DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
1. 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 § 103
2. 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.
3. Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (US Pub: 2009/0294540) and in further view of Horita et al (US Pub: 20170251128).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson et al teaches: A color adjustment system comprising circuitry configured to: register in a memory job data for instructing printing of an image based on a document file [fig. 2: 205]; register color sample data in the memory in association with the job data [p0024, p0025]; cause a printing apparatus to print, using an input profile corresponding to the job data [p0018], the image based on the document file indicated by the job data to output a first printed matter including an identification code for identifying the job data [p0020]; acquire first read image data obtained by a reading apparatus reading the first printed matter; analyze the identification code included in the first read image data to specify a particular job data the first printed matter corresponds to [p0028-p0030].
Johnson et al does not specify color correction/matching or input profile generation. In the same field of endeavor, Horita et al teaches: and newly generate another input profile corresponding to the particular job data based on the color sample data, the input profile, and the document file corresponding to the particular job data indicated by the identification code [p0057, p0058, p0330].
Therefore, given Johnson’s teaching on print job/proof workflow and barcode for job identification and retrieval; and Horita et al’s teaching on color matching adjustment and creation of color conversation table/profile, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Horita et al’s color adjustment to Johnson et al’s barcode job identification so as to allow system to retrieve corresponding document and generate a corrected color table/profile for improved color matching.
Regarding claim 3, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Horita et al further teaches: The color adjustment system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to create the color sample data based on the document file indicated by the job data and a color conversion rule [p0192-p0198].
Regarding claim 6, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Horita et al further teaches: The color adjustment system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to determine a color difference between the first read image data and the color sample data [p0183, p0184].
Regarding claim 7, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 6 has been incorporated herein. Horita et al and Johnson et al further teaches: The color adjustment system according to claim 6, wherein, in a case that the color difference is determined to be abnormal, the circuitry is configured to newly generate the other input profile corresponding to the particular job data, based on the color sample data, the input profile, and the document file corresponding to the particular job data indicated by the identification code [Horita: p0215, p0224-p0226, p0343-p0343; Johnson: p0027].
Regarding claim 8, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 6 has been incorporated herein. Horita et al and Johnson et al further teach: The color adjustment system according to claim 6, wherein, in a case that the color difference is determined to be normal, the circuitry is configured to cause the printing apparatus to print out, using the input profile used for printing out the first printed matter, a third printed matter as a commercial product based on the document file indicated by the job data [Horita: p0214, p0337-p0339; Johnson: p0018, p0037].
Regarding claim 9, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 6 has been incorporated herein. Johnson et al further teaches: The color adjustment system according to claim 6, wherein the circuitry is further configured to create a print report including a determination result [p0019].
Claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1.
Claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 18 and in accordance with Horita et al’ further teaching on: A non-transitory recording medium storing a plurality of program codes which, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform the method according to claim 18 [p0621].
4. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (US Pub: 2009/0294540) and Horita et al (US Pub: 20170251128); and in further view of Curry (US Pub: 2008/0144102).
Regarding claim 2, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Johnson et al in view of Horita et al further teaches: The color adjustment system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: cause the printing apparatus to print out a second printed matter [p0164 (Printed matter 50 as the first printed matter and target printed matter 42 as the second printed matter)];
Johnson et al in view of Horita et al does not read the second printed matter. In the same field of endeavor, Curry teaches: wherein the circuitry is further configured to: cause the printing apparatus to print out a second printed matter including the identification code [p0007]; acquire second read image data obtained by the reading apparatus reading the second printed matter and print sample read image data obtained by the reading apparatus reading a print sample together with the second printed matter [p0009-p0012].
Johnson et al in view of Horita et al and Curry further teaches: create the color sample data based on the print sample read image data [Horita: fig. 6: S120-S148]; analyze the identification code included in the second read image data to specify the particular job data the second printed matter corresponds to [Johnson: p0027, p0030; Curry: p0026]; and register the color sample data in the memory in association with the particular job data indicated by the identification code [Horita: p0220-p0222, p0224, Johnson: p0027; Curry: p0024, claim 1 ]. Therefore, given Curry’s teaching on printing marks on a cover sheet associated with a physical document which is scanned together with the cover sheet, and relating the marks with the document and data, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Johnson et al’s barcode as Curry’s cover sheet marking in Horita’s target sample reading process to identify a corresponding job and register color data with the job.
5. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (US Pub: 2009/0294540), Horita et al (US Pub: 20170251128), and Curry (US Pub: 2008/0144102); and in further view of Sugizaki (US Pub: 2008/0192274).
Regarding claim 4, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein. Johnson et al in view of Horita et al and Curry does not select a creation method. In the same field of endeavor, Sugizaki teaches: The color adjustment system according to claim 2, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: receive selection of a creation method of the color sample data in association with the job data; and create the color sample data based on the creation method [p0026, p0042, p0043]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claim to combine the teaching of all to create color data based on a selected method for improved functionality and usability.
