, the citation is not required because this limitation is not required to occur. It occurs ONLY IF the figure is translucent. If the figure is not, the claimed limitations are not executed. See MPEP 2111.04].
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have included in Kazunori in view of Rolleston wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute background processing if the figure is a translucent figure superimposed on at least part of the text, the background processing being processing for replacing only a color of a background of the text on which the translucent figure is superimposed by a spot color while maintaining a color of a character portion of the text in accordance with a combination of a specified color of the figure and the color of the character portion of the text as taught by JP6844296 because it allows to properly process image data when an overprint process is designated in the print data as discussed by JP6844296 on at least pages 6 & 11.
Claim 7: Kazunori in view of Rolleston and JP6844296 discloses the information processing device according to claim 6, further comprising: a memory, wherein information on the combination of the specified color of the figure and a the character portion color of the text which makes it difficult to read the character portion when the specified color of the figure is superimposed on the character portion color is prestored in the memory, and wherein the at least one processor is programmed to execute the background processing if the at least one processor determines, based on the information prestored in the memory, that the specified color of the translucent figure and the character portion color of the text is a-the combination which makes it difficult to read the character portion [NOTE: this claim is a contingency claim because of its dependency on the contingency in claim 6. Thus, limitations of this claim are not required or executed in claim 6. Therefore the limitation is not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04]. Claim 7: is further rejected based on its dependency on claim 6.
Claim 13: the apparatus herein has been executed or performed by the device of claim 6 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 14: the apparatus herein has is likewise rejected as the device of claim 7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hayward, et al., US Patent 8049926, discloses utilizing spot color printing allowing a user to designate its application.
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 BARBARA D REINIER whose telephone number is (571)270-5082. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu 10am - 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 at 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 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.
/BARBARA D REINIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights