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 dated 8/26/2025, the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation and corresponding 35 USC 112(b) rejection with regards to the “input unit” is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 3, the objection is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/2025 regarding claim 7 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 7 was objected to for minor informalities. Claim 7 still has minor informalities albeit different ones. Claim 7 as presently presented includes an underscore between “1” and “wherein” versus either a comma or space according to the applicant’s preference. The objection to claim 7 is maintained.
In view of the amendment to claim 9, the objection is withdrawn.
The 35 USC 112(f) interpretation of the “computer unit” in claim 9 is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/2025 regarding the 35 USC 112(a) rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the definition of “true subsets” is clearly provided in the claim itself. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 as presently presented recites: “… forming all true subsets, including a null set … wherein said true subsets are subsets contained within the source color space.” This does not define what a “true subset” is represented as. The disclosure as published discusses true subsets as follows:
[0023] According to the invention, all color combinations of the n colors of the source color space whose color components are not zero are determined. For each of these color combinations a subspace table is generated and stored. Finally, all true subsets including the null set for each of these subspace transformation tables are generated and stored as separate, redundant subspace transformation tables.
…
[0072] In process step 13, the partial combinations are formed from k<n colors. A subspace transformation table is generated for each partial combination in step 14. The real subsets of it are not shown here. In step 15, the color data of the n colors of each layout object are transformed into color data of the m colors of the target color space using the subspace transformation tables from step 14. From this, in step 16, the print data is compiled for the result 17, which is generated on an output device with m device colors.
[0073] FIG. 2 shows the transformation 15 in detail. The input 21 is the color data of the source color space with n colors for an object. In step 22, the corresponding partial combination is determined, which consists of the parts that are not zero. In step 23, the previously formed subspace tables as well as their true subsets are searched to see if there is a table that contains this partial combination 22. In step 24, the result is checked. If the subspace tables 23 were created suitable for the input 21, there is at least one suitable table, from which as result 25 the color data of the m colors of the target color space are determined. If no table was found, an error is signaled in step 26, e.g. by a signal color consisting of special m color values of the m target color space.
It is noted that the applicant interchangeably utilized the terms “real” and “true” based on claims as originally submitted and those submitted on 7/1/2024. In the above discussion, there is no explicit definition of what a “true subset” actually entails but only that it generated based on a subspace table that has been previously generated. It is not a null set since that is explicitly separately included. As previously detailed, the use of the term “true subset” is not found in mathematical set theory nor is the term commonly found in the printing technology color transformation art. The 35 USC 112(a) and corresponding 35 USC 112(b) rejections are maintained.
In view of the amendment to claim 1 directed at antecedent basis of the limitation “color components,” the 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/2025 regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The limitation “n colors” is instantiated in line 5 and subsequently frequently referred to. In the presently presented amendment, although several of the previously identified antecedent issues have been corrected, the proper antecedent reference to this limitation at line 7 on page 3 has been amended to present a new instantiation thereby creating an ambiguous and indefinite condition. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection directed to portions of claim 1 reciting “n colors” is maintained.
In view of the amendment to claim 1 directed at antecedent basis of the limitation “the partial combination,” the 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 1 directed at antecedent basis of the limitation “color combination,” the 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 1 directed at antecedent basis of the limitation “values,” the 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 1 directed at antecedent basis of the limitation “null set,” the 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 1 directed at antecedent basis of the limitation “corresponding output values,” the 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 1 directed at antecedent basis of the limitation “the transformation tables,” the 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 1 directed at antecedent basis of the limitation “the color data” has not been fully addressed. Specifically, while the limitation at line 7 is properly amended, the limitation at line 10 has been improperly amended. The previous instantiation of “color data” appearing in line 8 is now ambiguous as to whether the subsequent references are directed to. The 35 USC 112(b) is maintained.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 1 directed at antecedent basis of the limitation “their true subsets” has been improperly amended. True subsets has been previously instantiated in claim 1. Simply removing the term “their” has now created an indefinite antecedent condition. The 35 USC 112(b) is maintained.
In view of the amendment to claim 1 directed at antecedent basis of the limitation “subspace tables,” the 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 3 directed at antecedent basis of the limitation “the n input colors” is not amended nor discussed in the applicant’s response dated 8/26/2025. The 35 USC 112(b) is maintained.
In view of the amendment to claim 4 directed at antecedent basis of the limitation “the application,” the 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 4 directed at antecedent basis of the limitation “output values,” the 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 6 directed at antecedent basis of the limitation “subspace transformation tables,” the 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 6 directed at antecedent basis of the limitation “total color application,” the 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 6 directed at antecedent basis of the limitation “input color data,” the 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 8 directed at antecedent basis of the limitation “total n colors,” the 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 8 directed at antecedent basis of the limitation “associated subspace table,” the 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 9 directed at antecedent basis of the limitation “values” is not amended nor discussed in the applicant’s response dated 8/26/2025. The 35 USC 112(b) is maintained.