Regarding claim 5, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 4 has been incorporated herein. Sugizaki and Horita et al further teaches: The color adjustment system according to claim 4, wherein, in response to receiving the selection of a creation method that includes reading the print sample as the creation method, the circuitry is configured to receive designation of a reference page of the print sample to be read [Sugizaki: p0026; Horita: p0263-p0266, p0271, p0396].
6. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (US Pub: 2009/0294540), Horita et al (US Pub: 20170251128), and Curry (US Pub: 2008/0144102); and in further view of Kinoshita et al (US Patent: 5,426,289).
Regarding claim 10, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Johnson et al in view of Horita et al and Curry does not teach a color code of patches of colors. In the same field of endeavor, Kinoshita et al teaches: The color adjustment system according to claim 1, wherein the identification code is a color code formed of a combination of patches of a plurality of colors [abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to use color code as machine readable identification code per design choice.
7. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (US Pub: 2009/0294540) and Horita et al (US Pub: 20170251128); and in further view of Tomita (US Pub: 2008/0078836).
Regarding claim 11, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Johnson et al in view of Horita et al does not analyze printed matter based on control code. In the same field of endeavor, Tomita teaches: The color adjustment system according to claim 1, wherein: the first printed matter includes, in addition to the identification code, a control code indicating that the first printed matter is a printed matter printed out based on the document file; and the circuitry is configured to analyze, based on the control code, whether the first printed matter is the printed matter printed out based on the document file [p0054, p0055]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to authenticate print matter based on a control code for verification.
8. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (US Pub: 2009/0294540), Horita et al (US Pub: 20170251128), and Curry (US Pub: 2008/0144102); and in further view of Tomita (US Pub: 2008/0078836).
Regarding claim 12, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein. Johnson et al in view of Horita et al and Curry does not analyze printed matter based on control code. In the same field of endeavor, Tomita teaches: The color adjustment system according to claim 2, wherein: the second printed matter includes, in addition to the identification code, a control code indicating that an object read together with the second printed matter by the reading apparatus is the print sample; and the circuitry is configured to analyze, based on the control code, whether the object is the print sample [p0053-p0055]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to authenticate print matter based on a control code for verification.
9. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (US Pub: 2009/0294540) and Horita et al (US Pub: 20170251128); and in further view of Maeda et al (US Pub: 2012/0092709).
Regarding claim 13, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Horita et al further teaches: The color adjustment system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to display, on a display, for the particular job data, registration of the color sample data [p0072-p0074].
Horita teaches color configuration/registration without explicitly displaying job data. In the same field of endeavor, Maeda et al teaches: a status of printing of the first printed matter, a status of reading of the first printed matter, and a progress status indicating the status of the reading of the first printed matter [abstract, fig. 4]. Therefore, given Maeda et al’s teaching on displaying various job configuration data and status, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to show status of printing progress for notification purpose.
10. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (US Pub: 2009/0294540), Horita et al (US Pub: 20170251128), and Curry (US Pub: 2008/0144102); and in further view of Nishida (US Pub: 2010/0051681).
Regarding claim 14, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein. Johnson et al further teaches: and cause, for each of the plurality of pieces of job data, at least one of the first printed matter, the second printed matter, or a third printed matter as a commercial product to be printed out [p0018].
Johnson et al is lack of description on job list. In the same field of endeavor, Nishida teaches: The color adjustment system according to claim 2, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: receive selection of a plurality of pieces of job data from a list of pieces of job data including the particular job data displayed on a job list screen [p0008, p0014]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to display job list for selection for user convenience.
11. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (US Pub: 2009/0294540), Horita et al (US Pub: 20170251128), and Curry (US Pub: 2008/0144102); and in further view of Maeda et al (US Pub: 2012/0092709) and Nishida (US Pub: 2010/0051681).
Regarding claim 15, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein. Claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 16 in accordance with Curry’s teaching on printing cover sheets as the second printed matter [abstract].
12. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (US Pub: 2009/0294540) and Horita et al (US Pub: 20170251128); and in further view of Maeda et al (US Pub: 2012/0092709) and Nishida (US Pub: 2010/0051681).
Regarding claim 16, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Johnson et al in view of Horita et al does not specify job selection. In the same field of endeavor, Maeda et al teaches: The color adjustment system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: receive, from a list of pieces of job data including the particular job data displayed on a job list screen [p0058, figs. 4 and 5A]; and Nishida teaches: collective selection of a plurality of pieces of job data for which the first printed matter waits to be printed out; and cause, for each of the plurality of pieces of job data, the first printed matter to be printed out [fig. 7]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to display list of jobs and status in order to select jobs for printing.
Regarding claim 17, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 8 has been incorporated herein. Claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 16 in accordance with Horita et al’s determination on color difference [p0058].
13. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (US Pub: 2009/0294540) and in further view of Ragnet et al (US Pub: 2011/0192894).
Regarding claim 19, Johnson et al and Ragnet et al teach: A printed matter comprising: an identification code for identifying job data for instructing printing of an image based on a document file [p0020, p0027]; and a control code for identifying a type of a printed matter subjected to reading by a reading apparatus [abstract, claim 4]. Therefore, the combined teaching would have been obvious to a skilled in the art to apply any code to documents for various identification purposes.
Contact
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights