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 .
Claims 1 – 20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/25/24 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Applicants have not provided an explanation of relevance of cited document(s) discussed below.
Echevarria Benito et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2023/00231168 A1) is the closest prior art found, wherein disclose a method that comprises receiving a matrix representation of a source image to be printed, the matrix representation defining a colorant value for each of a plurality of print addressable locations, wherein the colorant values are representative of amounts of print colorant to be delivered to the print addressable locations during a printing operation. The method may comprise identifying, by processing circuitry, a region in the matrix representation having a first print addressable location and an adjacent second print addressable location, wherein a difference between colorant values of the first print addressable location and the second print addressable location meets or exceeds a defined colorant value threshold. The method may comprise determining, by processing circuitry, an amount of treatment fluid to be delivered to each of the plurality of print addressable locations during the printing operation, wherein an amount of treatment fluid to be delivered in the identified region is determined to be greater than an amount of treatment fluid to be delivered to adjacent print addressable locations having colorant values which differ by less than the defined colorant value threshold.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
With respect to claim 15, the claim defines a machine-readable medium embodying functional descriptive material (i.e., instructions). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a machine-readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. In ¶0019 of the Filed Applicant’s Specification says that the machine-readable medium can be non-volatile memory, but this is only given as an example, and therefore the specification doesn’t preclude transitory machine-readable medium.
And in ¶0041, it specifies that the machine-readable storage 902 may be implemented as a non-transitory machine-readable storage, however it does not specifically define the claimed “machine-readable medium” to only be non-transitory.
The claims, as defined in the specification, cover both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. A claim drawn to such a machine-readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Therefore, the examiner suggests amending the claims to recite a "Non-transitory machine-readable medium" in order to overcome the rejection.
The examiner directs Applicant's attention to the OFFICIAL GAZETTE of the U.S Patent and Trademark Office, 1351 OG 212.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Echevarria Benito et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2023/0023168 A1, cited in the IDS filed on 04/25/2024, hereinafter ‘Echevarria’).
With respect to claim 1, Echevarria teaches a method (i.e., a method, abstract, ¶0017) comprising: identifying, in a source image to be printed, a boundary condition between a first region including a first colorant and a second region including a second colorant based on a difference of respective weighted colorant contributions of the first colorant and the second colorant exceeding a threshold (i.e., identifying, within a source image to be printed, a boundary a high-saturation and a low-saturation, each saturation contains colorant values; where at least the low-saturation may exceed a threshold, abstract, ¶0019 - ¶0021, ¶0024 - ¶0025, ¶0028, ¶0030, ¶0045, ¶0056 and Fig. 1); and in response to identifying the boundary condition, applying additional treatment fluid (i.e., upon identifying boundary, applying treatment fluid, ¶0025, ¶0030, ¶0045, Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 8, this is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 1. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the method claim 1.
With respect to claim 15, Echevarria notes that the invention may be realized through the execution by a CPU (e.g., a processor, ¶0054) of instruction codes (e.g., instructions, ¶0054) stored in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (e.g., stored in a machine-readable medium, ¶0054). The further limitations are met by the teachings as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 - 4, 6, 9 - 11, 13, 16 - 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Echevarria in view of Barkley et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2017/0015990 A1, hereinafter ‘Barkley’).
With respect to claim 2, Echevarria teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a weighted colorant contribution is determined based on an amount of a colorant and a resistance of the colorant.
However, the mentioned claimed limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Barkley. In particular, Barkley teaches wherein a weighted colorant contribution is determined based on an amount of a colorant and a resistance of the colorant (e.g., wherein a weighting coefficient is defined based on density of a colorant, ¶0053, ¶0058 and ¶0064).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the method of Echevarria as taught by Barkley since Barkley suggested within ¶0053, ¶0058 and/or ¶0054 that such modification would change how the ink is applied (e.g., on a per printing pass basis, to reduce each particular defect) in order to avoid unacceptable levels of dry-time banding and swath contraction.
With respect to claim 3, Echevarria in view of Barkley teaches the method of claim 2, wherein Barkley teaches each colorant is an ink and a weight assigned to each colorant is based on a resistance of the ink (e.g. each colorant is an ink and a weighting coefficient (or weighting factor) based on the density of the ink/colorant, ¶0058).
With respect to claim 4, Echevarria in view of Barkley teaches the method of claim 3, wherein Barkley teaches a first colorant and second colorants are selected from cyan, magenta, yellow, and black inks and yellow ink is assigned the lowest weight of any of the inks (e.g., any colorant can be selected from cyan, magenta, yellow and black and yellow ink can be assigned as a lowest, abstract, ¶0012 with ¶0053 and ¶0058).
With respect to claim 6, Echevarria in view of Barkley teaches the method of claim 1, wherein applying additional treatment fluid includes increasing a treatment fluid halftone level (e.g., Barkley teaches that the source image is converted into a half-tone representation, and the halftone representation contains halftone values that are used to determine the additional treatment fluid to be applied, ¶0015, ¶0021 and ¶0028 - ¶0032).
With respect to claim 9 – 11 and 13, these are apparatus claims corresponding to the method claim 2 – 4 and 6, respectively. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the method claims 2 – 4 and 6, respectively.
With respect to claims 16 – 18 and 20, Echevarria notes that the invention may be realized through the execution by a CPU (e.g., a processor, ¶0054) of instruction codes (e.g., instructions, ¶0054) stored in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (e.g., stored in a machine-readable medium, ¶0054). The further limitations are met by the teachings as previously discussed with respect to claims 2 – 4 and 6, respectively.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Echevarria in view of Barkley and further in view of Stevens (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2010/0290089 A1, hereinafter ‘Stevens’).
With respect to claim 5, Echevarria in view of Barkley teaches the method of claim 3, but neither of them teaches wherein the first colorant is yellow ink and is assigned a weight of 0.
However, the mentioned claimed limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Stevens. In particular, Stevens teaches wherein the first colorant is yellow ink and is assigned a weight of 0 (e.g., a color is yellow and can be set to zero, ¶0015 and ¶0164).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the method of Echevarria in view of Barkley as taught by Stevens since Stevens suggested in ¶0164 that such modification would be desirable to implement an edge smoothing process during rendering in order to improves shape and appearance of halftoned objects and halftoned text with the lower frequency screens.
With respect to claim 12, this is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 5. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the method claim 5.
With respect to claim 19, Echevarria notes that the invention may be realized through the execution by a CPU (e.g., a processor, ¶0054) of instruction codes (e.g., instructions, ¶0054) stored in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (e.g., stored in a machine-readable medium, ¶0054). The further limitations are met by the teachings as previously discussed with respect to claim 5.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Echevarria in view of Barkley and further in view of Maestro Garcia et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2023/0129355 A1, hereinafter ‘Maestro’).
With respect to claim 7, Echevarria in view of Barkley teaches the method of claim 1, but neither of them teaches wherein weighted colorant contributions are represented using halftone levels.
However, Maestro teaches wherein weighted colorant contributions are represented using halftone levels (e.g. wherein drop weight are provided using halftone levels, ¶0045, Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the method of Echevarria in view of Barkley as taught by Maestro since Maestro suggested in ¶0045 and Fig. 3 that such modification would allow for a relatively smooth pass-to-pass interaction in order to reduce banding effect for images with high density colors; thereby improving print image quality.
With respect to claim 14, this is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method claim 7. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the method claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Valladares et al. (U.S PG Publication No. 2011/0274455 A1)1
Nishizaki (U.S PG Publication No. 2014/0092441 A1)2
1This reference teaches a method for reducing image defects at boundary of halftones and solid areas in a xerographic printer having a photosensitive surface receiving images and a developer providing toner to images comprising the steps of: providing a developed image standard for application of toner to a boundary between halftones and solid areas, comparing developed images at the boundary of halftones and solid areas to the developed image standard, and responding to the comparison to modify the toner concentration and the image density defect level at the boundary of halftones and solid areas.
2This reference teaches an image processing device performs: defining determination regions based on image data; executing a first color conversion for the image data using a first type of parameter to generate a first image; determining an estimated amount of colorant for each determination region, the estimated amount indicating an usage amount of colorant to be used for each determination region when the first image is printed; outputting the first image if the estimated amounts of colorant for all determination regions are smaller than or equal to respective threshold values; and executing a second color conversion for the image data using a second type of parameter to generate a second image if the estimated amount of colorant for at least one is greater than the threshold value, the usage amount of colorant for the second image being smaller than the usage amount of colorant for the first image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN M GUILLERMETY whose telephone number is (571)270-3481. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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.
/JUAN M GUILLERMETY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682 3/3 Tele