DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the RCE dated 25 March 2026 which incorporates the Amendment dated 04 March 2026. Claims 1, 9, 10 and 11 are amended. No claims have been added or cancelled. Claims 1-6 and 8-11 remain pending and have been considered below.
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 Amendment
Based on applicant’s amendment, the claim objection of claims 10 and 11 is withdrawn.
Based on applicant’s amendment, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph rejection of claim 9 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mita (US 2017/0134612 A1) in view of Jacobs et al. (US 2008/0297814 A1).
As for independent claim 1, Mita teaches an apparatus comprising:
at least one processor that causes the information processing apparatus to function as: [(e.g. see Mita paragraphs 0015, 0068) ”The control portion 100 includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 101, a ROM (Read Only Memory) 102 for storing a program or the like to be executed by the CPU 101 … executed by a computer of an image forming apparatus”].
a determining unit that determines whether a difference between a width of a line included in print data and the width of the line included in image data generated by rendering processing of the print data by the information processing apparatus is more than a threshold value [(e.g. see Mita paragraphs 0062, 0079, 0080, 0081, 0100, 0112, 0115 and Fig. 4 numerals 130, 212, 213, 214 and Fig. 8 numeral S1) ”the image forming apparatus 1 according to the present application example is configured with an output image reading portion 130 to read an image of an output document which has been image-formed and output in the image forming portion 40 … The image data obtained by the reading from the output document in the output image reading portion 130 (refer to FIG. 1 and FIG. 2) is supplied to the control portion 200 … The line-width threshold value storing portion 211 stores a preliminarily set line-width threshold value corresponding to a line width of the line image to be printed on the output document. Here, the “line-width threshold value” is a threshold value to be a determination criterion of whether or not to perform the line width correction, and has a predetermined allowable range (allowable width). The line-width threshold value storing portion 211 can use the ROM 202, which is not limited. The line image detecting portion 212 detects a line image formed at a predetermined position of the output document from the image data supplied from the output image reading portion 130 … The line image analyzing portion 213 analyzes the line width of the line image detected by the line image detecting portion 212. The line-width correction value determining portion 214 compares the line width analyzed by the line image analyzing portion 213 with the line-width threshold value having the predetermined allowable range which is stored preliminarily in the line-width threshold value storing portion 211 … The CPU 201 determines whether or not the analyzed line width is not smaller than the allowable threshold value (upper limit value of the allowable range) (step S1) … the line image analyzing portion 213 determines the line-width threshold value corresponding to the printed line width for the image data read by the output image reading portion 130, based on the line width of the obtained RIP image data, and compares the threshold value with the line width analyzed from the image data read by the output image reading portion 130”].
an adjusting unit that adjusts, before printing based on the image data generated by rendering processing of the print data is performed, the width of the line included in the image data based on a determination result by the determining unit [(e.g. see Mita paragraphs 0081, 0100 Fig. 4 numerals 214, 215, 40 and Fig. 8 numeral S2) ”The line image analyzing portion 213 analyzes the line width of the line image detected by the line image detecting portion 212. The line-width correction value determining portion 214 compares the line width analyzed by the line image analyzing portion 213 with the line-width threshold value having the predetermined allowable range which is stored preliminarily in the line-width threshold value storing portion 211, and determines the line-width correction value based on the comparison result. The line-width correcting portion 215 performs the line width correction on a line image to be formed by the image forming portion 40 (refer to FIG. 1) according to the line-width correction value determined by the line-width correction value determining portion 214 … The CPU 201 determines whether or not the analyzed line width is not smaller than the allowable threshold value (upper limit value of the allowable range) (step S1), and, if the analyzed line width is not smaller than the upper limit value of the allowable range (YES in S1), determines the correction value for performing the line thinning processing (step S2), and then performs the line width correction (line thinning processing) based on the correction value (step S3)”].
