DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s remarks received on 1/30/2026 with respect to the amended independent claims have been acknowledged and are moot in view of a new ground of rejection necessitated by the corresponding amendment. Currently claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (US Pub: 2022/0288920) and in further view of Shestak et al (US Patent: 2009/0244582), Kitai (US Pub: 2017/0031636), and Viassolo et al (US Pub: 20050036705).
Regarding claim 1 (currently amended), Johnson et al teaches: A printing system comprising: at least one physical memory device to store compensation logic; and one or more processors coupled with the at least one physical memory device to execute the compensation logic to [abstract]: receive sheetside compensation instructions from an external device; wherein the sheetside compensation instructions specify compensation resources [p0052-p0054];
Johnson et al does not specify a plurality of sheetside images or assign them IDs. In the same field of endeavor, Shestak et al teaches: determine a first of a plurality of sheetside images for application of the compensation resources [abstract, p0030 (Dispatcher dispatches any of multiple sheetside image.)].
And Kitai assigns ID to each sheetside image: determine a sheet identifier (ID) corresponding to the first sheetside image; process the first sheetside image by applying the compensation resources to the first sheetside image; and transmit the sheet ID to the external device [figs. 7 and 11, abstract]
Therefore, given Johnson et al’s prescription on applying compensation resource and executing compensation logic; Shestak et al’s disclosure on dispatching any number of a plurality of sheetside images; and Kitai’s teaching on assigning an ID to each sheetside image, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to define each sheetside image with an ID and applying compensation resource to a sheetside image with an ID for clear identification purpose.
Johnson et al in view of Shestak et al and Kitai does not specify compensation for defects detected in a sheetside. In the same field of endeavor, Viassolo et al teaches: receive sheetside compensation instructions from an external device; wherein the sheetside compensation instructions specify compensation resources to compensate for defects detected in a sheetside [p0006, claim 1]. Therefore, given Viassolo et al’s teaching on defect detection on printed sheetside, computing a TRC compensation vector and applying the compensation vector to a printer, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to compute compensation data and apply it within a sheetside bitmap pipeline for streaks or any non-uniformity so that subsequent sheets can be verified quickly.
Regarding claim 2 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Johnson et al further teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the processing further comprises halftoning the sheetside image using a halftone design included in the compensation resources [p0022-p0024].
Regarding claim 3 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Johnson et al further teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein processing the first sheetside image comprises applying one or more transfer functions to the sheetside image, wherein the transfer functions are included in the compensation resources [p0045-p0047].
Regarding claim 4 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Kitai et al further teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the sheet ID is transmitted prior to processing the first sheetside image [p0206-p0208].
Regarding claim 5 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Johnson et al further teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the compensation logic further to transmit the processed first sheetside image [p0022].
Regarding claim 6 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Johnson et al further teaches: The system of claim 1, further comprising the external device, including: a print verification; and compensation system [p0024, p0025].
Regarding claim 7 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 6 has been incorporated herein. Johnson et al and Kitai et al further teaches: The system of claim 6, wherein the print verification and compensation system receives the sheet ID and generates updated compensation resources for the captured first sheet print image and captured subsequent sheet print images based on measurement data and the sheet ID [Johnson: p0052-p0054; Kitai: p0206-p0208]. Kitai et al use sheet ID to associated downstream processing with a correct sheet and Johnson et al generates updated compensation from measurement data, and the combined teaching would have made generating updated compensation based on received sheet ID obvious for proper matching.
Regarding claim 8 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 6 has been incorporated herein. Johnson et al further teaches: The system of claim 6, wherein the print verification and compensation system generates the updated compensation resources based on current compensation resources indicated by the sheet ID [p0039, p0040].
Regarding claim 9 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Johnson et al further teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the compensation resources comprise at least one of compensated halftones and compensated transfer functions [p0029, p0045-p0047].
Regarding claim 10 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Johnson et al further teaches: The system of claim 6, further comprising a printer to print the processed first sheetside image [abstract].
Claims 11 (currently amended) and 12-15 (original) have been analyzed and rejected with regard to claims 1-5 respectively.
Claims 16 (currently amended) and 17-20 (original) have been analyzed and rejected with regard to claims 11-15 respectively and in further view of Johnson et al’s further teaching on: At least one non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the processors to [p0055].
Conclusion
5. There is a new ground of rejection necessitated by the corresponding amendment 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 extension fee 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.
Contact
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached on 571-272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights