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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-11 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 contains the language: “responsive to detection that the determined brilliant image for the to-be-formed image includes a portion thereof having an image density of 100%:… set an image density of the brilliant image to a first image density if the saturation of the non-brilliant image is a first saturation, and to a second image density lower than the first image density if the saturation of the non-brilliant image is a second saturation higher than the first saturation”. It is unclear how densities different than the 100% density can be set if the brilliant image is 100% density in that portion. If the applicant is intending that the portion of the brilliant image to-be-formed that does not have an image density of 100% is the portion adjusted, this is not clearly spelled out in the claim. If the applicant is intending that that combined image density between the brilliant image and non-brilliant image when superposed is 100%, this is also not stated clearly in the claim language. As such, the Office cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims and the claims are deemed to be indefinite.
Claim 6 is 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 4, upon which claim 6 depends, recites: “arranges small regions… like a grid and increases at least one of the main scanning dot number and the auxiliary scanning dot number with the increase in …”
Claim 6 then recites “changes the arrangement pattern of the plurality of dots … in a diagonal direction different from either of the main scanning direction and the auxiliary scanning direction in each of the small regions”.
It is also unclear how the control of arranging pixels in a diagonal direction different from the directions interacts with the arrangement in the directions stated in claim 4 and whether the dependency is appropriate. It is unclear if claim 6 is intending to redefine the arrangement as in the diagonal direction, which would be incompatible with the subject matter of claim 4, upon which claim 6 depends; or if the claims are unclearly intending to set forth that the arrangement pattern changes in the diagonal direction as well as in the main scanning and auxiliary scanning directions.
Claims 7 and 8 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.
Claims 7 and 8 both depend from claim 1, which discloses “determine a saturation of the non-brilliant image, set an image density of the brilliant image whose image density is to a first image density if the saturation of the non-brilliant image is a first saturation, and to a second image density lower than the first image density if the saturation of the non-brilliant image is a second saturation higher than the first saturation”.
Claim 7 states: “in a diagonal direction different from either of a main scanning direction and an auxiliary scanning direction orthogonal to the main scanning direction in the brilliant image forming section in a part where the non-brilliant image has the second saturation”.
Claim 8 states: “changes the arrangement pattern of the plurality of dots … in a main scanning direction or an auxiliary scanning direction orthogonal to the main scanning direction in the brilliant image forming section in a part where the non-brilliant image has the first saturation”.
The way claim 1 is worded appears to set forth the non-brilliant image having a singular saturation, with the density of the brilliant mage controlled based on the determined saturation. The wording of claims 7 and 8 appear to indicate that there are distinct regions or parts that have different saturation levels than other regions or parts. This is not set forth in claim 1 and does not appear to be specified in claims 7 and 8. As such, the claims are rendered indefinite an the Office is unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims.
Claim 12 is 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 12 contains the language: “responsive to detection that the determined brilliant image for the to-be-formed image includes a portion thereof having an image density of 100%:… setting an image density of the brilliant image to a first image density if the saturation of the non-brilliant image is a first saturation, and to a second image density lower than the first image density if the saturation of the non-brilliant image is a second saturation higher than the first saturation”. It is unclear how densities different than the 100% density can be set if the brilliant image is 100% density in that portion. If the applicant is intending that the portion of the brilliant image to-be-formed that does not have an image density of 100% is the portion adjusted, this is not clearly spelled out in the claim. If the applicant is intending that that combined image density between the brilliant image and non-brilliant image when superposed is 100%, this is also not stated clearly in the claim language. As such, the Office cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims and the claims are deemed to be indefinite.
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 –
(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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2012/0229819) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2012/0229819) in view of Bhattacharya et al. (US Pub.2003/0027062).
Regarding claim 1, Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2012/0229819) teach an image forming device (fig.4) for forming an image by superimposing a brilliant image on a non-brilliant image (para.0055), the device comprising: a brilliant image forming section configured to form the brilliant image using a brilliant developing agent on a medium (fig.4, #18CT); a non-brilliant image forming section configured to form the non-brilliant image using a non-brilliant developing agent on the medium (fig.4, any of #18K-Y); and a control section (fig.7, #106) configured to determine, before forming the image, the brilliant image and the non-brilliant image for forming the image (para.0035,0038,0080&0088-0095), responsive to detection that the determined brilliant image for the to-be-formed image includes a portion thereof having an image density of 100% (para.0055&0098): determine a saturation of the non-brilliant image, set an image density of the brilliant image whose image density is to a first image density if the saturation of the non-brilliant image is a first saturation (fig.9D, first line or second line), and to a second image density lower than the first image density if the saturation of the non-brilliant image is a second saturation higher than the first saturation (fig.9D, third line and onward), and control the non-brilliant image forming section to form the non- brilliant image, and control the brilliant image forming section to form the brilliant image using the set image density, to be superimposed on the formed non-brilliant image (para.0055), wherein the brilliant developing agent includes a plurality of dots in an arrangement pattern, and the image density of the brilliant image is changed by changing the arrangement pattern of the plurality of dots (para.0102).
Regarding claim 7, Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2012/0229819) teach an image forming device wherein the control section changes the arrangement pattern of the plurality of dots to use the brilliant developing agent in a diagonal direction different from either of a main scanning direction and an auxiliary scanning direction orthogonal to the main scanning direction in the brilliant image forming section in a part where the non-brilliant image has the second saturation (para.0031,0080,0102: rasterized bitmap pixel construct is definitively arranged in the scanning and sub-scanning direction; dither matrices do involve a diagonal arrangement as well).
Regarding claim 8, Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2012/0229819) teach an image forming device wherein the control section changes the arrangement pattern of the plurality of dots to use the brilliant developing agent in a main scanning direction or an auxiliary scanning direction orthogonal to the main scanning direction in the brilliant image forming section in a part where the non-brilliant image thereon has the first saturation (para.0031,0080,0102: rasterized bitmap pixel construct is definitively arranged in the scanning and sub-scanning direction).
While the Office contends that the final limitations of claim 1 is encompassed by the dither processing and thus rejected as anticipated by Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2012/0229819), the reference of Bhattacharya et al. (US Pub.2003/0027062) is also presented.
Regarding claim 1, Bhattacharya et al. (US Pub.2003/0027062) discloses that varying the arrangement of dots for each reduced density toner is known in the art for allowing subtle gradations of color and has the benefit of reducing the graininess of an image (para.0032).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the processing of Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2012/0229819) by changing the arrangement of dots to address the changes in density as in Bhattacharya et al. (US Pub.2003/0027062) because it is a known method in the art that improves color gradation and decreases graininess (para.0032).
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of the method are met by the apparatus of Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2014/0043623) and/or Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2012/0229819) in view of Bhattacharya et al. (US Pub.2003/0027062) as applied to claim 1 and therefore stand rejected on the same grounds.
Claims 1, 8-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2014/0043623) in view of Bhattacharya et al. (US Pub.2003/0027062).
Regarding claim 1, Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2014/0043623) teach an image forming device (fig.1) for forming an image by superimposing a brilliant image on a non-brilliant image (para.0020), the device comprising: a brilliant image forming section configured to form the brilliant image using a brilliant developing agent on a medium (fig.1, #Mt); a non-brilliant image forming section configured to form the non-brilliant image using a non-brilliant developing agent on the medium (fig.1, any of #2K-Y); and a control section (fig.2) configured to determine, before forming the image, the brilliant image and the non-brilliant image for forming the image (para.0025-0035), responsive to detection that the determined brilliant image for the to-be-formed image includes a portion thereof having an image density of 100% (para.0026-0036): determine a saturation of the non-brilliant image, set an image density of the brilliant image whose image density is to a first image density if the saturation of the non-brilliant image is a first saturation (fig.3, from 60-160% TAC[C]; para.0033), and to a second image density lower than the first image density if the saturation of the non-brilliant image is a second saturation higher than the first saturation (fig.3, from 160-260% TAC[C]; para.0033), and control the non-brilliant image forming section to form the non- brilliant image, and control the brilliant image forming section to form the brilliant image using the set image density, to be superimposed on the formed non-brilliant image (para.0020).
Regarding claim 8, Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2014/0043623) teach an image forming device wherein the control section changes the arrangement pattern of the plurality of dots to use the brilliant developing agent in a main scanning direction or an auxiliary scanning direction orthogonal to the main scanning direction in the brilliant image forming section in a part where the non-brilliant image thereon has the first saturation (para.0025,0031,0033,0067: bitmap pixel and a pixel based region control construct is definitively arranged in the scanning and sub-scanning direction).
Regarding claim 9, Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2014/0043623) teach an image forming device further comprising a fixing device that fixes the brilliant image and the non-brilliant image formed on the medium to the medium (fig.1, #9).
However, Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2014/0043623) fail to teach the anything about arrangement of dots in a pattern and the use for changing a density.
Regarding claim 1, Bhattacharya et al. (US Pub.2003/0027062) discloses that varying the arrangement of dots for each reduced density toner is known in the art for allowing subtle gradations of color and has the benefit of reducing the graininess of an image (para.0032).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the processing of Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2014/0043623) by changing the arrangement of dots to address the changes in density as in Bhattacharya et al. (US Pub.2003/0027062) because it is a known method in the art that improves color gradation and decreases graininess (para.0032).
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of the method are met by the apparatus of Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2014/0043623) in view of Bhattacharya et al. (US Pub.2003/0027062) as applied to claim 1 and therefore stand rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2014/0043623) in view of Bhattacharya et al. (US Pub.2003/0027062) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2012/0229819).
Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2014/0043623) in view of Bhattacharya et al. (US Pub.2003/0027062) teach all of the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 7 depends.
However, Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2014/0043623) in view of Bhattacharya et al. (US Pub.2003/0027062) fail to teach arranging dots to use the brilliant developing agent in a diagonal direction different from either of a main scanning direction and an auxiliary scanning direction.
Regarding claim 7, Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2012/0229819) teach an image forming device performing a similar brilliant toner layering control (para.0091-0098) wherein the control section arranges dots to use the brilliant developing agent in a diagonal direction different from either of a main scanning direction and an auxiliary scanning direction orthogonal to the main scanning direction in the brilliant image forming section in a part where the non-brilliant image to be superimposed thereon has the second saturation in the brilliant image (para.0031,0080,0102: rasterized bitmap pixel construct is definitively arranged in the scanning and sub-scanning direction; dither matrices do involve a diagonal arrangement as well).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2014/0043623) in view of Bhattacharya et al. (US Pub.2003/0027062) by also using dither matrices to binarize the image data as in Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2012/0229819) because it is a known rasterization process in the art and would be obvious to implement and try without undue experimentation because it allows a toner layer to be formed in an intensity-modulated manner (para.0102).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 10-11 and 14-18 are not currently subject to a prior art rejection, but allowable subject matter cannot be determined due to the impact that possible amendments relating to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 may have on the claim meaning and scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant is thanked for the clear description of the intended function of the claimed invention. As noted above, in the section for rejections under 35 U.S.C.112, the claim language is not clear as to the intended relations/functions and as such, the claimed invention, as written, does not appear to clearly function in the manner described.
Regarding the art rejections, the applicant argues that neither Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2014/0043623) nor Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2012/0229819) teach the use of a plurality of dots in an arrangement pattern and adjusting the density by changing the pattern. As noted above in the new rejections, at least Koyatsu et al. (US Pub.2012/0229819) could be construed to disclose this with the use of dithering, but at least would also be obvious over the newly presented art of Bhattacharya et al. (US Pub.2003/0027062) (see rejection above). As a result, the Office respectfully disagrees in part on this point.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA K ROTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2154. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30AM-3:30 PM.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/LKR/
1/29/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852