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 Arguments
Objections to the Specification, objections to the claims, 35 USC 112(d) rejections, and Prior Art rejections are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC 112(b) numbered 10-15 on Pages 3-4 of the Non Final Office action are withdrawn. The remaining rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are maintained due to a lack of clarity, as further described below.
Applicant's arguments regarding 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued, “Claims 1 through 13 and 16 through 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as non-statutory. Claims 1, 3, and 13 recite specific image processing apparatuses including one or more hardware processors and one or more memories, i.e., tangible constructions of matter. Claim 19 recites a specific image processing method. Claim 20 recites a specific nontransitory computer-readable medium, i.e., a tangible construction of matter. Applicant wishes to emphasize that the claims are not directed to (a) mathematical concepts like mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations, (b) certain methods of organizing human interactions, such as fundamental economic practices, commercial and legal interactions, managing relationships or interactions between people, and advertising, marketing, and sales activities, and (c) mental processes, which are concepts performed in the human mind, such as forming an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. In view of the foregoing, the claims, taken as a whole, are not “abstract ideas” or the like. Instead, the claims are limited to practical applications in the technological arts, and the claimed invention is not a natural phenomenon, abstract idea, law of nature, “descriptive material,” or “mere manipulation of abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106. Furthermore, Applicant respectfully traverses the statements in the Official Action that:
(1) the updating of adjustment parameters need not be addressed because it is an alternative embodiment;
(2) the “judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application”
(3) the “additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits”
(4) the claim does not “include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception”
(5) the limitations “cover performance of the limitation in the mind,”
especially in the absence of any cited documents providing evidence on this point. Applicant respectfully submits that, to the contrary, the claims recite non-conventional particular solutions to problems and/or non-conventional particular ways to achieve a desired outcome. Applicant wishes to emphasize that the claims recite specific additional elements that constitute a practical application.”
The above arguments amount to mere assertions without any meaningful arguments. The apparatus and non-transitory computer-readable medium of the claims are generic insignificant additional elements that fail to integrate the claims into a practical, as already described in the Non Final Office action and further described, again, below.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “(b) adjustment” should recite “(b) updating adjustment”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18 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 7 recites, “(1) from the scanned image, tone characteristics of a first patch group and tone characteristics of a second patch group whose hue is different from that of the first patch group with (2) from the predicted image, tone characteristics of the first patch group and tone characteristics of the second patch group.” The bolded elements have improper antecedence and are being interpreted as ‘second tone characteristics of the first patch group and second tone characteristics of the second patch group’, as they appear to be distinct from the previously recited ‘tone characteristics of a first patch group and tone characteristics of a second patch group’.
Claim 12 is written at a level of poor clarity such that the Examiner is unable ascertain the scope of the claim. The claim recites, “information on a color for which a difference between (a) an adjusted image, obtained by using the adjustment parameters, and (b) the output image or the predicted image cannot be treated by updating of the adjustment parameters without updating the learned model”. The Examiner cannot determine the meaning of “cannot be treated” in reference to the difference. Also, “wherein control is performed” does not make sense. Furthermore, “an adjusted image, obtained by using the adjustment parameters” is indefinite (using the adjustment parameters on what?). The claim is being interpreted such that information on a color is presented to a user.
Claims 13, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected for the recitation of “an adjusted image, obtained by using the adjustment parameters” for the same reasons as described above. The element is being interpreted as any adjusted image.
Claim 13 recites, “a color for which a difference… cannot be treated”, which is indefinite as described above. Also, “wherein control is performed” does not make sense, as also described above. The last limitation of the claim is being interpreted such that a position is output.
Claim 13 recites “a result of the determining” twice. This is improper antecedence. The second instance is interpreted as “the result of determining”.
Claim 15 is written at a level of poor clarity such that the Examiner is unable ascertain the scope of the claim. In particular, the “cannot be treated” with reference to the difference does not make sense. Claim 15 is being interpreted such that the learned model is updated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of making a determination of whether to update a model, without significantly more.
