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 .
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the rendered image" in claim 1, last line (page 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear that the term "the rendered image" refers to “rendering digital proof” or an image based on the live images. If it refers to “rendering digital proof”, it is hard to understand to save the digital proof as “a reference image” because the digital proof is not modified (only “comparing” and “selecting” steps are performed) after it was generated from a reference image (see claim 1, line 5-6, page 2). For examination purpose , "the rendered image" has been interpreted as an image based on the live images.
Regarding claim 1, the term "the reference image" (page 3, lines 4-5) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the reference image refers to “a reference image” in claim 1, line 5 (page 2), or “a reference image” in claim 1, last line (page 2). See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purpose, the term "the reference image" (Page 3, lines 4-5) has been interpreted to refer “a reference image” in claim 1, last line (page 2). , i.e., “rendered image” which is as an image based on the live images.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank (EP 3656561 A1) in view of Oliver et al (EP 2700505 B1), hereinafter Oliver.
-Regarding claim 1, Frank discloses a method for inspecting a print image in a digital printing process (FIGS. 1-9), in which image data from images to be printed are available in a pre-printing stage in the form of a digital proof (FIG. 9; [0003], “The digital print images generated in this way by means of the camera are then compared in an image processing computer with corresponding good images of the print subject”), the method comprising the steps of (FIGS. 1-9): generating a reference image which represents a desired printing result as the digital proof (FIG. 9; [0023], “digital precursor image as reference image 22 is created from the rendered print template PDF of the precursor”); recording digital live images of printed images (FIG. 9; [0023], “The printed image 21, on the other hand, is logically the camera image 21 of the printed sheet recorded in the printing press 4 with cameras 5”); and comparing the live images with the reference image (FIG. 9; [0015]; [0028], “comparison”); before the start of the print process: searching the digital proof for distinct points in the image to be printed (FIGS. 2-4, 9; [0005], “a defined number of corner points is sought in a target image. These points are then also searched … the search of the so-called key points, i.e. corner points”; [0024], “tiles l1, l3 … overlap region ”); selecting a number of such points as reference points and determining coordinates of the reference points in a proof coordinate system (FIGS. 2-4, 9; [0024], “an optimum position relative to the reference cutout image 8 … pixels 14, 16 … in the x/y direction 15”; [0025], “selects the tile position … to the relevant target position”); and rendering the digital proof ([0023]); after printing has started, for each live image (FIG. 9; [0015], “after each displacement, a renewed comparison with the partial reference image is carried out …”), : finding the reference points in the live image (FIG. 9; tiles l2, l3, cutouts 8, 10, image 21); calculating a coordinate transformation which converts the reference points of the live image and the reference image into one another ([0024]: “shifting 15 of the titles l2, l3 pixel by pixel …”; [0025-[0026]); and comparing the live image with the reference image after applying the coordinate transformation ([0028], “the actual image inspection can now be carried out …”; [0029]-[0034]).
Frank does not disclose saving the rendered image as a reference image.
In the same field of endeavor, Oliver teaches a method for checking the printing result. Oliver further teaches saving the rendered image as a reference image (Oliver: Abstract; FIG. 2, reference image 330, step 340; Page 1, 1st paragraph; Page 6, 4th-6th paragraphs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Frank with the teaching of Oliver by using the rendered image as a reference image in order to determine the fluctuation range of the image information for each individual pixel so that tolerance limits for error detection can be defined (Oliver: Page 2, 2nd paragraph), and minimize the production of waste.
-Regarding claim 2, the combination further teaches wherein the coordinate transformation is a piece-wise linear transformation (Frank: ([0024]: “shifting 15 of the titles l2, l3 pixel by pixel …”; [0025-[0026]).
-Regarding claim 3, the combination further teaches wherein the coordinate transformation is applied to the live image and the result of the transformation is compared to the reference image (Frank: FIGS. 2-4, 9).
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank (EP 3656561 A1) in view of Oliver et al (EP 2700505 B1), hereinafter Oliver, and further in view of Oliver et al (US 20210166097 A1), hereinafter Oliver1.
-Regarding claim 4, Frank in view of Oliver teaches a digital proof for inspecting printing substrate web 10 (Oliver: Page 2, 3rd paragraph; FIG. 2) and the web is printed in the rotary printing press with an image that repeats at certain intervals (Oliver: FIG. 1; Page 4, 3rd paragraph).
Frank in view of Oliver does not teach wherein the proof includes a plurality of motives that are to be printed in several parallel tracks.
However, Oliver1 is an analogous art pertinent to the problem to be solved in this application and teaches a method for checking a surface of an object, imprinted and/or structured in raster form, includes using a digital image, which reproduces a replica of the surface (Oliver1: Abstract; FIGS. 1-25B). Oliver1 further teaches wherein the proof includes a plurality of motives that are to be printed in several parallel tracks (Oliver1: FIGS. 1, 3-6, 20B; [0007]; [0040], “in the form of any other desired (printed) motif …”; [0049], “wherever a pseudo-random variation of the size and/or of the optical density of its raster elements 15 of the printed raster 5 is supposed to be implemented in any desired visual, printed motif or surface motif”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Frank in view of Oliver with the teaching of Oliver1 by using the proof which includes a plurality of motives that are to be printed in several parallel tracks in order to provide a real world application such as checking authenticity or genuineness or actual origin (Oliver1: [0007]).
-Regarding claim 5, Frank in view of Oliver, and further in view of Oliver1 teaches the method of claim 4. The modification further teaches wherein the poof includes image information for an image area that extends over the entire width of the media web (Oliver: FIG. 1; Page 3, 5th paragraph, “extends across the web 10 across its entire width …”).
-Regarding claim 6, Frank in view of Oliver, and further in view of Oliver1 teaches the method of claim 4. The modification further teaches wherein the motives differ in their repeat and are arranged in the image area such that the proof contains at least one complete copy of each motif (Oliver1: FIGS. 1, 3-6, 20B; [0007]; [0040]; [0049]).
-Regarding claim 7, Frank in view of Oliver, and further in view of Oliver1 teaches the method of claim 6. The modification further teaches wherein the image content of the proof represents a section of the media web carrying a printed image that is repeated periodically (Oliver: FIGS. 1-2; Page 4, 2nd paragraph, “a rectangular section of the image printed on the web 10”; Page 5, 1st paragraph, “a section of the digital proof can also be compared with an image section on the web 10”; Page 2, 2nd paragraph, “repeating …”; Page 4, 3rd paragraph; Page 5, 5th paragraph, “repeat at step S201 … synchronization can take place automatically … with the digital proof 110”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAO LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-4539. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 8:30-4:30.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.
/XIAO LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664