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
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/20/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
FOREIGN PRIORITY
A claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C § 119 (a) - (d), which was contained in the Declaration and Power of Attorney filed on 05/20/2024 has been acknowledged. Acknowledgement of claimed foreign priority and receipt of priority documents is reflected in form PTO-326 Office Action Summary.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to as ineligible under subject eligibility test. In the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, dated Tuesday, December 16, 2014, page 74621), The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional device elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1 & 11-12
Step 1
This step inquires “is the claim to a process, article of machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes,
Claims 1 & 11 - “Systems” or “Apparatuses” are machines.
Claim 12 – “Method” is a process.
Step 2A - Prong 1
This step inquires “does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or natural phenomenon”. This claim appears to directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation of “ set a profile including a setting value of each of a plurality of setting items regarding at least one of imaging processing, image processing, or conveyance processing; acquire an input image in which a medium is imaged according to the profile; identify a plurality of pieces of characteristic information respectively relating to the plurality of setting items in the input image; determine whether the profile matches a characteristic of the input image by comparing the plurality of pieces of characteristic information in the input image with information based on the setting value of each of the plurality of setting items included in the profile being set; and notify information regarding a determination result or stop an image generation process by an apparatus that generated the input image in a case where the determination result indicates that the profile does not match the characteristic of the input image.”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity) but for the recitation of generic computer components.
STEP 2A – PRONG 1 - CONCLUSION
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2
This step inquires “does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2A – PRONG 2 - CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The critical inquiry here is does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception? The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
As to claim 2, this claim is directed to mental process (“setting values themselves as basis for comparison”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“data selection/representation”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 3, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“circuitry”), mental process (“scoring similarity and checking if greater than threshold”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“calculate score and compare to threshold”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 4, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“circuitry”), mental process (“using historical exemplars as the comparison reference instead of the settings”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“routine data retrieval/use of stored data”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 5, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“circuitry”), mental process (“comparing against multiple references”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“Expanding the reference set to multiple past images is abstract analysis.”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 6, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“circuitry”), mental process (“coincidence scoring and thresholding”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“math/threshold refinement”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 7, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“circuitry”), mental process (“comparing times (earlier/later/within window) to influence a decision”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“Extra evaluation logic using routine metadata”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 8, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“circuitry”), mental process (“if user says correct, then down weighting the mismatching factor next time.”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“generic model tuning/preference adjustment”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 9, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“circuitry”), mental process (“comparing an input to multiple candidate profiles is a mental classification task”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“Routine Searching/Ranking Across stored candidate is also abstract decision making”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 10, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“circuitry”), mental process (“yes, picking the best match and reporting it is mental”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“notifying the best profile is post solution activity”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 & 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by Gracia Verdugo et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0385769)
As to claims 1 & 11-12, Gracia Verdugo discloses set a profile including a setting value of each of a plurality of setting items regarding at least one of imaging processing, image processing, or conveyance processing (602, Fig. 6 & [0077] discloses receiving @ 602, Fig. 6 a color profile for forming an image. [0029] discloses an ICC profile can contain a set of tables and different rendering intents.); acquire an input image in which a medium is imaged according to the profile ([0032] discloses measurement data 116 acquired by image sensor 110 of an image formed on the substrate 106); identify a plurality of pieces of characteristic information respectively relating to the plurality of setting items in the input image ([0037] discloses compare color information derived from the ICC profile 114 and color information in the measurement data 116 wherein measurement data 116 can include L*a*b values. [0042] discloses obtain color information L*a*b values for the darkest point and the whitest point. ); determine whether the profile matches a characteristic of the input image by comparing the plurality of pieces of characteristic information in the input image with information based on the setting value of each of the plurality of setting items included in the profile being set (606, Fig. 6 & [0079] discloses comparing (at 606) a difference between color information of the color profile and to substrate related info a threshold. [0043] disclose comparing the color information derived from the ICC profile 114 to measurement data 116.); and notify information regarding a determination result or stop an image generation process by an apparatus that generated the input image in a case where the determination result indicates that the profile does not match the characteristic of the input image ([0056] discloses presenting @212 a message indicating the mismatch has been detected.).
As to claim 2, Gracia Verdugo discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Gracia Verdugo discloses wherein the information based on the setting value of each of the plurality of setting items included in the profile being set is the setting value of each of the plurality of setting items included in the profile being set. ([0043] discloses comparing color information derived from the ICC profile 114 to measurement data.)
As to claim 3, Gracia Verdugo discloses everything as disclosed in claim 2. In addition, Gracia Verdugo discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to: calculate a degree of matching between the plurality of pieces of characteristic information in the input image and the setting value of each of the plurality of setting items included in the profile being set; and determine whether the profile being set matches the characteristic of the input image based on whether the calculated degree of matching is equal to or greater than a threshold value. (606, Fig. 6 & [0079] discloses compares a difference to a threshold. [0046] discloses determining whether a difference exceeds a specified threshold. )
As to claim 4, Gracia Verdugo discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Gracia Verdugo discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to acquire the plurality of pieces of characteristic information in a past image that was generated in the past according to the profile being set, and the information based on the setting value of each of the plurality of setting items included in the profile being set is the plurality of pieces of characteristic information in the past image. ([0068] discloses recording first color information based on a measurement of an image formed using the color profile. )
As to claim 5, Gracia Verdugo discloses everything as disclosed in claim 4. In addition, Gracia Verdugo discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to: acquire the plurality of pieces of characteristic information in a plurality of past images that were generated in the past according to the profile being set; and determine whether the profile being set matches the characteristic of the input image by comparing the plurality of pieces of characteristic information in the input image with the plurality of pieces of characteristic information in the plurality of past images. ([0047] discloses threshold collected from past measurements derived from images previously formed.)
As to claim 6, Gracia Verdugo discloses everything as disclosed in claim 4. In addition, Gracia Verdugo discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to: calculate a degree of coincidence between the plurality of pieces of characteristic information in the input image and the plurality of pieces of characteristic information in the past image; and determine whether the profile being set matches the characteristic of the input image depending on whether the calculated degree of coincidence is equal to or greater than a threshold value. ([0057] discloses comparing measurement data 116 to the stored color information and differs by greater than a given threshold.)
As to claim 9, Gracia Verdugo discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Gracia Verdugo discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to: acquire a plurality of profiles; and determine whether the profile being set matches the characteristic of the input image further based on a result of comparison between the plurality of pieces of characteristic information in the input image and information based on the setting value of each of the plurality of setting items included in the plurality of profiles. ([0053] discloses search for an ICC profile in the collection of the ICC profiles within some threshold. )
As to claim 10, Gracia Verdugo discloses everything as disclosed in claim 9. In addition, Gracia Verdugo discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to notify information regarding a particular profile that most matches the plurality of pieces of characteristic information in the input image among the plurality of profiles. ([0054] discloses the ICC profile that most closely matches.)
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 of this title, 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gracia Verdugo et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0385769) in view of Blaes et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0293756)
As to claim 7, Gracia Verdugo discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein the circuitry is configured to determine whether the profile being set matches the characteristic of the input image further based on a result of comparison between a date and time when the input image is generated and a date and time when the past image was generated.
However, Blaes discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to determine whether the profile being set matches the characteristic of the input image further based on a result of comparison between a date and time when the input image is generated and a date and time when the past image was generated. ([0066] discloses store a log such as a time elapsed from the most recent calibration.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Gracia Verdugo’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to weight/qualify historical image characteristics based on recency (i.e. avoid using stale past measurements when determining whether a current image/profile match is valid).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gracia Verdugo et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0385769) in view of Rickard, JR. et al. (U.S. Publication 2018/0052853)
As to claim 8, Gracia Verdugo discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein the circuitry is configured to: receive a designation indicating whether the profile being set is correct after notifying the information regarding the determination result; and in a case where the received designation indicates that the profile being set is correct, reduce a weight for subsequent determination of a particular setting item for which the circuitry determines that the characteristic information in the input image does not match information regarding the setting value included in the profile being set among the plurality of setting items.
However, Rickard discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to: receive a designation indicating whether the profile being set is correct after notifying the information regarding the determination result; and in a case where the received designation indicates that the profile being set is correct, reduce a weight for subsequent determination of a particular setting item for which the circuitry determines that the characteristic information in the input image does not match information regarding the setting value included in the profile being set among the plurality of setting items. ([0050] discloses receiving request for additional information describing a search result. 370, Fig. 3 discloses mark search results as accessed results. [0053-0056] discloses adjusting the feature weights and using the second set of feature weights for ranking subsequent requests.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Gracia Verdugo’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to adapt future mismatch determinations based on operator confirmations (reducing the influence/weight of factors that the user indicates should not trigger a mismatch).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen P Coleman whose telephone number is (571)270-5931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at (571) 272-9523. 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.
Stephen P. Coleman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/STEPHEN P COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675