DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application(s) filed in Japan on 04/03/2023 and 03/14/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2023-060489 and JP2024-040551 application(s) as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Oath/Declaration
3. The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawings are objected to because Fig. 1 element 27 ‘DIVER’ should be ‘DRIVER’. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 (which depends from claim 1) line 2, please change:
"the recording unit" to "a recording unit".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
7. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
8. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an input unit” in claims 1 and 10;
“a correction unit”; “an acquisition unit” and “a retention unit” in claim 1;
"a recording unit" and “a control unit” in claims 7 and 17; and
“a generation unit” in claims 10 and 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Status of Claims
9. Claims 1-19 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
13. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohta (US 6,714,673).
Regarding Claim 1:
Ohta discloses an image processing apparatus (Ohta: Figs. 1 and 10 ‘image processing system’; Col. 5, lines 24-28) comprising:
an input unit (Ohta: Fig. 6 ‘user interface on the operation screen of the host computer’ Col. 9, lines 18-21) configured to receive an instruction indicating which recording mode of a plurality of recording modes to use to record an image;
Ohta Figs. 6a and 6b comprising text box 601 (for setting the maximum density value) and check box 602 labeled “255 LEVELS ARE ENSURED). The check box is the direct recording mode selection mechanism: “By checking this check box as indicated by reference numeral 603 in FIG. 6B, it is possible to instruct the creation of a correction table. When the box 603 is checked, the correction table is automatically corrected to a curve 70 of FIG. 7 and not to the curve 50 of FIG. 5.”. Checking box 603 + second recording mode (curve 70; correction = 0 at max gradation); leaving it unchecked = first recording mode (curve 50; correction ≠ 0 at max gradation); (Ohta: Col. 9, lines 25-50).
Ohta additionally discloses “A raster image processor in this embodiment determines the attribute (image, text, graphic) of an object indicated by an input command in response to the format of a command from the host computer. Then, the raster image processor performs gradation correction which is appropriate for the determination result.” The PDL command from host computer 10 (Fig. 11 showing PDL command sequences: CIRCLE, RECTANGLE, CHARACTERS, IMAGE) constitutes the instruction indicating which recording mode to apply. (Ohta: Col. 10, lines 42-65; Fig. 11)
a correction unit configured to perform correction processing for image data including pixel values for use in applying ink onto a recording medium with a recording unit;
Ohta discloses rasterizer 105 within RIP 11 as the correction unit. “The rasterizer 105 forms the characters, figures, etc., expressed by PDL commands, into a two-dimensional bit-mapped image, performs a gradation correction process on each pixel by using a look-up table, and performs a quantization process, such as a dithering process.”. The corrected image data is output to color printer 12, which forms a visible image on paper using an electrophotograpic or ink-jet recording method. (Ohta: Col. 1, lines 35-50; Col. 2, lines 25-35; Fig. 10).
an acquisition unit configured to acquire a density characteristic value by measuring a patch pattern recorded by the recording unit; and
Ohta discloses host computer 10 functioning as the acquisition unit, operating in conjunction with a flatbed scanner 16. Specifically, host computer 10 sends a gradation pattern output command. Color printer 12 prints gradation pattern 13 (the patch pattern) comprising patches 14/15 for CMYK across 8 gradation steps. The printed pattern is placed on flatbed scanner 16. “The host computer analyzes this image data in order to determine the density value of each patch”, and per equations 1-5, average pixel values are converted to density values via the logarithmic density conversion D. These density values are the claimed “density characteristic values” acquired by measuring the patch pattern. (Ohta: Col. 5, lines 20-65; Col. 6, lines 1-10; Col. 7, lines 25-65; Col. 8, lines 1-10; Figs. 1-4 and equations 1-5).
a retention unit configured to retain a target density value associated with an input gradation value,
Ohta discloses thick line 43 (Fig. 4), which represents “ideal density characteristics which should be taken by the density value of the output patch with respect to the signal value which is output by the printer” (Col. 8, lines 44-51). These prestored target density values, one per gradation level (Gradation No. 0-7, corresponding to printer output signal values), are retained in host computer 10 and serve as the reference for correction table creation. (Ohta: Col. 7, line s55-65; Col. 8, lines 1-5; Fig. 4 (thick line 43).
wherein, in a case where the recording mode indicated by the received instruction is a first recording mode and a density characteristic value for a patch pattern in an input gradation value greater than or equal to a predetermined gradation is higher than the target density value associated with an input gradation value, in the correction processing, a correction value for an input gradation value greater than or equal to the predetermined gradation is not 0, and
Ohta expressly discloses that when measured density values Dc6 and Dc7 (at the two highest gradation levels, Nos. 6 and 7, corresponding to output signal values 219 and 255) are “larger than the expected maximum density value”, i.e., density characteristic value > target density value at input gradation values ≥ the predetermined gradation, curve 50 (Fig. 5) is generated as the correction lookup table. Curve 50 has the following characteristic: “the output signal value when the input signal has a value 255, is smaller than 255, as indicated by a point 135. The reason for this is that, at the curve 42 in Fig. 4, the values of Dc6 and Dc7 are larger than the expected maximum density value.” Accordingly, input gradation value 255 maps to output < 255, establishing a correction value ≠ 0 at the maximum gradation.
Ohta discloses “Therefore, in a case where it is desired to take priority in the ensuring of the maximum density value, a correction table may be created without checking the check box 602 of FIG. 6. For the correction table in such a case, the curve 50 of FIG. 5 is used, and the maximum density value is ensured. Generally speaking, the curve 50 is suitable for images.”
Ohta also discloses that this curve applies “when the object indicated by the input command is an image, the raster image processor performs a gradation correction process on the object by using the correction table for images.” (Ohta, Col. 3, lines 55-65; Col. 4, lines 1-10 (point 135, Dc6/Dc7); Col. 8, lines 45-60 (curve 50 description); Col. 9, lines 5-20 (Fig. 5 = curve 50); Col. 11, lines 5-20 (correction table for images); Figs. 4,5, 13B).
wherein, in a case where the recording mode indicated by the received instruction is a second recording mode and a density characteristic value for a patch pattern in an input gradation value greater than or equal to the predetermined gradation is higher than the target density value associated with an input gradation value, in the correction processing, a correction value for an input gradation value greater than or equal to the predetermined gradation is 0.
Ohta expressly discloses when check box 603 is checked, or when the PDL command indicates a text/graphic object, curve 70 of Fig. 7 is applied as the correction table. Curve 70 is generated by modifying curve 50 such that F70(255)=255, i.e., in put signal value 255 maps unconditionally to output signal value 255, establishing a correction value = 0 at maximum gradation. Ohta discloses the curve 70 construction explicitly “the curve 70, which touches the curve 50 at the input value X1 and which gradually comes close to a point in which the output becomes 255 when the input is 255.” (Col. 9, lines 59-62). The straight line 80 connecting (X1, Y1) and (255,255) forms the boundary ensuring F70(255) = 255. This result holds even when Dc6 and Dc7 exceed the expected maximum density value (density > target), because curve 70 is constructed by formula to force output = 255 at input =255 regardless.
Ohta further discloses “If gradation correction is performed by using the curve 70 obtained by the above procedure, ideal density characteristics can be obtained in a range from a low density to an intermediate density, and in the maximum density portion, an output print image ensuring solidly filled image output can be obtained.” (Col. 9, lines 63-65). Further “the curve 70 is suitable for gradation correction of graphics and text.” (Col. 10, lines 52-53).
Lastly, Ohta discloses “when the object indicated by the input command is not an image, the raster image processor performs a gradation correction process on the object by using the correction table for graphics.” (Col. 10, lines 54-60).
Accordingly, Claim 1 is unpatentable over Ohta.
Regarding Claim 2:
Ohta further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein, in a case where the recording mode indicated by the received instruction is the first recording mode, a density characteristic value for a patch pattern in an input gradation value greater than or equal to the predetermined gradation is lower than the target density value associated with an input gradation value, and an output value corresponding to a maximum value of an input gradation value is smaller than a maximum value of an output gradation value, in the correction processing, a correction value for an input gradation value greater than or equal to the predetermined gradation is not 0, and
Ohta discloses in Fig. 9A the case where the measured density at maximum gradation falls below the target, an anchor point is places at a high-density gradation value so that the correction curve maps maximum input (255) to a sub-maximum output (<255), corresponds to “output for max input < max output, correction ≠ 0.
wherein, in a case where the recording mode indicated by the received instruction is the first recording mode, a density characteristic value for a patch pattern in an input gradation value greater than or equal to the predetermined gradation is lower than the target density value associated with an input gradation value, and an output value corresponding to a maximum value of an input gradation value is equal to a maximum value of an output gradation value, in the correction processing, a correction value for an input gradation value greater than or equal to the predetermined gradation is 0.
Ohta discloses in Fig. 9b that when the density is so far below target that the curve naturally achieves F50(255)=255 (because no downward correction is required at the maximum), condition that output for max input=max output, correction =0. (Ohta, Col. 10, lines 40-60; Figs. 9A, 9B).
Accordingly, Claim 2 is unpatentable over Ohta.
Regarding Claim 3:
Ohta further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the recording mode indicated by the received instruction is the second recording mode and a density characteristic value for a patch pattern in an input gradation value greater than or equal to the predetermined gradation is lower than the target density value associated with an input gradation value, in the correction processing, a correction value for an input gradation value greater than or equal to the predetermined gradation is 0.
Ohta discloses that curve 70 unconditionally maps input 255 → output 255 (F70(255)=255), regardless of whether the measured density is above or below the target density. The generation formula, interpolation between F50(X) and line F80(X) connecting (X1,Y1) to (255,255) ensures that the output at X=255 equals 255 by construction. “The curves 50 and 70 completely coincide with each other in a range in which X is equal to or less than X1,…For the range in which X is greater than X1, F70 (X) is generated by the following procedure…The curve 70… gradually comes close to a point in which the output becomes 255 when the input is 255.” (Col. 9, lines 43-62).
Accordingly, when the second recording mode is active, correction value = 0 at maximum gradation regardless of density measurement result. (Ohta, Col. 9, line s50-65; Col. 10, lines 1-20; Figs. 7 and 8).
Accordingly, Claim 3 is unpatentable over Ohta.
Regarding Claim 4:
Ohta further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first recording mode is a recording mode for use in recording photographs.
Ohta expressly discloses that correction table curve 50, the first recording mode table (correction ≠ 0) “is suitable for images” (Col. 10, lines 9-13), and “when the object indicated by the input command is an image, the raster image processor performs a gradation correction process on the object by using the correction table for images” (Col. 10, lines 54-60).
In the PDL context of Fig. 11, the “IMAGE” command type with associated raster image data corresponds to photographic image content. (Ohta: Col. 10, lines 8-40 (“the curve 50 is suitable for images”).
Accordingly, Claim 4 is unpatentable over Ohta.
Regarding Claim 5:
Ohta further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second recording mode is a recording mode for use in recording line drawing.
Ohta expressly discloses that correction table curve 70, the second recording mode table (correction = 0) “is suitable for gradation correction of graphics and text.” and is applied “when the object indicated by the input command is an image, the raster image processor performs a gradation correction process on the object by using the correction table for images. On the other hand, when the object indicated by the input command is not an image, the raster image processor performs a gradation correction process on the object by using the correction table for graphics.” (Col. 10, lines 48-60).