Mita does not specifically teach print data of a print job received by the information processing apparatus for printing and the width of the line included in image data generated by rendering processing of the print data. However, in the same field of invention, Jacobs teaches:
print data of a print job received by the information processing apparatus for printing and the width of the line included in image data generated by rendering processing of the print data [(e.g. see Jacobs paragraphs 0012, 0022, 0029, 0036) ”softproofing an electronic input file representing a print job … improved softproofing system and method that can generate superior monitor representations of print job images to be printed by a target print engine. The superior monitor representation should more faithfully represent the print output of the document by comprehending and taking into account the print engine's specific rendering characteristics. In exemplary embodiments, this is achieved by a softproofing method and system that identifies a target print engine, identifies print engine specific rendering characteristics, and models the electronic file to be printed based on the print engine specific rendering characteristics so that it more faithfully mimics the appearance of the resultant printed documents on a display monitor … This is typically achieved by raster image processing (RIPping) of the input file. During the RIP process, the softproofing system determines the image's current target print engine. For example, this can be achieved by accompanying tag information provided in the device dependent image data or, when such tags are absent, may be deduced by analysis of the binary raster image data itself. In another preferable example, this can be achieved by assessing the presence of print engine specific characteristics … line width … Line width adjustments concern modifications to a line's width to ensure that it is properly printed. When printed, a single pixel wide line may print as a discontinuous line segment. To ensure that the entire line is printed as a single continuous piece, a target print engine may have a spatial characteristic that internally increases the printed line width to a certain minimum line width to ensure the integrity and continuity of a printed line”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Mita and Jacobs, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add print data of a print job received by the information processing apparatus for printing and the width of the line included in image data generated by rendering processing of the print data, as taught by Jacobs, to the teachings of Mita because it increases the accuracy of representations of the final print results (e.g. see Jacobs paragraphs 0010, 0040, 0054).
As for dependent claim 2, Mita and Jacobs teach the apparatus as described in claim 1 and Mita further teaches:
wherein the threshold value is obtained by analyzing the image data [(e.g. see Mita paragraphs 0080, 0086) ”The line image detecting portion 212 detects a line image formed at a predetermined position of the output document from the image data supplied from the output image reading portion 130 … the “line-width threshold value” is a threshold value to be a determination criterion of whether or not to perform the line width correction, and has a predetermined allowable range (allowable width) … the line-width threshold value storing portion 211 (e.g., ROM 202) preliminarily stores the line-width threshold value including the predetermined allowable range which is set based on correspondence relationship between a line width of the line pattern image and a line width of the image data read by the output image reading portion 130”].
As for dependent claim 3, Mita and Jacobs teach the apparatus as described in claim 1 and Mita further teaches:
wherein the adjusting unit thins the width of the line included in the image data [(e.g. see Mita paragraph 0095 and Fig. 8) ”The line-width correction value determining portion 214 determines that the line is printed thicker than the line width to be printed if the analyzed line width is not smaller than the line-width threshold value (upper limit value of the allowable range) when the analyzed line width is compared with the line-width threshold value having the predetermined allowable range, and determines a correction value for performing line thinning. Further, if the analyzed line width is not larger than the line-width threshold value (lower limit value of the allowable range), it is determined that the line is printed thinner than the line width to be printed, and a correction value is determined for performing line thickening”].
As for dependent claim 4, Mita and Jacobs teach the apparatus as described in claim 1 and Mita further teaches:
wherein the adjusting unit thickens the width of the line included in the image data [(e.g. see Mita paragraph 0095 and Fig. 8) ”The line-width correction value determining portion 214 determines that the line is printed thicker than the line width to be printed if the analyzed line width is not smaller than the line-width threshold value (upper limit value of the allowable range) when the analyzed line width is compared with the line-width threshold value having the predetermined allowable range, and determines a correction value for performing line thinning. Further, if the analyzed line width is not larger than the line-width threshold value (lower limit value of the allowable range), it is determined that the line is printed thinner than the line width to be printed, and a correction value is determined for performing line thickening”].
As for dependent claim 9, Mita and Jacobs teach the apparatus as described in claim 1 and Mita further teaches:
wherein the rendering processing is Raster Image Processor (RIP) processing [(e.g. see Mita paragraph 0112) ”The position of the character in the output document can be obtained as a position in RIP image data from tag information in raster image processing (in the following, described as “RIP”) of converting character or image data into a raster image”].
As for independent claim 10, Mita and Jacobs teach a method. Claim 10 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
As for independent claim 11, Mita and Jacobs teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Claim 11 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 1.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mita (US 2017/0134612 A1) in view of Jacobs et al. (US 2008/0297814 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikari (US 2014/0168710 A1).
As for dependent claim 5, Mita and Jacobs teach the apparatus as described in claim 1, but do not specifically teach further comprising: a user interface that receives a first setting, whether to enable determination by the determining unit. However, in the same field of invention, Ikari teaches:
further comprising: a user interface that receives a first setting, whether to enable determination by the determining unit [(e.g. see Ikari paragraph 0125 and Fig. 23) ”FIG. 23 illustrates an example of the setting screen on the liquid crystal operation panel 161 on the operation unit 160. The liquid crystal operation panel 161 displays the print quality setting screen for user setting … the user selects whether or not a line width correction processing is executed to plump width of the black character or the line”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Fig. 23, the line width correction setting can be set to “YES” (e.g. enable) or “NO” (e.g. disable).
Therefore, considering the teachings of Mita, Jacobs and Ikari, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add further comprising: a user interface that receives a first setting, whether to enable determination by the determining unit, as taught by Ikari, to the teachings of Mita and Jacobs because it allows the user to improve the print quality of a fine line (e.g. see Ikari paragraph 0072).
As for dependent claim 6, Mita, Jacobs and Ikari teach the apparatus as described in claim 1, but Mita and Jacobs do not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Ikari teaches:
further comprising a user interface that receives a second setting whether to enable adjustment by the adjusting unit [(e.g. see Ikari paragraph 0125 and Fig. 23) ”FIG. 23 illustrates an example of the setting screen on the liquid crystal operation panel 161 on the operation unit 160. The liquid crystal operation panel 161 displays the print quality setting screen for user setting … the user selects whether or not a line width correction processing is executed to plump width of the black character or the line … The line width correction is determined with a selected horizontal line correction level in a range from 0 to 2. The horizontal line correction means a correction to plump the image in the horizontal direction. The level shows the correction strength. The vertical line correction means a correction to plump the image in the vertical direction. The level shows the correction strength. The user sets whether or not these corrections are executed and sets the levels.”]. Examiner notes that, as depicted in Fig. 23, a specific correction level (e.g. 0-2) is enabled for line width correction.
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 5.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mita (US 2017/0134612 A1) in view of Jacobs et al. (US 2008/0297814 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yabe (US 2013/0155430 A1).
As for dependent claim 8, Mita and Jacobs teach the apparatus as described in claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to function as: a notifying unit that notifies a user of a result of adjustment of the width of the line included in the image data by the adjusting unit. However, in the same field of invention, Yabe teaches:
wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to function as: a notifying unit that notifies a user of a result of adjustment of the width of the line included in the image data by the adjusting unit [(e.g. see Yabe paragraphs 0132, 0133 and Fig. 21) ”if the cumulative number of sheets of a printed product since the previous automatic correction of line width exceeds a fixed value or if a part configuring the printing unit 104 is replaced, the control unit 101 displays a screen like that illustrated in FIG. 21 on the operation unit 105 to prompt the user to perform automatic correction of line width … the user can be notified of the timing that line width automatic correction should be performed, so that line width automatic correction can be performed at an effective timing based on a user instruction”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Mita, Jacobs and Yabe, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the at least one processor further causes the information processing apparatus to function as: a notifying unit that notifies a user of a result of adjustment of the width of the line included in the image data by the adjusting unit, as taught by Yabe, to the teachings of Mita and Jacobs because it allows automatic correction to be performed at an effective time (e.g. see Yabe paragraph 0133).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 25 March 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that [“Mita does not disclose, at least, … the notable features of amended Claim 1.” (Page 6).].
The argument described above, in paragraph number 9, with respect to the newly added limitations to the independent claims has been considered, but is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PGPub 2022/0011990 A1 issued to Kunimatsu on 13 January 2022. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-6 and 8-11 (e.g. correcting line thicknesses in print job data).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI whose telephone number is (571)-270-3358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (8am-6pm).
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)-272-4088. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174