CTNF 18/544,008 CTNF 91433 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. 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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an input unit configured to input,” “a generation unit configured to generate,” “a correction unit configured to correct,” “a conversion unit configured to convert,” “a control unit configured to control,” “an acceptance unit configured to accept,” “a first determination unit configured to determine,” “an analysis unit configured to analyze,” “a second determination unit configured to determine,” and “a third determination unit configured to determine” in claims 1-33. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the units recited in the claims have sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the function because the claims are directed color gamut/space conversion. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 7-9, 13-14, and 24-31 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. Claims 7, 13, and 24 recite the limitation “similar.” The term is relative and/or subjective that is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what is considered to be a similar range (e.g., within 0.01$, 1%, 50%, 100%, etc.) A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction renders the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave , 431 F.2d 882, 893, 167 USPQ 280, 289 (CCPA 1970). Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); see also Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1373, 112 USPQ2d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2014). For the purpose of further examination, the claims have been interpreted as using a predetermined/preset range. Claims 8-9, 14, 25-31 depend from claims 7, 13, and 24, respectively, and therefore inherit all of the deficiencies of claims 7, 13, and 24 discussed above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 15-18, 32, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takayuki Enjuji (US 2010/0027072 A1), hereinafter referred to as Enjuji . Regarding claim 1 , Enjuji teaches an image processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor ( Enjuji Fig. 1: 11, 12, 20) which function as: an input unit configured to input image data ( Enjuji Fig. 2: S100, Enjuji Abstract: “An image processing apparatus including … an input image”); a generation unit configured to generate image data having undergone color gamut conversion from the image data input by the input unit using a conversion unit into a color gamut of a device configured to output the image data ( Enjuji Fig. 1: 20; Enjuji ¶¶0047: “The image processing unit 20 includes, as a program module … representative color calculation unit 22, a difference acquisition unit 23, a backlight correction curve acquisition unit 24, a color balance (CB) correction curve acquisition unit 25, a backlight correction unit 26, a CB correction unit 27, and a white balance (WB) correction unit 28”); a correction unit configured to correct the conversion unit based on a result of the color gamut conversion ( Enjuji Fig. 1: 21-28 & Enjuji ¶¶0047 discussed above); and a control unit configured to control execution of the correction by the correction unit for a content included in the image data input by the input unit ( Enjuji Fig. 1: 11, 20; Enjuji ¶¶0047 discussed above), wherein the control unit controls execution of the correction by the correction unit for the content based on a type of the content ( Enjuji Fig. 1: 21, 24; Enjuji ¶¶0047 discussed above; Enjuji ¶¶0050: “The skin representative color means a color representing a face image in the input image, and more specifically, means a color representing a color of a skin portion of the face image”; Enjuji ¶¶0055: “In S300, the representative color calculation unit 22 calculates a skin representative color on the basis of pixels within the face area SA”; Enjuji ¶¶0057: “The state of image data D means a state that is decided on the basis of brightness in the image of image data D or the feature of a subject in the image. In this embodiment, in S310, it is determined whether or not the image of image data D is a backlight image … the luminance distribution of the backlight image tends to concentrate on a high gradation side and a low gradation side, and a trough of the distribution tends to occur in an intermediate gradation area. For this reason, the representative color calculation unit 22 can determine, in accordance with the shape characteristic of the generated luminance distribution whether or not the image of image data D is a backlight image”; Enjuji Fig. 2: S200, S400, S600-S900; Enjuji Fig. 4: S310); in a case where the correction unit corrects the conversion unit, the generation unit generates image data having undergone color gamut conversion from the image data input by the input unit using the corrected conversion unit ( Enjuji ¶¶0063: “when image data D is determined to be a backlight image, the representative color calculation unit 22 may deform (expand) the flesh color gamut A1 to the L axis side so as to get a lower limit (Cs) of the chroma range of the flesh color gamut A1 close to the L axis …”), and in the image data having undergone the color gamut conversion by the corrected conversion unit, a color difference in the image data having undergone the color gamut conversion by the conversion unit before the correction is expanded ( Enjuji ¶¶0063: “… and may set an area after expansion as the flesh color gamut A2”). Regarding claim 15 , Enjuji teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a direction of the expansion of the color difference is a lightness direction ( Enjuji ¶¶0063 discussed above; Enjuji Figs. 5-6: L axis; Enjuji Fig. 8: backlight correction; Enjuji ¶¶0086: “in order to generate the backlight correction curve F1 that causes an increase of the brightness Yf of the skin representative color by the correction amount g', the correction point P1 is specified”). Regarding claim 16 , Enjuji teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a direction of the expansion of the color difference is a chroma direction ( Enjuji ¶¶0063 discussed above; Enjuji Fig. 6 & ¶¶0062: “the hue range may be widened, along with the change of the chroma range”). Regarding claim 17 , Enjuji teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a direction of the expansion of the color difference is a hue angle direction ( Enjuji Fig. 6 & ¶¶0062-¶¶0063 discussed above). Regarding claim 18 , Enjuji teaches the apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the color difference between colors included in a predetermined hue angle is expanded in the lightness direction ( Enjuji Figs. 5-6, 8 & ¶¶0062-¶¶0063, ¶¶0086 discussed above). Regarding claim 32 , Enjuji teaches an image processing method comprising the processes described in claim 1 ( Enjuji ¶¶0003: “The present invention relates to an image processing apparatus, an image processing method, an image processing program, and a printing apparatus”). Therefore claim 32 is rejected using the same rationale as applied to claim 1 discussed above. Regarding claim 33 , Enjuji teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program configured to cause a computer to perform the processes described in claim 1 ( Enjuji Fig. 1 & ¶¶0003 discussed above; Enjuji ¶¶0046: “The internal memory 12 stores an image processing unit 20, a display control unit 30, and a print control unit 40. The image processing unit 20 is a computer program that executes various kinds of image processing, such as correction processing and the like, for image data under a predetermined operating system”). Therefore claim 33 is rejected using the same rationale as applied to claim 1 discussed above . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-37 AIA Claim s 1-33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/544,000 in view of Takayuki Enjuji (US 2010/0027072 A1), hereinafter referred to as ‘000 and Enjuji , respectively. Regarding claims 1, 32 and 33, the ‘000 application claims 1, 17, and 18 teaches all elements except the execution of the correction by the correction unit for the content based on a type of the content. Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Enjuji teaches executing the correction by the correction unit for the content based on a type of the content ( Enjuji Figs. 1, 2, 4 & ¶¶0047, ¶¶0050, ¶¶0055, ¶¶0057 – refer to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) of claim 1 discussed above). The ‘000 application and Enjuji are considered to be analogous art because they are directed to color gamut conversion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the image processing apparatus, method, and medium (as taught by the ‘000 application) to correction based on the content type (as taught by Enjuji) because the content of an image may not be uniform across the image (Enjuji Fig. 3). Claims 2-16 of the ‘000 application teach the dependent claims (claims 2-31) . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-6, 10-12, 19, and 20-23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the Double Patenting rejections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 07-43-02 Claims 7-9, 13-14, and 24-31 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the Double Patenting rejections and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, and to include 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: Regarding claim 2 , the closest prior art (Takayuki Enjuji [US 2010/0027072 A1], hereinafter Enjuji) teaches that it was known at the time the application was filed to use the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit performs control, in a case where the content is of a first type, to execute the correction by the correction unit for the content, and performs control, in case where the content is of a second type different from the first type, to execute a second correction by a different correction unit for the content ( Enjuji Figs. 2, 4 , ¶¶0047, ¶¶0057, ¶¶0063 discussed above; also see Enjuji ¶¶0047: “The face image detection unit 21 corresponds to a specific image detection unit, the backlight correction curve acquisition unit 24 corresponds to a first correction curve acquisition unit or a correction curve acquisition unit, and the CB correction curve acquisition unit 25 corresponds to a second correction curve acquisition unit. The backlight correction unit 26 corresponds to a first correction unit or a correction unit, the CB correction unit 27 corresponds to a second correction unit, and the WB correction unit 28 corresponds to a preliminary correction unit”). However, the prior art does not appear to explicitly teach performing control not to execute the correction by the correction unit for the content when the content is of a second type different from the first type (the prior art still performs correct, by a different amount, but does not teach not performing the correction). Claims 3-14 and 20-31 depend from claim 2 and therefore are objected to for the same reason as claim 2 discussed above. Claim 19 is objected to for the same reason as claim 2 discussed above . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOO J SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9753. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10-6. 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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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. /Soo Shin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667 571-272-9753 soo.shin@uspto.gov Application/Control Number: 18/544,008 Page 2 Art Unit: 2667 Application/Control Number: 18/544,008 Page 3 Art Unit: 2667 Application/Control Number: 18/544,008 Page 4 Art Unit: 2667 Application/Control Number: 18/544,008 Page 5 Art Unit: 2667 Application/Control Number: 18/544,008 Page 6 Art Unit: 2667 Application/Control Number: 18/544,008 Page 7 Art Unit: 2667 Application/Control Number: 18/544,008 Page 8 Art Unit: 2667 Application/Control Number: 18/544,008 Page 9 Art Unit: 2667 Application/Control Number: 18/544,008 Page 10 Art Unit: 2667 Application/Control Number: 18/544,008 Page 12 Art Unit: 2667