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
Claims 1-11 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings received on 7/21/2024 are accepted for examination purposes.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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: “image acquisition unit”, “display control unit”, “amount-of-color-material designation unit”, “input unit”, “storage unit”, “amount-of-representative-color-material”, “conversion unit”, and “combining unit” in claims 1-9.
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.
Image acquisition unit [Applicant’s Specification: Fig 1 (120, 120a), par 0025, 0028]
Display control unit [Fig 1, (120, 120b), par 0029]
Amount-of-color-material designation unit [Fig 1 (140), par 0032]
Input unit [Fig 1 (140), par 0026]
Storage unit [Fig 1 (130), par 0091]
Amount-of-representative-color-material [Fig 1 (120, 120c), par 0034]
Conversion unit [Fig 1 (120, 120d), par 0037]
Combining unit [Fig 1 (120, 120e), par 0040]
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 § 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 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) 1-4, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (US-2023/0254433) in view of Oh et al. (US-2006/0098220).
As to Claim 1, Matsuda teaches ‘An image processing device comprising: an image data acquisition unit configured to acquire image data [par 0033 – receiving print data]; and a display control unit configured to cause a display device to display a color setting unit for configuring a setting for a color of the image data [Figs 4A, 4B, par 0048 – print setting dialogue for setting a color mode and/or spot color setting of the print data]’.
Matsuda does not disclose expressly ‘wherein when the image data includes only first image data representing a first image with a plurality of colors including a color other than a special color, the display control unit causes a color conversion profile designation unit to be displayed in the color setting unit, the color conversion profile designation unit being for designating a color conversion profile, and when the image data includes the first image data and second image data representing a second image with the special color, the display control unit causes the color conversion profile designation unit and an amount-of-color-material designation unit to be displayed in the color setting unit, the amount-of-color-material designation unit being for designating an amount of a plurality of color materials used in a printing device when printing the special color’.
Matsuda teaches when the poster data creation application determines based on no spot color setting being set there are no spot colors to use an ink of a special color other than CMYK that can be designated, a spot color settable window is not displayed for setting, only a color mode setting for the print data that uses CMYK ink [par 0030, 0048-0049, 0064] and if a spot color is selected to be set, a color mode setting and a spot color setting screen for a user to select a color to be used as the spot color with an amount of material used based on displayed color items [Figs 4A, 4B, par 0048-0049, 0064].
While, Oh teaches displaying an ICC output profile selection window and a rendering intent setting window for setting rendering intents of a specified color to be applied to selected type of objects included in the preview image displayed [Fig 3, par 0051, 0054-0056, 0074].
Matsuda in view of Oh teaches ‘wherein when the image data includes only first image data representing a first image with a plurality of colors including a color other than a special color, the display control unit causes a color conversion profile designation unit to be displayed in the color setting unit, the color conversion profile designation unit being for designating a color conversion profile, and when the image data includes the first image data and second image data representing a second image with the special color, the display control unit causes the color conversion profile designation unit and an amount-of-color-material designation unit to be displayed in the color setting unit, the amount-of-color-material designation unit being for designating an amount of a plurality of color materials used in a printing device when printing the special color [Matsuda: par Figs 4A, 4B, par 0030, 0048-0049, 0064; Oh: Fig 3, par 0051, 0054-0056, 0074]’.
Matsuda and Oh are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include selecting an output profile, as taught by Oh with Matsuda’s spot color selection. The motivation for doing so would have been to generating a preview image as a soft-proof when performing color matching. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Oh with Matsuda to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Further, in regards to claim 10, the image processing device of claim 1 performs the image processing method of claim 10.
Further, in regards to claim 11, the image processing method of claim 10 is fully embodied on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11.
