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In view of the amendment to the title, the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
In view of the cancelation of claims 14 and 15, the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claims 1 and 3, the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation and corresponding 35 USC 112(b) rejection are withdrawn.
In view of the cancelation of claims 14 and 15, the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation and corresponding 35 USC 112(b) rejection are withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to independent claims 1, 20 and 21, the 35 USC 101 abstract idea rejection is withdrawn from claims 1-21.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection claim(s) 1, 3, 5-9, 16, 17, 20-21 and 30-38 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 § 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, 5-9, 16, 17, 20-21 and 30-38 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 “… acquire a combination of threshold matrixes corresponding to the plurality of scans, based on a tone value represented by the image data; in a case when the tone value is equal to or greater than a switching tone value for switching a combination of the threshold matrixes, control to acquire a combination of the threshold matrixes that are set to have a higher probability of dot-on-dot occurrence than in a case when the tone value is less than the switching tone value.” There appears to be no disclosure supporting the above underlined limitations as newly presented. The limitation is interpreted to mean that a different combination of matrices are acquired. According to the “acquire” limitation, a combination of matrices for subsequent usage are obtained. This is represented in Figure 11B and discussed in paragraph 00095 (as filed and published). Then depending on a combination of a switching value, paper type and scan speed, a choice between a first matrix pair or a second matrix pair is made. These potential four matrices are obtained in the preceding “acquire” limitation. However, there is no discussion or suggestion for the acquisition of any other subsequent matrix combinations to have the higher probability of a dot-on-dot occurrence as the ones already obtained. As disclosed, the four different threshold matrices (combined into pairs) as represented in Figure 11B are selected to address the dot-on-dot probability of having a high or weak relationship. The matrices are not disclosed as being reacquired in some manner as the plain language interpretation of the underlined portion of the above limitation states.
Independent claims 20 and 21 are likewise rejected as claim 1 above. Dependent claims 3, 5-9, 16, 17 and 30-38 are rejected based on their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-9, 16, 17, 20-21 and 30-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirano et al., (US Pub No. 20040218221).
Claim 1: Hirano discloses an image processing apparatus [Abstract] comprising:
a processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor [CPU & memory, p0097 & p0184], causes the processor to:
input image data [multi-level image data IN, p0126];
generate, from the image data, print data to be used in each of a plurality of scans of a printhead acquire a combination of threshold matrixes corresponding to the plurality of scans, based on a tone value represented by the image data [the optimization process is also required in this case since the dot alignment may interfere with the main and sub scan operations of the image forming apparatus … the basic layout 1 is the layout of the bi-level optimized diffusion type threshold value matrix, each of the threshold value matrixes 2, 3 and 4 are also diffusion type threshold value matrixes … a quantization unit 600 quantizes a multi-level image data IN into four-valued data using three quantization threshold values Th1, Th2 and Th3 from threshold value generators 602, 603 and 604, p0106 & p0125-0126];
acquire a combination of threshold matrixes corresponding to the plurality of scans, based on a tone value represented by the image data [threshold value generators 602, 603 and 604 generate the threshold values of the threshold value matrixes 2, 3 and 4 corresponding to each of the pixels of the multi-level image data IN in the image space, p0126];
in a case when the tone value is equal to or greater than a switching tone value for switching a combination of the threshold matrixes, control to acquire a combination of the threshold matrixes that are set to have a higher probability of dot-on-dot occurrence than in a case when the tone value is less than the switching tone value [for the dots having sizes other than the maximum size, no overlapping portion is generated even when the dot area coverage is set to 100%, and it is possible to compute the number of gradation levels representable by the dots having the various sizes … a threshold value matrix corresponding to the dot size is used for each of the small, medium and large dots [i.e., no tone values requiring the acquisition of different threshold matrices than those already acquired], when making the comparison with the input image data to make the replacement to the dots, p0106, p0131 & p0148 – NOTE: though cited in general, the citation is not required because the above limitation “in a case” is not required to occur. If the tone value is lower than the switching tone value, the “in a case” limitation is never executed. If the tone value is equal or higher than the switching tone value, the “in a case” is only executed if that switch requires switching a combination of matrixes. Since, in at least the case of the cited art, no further matrixes are needed to be acquired, therefore, the limitation is never executed. Because this limitation is based on a contingency, i.e., in a case … language, is not required to be executed and therefore is not required to be met. Further, "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2111.04 & 2114];
execute quantization processing for the print data using the threshold matrixes in the acquired combination; and print the image data by the printhead [halftone data output from the gradation processing module 202 is supplied to a printer 203 which prints the halftone image on a recording medium such as paper, p0135].
Claim 3: Hirano discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the switching tone value is decided in accordance with a print condition in printing of the image data [threshold value generators 602, 603 and 604 generate the threshold values of the threshold value matrixes 2, 3 and 4 corresponding to each of the pixels of the multi-level image data IN in the image space, p0126 - NOTE: though cited in general, the limitations of this claim are not required or executed because the associated limitations of claim 1 are not required to be executed, therefore the limitations are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04].
Claim 5: Hirano discloses the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the switching tone value in a case when the print condition is a first print condition and the switching tone value in a case when the print condition is a second print condition are different [threshold value generators 602, 603 and 604 generate the threshold values of the threshold value matrixes 2, 3 and 4 corresponding to each of the pixels of the multi-level image data IN in the image space … a threshold value matrix corresponding to the dot size is used for each of the small, medium and large dots, when making the comparison with the input image data to make the replacement to the dots, p0126 & p0148 - NOTE: though cited in general, the limitations of this claim are not required or executed because the associated limitations of claim 3 are not required to be executed, therefore the limitations are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04].
Claim 6: Hirano discloses the apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the switching tone value in the case when the print condition is the first print condition is smaller than the switching tone value in the case when the print condition is the second print condition [threshold value generators 602, 603 and 604 generate the threshold values of the threshold value matrixes 2, 3 and 4 corresponding to each of the pixels of the multi-level image data IN in the image space … a threshold value matrix corresponding to the dot size is used for each of the small, medium and large dots, when making the comparison with the input image data to make the replacement to the dots, p0126 & p0148 - NOTE: though cited in general, the limitations of this claim are not required or executed because the associated limitations of claim 5 are not required to be executed, therefore the limitations are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04].
Claim 7: Hirano discloses the apparatus according to claim 6, wherein a probability of dot-on-dot occurrence of a combination of threshold matrixes under the first print condition is larger than a probability of dot-on-dot occurrence of a combination of threshold matrixes under the second print condition [NOTE: the limitations of this claim are not required or executed because the associated limitations of claim 6 are not required to be executed, therefore the limitations are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04].
Claim 8: Hirano discloses the apparatus according to claim 7, wherein ink permeability is higher for a type of a print medium defined by the first print condition than for a type of a print medium defined by the second print condition [NOTE: the limitations of this claim are not required or executed because the associated limitations of claim 7 are not required to be executed, therefore the limitations are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04].
Claim 9: Hirano discloses the apparatus according to claim 7, wherein a scan speed of the printhead defined by the first print condition is higher than a scan speed of the printhead defined by the second print condition [NOTE: the limitations of this claim are not required or executed because the associated limitations of claim 7 are not required to be executed, therefore the limitations are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04].
Claim 16: Hirano discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor further executes to output, to the printhead, the data for which the quantization processing is executed [image forming apparatus which represents halftone by four-valued data using the threshold value matrixes 2, 3 and 4. In FIG. 12, a quantization unit 600 quantizes a multi-level image data IN into four-valued data using three quantization threshold values Th1, Th2 and Th3 from threshold value generators 602, 603 and 604, p0126].
Claim 17: Hirano discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising the printhead [ink-jet printer shown in FIGS. 21 and 22].
Claims 20 and 21: the method and program herein have been executed or performed by the apparatus of claim 1 and are therefore likewise rejected.
Claim 30: Hirano discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case when the tone value is less than the switching tone value, the processor controls to acquire a first threshold matrix corresponding to a first scan of the plurality of scans and to acquire a second threshold matrix corresponding to a second scan of the plurality of scans [partially overlapping dots are generated in the actual image before the dot area coverage in the data reaches 50%. If the level does not change by the overlap as in the case of the digital data and the level "1" remains to be "1" even when the overlap occurs, it is possible to reflect the overlap to the threshold value by simply subtracting the overlapping area … making the dot switching shown in FIG. 12, expect for an extremely limited shadow portion, p0129-0131 - NOTE: though cited in general, the limitations of this claim are not required or executed because the associated limitations of claim 1 are not required to be executed, therefore the limitations are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04], and in the case when the tone value is equal to or greater than the switching tone value, the processor controls to acquire a third threshold matrix corresponding to the first scan and to acquire a fourth threshold matrix corresponding to the second scan, the probability of dot-on-dot occurrence of a combination of the third threshold matrix and the fourth threshold matrix is set to be higher than a combination of the first threshold matrix and the second threshold matrix, and a first degree that a dot arrangement that is a result of quantization using the third threshold matrix and a dot arrangement that is a result of quantization using the fourth threshold matrix hold an exclusive relationship is less than a second degree that a dot arrangement that is a result of quantization using the first threshold matrix and a dot arrangement that is a result of quantization using the second threshold matrix hold the exclusive relationship [Hirano discloses utilizing multiple threshold matrixes, p0126 - NOTE: the limitation “in a case when the tone value is equal …” is not required to occur as noted in claim 1. If the tone value is lower than the switching tone value, the “in a case” limitation is never executed. If the tone value is equal or higher than the switching tone value, the “in a case” is only executed if that switch requires switching a combination of matrixes. Since, in at least the case of the cited art, no further matrixes are needed to be acquired, therefore, the limitation is never executed. Because this limitation is based on a contingency, i.e., in a case … language, is not required to be executed and therefore is not required to be met. Further, "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2111.04 & 2114].
Claim 31: Hirano discloses the apparatus according to claim 30, wherein the first degree and the second degree are each expressed based on a ratio of a number of pixels that overlap as a result of quantization using different threshold matrixes to the total number of pixels in a dot arrangement that is a result of quantization using the different threshold matrixes in a case when an overlap is assumed to be absent condition [NOTE: the limitations of this claim are not required or executed because the associated limitations of claim 30 are not required to be executed, therefore the limitations are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04].
Claim 32: Hirano discloses the apparatus according to claim 31, wherein the first threshold matrix and the third threshold matrix are identical threshold matrixes condition [NOTE: the limitations of this claim are not required or executed because the associated limitations of claim 31 are not required to be executed, therefore the limitations are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04].
Claim 33: Hirano discloses the apparatus according to claim 30, further comprising a memory configured to store the first threshold matrix and the second threshold matrix condition [memory, p0126 - NOTE: the limitations of this claim are not required or executed because the associated limitations of claim 30 are not required to be executed, therefore the limitations are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04].
Claim 34: Hirano discloses the apparatus according to claim 30, wherein the second threshold matrix is generated by changing thresholds of the first threshold matrix condition [as shown in at least Figure 18 - NOTE: the limitations of this claim are not required or executed because the associated limitations of claim 30 are not required to be executed, therefore the limitations are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04].
Claim 35: Hirano discloses the apparatus according to claim 30, wherein the processor further executes to assign a tone value represented by the image data to the first print data and the second print data at a predetermined ratio condition [partially overlapping dots are generated in the actual image before the dot area coverage in the data reaches 50%. If the level does not change by the overlap as in the case of the digital data and the level "1" remains to be "1" even when the overlap occurs, it is possible to reflect the overlap to the threshold value by simply subtracting the overlapping area … making the dot switching shown in FIG. 12, expect for an extremely limited shadow portion … for the dots having sizes other than the maximum size, no overlapping portion is generated even when the dot area coverage is set to 100%, and it is possible to compute the number of gradation levels representable by the dots having the various sizes, by simply using the area coverage, p0129-0131 - NOTE: though cited in general, the limitations of this claim are not required or executed because the associated limitations of claim 30 are not required to be executed, therefore the limitations are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04].
Claim 36: Hirano discloses the apparatus according to claim 35, wherein the tone value is assigned to the first print data and the second print data at an equal ratio condition [NOTE: the limitations of this claim are not required or executed because the associated limitations of claim 30 are not required to be executed, therefore the limitations are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04].
Claim 37: Hirano discloses the apparatus according to claim 35, wherein in a case when the tone value is less than the switching tone value, the tone value is assigned to the first print data and the second print data at an equal ratio, and in close to the switching tone value, a ratio of the tone value assigned to the first print data is greater than a ratio of the tone value assigned to the second print data condition [NOTE: the limitations of this claim are not required or executed because the associated limitations of claim 35 are not required to be executed, therefore the limitations are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04].
Claim 38: Hirano discloses the apparatus according to claim 30, wherein each of the first degree that the dot arrangements of the first threshold matrix and the second threshold matrix have the exclusive relationship, and the second degree that the dot arrangements of the third threshold matrix and the fourth threshold matrix have the exclusive relationship, is stored as an evaluation value of probability of dot-on-dot occurrence measured in advance condition [NOTE: the limitations of this claim are not required or executed because the associated limitations of claim 30 are not required to be executed, therefore the limitations are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yanai, US Pub No. 20130194593, discloses a multi-pass ink jet system utilizing a plurality of threshold matrices that are applied according to the image data gradation range and scan number.
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