DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This is an initial office action in response to communication(s) filed on April 15, 2024.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 3, 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,775,238 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter differs from that of claim 1 only in minor details that constitute obvious variations which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore do not render the claims patentably distinct.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia Verdugo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0001658 A1, hereinafter as “Garcia”).
With regard to claim 1, the claim is drawn to an image forming apparatus (see Garcia, i.e. in fig. 5, para. 10 and etc.) comprising:
circuitry (see Garcia, i.e. in para. 47 and etc.) configured to
extract a colorimetric area from an area in which an image is to be formed (see Garcia, i.e. in fig. 1, steps 102, 104, in para. 31 and etc., disclose that “[0031] As illustrated in FIG. 3b, the color of the print 16 may be detected at a user-selected arbitrary position 18 of the print 16. As illustrated in FIG. 3c the color of the print 12 may be detected at a user-selected arbitrary position 22 on the print 12. The user-selected arbitrary position 18 and the user-selected arbitrary position 22 may be equal or equal within a tolerance range. In examples, the user-selected arbitrary position 18 of the print 16 and the user-selected arbitrary position of the print 12 may be regions of the respective print, intended to have the same color.”), and
calculate a color difference between a first page and a second page and determine whether to continue printing based on the calculated color difference (see Garcia, i.e. in fig. 1, step 106, para. 36-39 and etc., disclose that “…[0039] A first color 26a at the first region 24a may be different from a corresponding second color 26a′ at the second region 24a′ of the print 16. A color difference 28a between the color 26a and the color 26a′ may be determined. In examples, the color difference 28a may be reduced in further prints of the printer. In some examples, in addition, a further color difference 28b between a third color 26b printed in the region 24b and a fourth color 26b′ printed in the region 24b′ may be determined and reduced in the further prints printed by the printer”),
the first page being a page that is printed in advance with a print job for one copy and for which a colorimetric value in the colorimetric area is registered as a reference value (see Garcia, i.e. in fig. 1, step 102; and in para. 19 and etc., disclose that “[0019] At 102, a first color is detected at a user-selected arbitrary position of a first print…”, and in addition, in para. 19, disclose that “… At 108, settings of the printer are changed to reduce the color difference in further prints printed by the printer. This may include to change (modify) the second color printed by the printer, i.e., to adapt the second color to be more similar to the first color”, which implies first color being “the reference”),
the second page being a page that is repeatedly printed with the print job for a plurality of copies (see Garcia, i.e. in fig. 1, step 104; and in para. 19 and etc., disclose that “… At 104 a second color is detected at a user-selected arbitrary position of a second print. The second print is printed by a printer….”).
With regard to claim 2, the claim is drawn to the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to register, as the reference value, a colorimetric value in the colorimetric area extracted in response to the print job for which one copy is printed in advance (see Garcia, i.e. in para. 57, discloses that “[0057] For example, when the system is characterized way, the gamut (i.e., an amount of colors the device can reproduce) may be measured at a given moment and printer status (reference condition). If some variation occurs and the system characteristics change, the gamut may also be affected, thus, performing regularly a color calibration may ensure the printer to come back to that reference condition. When a color calibration process is triggered, a subset of colors (normally consistent on different densities of primaries and secondary colors) may be printed, measured, and compared to the reference to bring back the printer to its first characterized status for the whole gamut…”).
With regard to claim 3, the claim is drawn to the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to calculate, as the color difference, a difference between a reference colorimetric value of the first page in the colorimetric area for the print job for which one copy is printed in advance and a colorimetric value of the second page of the print job for which a plurality of copies are repeatedly printed, the colorimetric value of the second page being a determination target (see Garcia, i.e. in para. 19 and etc., disclose that “[0019] At 102, a first color is detected at a user-selected arbitrary position of a first print. At 104 a second color is detected at a user-selected arbitrary position of a second print. The second print is printed by a printer. The first print may be printed by the printer or by a different (second) printer. At 106, a color difference between the first color and the second color is determined. At 108, settings of the printer are changed to reduce the color difference in further prints printed by the printer. This may include to change (modify) the second color printed by the printer, i.e., to adapt the second color to be more similar to the first color…” or as “reference colorimetric value”).
With regard to claim 7, the claim is drawn to the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to display information indicating the color difference that is calculated (see Garcia, i.e. in para. 49 and disclose that “… In examples, the printer 50 comprises a graphical user interface to receive the user command 64 and to display information at which position the sensor arrangement 48 is arranged at the print 16 and/or which color is detected or present at the position…”).
With regard to claim 8, the claim is drawn to an image forming system (see Garcia, i.e. in fig. 5, para. 1, 10-11, and etc., disclose the printing system) comprising:
an image forming apparatus including circuitry (see Garcia, i.e. in fig. 4, para. 47 and etc., disclose the printer, CPU controller and etc.); and
an information processing apparatus (see Garcia, i.e. para. 68 and etc.) to transmit print job data including image data to the image forming apparatus,
the circuitry (see Garcia, i.e. in para. 47 and etc.) being configured to
extract a colorimetric area from an area in which an image is to be formed based on the image data (see Garcia, i.e. in fig. 1, steps 102, 104, in para. 31 and etc., disclose that “[0031] As illustrated in FIG. 3b, the color of the print 16 may be detected at a user-selected arbitrary position 18 of the print 16. As illustrated in FIG. 3c the color of the print 12 may be detected at a user-selected arbitrary position 22 on the print 12. The user-selected arbitrary position 18 and the user-selected arbitrary position 22 may be equal or equal within a tolerance range. In examples, the user-selected arbitrary position 18 of the print 16 and the user-selected arbitrary position of the print 12 may be regions of the respective print, intended to have the same color.”), and
calculate a color difference between a first page and a second page and determine whether to continue printing based on the calculated color difference (see Garcia, i.e. in fig. 1, step 106, para. 36-39 and etc., disclose that “…[0039] A first color 26a at the first region 24a may be different from a corresponding second color 26a′ at the second region 24a′ of the print 16. A color difference 28a between the color 26a and the color 26a′ may be determined. In examples, the color difference 28a may be reduced in further prints of the printer. In some examples, in addition, a further color difference 28b between a third color 26b printed in the region 24b and a fourth color 26b′ printed in the region 24b′ may be determined and reduced in the further prints printed by the printer”),
the first page being a page that is printed in advance with a print job for one copy and for which a colorimetric value in the colorimetric area is registered as a reference value (see Garcia, i.e. in fig. 1, step 102; and in para. 19 and etc., disclose that “[0019] At 102, a first color is detected at a user-selected arbitrary position of a first print…”, and in addition, in para. 19, disclose that “… At 108, settings of the printer are changed to reduce the color difference in further prints printed by the printer. This may include to change (modify) the second color printed by the printer, i.e., to adapt the second color to be more similar to the first color”, which implies first color being “the reference”),
the second page being a page that is repeatedly printed with the print job for a plurality of copies (see Garcia, i.e. in fig. 1, step 104; and in para. 19 and etc., disclose that “… At 104 a second color is detected at a user-selected arbitrary position of a second print. The second print is printed by a printer….”).
With regard to claim 9, the claim is drawn to an image forming method (see Garcia, i.e. in fig. 1-2, 5, para. 10, 16, 18 and etc., disclose the printing method), comprising:
extracting a colorimetric area from an area in which an image is to be formed (see Garcia, i.e. in fig. 1, steps 102, 104, in para. 31 and etc., disclose that “[0031] As illustrated in FIG. 3b, the color of the print 16 may be detected at a user-selected arbitrary position 18 of the print 16. As illustrated in FIG. 3c the color of the print 12 may be detected at a user-selected arbitrary position 22 on the print 12. The user-selected arbitrary position 18 and the user-selected arbitrary position 22 may be equal or equal within a tolerance range. In examples, the user-selected arbitrary position 18 of the print 16 and the user-selected arbitrary position of the print 12 may be regions of the respective print, intended to have the same color.”);
calculating a color difference between a first page and a second page (see Garcia, i.e. in fig. 1, step 106, para. 36-39 and etc., disclose that “…[0039] A first color 26a at the first region 24a may be different from a corresponding second color 26a′ at the second region 24a′ of the print 16. A color difference 28a between the color 26a and the color 26a′ may be determined. In examples, the color difference 28a may be reduced in further prints of the printer. In some examples, in addition, a further color difference 28b between a third color 26b printed in the region 24b and a fourth color 26b′ printed in the region 24b′ may be determined and reduced in the further prints printed by the printer”);
the first page being a page that is printed in advance with a print job for one copy and for which a colorimetric value in the colorimetric area is registered as a reference value (see Garcia, i.e. in fig. 1, step 102; and in para. 19 and etc., disclose that “[0019] At 102, a first color is detected at a user-selected arbitrary position of a first print…”, and in addition, in para. 19, disclose that “… At 108, settings of the printer are changed to reduce the color difference in further prints printed by the printer. This may include to change (modify) the second color printed by the printer, i.e., to adapt the second color to be more similar to the first color”, which implies first color being “the reference”),
the second page being a page that is repeatedly printed with the print job for a plurality of copies; and determining whether to continue printing based on the calculated color difference (see Garcia, i.e. in fig. 1, step 104; and in para. 19 and etc., disclose that “… At 104 a second color is detected at a user-selected arbitrary position of a second print. The second print is printed by a printer….”).
With regard to claim 10, the claim is drawn to a non-transitory recording medium storing a plurality of instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, causes the processors to perform the image forming method of claim 9 (see discussion of claim 9 set forth above, also incorporated by reference herein; in addition, in Garcia, i.e. para. 68, disclose that “[0068] It would be appreciated that examples described herein can be realized in the form of hardware, machine readable instructions or a combination or hardware and machine readable instructions. Any such machine readable instructions may be stored in the form of volatile or non-volatile storage such as, for example, a storage device such as a ROM, whether erasable or rewritable or not, or in the form of memory such as, for example, RAM, memory chips device or integrated circuits or an optically or magnetically readable medium such as, for example, a CD, DVD, magnetic disc or magnetic tape. It would be appreciated that these storage devices and storage media are examples of machine readable storage that are suitable for storing a program or programs that, when executed, implement examples described herein.”).
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) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morovic et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0325175 A1, hereinafter as “Morovic”).
With regard to claim 6, the claim is drawn to the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to suspend printing in a case where the calculated color exceeds a set threshold, and display, on a display, a message indicating an excess of the color difference over the set threshold (see Garcia, in i.e. para. 49, discloses that “. In examples, the printer 50 comprises a graphical user interface to receive the user command 64 and to display information at which position the sensor arrangement 48 is arranged at the print 16 and/or which color is detected or present at the position…”).
Teachings of Garcia do not explicitly disclose the aspect relating to “…wherein the circuitry is further configured to suspend printing in a case where the calculated color exceeds a set threshold”.
However, Morovic disclose an analogous invention. More specifically, in Morovic, i.e. in para. 43-45, discloses that “[0043] In some examples, the action performed at block 74 comprises pausing a print job, alerting a user, delivering an error message to a user, discarding a substrate and/or recording the detection of the colour difference in a log, if the colour difference metric is greater than a threshold. In some examples, the log may be an error log…”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Garcia to include the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Morovic, the aspect(s) discussed above, as the cited prior arts are at least considered to be analogous arts if not also in the same field of endeavor relating to printing arts. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Garcia by the teachings of Morovic, and to incorporate the limitation(s) discussed and also taught by Morovic, thereby “… able to calculate the characteristic of the printable medium more accurately than would be possible, for example, if the apparatus just used parameters derived from laser reflection, or just used parameters derived from a diffuse light source”.
Allowable Subject Matter
With regard to Claims 4 and 5, claims 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 and overcoming the corresponding rejections and/or objection(if any) set forth in the Office Action above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 4, the closest prior arts of record, Garcia and Morovic, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first page includes a page included in the print job for which one copy is printed in advance, the second page includes a page having a same page number as the first page and included in a first copy or a subsequent copy of the print job in a case where a plurality of copies of the print job are printed, and the circuitry is configured to calculate a color difference between the page included in the print job for which one copy is printed in advance and a page having the same page number as the page and included in a plurality of copies of the print job, and determine whether to continue printing based on the calculated color difference”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by prior art of record.
With regard to claim 4, the closest prior arts of record, Garcia and Morovic, do not disclose or suggest, among the other limitations, the additional required limitation of “… the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to: receive, from a user, designation of at least one of an exclusion area and a colorimetric area to be added, based on a colorimetric area automatically extracted, the exclusion area being an area to be excluded from an area to be subjected to colorimetry in the area in which the image is to be formed; and set, as the colorimetric area, an area changed in accordance with the received designation”. These additional features in combination with all the other features required in the claimed invention, are neither taught nor suggested by prior art of record.
Therefore, claims 4 and 5 are objected to.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Watanabe et al. (U.S. Pat/Pub No. 200) disclose an invention relates to
The Art Unit (or Workgroup) location of your application in the USPTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Art Unit 2681.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacky X. Zheng whose telephone number is (571) 270-1122. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, alt. Friday Off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 272-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACKY X ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681