As to Claim 2, Matsuda in view of Oh teaches ‘wherein when the image data acquired by the image data acquisition unit includes the first image data and the second image data, the display control unit causes the display device to display a selection unit for selecting one of the first image data and the second image data, causes the color conversion profile designation unit to be displayed in the color setting unit in a state where the first image data is selected in the selection unit, and causes the amount-of-color-material designation unit to be displayed in the color setting unit in a state where the second image data is selected in the selection unit [Matsuda: Figs 4A, 4B, par 0048-0049, 0064-0065 – if a user selects an object they wish to print in the spot color, a spot color is selected to be set, a color mode setting and a spot color setting screen for a user to select a color to be used as the spot color with an amount of material used based on displayed color items; Oh: Fig 3, par 0074 – displaying an ICC output profile selection window (i.e., for the image) and a rendering intent setting window (i.e., for selected object in the image) for setting specified color rendering intents to be applied to selected type of objects included in the preview image displayed]’.
Matsuda and Oh are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include selecting an output profile, as taught by Oh with Matsuda’s spot color selection. The motivation for doing so would have been to generating a preview image as a soft-proof when performing color matching. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Oh with Matsuda to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
As to Claim 3, Matsuda teaches ‘wherein the amount-of-color-material designation unit includes an input unit for inputting a value corresponding to an amount of color material for each of a plurality of color materials [par 0030, 0038, 0041, 0068 – user designating specific RGB values on the application]’.
As to Claim 4, Matsuda teaches ‘further comprising: a storage unit configured to store an amount of a color material used for each of a plurality of color patches having different amounts of the color material, wherein the amount-of-color-material designation unit includes an input unit configured to designate the amount of the color material used for the color patch as the amount of the color material for printing the special color, in response to an input of an identification number of the color patch [Figs 4B, par 0049-0054, 0064-0065 – a table storing different RGB values corresponding to spot colors, where a user is able to select a display color item indicating the amount of RGB values for setting a spot color with an object selected]’.
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Oh et al. and further in view of Miyasaka (US-2020/0210117).
As to Claim 5, Matsuda teaches ‘wherein the first image data is data representing the plurality of colors with gradation values of a plurality of channels [par 0050 – CMYK inks]’.
Matsuda in view of Oh does not disclose expressly ‘the second image data is data representing the special color with a gradation values of one channel’.
Miyasaka in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the first image data is data representing the plurality of colors with gradation values of a plurality of channels, and the second image data is data representing the special color with a gradation values of one channel [par 0035, 0038 – color image data (i.e., first image data) subjects individual pixels using a given look-up table or function (i.e., color profile), gradation values of CMYK ink and spot-color image data subjects individual pixels having gradation value of spot color, namely white]’.
Matsuda in view of Oh are analogous art with Miyasaka because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include specifying a color as a spot color, as taught by Miyasaka. The motivation for doing so would have been to allowing to specify ink colors for different layers of images in a print job. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Miyasaka with Matsuda in view of Oh to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
As to Claim 6, Miyasaka in the proposed combination teaches ‘further comprising: an amount-of-representative-color-material acquisition unit configured to acquire an amount of representative color material indicating an amount of a plurality of color materials used for printing a representative color included in the special color by the printing device; a conversion unit configured to convert the first image data into first amount-of-color-material data representing the color of the first image by the amount of the plurality of color materials used in the printing device, based on the color conversion profile, and convert the second image data into second amount-of-color-material data representing the color of the second image by the amount of the plurality of color materials used in the printing device, based on the amount of representative color material; and a combining unit configured to combine the first amount-of-color-material data and the second amount-of-color-material data and thus generate third amount-of-color-material data [par 0035-0038, 0043 – first control unit subjects color image data to color conversion using a given look-up table or function and converting spot-color image data to conversion and merging a print job having multiple layers including the color image data and spot-color image data]’.
Matsuda in view of Oh are analogous art with Miyasaka because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include specifying a color as a spot color, as taught by Miyasaka. The motivation for doing so would have been to allowing to specify ink colors for different layers of images in a print job. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Miyasaka with Matsuda in view of Oh to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
As to Claim 7, Matsuda in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the display control unit generates a second preview image for causing the display device to display the second image represented by the second amount-of-color-material data, and causes the display device to display the second preview image [par 0065, 0068 – if the user selects a spot color from the pallet, the color of the selected object in the object selecting frame is changed to the color having the selected spot color from the pallet]’.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Oh et al., Miyasaka and further in view of Ohkawa (US-11,131,952).
As to Claim 8, Matsuda in view of Oh and Miyasaka teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in dependent claim 6 and independent claim 1. Matsuda in view of Oh and Miyasaka does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the amount of color material represented by the third amount-of-color-material data is compared with an upper limit amount of color material, and when the amount of color material represented by the third amount-of-color-material data exceeds the upper limit amount of color material, the third amount-of-color-material data is generated by converting the amount of color material to be equal to or less than the upper limit amount of color material, and the display control unit generates a third preview image for causing the display device to display an image represented by the converted third amount-of-color-material data, and causes the display device to display the third preview image’, although Matsuda teaches printing a spot color image with color image data while, Oh teaches specifying an output profile and rendering intent and Miyasaka teaches merging and converting color image data layers and spot color image data layers [Matsuda: par Figs 4A, 4B, par 0030, 0048-0049, 0064; Oh: Fig 3, par 0051, 0054-0056, 0074; Miyasaka: par 0035-0038, 0043].
Ohkawa in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the amount of color material represented by the third amount-of-color-material data is compared with an upper limit amount of color material, and when the amount of color material represented by the third amount-of-color-material data exceeds the upper limit amount of color material, the third amount-of-color-material data is generated by converting the amount of color material to be equal to or less than the upper limit amount of color material, and the display control unit generates a third preview image for causing the display device to display an image represented by the converted third amount-of-color-material data, and causes the display device to display the third preview image [Matsuda: par Figs 4A, 4B, par 0030, 0048-0049, 0064; Oh: Fig 3, par 0051, 0054-0056, 0074; Miyasaka: par 0035-0038, 0043; Ohkawa: Figs 12A-B, col 13, line 50-col 14, line 32 – regulating an amount of special toner in the case of using both normal toners and special toner when a total amount of color materials usable in one print operation reaches an upper limit]’.
Matsuda in view of Oh and Miyasaka are analogous art with Ohkawa because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a total amount regulation, as taught by Ohkawa. The motivation for doing so would have been to cockling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ohkawa with Matsuda in view of Oh and Miyasaka to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Oh et al., Miyasaka and further in view of Tamagawa (US-2013/0128286).
As to Claim 9, Matsuda in view of Oh and Miyasaka teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in dependent claim 6 and independent claim 1. Matsuda in view of Oh and Miyasaka does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the amount of color material represented by the third amount-of-color-material data is compared with an upper limit amount of color material, and the display control unit causes the display device to display a warning when the amount of color material represented by the third amount-of-color-material data exceeds the upper limit amount of color material’, although Matsuda teaches printing a spot color image with color image data while, Oh teaches specifying an output profile and rendering intent and Miyasaka teaches merging color image data layers and spot color image data layers [Matsuda: par Figs 4A, 4B, par 0030, 0048-0049, 0064; Oh: Fig 3, par 0051, 0054-0056, 0074; Miyasaka: par 0035-0038, 0043].
Tamagawa in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the amount of color material represented by the third amount-of-color-material data is compared with an upper limit amount of color material, and the display control unit causes the display device to display a warning when the amount of color material represented by the third amount-of-color-material data exceeds the upper limit amount of color material [par 0087, 0129-0134 – issuing a warning when an ink use amount exceeds a specific value]’.
Matsuda in view of Oh and Miyasaka are analogous art with Tamagawa because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include warning a user of ink use amount, as taught by Tamagawa. The motivation for doing so would have been to preventing cockling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tamagawa with Matsuda in view of Oh and Miyasaka to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Publication No. 2023/0254433
b. US Publication No. 2006/0098220
c. US Publication No. 2020/0210117
d. US Patent No. 11,131,952
e. US Publication No. 2013/0128286
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
f. US Publication No. 2010/0290067
g. US Publication No. 2020/0081669
h. US Publication No. 2022/0242156
i. US Publication No. 2022/0019392
j. US Publication No. 2018/0239282
k. US Publication No. 2016/0247051
l. US Publication No. 2010/0085587
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 830-530.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights