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
Applicant's arguments filed 26 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “the Hayashi et al. publication discusses detecting an image defect using a single color image and a plurality of colors image. To the contrary, according to the present invention, it is possible to detect an image defect using a test image of mixed colors, which are secondary or higher-order colors”, please note that paragraph 0174 recites “The color pattern 73 includes the primary color and secondary color generated by mixing the primary colors. The gradation pattern 74 includes tertiary color generated by mixing the primary color and the secondary color. The secondary color corresponds to, for example, blue, green and red, and the tertiary color corresponds to, for example, gray or grey” (emphasis added), showing that the disclosure teaches a test image of mixed colors, which are secondary or higher-order as claimed.
Furthermore, regarding the argument “Applicant submits that the detecting an image defect using a single color image and a plurality of colors image”, please note that the statement is incomplete and has not been taken into consideration.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “the Tomii publication does not teach or suggest such features of Applicant's inventions”, please note that paragraphs 0043, 0086, and 0092-0097 teach using mixed color test patterns, and fig. 7 teaches determining the cause of a black streak (i.e. an identical image defect) based on it occurring in all colors.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9, 11-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hayashi (US 2019/0281171.)
Regarding claim 9,
Hayashi discloses an image processing apparatus [1000 in fig. 1A] comprising:
one or more controllers [54 in fig. 2] including one or more processors and one or more memories [51 in fig. 2], the one or more controllers configured:
to obtain a scanned image by scanning an image of a chart on which a test image of mixed colors, which are a secondary or higher-order colors, has been printed [as seen in fig. 16; paragraph 0174];
to detect an image defect corresponding to each color included in the scanned image [paragraph 0113];
to obtain a feature of the detected image defect [paragraphs 0056, 0113 and 0174]; and
to identify a cause of an occurrence of the image defect by determining whether there are identical image defects in image defects corresponding to all colors of the test image, based on the feature [paragraphs 0057 and 0174-0176; please note that paragraph 0113 recites "In step S707, it is determined whether the abnormality occurs (...) in all of the color plates of YMCK" and refers to a (singular) abnormality, implying that the abnormality on each color is the same (i.e., is identical).]
Regarding claim 11,
Hayashi further discloses wherein, in the obtainment of the feature of the detected image defect, in a case when there are identical image defects in image defects corresponding to all of process colors included in the mixed colors of the test image, the one or more controllers obtain the feature indicating that the image defects have occurred after transfer in a printing apparatus that printed the test image [paragraph 0113; also, please note that since the claim is defined by a conditional limitation (by "in a case when"), the claim requirements are met at least when the condition is not satisfied.]
Regarding claim 12,
Hayashi further discloses wherein the identical image defects are image defects that are at identical positions and are of identical shapes [as seen in fig. 7.]
Regarding claim 13,
Hayashi further discloses wherein, in the obtainment of the feature of the detected image defect, in a case when there is not an identical image defect for all process colors included in the mixed colors of the test image, the one or more controllers obtain the feature indicating that the image defect has occurred before transfer in a printing apparatus that printed the test image [paragraph 0113; also, please note that since the claim is defined by a conditional limitation (by "in a case when"), the claim requirements are met at least when the condition is not satisfied.]
Regarding claim 14,
Hayashi further discloses wherein, in the obtainment of the feature of the detected image defect, the one or more controllers obtain the feature based on a lightness component and a chroma component of a pixel value group for which similar colors of pixel values included in the image defect have been grouped [implicit that it could be possible from the disclosure.]
Regarding claim 15,
Hayashi further discloses wherein, in the obtainment of the feature of the detected image defect, the one or more controllers extract the feature, using an RGB channel of a complementary color of a process color included in the mixed colors of the printed test image [implicit that it could be possible from figs. 16-17; also note that the test image has no functional or structural relationship with the physical medium where it has been printed, and therefore the printed matter (in this case the test image) is owed no patentable weight, and cannot distinguish the claims over any particular piece of prior art. (See In re DiStefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848, 117 USPQ2d 1265, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2015) for examples of this).]
Regarding claim 16,
Hayashi further discloses wherein the printed test image comprises an intermediate tone halftone image [implicit that it could be possible from figs. 16-17; also note that the test image has no functional or structural relationship with the physical medium where it has been printed, and therefore the printed matter (in this case the test image) is owed no patentable weight, and cannot distinguish the claims over any particular piece of prior art. (See In re DiStefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848, 117 USPQ2d 1265, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2015) for examples of this).]
Regarding claim 17,
Hayashi further discloses wherein the cause of the occurrence includes an occurrence before transfer of the test image to the chart or an occurrence after transfer of the test image to the chart [paragraph 0113.]
Regarding claim 18,
Hayashi further discloses wherein the image defect includes a dot or a streak-like image defect [paragraphs 0092-0093 and 0095-0096.]
Regarding claims 20 and 21,
The steps of these method claims (and corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a processor to execute the method) are deemed to be inherent in view of the functions of the apparatus disclosed above, since it would be necessary to perform the claimed method steps in order for the apparatus to perform its intended functions.
Claims 9-10 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tomii et al. (US 2019/0041785 – hereinafter Tomii.)
Regarding claim 9,
Tomii discloses an image processing apparatus [1 in fig. 1] comprising:
one or more controllers [as seen in fig. 2] including one or more processors [60 in fig. 2] and one or more memories [63 in fig. 2], the one or more controllers configured:
to obtain a scanned image by scanning an image of a chart on which a test image of mixed colors, which are a secondary or higher-order colors, has been printed [paragraphs 0034-0036; please note that paragraphs 0043, 0086, and 0092-0097 teach mixed color patterns];
to detect an image defect corresponding to each color included in the scanned image [paragraphs 0034-0036 and 0086];
to obtain a feature of the detected image defect [paragraph 0107; see table in fig. 7]; and
to identify a cause of an occurrence of the image defect by determining whether there are identical image defects [i.e. a black streak] in image defects corresponding to all colors of the test image, based on the feature [paragraphs 0034-0036, 0043, 0086, and 0092-0097; also, please note that fig. 7 teaches determining the cause of a black streak (i.e. an identical image defect) based on the streak occurring in all colors of the test image.]
Regarding claim 10,
Tomii further discloses wherein, in the detection, the one or more controllers detect the image defect by comparing an image of a channel of a complementary color of each process color included in the mixed colors of the test image and a reference image [paragraphs 0045, 0100, and 0107.]
Regarding claim 22,
Tomii further discloses wherein, in the detection, the one or more controllers obtain a difference image of the scanned image and a reference image, convert the difference image into a luminance image, and detect the image defect based on luminance values of the luminance image and a threshold [paragraphs 0045 and 0107.]
Regarding claim 23,
Tomii further discloses wherein, in the detection, the one or more controllers obtain, from the scanned image a reference signal value that is a median of signal values of an entire scanned image and determine a presence or an absence of an image defect based on a difference image of the reference signal value and the scanned image [paragraphs 0101-0105 and 0108.]
Regarding claim 24,
Tomii further discloses wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to display the cause of occurrence of the image defect [paragraphs 0110-0111; as seen in fig. 15.]
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.
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANNELLE M LEBRON whose telephone number is (571)272-2729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Douglas X Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 431-0716. 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.
/JANNELLE M LEBRON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853