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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/13/24 and 12/17/24 follow the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pancik et al. (US 2018-0034987, cited in IDS filed ) in view of Moroney (US 2015/0262549).
Regarding claim 1, Pancik teaches a method of generating a palette for use in a printing process using a printing apparatus (¶ 0051, Fig. 1), the method comprising:
for each of a first plurality of images, obtaining at least one color value in a color space (color set 231; ¶ 0061, Fig. 2 231);
performing a clustering of the color values of the first plurality of images in the color space to obtain a predetermined number (M) of clusters of color values (form colour clusters; ¶¶ 0062-0064, Fig. 2 220);
for each of the predetermined number (M) of clusters, selecting at least one representative image to obtain a set of images (finds centroid for each cluster; ¶ 0065, Fig. 2 240); and
for each image in the set of images, storing the at least one color value of the image in association with the one or more parameters used to print the image to form the palette (create optimal palette; ¶¶ 0065-0066, Fig. 2 250),
but does not explicitly teach printed on a substrate surface or within a substrate by varying one or more parameters of the printing apparatus.
However, Moroney teaches for each of a first plurality of images printed on a substrate surface or within a substrate by varying one or more parameters of the printing apparatus, obtaining at least one color value in a color space (receive initial color attribute values of image elements via input device capture; ¶ 0016, Fig. 2 42, ¶¶ 0022-0024, Fig. 5 62).
Pancik and Moroney are in the same field of endeavor of a method for generating a color palette. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the method of Pancik to obtain color value as taught by Moroney. The combination improves the method by automating the process for generating a color palette (¶ 0011 and ¶ 0018, Moroney).
Regarding claim 4, Pancik in view of Moroney teach the method of claim 1, wherein the clustering is an agglomerative clustering, comprising: a) starting with each of the at least one color values of the first plurality of images as an initial cluster; b) determining a color distance between each pair of clusters, the color distance being defined by a color distance between respective centroids of the clusters; c) merging the two clusters having the smallest color distance to form a new cluster; and d) repeating steps b) and c) until the predetermined number (M) of clusters is obtained (¶¶ 0062-0064, Fig. 2 220, Pancik).
Regarding claim 5, Pancik in view of Moroney teach the method of claim 1, wherein a single representative image is selected for each cluster (¶ 0065, Pancik).
Regarding claim 7, Pancik in view of Moroney teach the method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined number (M) is between 10 and 300 (¶ 0065, Pancik).
Regarding claim 13, Pancik in view of Moroney a the method of printing an input image using a palette generated in accordance with the method of claim 1, the method comprising: receiving the input image (¶ 0048, Fig. 1 105, Pancik); retrieving the palette from a memory (¶ 00053, Pancik); performing gamut mapping to map color values of the input image to color values obtainable from the palette (¶ 0053, Fig. 1 130, Pancik); and printing an output image by halftoning using the palette and the gamut-mapped color values of the input image (¶ 0054, Fig. 1 170, Pancik).
Regarding claim 16, Pancik in view of Moroney teach a printing apparatus comprising: a memory; and a control unit configured to perform the method of claim 1 (¶ 0089, Fig. 6; Pancik).
Claim(s) 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pancik in view of Moroney as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seidel et al. (EP 3928997).
Regarding claim 6, Pancik in view of Moroney teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: printing the first plurality of images using the printing apparatus (¶ 0054, Pancik);
but Pancik does not explicitly teach obtaining the color values of the first plurality of images by measurement; and wherein the printing apparatus is a laser marking apparatus, and the parameters include one or more of: laser power, scanning speed, laser focus, laser spacing, repetition rate, laser polarization, laser wavelength, or pulse duration.
However, Moroney teaches obtaining the color values of the first plurality of images by measurement (receive initial color attribute values of image elements via input device capture; ¶ 0016, Fig. 2 42, ¶¶ 0022-0024, Fig. 5 62).
The motivation applied in claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Furthermore, Seidel teaches and wherein the printing apparatus is a laser marking apparatus (laser marking system 100; ¶¶ 0038-0041, Fig. 2), and the parameters include one or more of: laser power, scanning speed, laser focus, laser spacing, repetition rate, laser polarization, laser wavelength, or pulse duration (¶¶ 0038-0040).
Pancik and Seidel are in the same field of endeavor of a system and method for generating a color palette for printing. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the method of Pancik to include laser printing as taught by Seidel. The combination improves the versatility of the system.
Regarding claim 17, Pancik in view of Moroney teach the printing apparatus of claim 16. but Pancik does not explicitly teach wherein the printing apparatus is a laser marking apparatus.
However, Seidel teaches wherein the printing apparatus is a laser marking apparatus (laser marking system 100; ¶¶ 0038-0041, Fig. 2).
The motivation applied in claim 6 is incorporated herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 8-12, 14, and 15 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Castellanos et al. (US 2022/0319051) teaches a clustering and weighting process for color printing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT YIP whose telephone number is (571)270-5244. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 PM PST.
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, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/KENT YIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights