DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/08/2024 and 10/30/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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.
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 –
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Manabu Komatsu et al (US 20190387131 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Komatsu et al discloses a processing apparatus comprising circuitry (¶ [43]) configured to:
set a value on a device-independent color space as a first color reproduction target value of mixed color (¶ [64] stored output profile sets device-independent reproduction target values; ¶ [97] reproduction target value of mixed color in Lab color space via color conversion profile);
obtain, as a calibration target, a second color reproduction target value of mixed color in a printing environment where the first color reproduction target value is set (¶ [63-64] color calibration target via measured color values corresponding to the device-independent stored values); and
adjust a correction parameter to be applied in the printing environment in a case that a calibration is updated, so as to correct a color difference between the first color reproduction target value and the second color reproduction target value using the correction parameter (¶ [98-99] adjusting the correction parameters when the differences between the Lab values and colorimetric values of the printed patches are greater than a threshold).
Regarding claim 2, Komatsu et al discloses the processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the circuitry is configured to obtain the second color reproduction target value in the printing environment immediately after the calibration is newly created using the first color reproduction target value (¶ [67] and ¶ [70]) .
Regarding claim 3, Komatsu et al discloses the processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein device values of print patches used for obtaining the second color reproduction target value and adjusting the correction parameter are different from a device value of a print patch used for setting the first color reproduction target (¶ [4] RGB values different from output CMYK values).
Regarding claim 5, Komatsu et al discloses a color management method (see rejection of claim 1), comprising:
setting a value on a device-independent color space as a first color reproduction target value of mixed color (see rejection of claim 1);
obtaining, as a calibration target, a second color reproduction target value of mixed color in a printing environment where the first color reproduction target value is set (see rejection of claim 1); and
adjusting a correction parameter to be applied in the printing environment in a case that a calibration is updated, so as to correct a color difference between the first color reproduction target value and the second color reproduction target value using the correction parameter (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Komatsu et al discloses a non-transitory recording medium storing a plurality of program codes (¶ [5]) which, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform the method according to claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5).
Regarding claim 7, discloses an image forming system comprising:
first circuitry (see rejection of claim 1) configured to:
set a value on a device-independent color space as a first color reproduction target value of mixed color (see rejection of claim 1);
obtain, as a calibration target, a second color reproduction target value of mixed color in a printing environment where the first color reproduction target value is set (see rejection of claim 1); and
adjust a correction parameter to be applied in the printing environment in a case that a calibration is updated, so as to correct a color difference between the first color reproduction target value and the second color reproduction target value using the correction parameter (see rejection of claim 1); and
second circuitry configured to receive the correction parameter, and execute printing based on a print job to which the correction parameter is applied (¶ [118]).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Manabu Komatsu et al (US 20190387131 A1) in view of Shunsuke Iguchi (US 20160139529 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Komatsu et al discloses the processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Komatsu et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the printing environment where the first color reproduction target value is set is based on G7 calibration.
Iguchi, in the same field of endeavor of calibrating an output apparatus to prevent or reduce variations in color reproduction (¶ [4]), teaches the printing environment where the first color reproduction target value is set is based on G7 calibration (¶ [7-9]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the processing apparatus as disclosed by Komatsu et al comprising circuitry configured to adjust a correction parameter to be applied in the printing environment in a case that a calibration is updated, so as to correct a color difference between the first color reproduction target value and the second color reproduction target value using the correction parameter to utilize the teachings of Iguchi which teaches the printing environment where the first color reproduction target value is set is based on G7 calibration to prevent mixed colors from being degraded by maintaining gradation characteristics even for gray correction in high density regions.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manabu Komatsu et al (US 20190387131 A1) in view of Mario Kuehn (US 20130107291 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Komatsu et al discloses the image forming system according to claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7), further comprising:
an operation apparatus (¶ [54]) configured to:
display a user interface and receive an operation from a user through the user interface (¶ [54]).
Komatsu et al fails to explicitly disclose receiving a setting of the second color reproduction target value of mixed color as the calibration target from the operator in a case that the calibration is newly created; and receiving a setting for adjusting a correction parameter to be applied in the printing environment for correcting the color difference in a case that the calibration is updated.
Kuehn, in the same field of endeavor of providing color consistency on a same digital printing device at different points in time or on multiple digital printing devices (Abstract), teaches receiving a setting of the second color reproduction target value of mixed color as the calibration target from the operator in a case that the calibration is newly created (¶ [29-31]); and receiving a setting for adjusting a correction parameter to be applied in the printing environment for correcting the color difference in a case that the calibration is updated (¶ [33-34] and ¶ [56] updated calibration requires correction perturbation parameters when color deviation is greater than a threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the processing apparatus as disclosed by Komatsu et al comprising circuitry configured to adjust a correction parameter to be applied in the printing environment in a case that a calibration is updated, so as to correct a color difference between the first color reproduction target value and the second color reproduction target value using the correction parameter to utilize the teachings of Kuehn which teaches receiving a setting of the second color reproduction target value of mixed color as the calibration target from the operator in a case that the calibration is newly created; and receiving a setting for adjusting a correction parameter to be applied in the printing environment for correcting the color difference in a case that the calibration is updated to promote consistency through optimization processes best suited for color image reproduction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMARES Q WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571) 270-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4:30pm.
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.
/JAMARES Q WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
March 20, 2026