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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/23/2024 and 06/10/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-5, 9-11, 14-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention as being anticipated by Hidekazu Nakashio et al (US 20230269343; earliest filing 02/24/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Nakashio et al discloses an information processing apparatus (¶ [5]) comprising:
one or more memory devices that store a set of instructions (¶ [93]); and
one or more processors that execute the set of instructions (¶ [93]) to:
for a plurality of charts printed by a printing apparatus, obtain a colorimetric measurement condition for each chart for when colorimetrically measuring using a measurement device (¶ [38], ¶ [47] sequential continuous reading of charts; ¶ [52] describing the “measurement jobs” are equivalent to “measurement conditions” for each chart), cause the measurement device to sequentially colorimetrically measure the plurality of charts while switching the colorimetric measurement condition for each chart according to the obtained information (¶ [76] reading each chart in accordance with measurement job IDs), and verify color accuracy of the printing apparatus from a colorimetrically measured value of each one of the plurality of charts (¶ [76-77]).
Regarding claim 2, Nakashio et al discloses he information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to:
cause the printing apparatus to print the plurality of charts to each include a code image indicating a colorimetric measurement condition and cause the measurement device to read the plurality of charts as a pre-scan prior to colorimetric measurement to obtain the colorimetric measurement condition for each chart from the code image (¶ [38]; ¶ [58]).
Regarding claim 3, Nakashio et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2), wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to:
switch format of the code image included in the chart depending on a function of the measurement device (¶ [58]).
Regarding claim 4, Nakashio et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3), wherein chart layout information, page number, identification information for identifying a measurement job, a value indicating a colorimetric measurement condition, and a checksum are embedded in the code image (¶ [54]).
Regarding claim 5, Nakashio et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to:
in a case where a chart read by the measurement device in the pre-scan is not a correct chart, cause a display unit to display a notification of this and identification information of a correct chart (¶ [64-65]).
Regarding claim 9, Nakashio et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to:
register color verification tests with a colorimetric measurement condition set according to a type of color verification, and generate a job for performing color verification of the plurality of charts by selecting a plurality of color verification tests from among the registered color verification tests (¶ [34]; ¶ [37]).
Regarding claim 10, Nakashio et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to:
register color verification tests set with a user-defined colorimetric measurement condition, and generate a job for performing color verification of the plurality of charts by selecting a plurality of color verification tests from among the registered color verification tests (¶ [37] and ¶ [52]).
Regarding claim 11, Nakashio et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9), wherein in the color verification test, at least one of a chart type, a printing apparatus, a measurement device, a colorimetric measurement condition, and an allowable value for each verification item is set (¶ [81]).
Regarding claim 14, Nakashio et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10), wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to:
register a target color value of the printing apparatus from a colorimetrically measured value of each one of the plurality of charts (¶ [49]).
Regarding claim 15, Nakashio et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10), wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to:
compare the colorimetrically measured value and a value obtained with a profile with a user-defined target color, and if the values are within an allowable range, register the colorimetrically measured value as a target color value (¶ [34]).
Regarding claim 16, Nakashio et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to: register the colorimetrically measured value as a target color value in a case where a target value is not set for a color verification test, and execute color verification using the colorimetrically measured value in a case where a target value is already set (¶ [81]).
Regarding claim 17, Nakashio et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10), wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to:
cause a color verification unit to register a value obtained with a profile with a user-defined target color as a target value (¶ [49]).
Regarding claim 19, Nakashio et al discloses a method for controlling an information processing apparatus (see rejection of claim 1) comprising:
for a plurality of charts printed by a printing apparatus, obtaining a colorimetric measurement condition for each chart for when colorimetrically measuring using a measurement device (see rejection of claim 1);
performing control to cause the measurement device to sequentially colorimetrically measure the plurality of charts while switching the colorimetric measurement condition for each chart according to information obtained in the obtaining (see rejection of claim 1); and
verifying color accuracy of the printing apparatus from a colorimetrically measured value of each one of the plurality of charts in the performing control (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 20, Nakashio et al discloses a method for controlling an information processing apparatus (see rejection of claim 1) comprising:
for a plurality of charts printed by a printing apparatus, obtaining a colorimetric measurement condition for each chart for when colorimetrically measuring using a measurement device (see rejection of claim 1);
performing control to cause the measurement device to sequentially colorimetrically measure the plurality of charts while switching the colorimetric measurement condition for each chart according to the information obtained in obtaining (see rejection of claim 1); and
registering a target color value for the printing apparatus from a colorimetrically measured value of each one of the plurality of charts in the performing control (see rejection of claim 14).
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.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashio et al in view of Hideki Kawabata et al (US 20190301941 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Nakashio et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11).
Nakashio et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the colorimetric measurement condition includes at least one of a whiteness condition, an illumination condition, an illuminant, and an angle of view.
Kawabata et al, in the same field of endeavor of measuring colorimetric values of printed color charts (¶ [239]), teaches the colorimetric measurement condition includes at least one of a whiteness condition, an illumination condition, an illuminant, and an angle of view (¶ [261]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the information processing apparatus as disclosed by Nakashio et al comprising processors that execute a set of instructions to for a plurality of charts printed by a printing apparatus, obtain a colorimetric measurement condition for each chart for when colorimetrically measuring using a measurement device to utilize the teachings of Kawabata et al which teaches the colorimetric measurement condition includes at least one of a whiteness condition, an illumination condition, an illuminant, and an angle of view to obtain the most accurate colorimetric readings by minimizing possible sources of error.
Regarding claim 13, Nakashio et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12), wherein a value relating to a color difference between a colorimetrically measured value of the plurality of charts and a target color value is set for the allowable value (¶ [34]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 18 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMARES Q WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571) 270-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4:30pm.
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.
/JAMARES Q WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
February 6, 2026