DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
The previous rejections to claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 7 and 8 of the response in essence that: Claim 1 as amended recites, inter alia, that "a plurality of papers in the peer calibration group each have a respective paper catalog entry including a respective calibration of a plurality of calibrations, the plurality of calibrations having the calibration source data." Chang does not disclose this limitation. Chang's paper groups operate by borrowing: secondary paper types are placed in a paper group precisely because "the information needed for color printing is not readily available" for them, and they borrow calibration data and ICC profiles from the primary paper type's print condition. See Chang, paragraph [0107].
Chang discloses that paper group 806 includes paper type identifications 816 and 820 that are “filled” in that the calibration data and ICC profiles are generated and available, without borrowing resources from the primary paper type in paper group 806 (paragraph 118).
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 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. US Publication 2023/0071492 (hereafter “Chang”) and Morales US Patent 11,323,593 (hereafter “Morales”).
Referring to claim 1, Chang discloses a method for managing printing operations, the method comprising:
determining an attribute for a first paper of a plurality of papers available to print at a printing device, wherein the first paper is a paper or media type available for printing at the printing device and has a paper catalog entry stored at the printing device (paragraph 96, FIG. 6A depicts an entry 602 within paper catalog 124 as represented by paper catalog map 514 in GUI 512 according to the disclosed embodiments), and wherein a calibration having calibration source data as a printing resource resides in the paper catalog entry wherein the first paper includes a calibration having calibration source data as a printing resource (paragraph 98, Thus, halftone 6062 includes calibration data symbol 6062A for the calibration data within paper catalog 124 for print condition 606);
determining the first paper is in a peer calibration group based on the calibration (paragraph 118, Paper group 806 includes a primary paper being filled as paper type identification 807), wherein a plurality of papers in the peer calibration group each have a respective paper catalog entry including a respective calibration of a plurality of calibrations, the plurality of calibrations having the calibration source data (paragraph 118, Of these, paper type identifications 816 and 820 are “filled” in that the calibration data and ICC profiles are generated and available, without borrowing resources from the primary paper type in paper group 806);
updating the plurality of papers within the peer calibration group with the feature (paragraph 105, During raster image processing, system 100 will automatically retrieve the calibration data and the ICC profiles required, whether these are from a primary paper itself or, for a member of the paper group, borrowed from the primary paper).
Chang does not disclose expressly editing a feature of the first paper of the peer calibration group using a user interface.
Morales discloses editing a feature of the first paper of the peer calibration group using a user interface (col. 8, lines 36-45, An operator may edit TRC settings 308, such as calibration settings 302, after printing test chart 116);
updating the peer calibration group with the edited feature (col. 9, lines 1-10, Color management server 106 may identify calibration TRCs 156 among the printing devices that share measurement data 122. For each TRC 156, color management server 106 retrieves TRC settings 308 and generates new calibration TRCs 314, as disclosed above, using updated measurement data 402 captured during recalibration).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to edit a feature of the peer calibration group. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that calibration data is accurate and the calibration data does not drift over time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Morales with Chang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Referring to claim 3, Chang discloses an existing calibration for a selected paper within the peer calibration (paragraph 98, Thus, halftone 6062 includes calibration data symbol 6062A for the calibration data within paper catalog 124 for print condition 606), but does not disclose expressly deleting an existing calibration for a selected paper within the peer calibration group.
Morales discloses deleting an existing calibration for a selected paper within the peer calibration group (col. 14, lines 4-10, Step 624 executes by updating calibration TRCs with the edited TRC settings to generate new TRCs 314); and
providing a notification within the peer calibration group that the existing calibration is deleted (col. 14, lines 11-22, Step 626 executes by sending new, or updated, TRC or TRCs 314 to printing device 104. As noted above, a plurality of TRCs 156 may be associated with measurement data 122 and identified to be updated with edited TRC settings 308. All of these TRCs are updated to generate new TRCs 314. The new TRC replaces the older, or original, TRC 156).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to delete a calibration. The motivation for doing so would have been to replace the calibration with updated data that is more accurate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Morales with Chang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Referring to claim 4, Chang discloses an ICC profile associated with the existing calibration for the selected paper, but does not disclose expressly updating a status to invalid.
Morales discloses updating a status for an ICC profile associated with the existing calibration for the selected paper that the ICC profile is invalid (col. 12, lines 27-40, Similarly, if match calibration or recalibration fails, then all calibrations that match the failed calibration also are evaluated to determine whether which of the calibrations pass and fail) (col. 12, lines 41-49, An alert may be sent for associated ICC profile 157 when calibration or recalibration fails).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to update a status of an ICC profile to invalid. The motivation for doing so would have been to alert a user that a print job is likely to be defective in order to reduce wasting resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Morales with Chang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Referring to claim 5, Chang discloses the calibration for the first paper, but does not disclose expressly performing a recalibration.
Morales discloses performing a recalibration for the first paper (col. 8, lines 56-67, In printing systems, recalibration may occur after initial calibration on printing devices. If the recalibration is successful, system 100 will use the new measurement data and generate a TRC per typical calibration behavior).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform a recalibration. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user to replace data that they deem inaccurate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Morales with Chang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Referring to claim 6, Morales discloses replacing at least one peer calibration for at least one paper of the plurality of papers of the peer calibration group based on the recalibration (col. 8, lines 56-67, In printing systems, recalibration may occur after initial calibration on printing devices. If the recalibration is successful, system 100 will use the new measurement data and generate a TRC per typical calibration behavior).
Referring to claim 7, Morales discloses wherein the feature in the paper catalog entry of the first paper is another attribute (col. 8, lines 8-14, Calibration settings 302 may be defined for measurement data 122. Calibration settings 302 include end point targets 304 and aims 306. End point targets 304 relate to the specified maximum densities for colors in printing to a paper media. Aims 306 relate to the dot gain to achieve desired colors for color printing).
Referring to claim 8, Chang discloses aggregating a set of papers of the plurality of papers within the peer calibration group based on the attribute (paragraph 110, Connections 720 and 722 may illustrate these relationships. According to the disclosed embodiments, if paper type identification 710 is selected for a print job and print condition 712 is applied, then, depending on the appropriate halftone, calibration data and the ICC profile may be “borrowed” or dynamically shared from print condition 708).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. US Publication 2023/0071492 and Morales US Patent 11,323,593 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakajima US Patent 6,950,197 (hereafter “Nakajima”)
Referring to claim 2, Chang discloses the calibration for the first paper and an ICC profile associated with the calibration, but does not disclose expressly deleting the calibration and ICC profile.
Nakajima discloses deleting the calibration for the first paper (col. 9, lines 51-57, Further, when on the main display displayed at step S901, the "Delete downloaded data" is selected and the "Next" button is pressed, the processing proceed to step S904 to delete the calibration data stored in the calibration data storage section 21 in the printer 2); and
deleting an ICC profile associated with the calibration (col. 5, lines 6-22, The printer 2 can execute a γ transformation of image data by means of the calibration table, which is specifically a γ correction table, to generate print data) (col. 13, lines 14-16, The header 178 is generated at the same time that the calibration table 179 is generated, and they are related to each other).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to delete calibration data and an ICC profile. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user to remove data that they deem inaccurate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nakajima with Chang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER K HUNTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 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 Q Tieu can be reached at 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 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.
/PETER K HUNTSINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights