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
Art Unit – Location
The Art Unit location of your application in the USPTO may have changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Art Unit 2682.
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:
First obtaining unit in claims 1 and 5
Second obtaining unit in claims 1-4
Print unit in claims 1 and 5-9
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:
Scanner device 107 [0029] using a CPU [0035] to obtain a first color value.
Scanner device 107 [0029] using a CPU [0035] to obtain a second color value.
Print device 102 printing CMYK ink [0029].
In the Applicants as-filed Specification performing the processes shown in Figures 3-5, and 7.
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
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, 2, 3, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoshino (US 2005/0219593 A1).
1. An image forming apparatus ("COLOR IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS" [TITLE]) comprising: a first obtaining unit ("measurement device" [0042]) configured to obtain first color values of a base color of a print medium by reading the print medium (“The spectral density of the ground color of the printing paper (referred to as color W1 hereinafter) is measured. The spectral density of color W1 is SDW1 (.lambda.). (S14)” [0059].; a second obtaining unit configured to obtain second color values different from the first color values based on the first color values ("the spectral density of the color of ink 1 (referred to as color 1 hereinafter) is measured. " [0059]) ; and a print unit configured to print a mark of the second color values on the print medium ("the (first coloring material) (referred to as ink 1 hereinafter) is printed on printing paper (recording medium)" [0059]) .
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention is anticipated by a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
2. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second obtaining unit obtains the second color values based on at least one of the color value of one color of the first color values ("MEASURING SPECTRAL DESITY SD1 (ƛ) OF COLOR 1, COLOR 1 BEING OBTAINED BY PRINTING WITH INK 1 ON PRINTING PAPER S11" [FIG. 6]) a difference between the color values of two colors of the first color values ("OBTAINING TRAPPING RATIO COEFFICIENT OF INK 1, TRANSPARENCY COEFFICIENT OF INK 2, AND CORRECTION COEFFICIENT S14” [FIG. 6]) , and a total value of the color values of respective colors of the first color values.
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention is anticipated by a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
3. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second obtaining unit decides the color value of each color of the second color values in accordance with a ratio of the color values of the respective colors of the first color values ("ink 1 is formed by overprinting plural inks, the trapping ratio coefficient b is the set trapping ratio for the uppermost ink layer, and thus the spectral density of the ink 2 by itself when overprinted corresponds to the uppermost ink layer." [0063]) .
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention is anticipated by a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
10. The method of claim 10 has been analyzed in view of the method of Hoshino “COLOR ESTIMATING METHOD, COLOR ADJUSTING METHOD, AND COLOR IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS” [TITLE] and further in view of claim 1. Claim 10 is rejected in a similar manner to claim 1.
11. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program of claim 11 has been analyzed in view of the “system memory (not shown) for storing a program for performing overall control, a program for changing Y, M, and C output intensities and various data that is needed when the programs are executed” [0052] and further in view of claim 1. Claim 11 is rejected in a similar manner to claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (US 2005/0219593 A1) “Hoshino” in view of Yamamoto (EP 3 484 138 A1) “Yamamoto”.
4. Hoshino teaches: The apparatus according to claim 1.
Hoshino does not explicitly teach:
wherein in a case where the total value of the color values of the respective colors of the first color values is smaller than a threshold and a print job uses white ink, the second obtaining unit decides color values of white as the second color values.
However Yamamoto teaches:
wherein in a case where the total value of the color values of the respective colors of the first color values is smaller than a threshold ("When the colors of a color chart 200 printed on a dark colored sheet S are measured, L* is low overall" [0166]) and a print job uses white ink, the second obtaining unit decides color values of white as the second color values ("WHEN SHEET S IS DARK COLOR “WHITE” [FIG. 7]) .
The CMYK colors of Hoshino [0036-0037] can be modified by Yamamoto to print a white color patch on a dark colored sheet to increase visibility.
The motivation for the combination is provided by Yamamoto “If the color of the sheet S is not white… the color values measured by the colorimeter 500 will change” [0163]. White ink or toner can be printed on a sheet to improve contrast on non-white paper.
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (US 2005/0219593 A1) “Hoshino” in view of Sakatani (US 2019/0089870 A1) “Sakatani”.
6. Hoshino teaches: The apparatus according to claim 1.
Hoshino does not explicitly teach: wherein the print unit prints the mark at a position corresponding to a color of the mark.
However, Sakatani teaches: wherein the print unit prints the mark at a position corresponding to a color of the mark ("control strip 32 including an array of patches with different optical densities" [0065] shown in FIG. 7.) .
The mark on the print medium of Hoshino can be modified by Sakatani to print a mark at a position corresponding to a color of the mark according to the density.
The motivation for the combination is provided by Sakatani for “obtaining paper information, and paper-information obtaining methods, which can obtain paper information easily, while saving operator's time and effort.” [0007].
