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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-17 and 22-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claim 25 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 25 recites the limitation "The image processing method…" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Consequently, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. The Examiner notes that claim 25 may have intended to be recited as an independent claim, instead starting with “An” instead of the definite article “The” and will be treated as such for the purposes of prior art rejection.
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) 1-7, 18-20, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0187962) in view of Iguchi et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2013/0249989).
Regarding claim 1, Koyama et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0187962) discloses:
An image processing apparatus for generating print data of at least one color, which is used by a printing apparatus for printing an image on a print medium by adhering a recording material of at least one color to the print medium in accordance with the print data, the image processing apparatus comprising one or more memories storing instructions and one or more processors that execute the instructions to:
detect an edge in an N-arized image (N is a natural number not less than 2) representing a result of threshold-based processing for a grayscale image obtained from an input image (Figure 4, paragraphs [0030]-[0034], the edge is detected via threshold processing); and
generate the print data based on the input image and a detection result of the edge (paragraphs [0030]-[0033], [0062]-[0067], the data is modified with regard to the edge and printed)
Even assuming arguendo that Koyama et al. does not explicitly disclose:
A grayscale image obtained from an input image
Iguchi et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2013/0249989) discloses:
detect an edge in an N-arized image (N is a natural number not less than 2) representing a result of threshold-based processing (paragraph [0094], edge determination using threshold value) for a grayscale image obtained from an input image (paragraphs [0058], [0086], [0092], monochrome image data)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Iguchi et al with the system of Koyama such that the system would have been configured to utilize a grayscale image obtained from an input image as described in Iguchi et al. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “allow[ing] generation of bi-level recording data…of which appropriate amounts of ink are set” (paragraph [0007] of the Iguchi reference).
Regarding claim 2, Koyama additionally discloses:
wherein the grayscale image is a luminance image corresponding to the input image or a brightness image corresponding to the input image (Figure 6, paragraphs [0051]-[0058], the luminance map is provided)
Regarding claim 3, Koyama additionally discloses:
wherein the grayscale image indicates, for each pixel, a luminance or brightness on the print medium in a case where an image is printed on the print medium in accordance with each pixel value of the input image (Figure 6, paragraphs [0051]-[0058], the luminance maps indicates a luminance or brightness as shown), and
the grayscale image is obtained by converting the pixel values of the input image in accordance with a conversion table corresponding to a type of the print medium (Figure 6, paragraphs [0053]-[0058], the pixel values are adjusted via the LUT for printing; paragraph [0064], notes that edge extraction threshold can be set depending on kind of printing medium)
Regarding claim 4, Koyama additionally discloses:
wherein the grayscale image indicates, for each pixel, an amount of at least one recording material used to print an image on the print medium in accordance with each pixel value of the input image (paragraph [0057], the ink reduction is performed using the edge LUT)
Regarding claim 5, Koyama additionally discloses:
wherein the grayscale image is obtained by converting the pixel values of the input image in accordance with a conversion table corresponding to a print mode of the printing apparatus (paragraph [0057], the ink reduction is performed using the edge LUT for a printing function/mode)
Regarding claim 6, Koyama additionally discloses:
wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to generate the print data corresponding to a pixel of interest of the input image with respect to at least one color from a value of the pixel of interest of the input image by a method corresponding to whether the pixel of interest of the input image is at the edge (Figure 4, paragraphs [0030]-[0034], the edge is detected via threshold processing; paragraph [0057], the ink reduction is performed using the edge LUT for a printing function/mode)
Regarding claim 7, Koyama additionally discloses:
wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to generate the print data so that a maximum recording amount for a pixel at the edge is smaller than a maximum recording amount for a pixel not at the edge (paragraph [0057], the ink amount for the edge is smaller than that for non-edge)
Regarding claim 18, Koyama discloses:
An image processing apparatus for generating print data corresponding to each color, which is used by a printing apparatus for printing an image on a print medium by adhering a recording material of at least one color to the print medium in accordance with the print data, the image processing apparatus comprising one or more memories storing instructions and one or more processors that execute the instructions to:
detect an edge in a grayscale image corresponding to an input image (Figure 4, paragraphs [0030]-[0034], the edge is detected via threshold processing); and
generate the print data based on the input image, a detection result of the edge, and a pixel value at the edge of the grayscale image (paragraphs [0030]-[0033], [0062]-[0067], the data is modified with regard to the edge and printed)
Even assuming arguendo that Koyama et al. does not explicitly disclose:
A grayscale image obtained from an input image
Iguchi et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2013/0249989) discloses:
detect an edge in a grayscale image corresponding to an input image (paragraph [0094], edge determination using threshold value) for a grayscale image obtained from an input image (paragraphs [0058], [0086], [0092], monochrome image data)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Iguchi et al with the system of Koyama such that the system would have been configured to utilize a grayscale image obtained from an input image as described in Iguchi et al. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “allow[ing] generation of bi-level recording data…of which appropriate amounts of ink are set” (paragraph [0007] of the Iguchi reference).