The claim recites: “An image processing apparatus comprising:
one or more hardware processors; and
one or more memories storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more hardware processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
(1) generating a predicted image, which is an image predicting an output image corresponding to an input image, by using a learned model; and
(2) determining, based on the output image and the predicted image between (a) updating the learned model and (b) updating adjustment parameters for adjusting a pixel value of a target image without updating the learned model, wherein the output image is a scanned image obtained by scanning a printing medium on which an image corresponding to the input image is formed.
The limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. A person can mentally generate a predicted image corresponding to an input image, and determine whether to update a model or adjust a parameter. The output image obtained by scanning a printing medium amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (data collection)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a learned model, processor and memory storing a program. These are is recited at a level of generality such that they amount to no more than a generic learning model, and generic computer components for the performance of the mental process. The claim also recites ‘a printing medium’ which is generically recited. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality. It is therefore a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application, and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of making the determination of claim 1 including a difference thresholding step, which amounts to a mental process. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of describing the target image as the predicted image, which does not modify the limitations of claim 1 such that they are not mental processes. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to further limiting the non-addressed limitation of claim 2. The claim therefore does not include any steps that cannot be performed mentally. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of scanning a “calibration chart”, which can be done mentally or with generic computer equipment. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of comparing tones , which can be done mentally. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of providing instructions for performing the updating based on the determination of claim 1. A person can mentally and/or verbally provide instructions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of outputting the determination result to a user, receiving instructions and performing an update, outputting a determination of updating the model, and outputting information on a color, which can all be done via a combination of mental and verbal actions. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of claim 1, with additional steps of updating the parameters or learned model and outputting position of a color, all of which amount to mental processes. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of updating both the model and parameters. Updating parameters amount to a mental process. Updating the model is recited generically and amounts to routine activity. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of comparing images, which can be done mentally. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of presenting an image, which can be done by a person drawing an image1, for example. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of a method analogous to claim 1. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for performing the limitations of claim 1. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program amounts to a generic memory that fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application due to the level of generality to which it is recited. The claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to under Claim Objections; claims 1, 3-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101; claims 7, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18. Claim 14 is objected to as dependent on rejected claim 1. These claims would be allowable if amended to overcome the above objection and rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claims 1, 3, 13, and 19-20 (and their respective dependent claims), in addition to other limitations in the claims the Prior Art of Record fails to teach, disclose or render obvious the applicant' s invention as claimed, in particular:
Claim 1 recites, ““An image processing apparatus comprising:
one or more hardware processors; and
one or more memories storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more hardware processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
(1) generating a predicted image, which is an image predicting an output image corresponding to an input image, by using a learned model; and
(2) determining, based on the output image and the predicted image between (a) updating the learned model and (b) updating adjustment parameters for adjusting a pixel value of a target image without updating the learned model, wherein the output image is a scanned image obtained by scanning a printing medium on which an image corresponding to the input image is formed.”
Claims 3, 13, 19, and 20 recite limitations analogous to the above bolded limitation of claim 1.
Seki teaches an inspection method for determining the quality of a printed image by comparing the printed image with a prediction image using a machine learning model. Song teaches methods for training neural networks including applying a customized neural network model to another neural network model. Su teaches methods and apparatus for using a trained machine learning system for predict potential defects associated with a printer engine. Midori teaches a model for image quality estimation wherein an output image is generated by processing image data, then the output image is compared to a scanned image and it is determined if a predetermined condition is satisfied. Valente teaches automated print defect mapping using two inference strategies for mapping defects at a pixel level using semantic segmentation. However, none of these references expressly disclose the bolded limitations above. In particular, the bolded limitation describes making an active determination between two discrete options (updating the model vs. updating adjustment parameters without updating the model). In Seki, the closest prior art, the model is trained (updated) without the option to perform a discrete parameter adjustment without updating the model.
Conclusion
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 AARON JOSEPH SORRIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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 JOSEPH SORRIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
1 The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
Prosecution Insights