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
7. Hoshino teaches: The apparatus according to claim 1.
Hoshino does not explicitly teach: wherein the print unit prints the mark at a preset fixed position regardless of a color of the mark.
However, Sakatani teaches: wherein the print unit prints the mark at a preset fixed position regardless of a color of the mark ("control strip 32 including an array of patches with different optical densities" [0065] shown in FIG. 7.) .
The mark on the print medium of Hoshino can be modified by Sakatani to print a mark at the fixed position in the control strip as a preset position as shown in FIG. 7 of Sakatani.
The motivation for the combination is provided by Sakatani for “obtaining paper information, and paper-information obtaining methods, which can obtain paper information easily, while saving operator's time and effort.” [0007].
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
8. Hoshino teaches: The apparatus according to claim 1
Hoshino does not explicitly teach: wherein the print unit prints the mark in a margin region on the print medium.
However Sakatani teaches: wherein the print unit prints the mark in a margin region on the print medium ("control strip 32 including an array of patches with different optical densities" [0065] shown in FIG. 7.) .
The mark on the print medium of Hoshino can be modified by Sakatani to print a mark in the margin as shown in FIG. 7 of Sakatani.
The motivation for the combination is provided by Sakatani for “obtaining paper information, and paper-information obtaining methods, which can obtain paper information easily, while saving operator's time and effort.” [0007].
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (US 2005/0219593 A1) “Hoshino” in view of Andrea Tallada et al. (US 2016/0303878 A1) “Andrea Tallada”.
9. Hoshino teaches: The apparatus according to claim 1
Hoshino does not explicitly teach: wherein the print unit prints a white mark in a print region on the print medium
However, Andrea Tallada teaches: wherein the print unit prints a white mark in a print region on the print medium ("the printer typically prints an opaque white ink layer onto the media" [0001]) .
The mark of Hoshino can be modified by Andrea Tallada to print white ink on the media.
The motivation for the combination is provided by Andrea Tallada to maintain the correct image colors [0001].
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (US 2005/0219593 A1) “Hoshino” in view of Fan (US 2007/0263261 A1) “Fan” and further in view of Maheshwari (US 2010/0177327 A1).
5. Hoshino teaches: The apparatus according to claim 1
Hoshino does not explicitly teach: wherein in a case where a difference between a maximum color value and a minimum color value of the first color values obtained by the first obtaining unit a plurality of times is smaller than a threshold, the print unit prints the mark of the second color values on the print medium
However, Fan teaches: wherein in a case where a difference between a maximum color value and a minimum color value of the first color values obtained by the first obtaining unit a plurality of times is smaller than a threshold, the print unit prints the mark of the second color values on the print medium ("When the color variances is less than the predetermined color variance threshold … a uniform color is assigned to the non-uniform color page." [0012])
The mark printed on the print medium of Hoshino can be modified by Fan to print a mark on the print medium when color variance of a medium is less than a threshold.
The motivation for the combination is provided by Fan “to process scanned data representative of a document image wherein portions of the image are better detected” [0001].
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
Hoshino does not explicitly teach:
and in a case where the difference is not smaller than the threshold, the print unit prints, on the print medium, the mark obtained by superimposing a black object on a white object.
However, Maheshwari teaches: and in a case where the difference is not smaller than the threshold, the print unit prints, on the print medium, the mark obtained by superimposing a black object on a white object ("to generate a white underbase for printing of a given image on a colored background." [0001]. Where “printing is done on white substrate using process colors viz. CMYK” [0002].
The print medium of Hoshino can be modified by to print a white base layer object in which to overprint a black object.
When the variability of the media is large and not smaller than a threshold, a uniform background such as a white underbase is preferable in order to print a black object on the white background object.
The motivation for the combination is to improve the color rendering or visibility of a printed image on a print medium that has high image variability. When the variability of the media is large, overprinting the media with a uniform background such as a white under base is preferable to print a black object on the white background under base object to improve readability.
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
Please refer to MPEP 2111.04 II CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, either Fan or Maheshwari can be used to reject claim 5; although, the Examiner provided both.
Relevant Prior Art
US 2019/0208087 A1
Abstract
An image processing apparatus includes an obtaining unit that obtains attribute information that specifies a process performed by an image forming apparatus in accordance with a print job including print data, an identification unit that identifies a color of a recording medium specified by the attribute information, a generation unit that generates a display image on a basis of the color of the recording medium identified by the identification unit and the print data included in the print job, and a determination unit that determines, as the color of the recording medium identified by the identification unit, a display color of a drawing area which corresponds to an area of the recording medium for printing the print data and in which the display image generated by the generation unit is to be disposed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TED W BARNES whose telephone number is (571)270-1785. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00-5:00.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/TED W. BARNES/ Ph.D. Electrical Engineering
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2682
/TED W BARNES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights