DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 15 and 16 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims now recite “diagonal neighboring cells.” While the intention of the claimed language is understood, there would not seem to be such a thing as a “diagonal cell.” Rather, it would seem the cells being referred to are cells in different rows from the cell in question in the first column. Indeed, the immediate specification details “In one embodiment, the nearest neighbors are extended to include the nearest neighbors on a diagonal to the defective jet cell.” The specification has specified that certain cells lie on a diagonal relative to each other and has not defined “diagonal neighboring cells.”
Further, the claim recites swapping threshold values, but one such recited swap is between the threshold value in the first column and itself, and thus it would not appear anything is being “swapped.”
Further yet, the claim appears to allow for swapping of the threshold value in the first column in a given row for any of the threshold values of any of the cells in any of the neighboring columns. This would result in a situation where a threshold value of a cell in the first column and, say, the sixth row, could be swapped with a threshold value for a cell in a neighboring column and, say, the 36th row. From the figures of the present application, it does not seem this is how the invention functions.
Clarification is required.
Because all other claims depend from claim 1, they are also rejected on this basis.
Claims 3 and 4 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims recite a “circular shifting,” but it is not understood what this is intended to mean. First, there is a case where the first column has the largest value, in which case no swapping would take place, and assuming the “circular shifting” is referring to a reordering of the neighboring cells after a swap, such a shift would not take place at all, making the claims indefinite. Second, it is not clear how a single, particular threshold value in the first column could be shifted in a circular manner. That is, a single value would seem to be shifted from one cell to another, not in a circle. Clarification is required.
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) 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metcalfe et al. (8,714,692) in view of Mizutani (8,139,267).
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 16, Metcalfe teaches a method for compensating for defective ink jets comprising:
for an original screen including cells (fig. 3C, items 320) arranged in columns and rows (fig. 3C, note columns 304 and unlabeled rows), each cell comprising a threshold value (see fig. 3C, note threshold values of 1 or 0 depending on whether a droplet is to be ejected), identifying a first column (fig. 3C, column corresponding to nozzle 506C) in the original screen corresponding to a defective inkjet in a marking device (see fig. 3C);
generating a permuted screen (figs. 3A, 3D) from the original screen with a protocol which includes:
(a) for each row in the original screen, providing for swapping a threshold value in the first column with threshold values in cells of neighboring columns, including diagonal neighboring cells, such that the first column assumes the lowest threshold value of: the threshold value in the first column, a threshold value in a first of the neighboring columns, and a threshold value in a second of the neighboring columns (see fig. 3D, note first neighboring column 304B, second neighboring column 304D, and note that diagonal cells 396 are considered. Note that the threshold values of 1 are swapped for threshold values 0); and
storing the permuted screen for an input image to be printed by the marking device (see fig. 3D, Note that the lowest threshold value 0 is swapped with the larger threshold value of 1 in rows where a pixel is to be printed with the defective nozzle. Note first and second neighboring columns).
Metcalfe does expressly not teach wherein the original screen and the permuted screen are halftone screens. Mizutani teaches halftone screens with threshold values that are converted to values for using nozzles to print or not print in pixels (Mizutani, see fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a halftoning printing scheme, as disclosed by Mizutani, with the defective nozzle compensation scheme disclosed by Metcalfe because doing so would amount to combining prior art teachings according to known methods to obtain predictable results. In other words, because Metcalfe does not go into any specific image processing scheme for image formation, and Mizutani does not go into detail about any process for compensating for defective nozzles, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to arrive at a more comprehensive printing device.
Upon combination of the two teachings, higher threshold values would correspond with cells not to be printed as shown in Mizutani, and applying this to the compensation scheme of Metcalfe would yield a process whereby the rows corresponding to the defective nozzle would apply the highest threshold value in the row to the column with the defective nozzle, swapping threshold values.
Regarding claim 2, Metcalfe in view of Mizutani teaches the method of claim 1, wherein in (a), where the threshold values in the cells of the first and second neighboring columns are both larger than the threshold value of the cell in the identified first column, the protocol includes swapping the threshold value of the cell in the identified first column with a smaller one of the threshold values in the cells of the first and second of the neighboring columns, followed by swapping the threshold value currently in the cell in the identified first column with the threshold value in the other of the first and second neighboring columns (Note that, upon combination of Mizutani with Metcalfe, the limitation would be met. That is, while Metcalfe teaches swapping binary threshold numbers, it would have been obvious given Mizutani’s greyscale threshold value assignation to swap the threshold value of the first column with the highest of the neighboring columns so as to keep the threshold value of the cell in the first column as close to a value corresponding to zero ink ejection as possible).
Regarding claim 3, Metcalfe in view of Mizutani teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the protocol further includes: (b) circular shifting the threshold values in the first column in a first direction; (c) after step (b), repeating step (a); (d) circular shifting the threshold values in the first column in a second direction, opposite to the first direction (Metcalfe, see fig. 3, Note that the neighboring columns to the first column on both sides are evaluated in a circular fashion to determine a proper swapping cell for the cell in the first column).
Regarding claim 4, Metcalfe in view of Mizutani teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the protocol further includes: (e) circular shifting the threshold values in the first column in the second direction; (f) after step (e), repeating step (a); and (h) circular shifting the threshold values in the first column in the first direction (Metcalfe, see fig. 3, Note that the neighboring columns to the first column on both sides are evaluated in a circular fashion to determine a proper swapping cell for the cell in the first column).
Regarding claim 5, Metcalfe in view of Mizutani teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the protocol includes at least two iterations, wherein in a first of the iterations, the neighboring columns are each spaced from the first column by one cell, and in a second of the iterations, the neighboring columns are each spaced from the first column by more than one cell (Metcalfe, see fig. 3, Note that the neighboring columns can be either one or two cells away from the first column).
Regarding claim 6, Metcalfe in view of Mizutani teaches the method of claim 5, wherein in the second of the iterations, the neighboring columns are each spaced from the first column by two cells (Metcalfe, see fig. 3, Note that the neighboring columns can be either one or two cells away from the first column).
Regarding claim 7, Metcalfe in view of Mizutani teaches the method of claim 6, wherein in a third of the iterations, the neighboring columns are each spaced from the first column by three cells (Metcalfe, see figs. 3, 6, Note that, while Figure 3 shows an abbreviated representation of the number of nozzles used for the process, Figure 6 shows the more accurate representation of hundreds of nozzles, which would result in neighboring cells three and more columns away from the first column).
Regarding claim 8, Metcalfe in view of Mizutani teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the original screen comprises a first row of sub-screens, the method comprising performing the protocol for each of the sub-screens in the first row that include a first column corresponding to a respective defective inkjet in the marking device and assembling the permuted subscreens to form the permuted screen (Metcalfe, see figs. 3, 6, Note that, while Figure 5 shows an abbreviated representation of the number of nozzles used for the process, Figure 6 shows the more accurate representation of hundreds of nozzles, which would result in neighboring cells three and more columns away from the first column. Note that, extrapolating the representation in Figure 5 over all nozzles represented in Figure 3, there would be any number of rows of subscreens and permuted subscreens).
Regarding claim 9, Metcalfe in view of Mizutani teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the original screen comprises a plurality of rows of sub-screens, the method comprises repeating the permuted subscreens to form a plurality of rows of the permuted screen (Metcalfe, see figs. 3, 5, Note that, while Figure 5 shows an abbreviated representation of the number of nozzles used for the process, Figure 3 shows the more accurate representation of hundreds of nozzles, which would result in neighboring cells three and more columns away from the first column. Note that, extrapolating the representation in Figure 3 over all nozzles represented in Figure 3, there would be any number of rows of subscreens and permuted subscreens).
Regarding claim 10, 17 and 18, Metcalfe in view of Mizutani teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the marking device comprises a plurality of printheads, a first of the printheads ejecting a first ink through respective inkjets and a second of the printheads ejecting a second ink through respective inkjets, the method including generating a first permuted halftone screen from the original halftone screen with the protocol to compensate for defective ink jets in the first printhead and generating a second permuted halftone screen from the original halftone screen or from another halftone screen with the protocol to compensate for defective ink jets in the second printhead (Metcalfe, see fig. 6, Note that there is a plurality of printheads, each of the printheads using its own halftone screens and compensation protocols to arrive at permuted halftone screens).
Regarding claim 11, Metcalfe in view of Mizutani teaches the method of claim 1, wherein step (a) is performed with a processor including hardware (Metcalfe, see figs. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 12, Metcalfe in view of Mizutani teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising detecting the defective inkjets, the detecting including rendering a halftone test pattern with the marking device to generate a printed image and evaluating the printed image (Note that, upon combination of Mizutani with Metcalfe, the limitations is met).
Regarding claim 13, Metcalfe in view of Mizutani teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the identifying of the first column in the original halftone screen corresponding to a defective inkjet includes accessing a data structure which lists pixels in the original halftone screen corresponding to the defective inkjet (Metcalfe, see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Metcalfe in view of Mizutani teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising halftoning an input image with the permuted screen to generate a halftone image and printing an output image with the marking device, using the halftone image (Note that, upon combination, the claimed limitation is met).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Metcalfe.
Conclusion
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, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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
