DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aritomi et al. (9524,452) in view of Asano (2023/0034087).
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 7, Aritomi teaches an image processing apparatus, method and non-transitory readable storage medium comprising a processor (fig. 1, item 3000) being configured to extract characteristic information of a printed material corresponding to a base material (fig. 4, paper) used for printing using color ink (col. 2, line 50, note that all inkjet printers use color ink) and a printing condition of the printing (fig. 10, print density) and to generate a characteristic information image (fig. 11) representing the extracted characteristic information (fig. 11),
wherein the characteristic information image indicates numerical values (fig. 11, note numerals) of the characteristic information corresponding to a plurality of printing conditions (see fig. 11).
Aritomi does not teach wherein the printer is configured to print with pretreatment liquid and white ink in addition to color ink. Asano teaches printing with pretreatment liquid ([0118], primer), base ink ([0118], white ink) in addition to color ink. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the print density calibration technique disclosed by Aritomi to the printing device disclosed by Asano because doing so would amount to substituting a more sophisticated calibration technique for a less sophisticated one, thereby allowing for more precise calibration.
Regarding claim 2, Aritomi in view of Asano teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the characteristic information image is a test print image printed by test printing (Aritomi, see fig. 11).
Regarding claim 3, Aritomi in view of Asano teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor present a condition selection image and corresponding to the plurality of the printing conditions to a user, and generate the test print image corresponding to
Regarding claim 4, Aritomi in view of Asano teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor presents a plurality of the recommended printing conditions to a user, and generates the characteristic information image corresponding to one or more of the plurality of printing conditions selected by the user (Aritomi, fig. 10, Note “Standard”)
Regarding claim 5, Aritomi in view of Asano image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the characteristic information includes at least one of fastness to washing and white density (Asano, [0141]-[0147], Note that the density of white ink to be deposited on the substrate is necessarily extracted by the processor).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection 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 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 ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, DOUGLAS X. RODRIGUEZ can be reached at 571-431-0716. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853