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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to applicant’s amendment received on 1/21/26, all requested changes to the specification and claims have been entered. Claims 1-11 were previously and are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the pending 112(b) rejections, the amendments have resolved the rejections of independent claims 1, 10 and 11. However, as noted in the rejection mailed on 10/31/25, last paragraph of page 3, dependent claims 3-6 recited, and still recite, similar limitations to those of previously pending claim 1 (specifically the limitation of “such that it is difficult to determine there is a difference”) indicated as generally vague and indefinite, and were therefore rejected for the same reasons indicated with regards to previously pending claim 1. Additionally, claims 3-6 were also rejected for insufficient antecedent basis, see the top of page 4 of the rejection. Neither of these 112(b) rejections applied to claims 3-6 were addressed in the response filed 1/21/26. Therefore those rejections are herein maintained and the action in made final.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 prior art rejections of independent claims 1, 10 and 11, the Examiner notes that the previous action, page 4, indicated the incorrect prior art used in the rejection. The document (i.e. figures and paragraphs) being referred to in the rejection was actually associated with US 2019/0212955 to Gutierrez et al. (Gutierrez), not Morishita (US2015/0003845). However, the amendments also overcome the prior art of Gutierrez as indicated in the reasons for allowance below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3-6 recite the limitation “set the determination condition…such that it is difficult to determine there is a difference…”. The limitation is generally vague and indefinite. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of “difficult to determine” would be. It’s “difficult” for whom, and in what way, to determine there is a difference? Maybe it’s difficult for the “processor”, while performing the preceding “compare” step, but in what way? And is this difference being determined in reference to the difference determined in that preceding “compare” step of claim 1, because it would seem that in that step it states that the difference is actually/positively being determined?
Additionally, claims 3 and 4 recite the limitation "the pre-processing area designated by a user" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The pre-processing area is first defined in claim 1 and does not disclose that it was designated by a user.
Additionally, claims 5 and 6 recite the limitation "the type of the processing medium designated by a user" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2 and 7-11 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 1, and similarly independent claims 10 and 11, none of the prior art teach or fairly suggests the amended limitations of “wherein a determination condition for the pre-processing area is satisfied in response to a difference between pixel values for each corresponding pixel of the post-printing scanned image data and the print image data in the pre-processing area is larger than a first threshold value”, “wherein a determination condition for an area other than the pre-processing area is satisfied in response to a difference between pixel values for each corresponding pixel of the post-printing scanned image data and the print image data in the area other than the pre-processing area is larger than a second threshold value” and “wherein the first threshold value is larger than the second threshold value”, in combination with the other limitations of the claim. The prior art of US 2019/0212955 to Gutierrez et al. (Gutierrez) discloses a similar image processing apparatus configured to:
specify, as a pre-processing area (Fig. 1, element 102, wherein coordinate area associated with the “preprint/logo/banner” corresponds to “pre-processing area”), a coordinate area in pre-printing scanned image data obtained by scanning a processing medium (Fig. 1, element 100a, wherein print media (100a) corresponds to processing medium) on which an image is printed or a pattern is applied (Fig. 1, element 102, wherein the preprint/logo/banner corresponds to the image printed or pattern already applied to the processing medium) in advance and on which print image data according to a print request is not printed (Fig. 10, element 1002, wherein “rasterized image” for print corresponds to the print image data including intended print content (1012) to be printed), the coordinate area including an image corresponding to the image or the pattern (Fig. 7, elements 705-725; paragraphs 98-102, 173-179, 192-210, wherein by subtracting the pre-printing image (i.e. including only the “preprint/logo/banner”) from the post-printing image (i.e. including both “preprint/logo/banner” and “rasterized image”) thereby creating a “validation image” which specifies the “pre-processing area” (i.e. coordinate area associated with the “preprint/logo/banner”) by removing it, leaving just the print image data generated according to the “rasterized image”);
compare post-printing scanned image data obtained by scanning the processing medium on which the print image data is printed with the print image data, and determine that there is a difference between the post-printing scanned image data and the print image data in a case where a comparison result satisfies a determination condition (Fig. 7, element 730; paragraphs 180, 211-229, wherein the validation image corresponds to the “post-printing scanned image data” which is compared with “rasterized image” (i.e. “print image data”) and it is determined there is a difference based on the similarity determination condition); and
set the determination condition for the pre-processing area such that it is difficult to determine that there is a difference between the post-printing scanned image data and the print image data compared to the determination condition for an area other than the pre-processing area (Figs. 9, 10; paragraphs 211-229, wherein different similarity determination condition can be set (e.g. thresholds), and adjusted, for different areas including pre-processing area (i.e. area associated with the “preprint/logo/banner”) and the surrounding areas (i.e. area other than the pre-processing area). Additionally the similarity determination conditions (i.e. threshold or degree/percentage of correspondence) can be set so that the sensitivity makes it “difficult” to determine any differences between the post-printing scanned image data (i.e. “validation image”) and the print image data (i.e. “rasterized image”).
However, neither Gutierrez nor any other prior art found teach or fairly suggests the amended limitations above.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AARON W CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7445. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm (Mon - Fri).
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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/AARON W CARTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661