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
Claims 1-10 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings received on 4/18/2024 are accepted for examination purposes.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
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: “color conversion unit”, “selection unit”, “correction unit”, and “printing data generation unit” in claims 1-8.
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.
Color conversion unit implemented by software by the processor executing a computer program stored in advance in the memory [Applicant’s Specification: Fig 2 (110), par 0032-0033]
Selection unit implemented by software by the processor executing a computer program stored in advance in the memory [Applicant’s Specification: Fig 2 (130), par 0032, 0034]
Correction unit implemented by software by the processor executing a computer program stored in advance in the memory [Applicant’s Specification: Fig 2 (120), par 0032, 0034]
Printing data generation unit implemented by software by the processor executing a computer program stored in advance in the memory [Applicant’s Specification: Fig 2 (140), par 0032, 0035]
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katsuzawa (US-2020/0364015).
As to Claim 1, Katsuzawa teaches ‘A color correction device comprising: a color conversion unit configured to convert an input value in an input color space into an output value in an output color space [Fig 1B (S102), par 0027-0029 – converting the color of the pre-conversion color system to the color of the ink color system]; a selection unit configured to receive a selection, as a target color component, of one or more color components among a plurality of color components used in a printing device [par 0029-0034 – position selecting process for selecting a position to be represented by a pure color with only one color ink or a secondary color with two colors of ink]; and a correction unit configured to correct the output value in a manner of reducing the target color component when the input value represents a color not including the target color component [par 0030-0031, 0041-0042, 0051-0052 – color correcting process performed on the color conversion result for the selected position so as to be the color expressed using ink of a predetermined number of colors or less]’.
Further, in regards to claim 9 the color correction device of claim 1 performs the color correction method of claim 9.
Further, in regards to claim 10, the color correction of method of claim 9 is fully embodied on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 10.
As to Claim 2, Katsuzawa teaches ‘wherein the selection unit is configured to receive a selection, as the target color component, of three or more color components among the plurality of color components [par 0028, 0064-0065 – user selecting a position in a region that is to be printed as a pure color or a secondary color based on CMYK ink color system]’.
As to Claim 3, Katsuzawa teaches ‘wherein when N is an integer of 3 or more, the selection unit is configured to receive a selection, as the target color component, of any one or more and N or less color components among N color components corresponding to N color materials used in the printing device [par 0030-0032, 0041-0042, 0051-0052 – color correcting process performed on the color conversion result for the selected position so as to be the color expressed using ink of a predetermined number of colors or less which are less than the number of ink colors used in the printing apparatus]’.
As to Claim 4, Katsuzawa teaches ‘wherein the correction of the output value of reducing the target color component is a process of correcting the output value in a manner of changing a value of the target color component to a corrected value that is not zero [Figs 3A-B, par 0050-0055 – performing a color conversion using ICC profile to correct post-conversion when retaining a pure color by deleting components of colors other than the pure color (i.e. cyan), where in this case, in the corrected color, the concentration of cyan is changed from 100% to 96%, and the concentration of other colors is changed to 0%]’.
As to Claim 5, Katsuzawa teaches ‘wherein the correction unit further corrects an output value component corresponding to a color component other than the target color component among the plurality of color components to reduce a difference between a first color represented by the output value before correction and a second color represented by the output value after correction [Figs 3A-B, par 0050-0055 – performing a color conversion using ICC profile to correct post-conversion when retaining a pure color by deleting components of colors other than the pure color (i.e. cyan), where in this case, in the corrected color, the concentration of cyan is 96%, and the concentration of other colors is 0%]’.
As to Claim 6, Katsuzawa teaches ‘wherein the color conversion unit includes a color conversion lookup table for converting the input color space into the output color space, and the correction unit executes the correction on the color conversion lookup table [par 0029, 0040, 0034, 0050-0056 – an ICC profile created in advance according to the characteristics of the ink used in the printing apparatus is used as the profile on a color set in the input print data, and use the conversion result of color spaces as it is to be corrected in the color correcting process]’.
As to Claim 8, Katsuzawa teaches ‘A printing system comprising: a color correction device [Fig 1A (14) – Host PC]; and a printing device [Fig 1A (12) – printing apparatus], wherein the color correction device includes a color conversion unit configured to convert an input value in an input color space into an output value in an output color space [Fig 1B (S102), par 0027-0029 – converting the color of the pre-conversion color system to the color of the ink color system], a selection unit configured to receive a selection, as a target color component, of one or more color components among a plurality of color components used in the printing device [par 0029-0034 – position selecting process for selecting a position to be represented by a pure color with only one color ink or a secondary color with two colors of ink], a correction unit configured to correct the output value in a manner of reducing the target color component when the input value represents a color not including the target color component [par 0030-0031, 0041-0042, 0051-0052 – color correcting process performed on the color conversion result for the selected position so as to be the color expressed using ink of a predetermined number of colors or less], and a printing data generation unit configured to generate printing data to be supplied to the printing device using a corrected output value corrected by the correction unit [par 0037, 0042, 0064-0066 – perform a control using binary data generated by performing raster image processor (RIP) process or the like based on print data, for the operation of ejecting ink in of a pure color or secondary color]’.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuzawa in view of Borg (US-7,911,665).
As to Claim 7, Katsuzawa teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in dependent claim 6 and independent claim 1. Katsuzawa does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the correction unit selects a grid point at which an input value component corresponding to the target color component is not present among a plurality of grid points of the color conversion lookup table, and corrects an output value component corresponding to the target color component among the output values for the selected grid point’.
Katsuzawa teaches an ICC profile created in advance according to the characteristics of the ink used in the printing apparatus is used as the profile on a color set in the input print data, and use the conversion result of color spaces as it is to be corrected in the color correcting process [par 0029, 0040, 0034, 0050-0056].
Borg in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the correction unit selects a grid point at which an input value component corresponding to the target color component is not present among a plurality of grid points of the color conversion lookup table, and corrects an output value component corresponding to the target color component among the output values for the selected grid point [col 3, line 18-col 4, line 4, col 8 line 48-col 9, line 5, col 10, line 24-col 11, line 17 – applying a correction factor to grid points of an input to output LUT based on selected color values of an output color space]’.
Katsuzawa and Borg are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital print data generation systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include correcting grid points of an output color space, as taught by Borg. The motivation for doing so would have been to purifying muddied primary color values of an output color space. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Borg with Katsuzawa to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Publication No. 2020/0364015
b. US Patent No. 7,911,665
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
c. US Publication No. 2005/0219569
d. US Publication No. 2014/0160500
e. US Publication No. 2020/0389570
f. US Publication No. 2024/0354538
g. US Publication No. 2024/0354537
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 830-530.
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 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.
/MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681