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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims limitations reciting “a first acquiring unit”, “a second acquiring unit”, “a quantizing unit” and “a quantizing unit”, “a generating unit” and “a receiving unit”, has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “configured to …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 2, 4, 5 and 15 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: the units of the image processing unit 8 may be configured as hardware such as electrical circuitry, or may be configured as software such as programs to perform their functions. Also, the units may be configured as a combination of both of these.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1- 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12 recites “a first acquiring unit”, “a second acquiring unit”, “a quantizing unit” and “a quantizing unit”, “a generating unit”, “a converting unit” and “a receiving unit” there is no adequate description about those units.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 13-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the same reason as set forth above.
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 1-10 and 12-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim element “a first acquiring unit”, “a second acquiring unit”, “a quantizing unit” and “a quantizing unit”, “a converting unit” and “a generating unit” are limitations that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function.
The terms “a first acquiring unit”, “a second acquiring unit”, “a quantizing unit” and “a quantizing unit”, “a converting unit” and “a generating unit“ are unclear.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 13-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the same reason as set forth above.
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 1-6 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shohara et al. (US 20100189350) in view of Nakayama (US 20050276501).
Regarding claim 1, Shohara teaches an image processing apparatus comprising: a first acquiring unit configured to acquire image data whose color information is defined by N-bit signal values for each of color components (fig. 13: 300 input image 16 bit tiff); a second acquiring unit configured to acquire data range information indicating a maximum value and minimum value of the signal values for each of the color components in the image data acquired by the first acquiring unit (fig. 15:16-8 bit conversion values range); a quantizing unit configured to perform a quantization to quantize the signal values for each of the color components in the image data acquired by the first acquiring unit into M-bit signal values (N>M) based on the data range information acquired by the second acquiring unit (fig.13: 320 16-bit-to 8-bit); a transmitting unit configured to transmit the quantized image data (330 in fig. 13) and the data range information corresponding to the image data acquired by the first acquiring unit in order to convert the signal values of the quantized image data into L-bit signal values (L>M), and wherein the quantizing unit performs the quantization so that the maximum value of the signal values for each of the color components in the acquired image data becomes a maximum possible value in the range of the M bits, and the minimum value of the signal values for each of the color components in the acquired image data becomes a minimum possible value in the range of the M bits (fig. 15: 0-0 and 65535-255).
Shohara does not teach transmit the quantized image data and the data range information corresponding to the image data acquired by the first acquiring unit in order to convert the signal values of the quantized image data into L-bit signal values (L>M).
Nakayama teaches transmit the quantized image data and the data range information corresponding to the image data acquired by the first acquiring unit (claim 1: decoded value decoded by said decoding means, Q is a quantization step value of quantization table information included in a header of the encoded data) in order to convert the signal values of the quantized image data into L-bit signal values (L>M) (p0125:8-bit input image is encoded, and the obtained encoded image data (baseline JPEG encoded data) is decoded to generate a 16-bit image).
Shohara and Nakayama are combinable because they both deal with image processing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Shohara with the teaching of Nakayama es for purpose of generates a high-precision, high-quality decoded image while compression-encoding image data to be transferred from an image input device to an image output device (p0021).
Regarding claim 2, Shohara teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1 further comprising a generating unit configured to generate, for each of the color components, a look-up table that outputs the M-bit signal values corresponding to the input N-bit signal values by associating the maximum value to the maximum possible value in the range of the M bits, associating the minimum value to the minimum possible value in the range of the M bits, and associating values between the maximum value and the minimum value to the M-bit signal values by linear extension, wherein the quantizing unit performs the quantization using the look-up table (p0010: the color image having s bit to the color image having d bit using the conversion table. And fig.13: 320 16-bit-to 8-bit).
Regarding claim 4, Shohara teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the image data acquired by the first acquiring unit is image data obtained as a result of performing color conversion processing to convert the signal values of the image data targeted for processing into the N-bit signal values for each of the color components (p0037:The RGB image data is converted to YCbCr signals (CCIR601), in which each color has 8 bits, by the image processor 526, and also subjected to raster-block conversion, and then JPEG compression is performed by a JPEG compressor 527.
Regarding claim 3, Shohara teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the data range information acquired by the second acquiring unit is data range information indicating a maximum value and minimum value for each of the color components among the signal values of the entire pixels of the image data acquired by the first acquiring unit (fig. 15: 8-bit values from 0-255 and 16-bit values from 0-65535).
Regarding claim 5, Shohara teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the data range information acquired by the second acquiring unit is data range information generated based on conversion parameters used in the color conversion processing (claim 7:generating a conversion table, which varies in dependence on a tone value of the s bit, and has dispersion of which level varies in accordance with chroma and luminance of the color image).
Regarding claim 6, Shohara teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the data range information acquired by the second acquiring unit is data range information indicating a maximum value and minimum value for each of the color components from among the signal values obtained by converting signal values sampled from among the signal values corresponding to the image data targeted for processing into the M-bit signal value using the conversion parameters (fig. 13, fig. 15 ).
Regarding claim 10, Shohara in view of Nakayama teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the N and L are the same number (320 16-bit-to 8-bit and Nakayama: p0125:8-bit input image is encoded, and the obtained encoded image data (baseline JPEG encoded data) is decoded to generate a 16-bit image).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 11, The structural elements of apparatus claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 11. Thus, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, claim 1 recited substantially similar limitations as claim 12, therefore it is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Shohara teaches the image processing system according to claim 12 further comprising: a receiving unit configured to receive the quantized image data and the data range information corresponding to the image data acquired by the first acquiring unit (300 in fig. 13), which are transmitted by the transmitting unit; a converting unit configured to convert the signal values of the quantized image data into the L-bit signal values, based on the received data range information (p0006:In this case, since the lower bits are lost, a stepwise signal is formed as shown in FIG. 15); and an outputting unit configured to output an image based on the image data whose signal values are converted to the L-bit signal value (fig. 13: 330 output image).
Regarding claim 14, Shohara teaches the image processing system according to claim 13, wherein the outputting unit outputs the image by printing an image onto a recording medium based on the image data whose signal values are converted to the L-bit signal value (p072: A printer 608 prints various data and images under the control of the CPU 609).
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shohara in view of Nakayama as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kishi et al. (US 2009025242).
Regarding claim 7, Shohara in view of Nakayama does not teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 5 further comprising: a generating unit configured to generate in advance parameters to be used in a case where the advance parameters unit performs the quantization, based on the conversion parameters; and a storing unit configured to store the parameters generated by the generating unit in association with the corresponding conversion parameters, wherein the quantizing unit acquires the parameters associated with the conversion parameters used in the color conversion processing from among parameters stored by the storing unit and performs the quantization using the acquired parameters.
Kishi teaches a generating unit configured to generate in advance parameters to be used in a case where the advance parameters unit performs the quantization, based on the conversion parameters; and a storing unit configured to store the parameters generated by the generating unit in association with the corresponding conversion parameters (p0101: The quantizing unit 103 sets a Q parameter (to be referred to as a QP hereinafter), and calculates a quantization step based on the set QP and the conversion formula shown in FIG. 10), wherein the quantizing unit acquires the parameters associated with the conversion parameters used in the color conversion processing from among parameters stored by the storing unit and performs the quantization using the acquired parameters (p0101).
Shohara in view of Nakayama and Kishi are combinable because they both deal with image processing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Shohara in view of Nakayama with the teaching of Kishi for improving the quality of a decoded image having the same resolution as the input image (p0007).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shohara in view of Nakayama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20260087769).
Regarding claim 8, Shohara in view of Nakayama does not teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein, in the color conversion processing, the signal values of the image data targeted for processing are converted so as to obtain image data with a color space that can reproduce a wider color gamut, compared to a color gamut that can be reproduced in a color space of the image data targeted for processing.
Zhang teaches wherein, in the color conversion processing, the signal values of the image data targeted for processing are converted so as to obtain image data with a color space that can reproduce a wider color gamut, compared to a color gamut that can be reproduced in a color space of the image data targeted for processing (p0048:when color space conversion is one of the global feature transforms, the first display image data 20 may be converted to a new color space with a wider color gamut).
Shohara in view of Nakayama and Zhang are combinable because they both deal with image processing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Shohara in view of Nakayama with the teaching of Zhang for enhancing appearance of image content (p0005).
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shohara in view of Nakayama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishio (US 20170255846).
Regarding claim 9, Shohara in view of Nakayama does not teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the transmitting unit transmits the look-up table used in the quantization performed by the quantizing unit as data range information relating to the image data acquired by the first acquiring unit.
Nishio teaches wherein the transmitting unit transmits the look-up table used in the quantization performed by the quantizing unit as data range information relating to the image data acquired by the first acquiring unit (p0053:print modes corresponding to a plurality of the lookup tables T are included in the print job J and transmitted to the printer 1 from the computer 3).
Shohara in view of Nakayama and Nishio are combinable because they both deal with image processing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Shohara in view of Nakayama with the teaching of Nishio for purpose of providing a technique that allows a user to easily compare images printed under different print conditions with one another (p0006).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Merouan, Abderrahim can be reached on (571) 270-5254. 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.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683