Ohta’s Fig. 11 PDL command sequence shows CIRCLE, RECTANGLE, and CHARACTERS as non image object types, which encompass line drawings/graphic content. (Ohta: Col 10, lines 1-15 “gradation correction using the curve 70 is suitable for graphic images.”; Col. 10, lines 30-40 “curve 70 is suitable for gradation correction of graphics and text.”; Col. 11, lines 25-35 “when the object indicated by the input command is not an image, the raster image processor performs a gradation correction process on the object by using the correction table for graphics.” for non-image objects; Fig. 11 (CIRCLE, RECTANGLE, CHARACTERS object types).
Accordingly, Claim 5 is unpatentable over Ohta.
Regarding Claim 6:
Ohta further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein an input gradation value greater than or equal to the predetermined gradation is a maximum gradation value.
Ohta expressly and repeatedly discloses that the specific gradation of concern is exclusively maximum gradation level 255 “a correction table is created so that output image data for the maximum gradation level (255) of multi-level gradation input image data reaches a maximum gradation level (255)”.
Ohta’s operational framework, curve 50 point 135, F70(255)=255, and the “255 levels are ensured” check box is directed to the maximum gradation value of 255 (=Gradation No. 7 = printer output signal value 255). (Ohta: Col. 10, lines 35-50; Col. 3, lines 55-65 (Dc6 and Dc7 at Gradation Nos. 6 and 7); Figs. 4-8).
Accordingly, Claim 6 is unpatentable over Ohta.
Regarding Claim 7:
Ohta further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a recording unit; and a control unit configured to control a recording operation to be performed by the recording unit.
Ohta discloses color printer 12 comprising image forming unit 108 as the recording unit and host computer 10 together with RIP 11 as the control unit. “The expanded image data is sent to a color printer 107. In the color printer 107, an image forming unit 108 employing a well-known electrophotographic method or ink-jet recording method is used, and by using this, a visible image is formed on paper and a printout is produced.” (Col. 1, lines 62-66).
Accordingly, Claim 7 is unpatentable over Ohta.
Regarding Claim 8: (drawn to a method)
The proposed rejection of apparatus claim 1, over Ohta is similarly cited to reject the steps of the method of claim 8 because these steps occur in the operation of the apparatus as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9: (drawn to a computer-readable storage medium)
The proposed rejection of apparatus claim 1, and method claim 8, over Ohta is similarly cited to reject the computer readable medium of claim 9 because these steps occur in the operation of the apparatus and method as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claims 1 and 8 are equally applicable to claim 9.
It is noted that Ohta discloses a computer-readable storage medium at least at Fig. 10; Col. 11, lines 27-33; Claims 6 and 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
17. 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.
18. Claims 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awamura (JP 2017-175230) in view of Sato (US 2021/0021715).
Note that an English Translation of Awamura is attached to this action.
Regarding Claim 10:
Awamura discloses an image processing apparatus (Awamura: Fig. 1 ‘DFE Digital Front End 200’; [0011-0013]) comprising:
a memory (Awamura: Fig. 2 ‘DFE 200 includes a CPU 201, a ROM 202, a RAM 203, an HDD (hard disk drive) 204’ [0016]) configured to retain a plurality of types of
Awamura discloses that correction data is generated per paper type, per halftone data condition, and per color (¶[0059]). Different paper types and halftone data conditions correspond to different recording modes, and necessarily encode different ink applying amounts, different paper absorbency alters effective ink adherence per unit area, and different halftone data directly governs dot formation density.
Awamura’s DFE 200 stores target density 232 associated with each gradation value condition in its storage, which inherently retains the ink applying amount profile for each recording condition. (Awamura:¶¶[0059-0062]; Fig./ 8 (storage of first and second correction data per condition).
Awamura does not expressly disclose applying amount information indicating an applying amount of ink.
Sato discloses applying amount information indicating an applying amount of ink.
Sato expressly discloses that the fundamental calibration parameter for inkjet recording is the correction value of ink amount per nozzle based on concentration readings (Sato: “a calculating step of calculating a correction value of an ink amount for each of the plurality of nozzles, based on the concentration value” ¶[0005])
Awamura in view of Sato are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Awamura’s per-condition correction framework using Sato’s ink amount as the governing calibration parameter, specifically to store known ink applying amounts per recording mode in memory and use those stored values. The suggestion/motivation for doing so reduces user burden and calibration time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Awamura in view of Sato to obtain the invention as specified.
Awamura further discloses an input unit configured to receive an instruction indicating which recording mode of the plurality of recording modes to use to record an image;
Awamura discloses that DFE 200 receives user input via its interface specifying paper type and halftone data conditions (¶¶[0058-0059). The selection of paper type and halftone condition constitutes “receiving an instruction indicating which recording mode…to use to record an image”, as claimed.
Additionally, Awamura’s rendering unit generates attribute data specifying object drawing attributes (trapping, overprint, object type) that function as the recording mode instruction at the pixel level (Awamura: claims 2-7; ¶¶[0008; 0056-0059]).
and a generation unit configured to generate a color misregistration correction table for the recording mode indicated by the received instruction based on target density values for a plurality of ink applying amounts in a predetermined recording mode of the plurality of recording modes and density characteristic values obtained by measuring patch patterns associated with the plurality of ink applying amounts recorded in the predetermined recording mode,
Awamura expressly discloses gradation correction data generation unit 225 (¶[0060]). The generation unit generates first correction data 241 from measured densities acquired by density acquisition unit 224 from gradation patch sheet patches (the patch pattern), and pre-stored target density 232 (target density values associated dwith each gradation value). This is a direct disclosure of the generation unit generating a correction table from target density values and density characteristic values obtained by measuring patch patterns. (Awamura: ¶¶[0057-0062]; Fig. 8 (density acquisition unit to gradation correction data generation unit 225 pipeline).
The term “color misregistration correction table” reads on Awamura’s first/second correction data, which are correction tables generated to align the actual image density output characteristics with the target density characteristics, i.e., to correct for color deviation (color misregistration in the density/reproduction sense) between actual output and the target. (Awamura: ¶[0061]).
wherein, in a case where the recording mode indicated by the received instruction is not the predetermined recording mode, the generation unit generate a color misregistration correction table for the recording mode indicated by the received instruction based on the applying amount information, the target density values, and the density characteristic values associated with the recording mode indicated by the received instruction.
Awamura discloses that correction data is generated for multiple recording conditions (paper types, halftone data), and ¶[0059] confirms that correction data for one condition can be computed by applying the same density/target relationship to the appropriate condition’s parameters. This renders obvious that a single baseline patch measurement (the predetermined recording mode) can be used to derive correction data for other conditions by applying the condition specific parameter(s).
Awamura does not expressly disclose generating the correction table for a non-predetermined mode using stored applying amount information.
Sato discloses generating the correction table for a non-predetermined mode using stored applying amount information.
Sato’s calculating step derives ink amount correction values from measured concentration, establishing that the relationship between ink amount and density is a known, calculable quantity. (Sato: ¶[0005]; Fig. 6 (graph showing duty % vs. concentration relationship wherein the correction value k1’ is derived from measured concentration C1 relative to target TG).
Awamura in view of Sato are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Sato’s ink amount/density mathematical relationship to Awamura’s framework of using the stored applying amount information for a non-predetermined recording mode to mathematically convert the baseline (predetermined mode) target/density values into equivalent values for the non predetermined mode, then generate the correction table. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to reduce the number of patch printing operations required per calibration cycle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Awamura in view of Sato to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11:
The proposed combination of Awamura in view of Sato further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein, in a case where the recording mode indicated by the received instruction is not the predetermined recording mode, the generation unit converts the target density values and the density characteristic values based on the applying amount information associated with the recording mode indicated by the received instruction, and generates a color misregistration correction table for the recording mode indicated by the received instruction based on values obtained by converting the target density values and the density characteristic values.
Awamura discloses that the density acquisition unit 224 acquires densities from patches and the correction data generation unit 225 generates correction data using target density 232 and measured density, the conversion of these density values per condition is implicit in per condition correction data generation. (Awamura: ¶¶[0058-0062].
Sato teaches that the measured concentration value and the ink amount correction value are mathematically related (Sato: Fig. 6 wherein the relationship between input tone value k1 and corrected tone value k1’ depends on the ratio of measured concentration C1 to target TG).
Awamura in view of Sato are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement this conversion of adjusting the measured density values from the predetermined mode by the ratio of applying amounts between modes. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to derive equivalent calibration values for the non-predetermined mode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Awamura in view of Sato to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12:
The proposed combination of Awamura in view of Sato further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein, in a case where a value of an ink applying amount for an input gradation value in applying amount information in the recording mode indicated by the received instruction is equal to an amount of an ink applying amount for an input gradation value in applying amount information in the predetermined recording mode, the generation unit generates a color misregistration correction table for the recording mode indicated by the received instruction with use of the target density values and the density characteristic values.
This is an obvious edge case handling that follows directly from the combination of Awamura in view of Sato. Namely, when two recording modes have identical applying amounts at a given gradation value, no conversion is needed, and that the baseline values apply directly. Awamura discloses that correction data may be shared across conditions (Awamura: ¶[0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Awamura in view of Sato to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding Claim 13:
The proposed combination of Awamura in view of Sato further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the memory retains a recording mode information table in which output upper limit ranks are associated with the respective plurality of recording modes and a rank table in which the applying amount information is associated with the output upper limit ranks, and wherein the generation unit acquires the output upper limit rank associated with the recording mode indicated by the received instruction from the recording mode information table, and generates a color misregistration correction table for the recording mode indicated by the received instruction based on applying amount information corresponding to the acquired output upper limit rank.
Awamura discloses storing correction data per paper type and halftone condition, inherently creating a lookup structure mapping recording conditions to correction parameters (Awamura: ¶[0059]).
Sato’s ink amount correction framework further supports a tiered table structure recording a “correction value of ink amount” per nozzle per concentration range (Sato: Fig. 6, duty range from 0% to 100% maps to correction tone value range).
Awamura in view of Sato are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein the memory retains a recording mode information table in which output upper limit ranks are associated with the respective plurality of recording modes and a rank table in which the applying amount information is associated with the output upper limit ranks, and wherein the generation unit acquires the output upper limit rank associated with the recording mode indicated by the received instruction from the recording mode information table, and generates a color misregistration correction table for the recording mode indicated by the received instruction based on applying amount information corresponding to the acquired output upper limit rank. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to perform correction to reduce the gradation value as disclosed by Sato in the Summary of Invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Awamura in view of Sato to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14:
The proposed combination of Awamura in view of Sato further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the memory retains, as the applying amount information, a plurality of ink applying amounts associated with a respective plurality of input gradation values.
Awamura stores target density 232 as a lookup table associating a target density value with each gradation value, establishing that per-gradation value storage of a correction relevant quantity is fully conventional (Awamura: ¶[0061]).
Sato records test patterns across multiple concentration ranges (first patches and second patches spanning the full tone range) and calculates correction values across all those gradation levels, explicitly disclosing per gradation value ink amount correction data (Sate: ¶[0005]; Figs. 5 and 6).
Awamura in view of Sato are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein the memory retains, as the applying amount information, a plurality of ink applying amounts associated with a respective plurality of input gradation values. The suggestion/motivation for doing so reduces user burden and calibration time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Awamura in view of Sato to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15:
The proposed combination of Awamura in view of Sato further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the applying amount information is a value indicating a number of ink droplets per unit area with respect to an input gradation value.
Sato expressly discloses an inkjet printer (Sato: ¶[0031] “ink-jet printer that perform recording by ejecting ink dots.”, wherein the recording head’s nozzles eject dots (liquid droplets) onto the recording medium, and the correction value controls the ink amount per nozzle, directly corresponding to the number of ink droplets per unit area. (Sato: ¶¶[0031-0033]).
Sato’s Fig. 6 shows the relationship between input tone value (0-255), duty (0% - 100% ink coverage), and concentration, wherein duty directly corresponds to droplets per unit area.
Awamura in view of Sato are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein the applying amount information is a value indicating a number of ink droplets per unit area with respect to an input gradation value. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is natural inkjet specific expression of the ink about taught by Sato.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Awamura in view of Sato to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16:
The proposed combination of Awamura in view of Sato further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the applying amount information retained by the memory includes applying amount information including values in which an applying amount linearly increases at a constant inclination with respect to an input gradation value and applying amount information including values in which an inclination at which an applying amount increases with respect to an input gradation value is not constant and the applying amount does not linearly increase.
Sato discloses the relationship between duty (0% ink coverage=applying amount) and concentration in Fig. 6, which shows a non-linear S-curve relationship (concentration C1 corresponding to tone value k1 with a non proportional mapping).
Awamura’s target density 232, while shown as a linear function (Awamura: Fig. 9, solid line 701=proportional target density) is explicitly noted as not limited to linear (Awamura: ¶[0063-0064). That is to say, different recording modes, such as standard quality vs. photo quality inherently have different application amount profiles.
Awamura in view of Sato are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein the applying amount information retained by the memory includes applying amount information including values in which an applying amount linearly increases at a constant inclination with respect to an input gradation value and applying amount information including values in which an inclination at which an applying amount increases with respect to an input gradation value is not constant and the applying amount does not linearly increase. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to store both profiles based on the respective recording modes, and to select the appropriate one based on the mode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Awamura in view of Sato to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Regarding Claim 17:
The proposed combination of Awamura in view of Sato further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 10, further comprising: a recording unit configured to record an image by applying ink onto a recording medium; and a control unit configured to control recording of an image to be performed by the recording unit.
Awamura expressly discloses Fig. 3 image forming apparatus 300 comprising print engines 308 (recording unit) that applies ink onto recording material (Awamura: ¶¶[0021-0022]), and CPU 301 that controls the recording operation. (Sato: ¶¶[0026-0031]; Figs. 1 and 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Awamura in view of Sato to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Regarding Claim 18: (drawn to a method)
The proposed combination of Awamura in view of Sato, explained in the rejection of apparatus claim 10, renders obvious the steps of the method of claim 18 because these steps occur in the operation of the proposed combination as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 10 are equally applicable to claim 18.
Regarding Claim 19: (drawn to a computer-readable storage medium)
The proposed combination of Awamura in view of Sato, explained in the rejection of apparatus claim 10 and method claim 18, renders obvious the computer-readable medium of claim 19 because these steps occur in the operation of the proposed combination as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claims 10 and 18 are equally applicable to claim 19.
It is noted that Awamura discloses a computer-readable storage medium at least at Fig. 4 and ¶[0022].
Conclusion
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takaishi et al. (US 9,467,578) discloses a correcting apparatus includes a first acquiring unit that acquires a target characteristic expressing a correspondence relationship between a gradation value and a target density of an image to be output from an output apparatus in accordance with the gradation value; a second acquiring unit that acquires an output characteristic expressing a correspondence relationship between a gradation value and a measured density of the image output from the output apparatus in accordance with the gradation value; an updating unit that updates the target characteristic by correcting the target density corresponding to a high density region including a maximum target density value when a difference between a maximum measured density value and the maximum target density value is larger than a predetermined value; and a correcting unit that corrects the gradation value so as to approximate the output characteristic to the updated target characteristic.
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R MCLEAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6AM - 4PM, 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.
/NEIL R MCLEAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681