Regarding claim 19, Koyama et al. discloses:
An image processing apparatus comprising one or more memories storing instructions and one or more processors that execute the instructions to:
detect an edge in an N-arized image (N is a natural number not less than 2) representing a result of threshold-based processing for a grayscale image obtained from an input image (Figure 4, paragraphs [0030]-[0034], the edge is detected via threshold processing); and
generate, based on the input image and a detection result of the edge, color separation data indicating a recording amount for each pixel and a detection result of the edge for each pixel and corresponding to a recording material used by a printing apparatus for printing (paragraphs [0030]-[0034], [0062]-[0067], the amount of ink is adjusted for the pixels based on the edge detection)
Even assuming arguendo that Koyama et al. does not explicitly disclose:
A grayscale image obtained from an input image
Iguchi et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2013/0249989) discloses:
detect an edge in an N-arized image (N is a natural number not less than 2) representing a result of threshold-based processing (paragraph [0094], edge determination using threshold value) for a grayscale image obtained from an input image (paragraphs [0058], [0086], [0092], monochrome image data)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Iguchi et al with the system of Koyama such that the system would have been configured to utilize a grayscale image obtained from an input image as described in Iguchi et al. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “allow[ing] generation of bi-level recording data…of which appropriate amounts of ink are set” (paragraph [0007] of the Iguchi reference).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Koyama and Iguchi disclose the apparatus of the parent claim (claim 1).
Koyama additionally discloses:
wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to operate in a first print mode in which a threshold in the threshold-based processing is a first value, and a second print mode in which the threshold is a second value different from the first value (paragraphs [0046]-[0047], different thresholds are used for the printing of each different ink hue)
Regarding claim 25, the structural elements of apparatus claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 25. Thus, claim 25 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 26, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. The computer readable medium is taught by Koyama as evidenced by CPU 200 executing a software program stored in memory to realize the functions of the disclosure (see Koyama at paragraph [0019]).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama in view of Iguchi, further in view of Stevens (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2010/0290089).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Koyama and Iguchi disclose the apparatus of the parent claim (claim 1).
The combination of Koyama and Iguchi does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to generate the print data so that a maximum recording amount for a pixel at the edge is larger than a maximum recording amount for a pixel not at the edge.
Stevens (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2010/0290089) discloses:
wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to generate the print data so that a maximum recording amount for a pixel at the edge is larger than a maximum recording amount for a pixel not at the edge (paragraph [0082], edge pixels get thickened/dilated via an edge outline mask)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Stevens with the combination of Koyama and Iguchi such that the system would have been configured to generate the print data so that a maximum recording amount for a pixel at the edge is larger than a maximum recording amount for a pixel not at the edge as described in Stevens. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to “implement an edge smoothing process during rendering that improves the shape and appearance” (paragraph [0015] of the Stevens reference).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama in view of Iguchi, further in view of Kawano (U.S. Patent No. 9,406,002).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Koyama and Iguchi disclose the apparatus of the parent claim (claim 20).
The combination of Koyama and Iguchi does not explicitly disclose:
wherein in the first print mode, a width of an edge region included in the detected edge is a first width, and in the second print mode, the width of the edge region is a second width different from the first width.
Kawano (U.S. Patent No. 9,406,002) discloses:
wherein in the first print mode, a width of an edge region included in the detected edge is a first width, and in the second print mode, the width of the edge region is a second width different from the first width (claim 1, different pixel modifications corresponding to different widths at the edge portions are provided)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Kawano with the combination of Koyama and Iguchi such that in the first print mode, a width of an edge region included in the detected edge is a first width, and in the second print mode, the width of the edge region is a second width different from the first width as described in Kawano. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement “a image processing device capable of reducing deterioration in the quality of a print image” (paragraph [0009] of the Kawano reference).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30-5 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, 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.
/JOHN R WALLACE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights