CTNF 18/443,593 CTNF 84150 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 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: “an obtainer,” “a determiner,” and “an outputter” in claims 1-6. 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. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: obtainer – Paragraph 34 and paragraph 52 determiner - Paragraph 34 and paragraph 52 outputter – Paragraph 34 and 130 If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. 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. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 2-4 all make reference to determining the number of patches based on a comparison to either the inspection results, the model, or the media type . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (US 2023/0188667) in view of Devlieghere (US 2022/0253654) . Regarding Claim 1, Endo teaches an information processing device (Paragraph 57) comprising: an obtainer configured to obtain color information of a patch targeted for a color difference inspection and inspection result information indicating a result of the color difference inspection for the patch (Paragraphs 94, 111 and 112, wherein the difference is determined for the sample colors); a determiner configured to determine, among colors included in image data, a color to be printed as the patch based on the color information and the inspection result information (Paragraphs 113 and 166, wherein the patch is printed based on the results of the difference calculation), wherein the determiner is configured to change a number of colors to be printed as the patch based on the inspection result information on the colors included in the image data (Paragraphs 96 and 97, wherein the number of patches can be determined). Endo does not teach a print controller configured to cause a printing device to print the image data and the patch of the color determined by the determiner. Devlieghere does teach a print controller configured to cause a printing device to print the image data and the patch of the color determined by the determiner (Paragraphs 48-50, wherein patches and image data can be printed together). Endo and Devlieghere are combinable because they both deal with processing color patches for printing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Endo with the teachings of Devlieghere for the purpose of improving print quality without disturbing the normal printing operation (Devlieghere: Paragraph 5). Regarding Claim 5, Endo further teaches an outputter configured to output information indicating whether a color indicated by color information is a color that is likely to cause a color difference in the color difference inspection, by inputting the color information to be printed as a patch by the printing device to a learned model that learned a correspondence between color information of the patch and the inspection result information indicating an inspection result of the color difference inspection (Paragraph 126, wherein a neural network is used through the use of machine learning to perform the predication). Regarding Claim 6, Devlieghere further teaches wherein the printing device is configured to print an image based on the image data and a spot color patch of a color using a spot color ink included in the image data on a single print medium (Paragraphs 48-50, wherein patches and image data can be printed together. The patch would be a spot color patch according to Endo, paragraph 94). Endo and Devlieghere are combinable because they both deal with processing color patches for printing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Endo with the teachings of Devlieghere for the purpose of improving print quality without disturbing the normal printing operation (Devlieghere: Paragraph 5). Regarding Claim 7, the limitations are similar to those treated in and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited reference of US20170280022 (Kuroiwa) relates to establishing spot color recipes based on paper and model information. The additional cited reference of US20100231936 (Nagai) relates to determining how to print color patches . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS PACHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-3433. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4. 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, George Eng can be reached at 571-272-7495. 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. /NICHOLAS PACHOL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/443,593 Page 2 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/443,593 Page 3 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/443,593 Page 4 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/443,593 Page 5 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/443,593 Page 6 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/443,593 Page 7 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/443,593 Page 8 Art Unit: 2699
Prosecution Insights