In view of the amendment to 9 directed at antecedent basis of the limitation “input color data,” the 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to 9 directed at antecedent basis of the limitation “data set,” the 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to 9 directed at the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation, the 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
In view of the applicant’s argument and the amendment to claim 1, the 35 USC 101 rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 as presently presented includes an underscore between “1” and “wherein” versus either a comma or space according to the applicant’s preference. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Computer unit [processor, page 12],
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “… forming all true subsets, including a null set … wherein said true subsets are subsets contained within the source color space.” The disclosure appears to fail to disclose or provide an example of what is considered by the inventor to be a “true subset”. The claim language itself does not define what a “true subset” is represented as. The disclosure as published discusses true subsets as follows:
[0023] According to the invention, all color combinations of the n colors of the source color space whose color components are not zero are determined. For each of these color combinations a subspace table is generated and stored. Finally, all true subsets including the null set for each of these subspace transformation tables are generated and stored as separate, redundant subspace transformation tables.
…
[0072] In process step 13, the partial combinations are formed from k<n colors. A subspace transformation table is generated for each partial combination in step 14. The real subsets of it are not shown here. In step 15, the color data of the n colors of each layout object are transformed into color data of the m colors of the target color space using the subspace transformation tables from step 14. From this, in step 16, the print data is compiled for the result 17, which is generated on an output device with m device colors.
[0073] FIG. 2 shows the transformation 15 in detail. The input 21 is the color data of the source color space with n colors for an object. In step 22, the corresponding partial combination is determined, which consists of the parts that are not zero. In step 23, the previously formed subspace tables as well as their true subsets are searched to see if there is a table that contains this partial combination 22. In step 24, the result is checked. If the subspace tables 23 were created suitable for the input 21, there is at least one suitable table, from which as result 25 the color data of the m colors of the target color space are determined. If no table was found, an error is signaled in step 26, e.g. by a signal color consisting of special m color values of the m target color space.
It is noted that the applicant interchangeably utilized the terms “real” and “true” based on claims as originally submitted and those submitted on 7/1/2024. In the above disclosure portions, there is no explicit definition of what a “true subset” actually entails but only that it generated based on a subspace table that has been previously generated. It is not a null set since that is explicitly separately included. As previously detailed, the use of the term “true subset” is not found in mathematical set theory nor is the term commonly found in the printing technology color transformation art. Claims 3-9, 11 and 12 are rejected for failing to remedy the deficiency of claim 1 from which they depend.
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 1, 3-9, 11 and 12 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.
Claim 1 recites “… forming all true subsets.” The disclosure appears to fail to discuss or provide an example of what is considered by the inventor to be a “true subset”. As discussed above, the use of “true subset” is not a term of art nor is it a term used in set theory. The disclosure states that the sets initially generated include “all color combinations of the n colors,” the condition inherently already exists where at least one of every element in the set of n colors is found in the previous generated color combinations. Since the claimed “true subsets” are subsequently generated, it is ambiguous as to what these subsets are intended to represent. Claims 3-9, 11 and 12 are rejected for failing to remedy the condition of claim 1 from which they depend.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the m colors" in line 8 of page 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner notes this limitation is subsequently instantiated in line 14 with a referral in line 17. Correction at line 8 will require a subsequent correction at line 14.
Claim 1 recites “color data” is instantiated lines 7, 8, 10 and 14 of page 3. It is indefinite as to whether these four instantiations are intended to represent a same data or different data. When subsequently referred to, it is indefinite as to which “color data” is being referenced.
Claim 1 recites “n colors” is instantiated line 5 of page 2 and again in line 7 of page 3. It is indefinite as to whether these two instantiations are intended to represent a same “n colors” or different “n colors”. When subsequently referred to, it is indefinite as to which “n colors” is being referenced.
Claim 1 recites “true subsets” is instantiated line 11 of page 2 and again in line 12 of page 3. It is indefinite as to whether these two instantiations are intended to represent a same “true subsets” or different “true subsets”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the n input colors." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the term “values” times in line 6. It is indefinite as to whether this instantiation is intended to represent the instantiation for the term made in claim 1 line 15. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets that the instantiation should be referring to the first instantiation of claim 1 from which it depends.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The presently presented claim 1 includes the limitations of both claims 11 and 12. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
In view of the 35 USC 112 rejections above, allowability cannot be ascertained at this time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hoffstadt, US Patent 11962738, discloses a method for performing transformations of color data from a source color space with n colors to a target color space with m values.
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