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 1-14 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-13 have been amended [9/22/2026].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument based on newly applied reference Inoue (US-2006/0109492).
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) 1-3 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura Hiroki (JP-2012-014586A) [hereinafter Hiroki] in view of Inoue (US-2006/0109492).
As to Claim 1, Hiroko teaches ‘An image processing method, applied to a driver-end device, comprising: obtaining an image-to-be-printed and extracting a text part and an image part from the image-to-be-printed [par 0008-0009, 0015-0017, 0070 – document data including text object (characters) and a graphic object (background) overlapped are separated based on different image processing characteristics]; converting the extracted image parts on one page into first image data [par 0017, 0085-0086 – generating and converting raster data containing only graphic objects to be separate page information]; converting the extracted text part into a page description language [par 0017, 0092-0093 – generating raster data containing only text objects to be separate page information and converting the raster data into PDL data]; generating an image instruction based on the first image data and inserting the image instruction into the page description language to form a target page description language [par 0017-0020, 0086, 0093 – converting the raster data of the graphic object into PDL data that can be interpreted by the MFP and sending the raster data for each object or sending all the raster data for an entire page at once (i.e., combining text and graphic objects)]; and sending the target page description language to an image forming device to execute an image forming job [par 0086, 0093 – sending the PDL of text with graphic objects to the MFP]’.
Hiroki does not disclose expressly ‘multiple image parts and one image instruction’, although Hiroki teaches rasterization unit generates (for example, a bounding rectangle) that encloses two objects of the same type overlapping each other [par 0087-0089].
Inoue in the proposed combination of Hiroki teaches ‘multiple image parts and one image instruction’ [par 0039, 0041, 0043, 0059 – symbolization of one PDL-converted layout data DLP might generate a plurality of unit symbol data representing a plurality of unit systems, where a single PDL-converted layout data DLP might yield a plurality of image objects]’.
Hiroki and Inoue 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 a single PDL-converted layout data, as taught by Inoue. The motivation for doing so would have been to generating data with potential to reuse. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Inoue with Hiroki to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Further, in regards to claim 8, image processing method of claim 1 is fully embodied on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8.
As to Claims 2 and 9, Hiroki teaches ‘prior to converting the extracted multiple image parts on one page into first image data, further comprising: creating a first page and a second page, wherein the first page is configured to describe the text part, and the second page is configured to describe the multiple image parts [Hiroki: par 0017, 0020, 0070 – parsing repeats of text objects above graphical objects and separating the different objects from each other to generate separate page information (i.e., separate pages) and rasterizes each page information separately; Inoue: par 0039, 0041, 0043, 0059 – symbolization of one PDL-converted layout data DLP might generate a plurality of unit symbol data representing a plurality of unit systems, where a single PDL-converted layout data DLP might yield a plurality of image objects]’.
Hiroki and Inoue 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 a single PDL-converted layout data, as taught by Inoue. The motivation for doing so would have been to generating data with potential to reuse. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Inoue with Hiroki to obtain the invention as specified in claims 2 and 9.
As to Claims 3 and 10, Hiroki teaches ‘wherein converting the extracted multiple image parts on one page into first image data comprises: converting the extracted multiple image parts into pixel-level image data on the second page [Hiroki: par 0009, 0077-0078 – generating raster data for image processing of graphic objects in units of pixels; Inoue: par 0039, 0041, 0043, 0059 – symbolization of one PDL-converted layout data DLP might generate a plurality of unit symbol data representing a plurality of unit systems, where a single PDL-converted layout data DLP might yield a plurality of image objects]’.
Hiroki and Inoue 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 a single PDL-converted layout data, as taught by Inoue. The motivation for doing so would have been to generating data with potential to reuse. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Inoue with Hiroki to obtain the invention as specified in claims 3 and 10.
As to Claim 7, Hiroki teaches ‘An image processing method, applied to an image forming device, comprising: restoring a page based on a received target page description language to obtain a third page; performing different halftone conversions on an image and text from the third page; and integrating the halftone converted image and text into a raster image, and executing printing based on the raster image [par 0077, 0098-0099, 0101-0109 – MFP receiving PDL data, where the image and graphic objects are subjected image processing including dithering and performs printing of the data]’.
Hiroki does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the target page description language includes one image instruction corresponding to multiple image parts on one page’, although Hiroki teaches rasterization unit generates (for example, a bounding rectangle) that encloses two objects of the same type overlapping each other [par 0087-0089].
Inoue in the proposed combination of Hiroki teaches ‘wherein the target page description language includes one image instruction corresponding to multiple image parts on one page [par 0039, 0041, 0043, 0059 – symbolization of one PDL-converted layout data DLP might generate a plurality of unit symbol data representing a plurality of unit systems, where a single PDL-converted layout data DLP might yield a plurality of image objects]’.
Hiroki and Inoue 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 a single PDL-converted layout data, as taught by Inoue. The motivation for doing so would have been to generating data with potential to reuse. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Inoue with Hiroki to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
As to Claim 14, Hiroki teaches ‘wherein the at least one processor is further configured to perform: sending the target page description language to the image forming device to execute the image forming job by restoring a page based on the target page description language to obtain a third page; performing different halftone conversions on an image and text from the third page; and integrating the halftone converted image and text into a raster image, and executing printing based on the raster image [par 0077, 0098-0099, 0101-0109 – MFP receiving combined PDL data, where the image and graphic objects are subjected image processing including dithering and performs printing of the data]’.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroki in view of Inoue and further in view of Nguyen et al. (US-2002/0039198).
As to Claims 4 and 11, Hiroki in view of Inoue teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claims 1 and 8, respectively. Hiroki does not disclose expressly ‘prior to converting the extracted multiple image parts on one page into first image data, comprising: according to the extracted text part and multiple image parts, determining whether there is an overlap between the text part and the multiple image parts; when there is no overlap, continuing to execute the step of converting the extracted multiple image parts on one page into first image data; when there is an overlap, cancelling subsequent steps, generating one second image instruction based on the text part and the multiple image parts, and sending the page description language that comprises the second image instruction to the image forming device to execute the image forming job’, although Hiroki teaches determining if two objects of different types overlap, performing a separate operation for overlapped objects and generating raster data into PDL data to send to MFP for printing [Figs 6, 12 (S40), par 0066-0069] and symbolization of one PDL-converted layout data DLP might generate a plurality of unit symbol data representing a plurality of unit systems, where a single PDL-converted layout data DLP might yield a plurality of image objects [par 0039, 0041, 0043, 0059].
Nguyen in the proposed combination of Hiroki and Inoue teaches ‘prior to converting the extracted multiple image parts on one page into first image data, comprising: according to the extracted text part and multiple image parts, determining whether there is an overlap between the text part and the multiple image parts; when there is no overlap, continuing to execute the step of converting the extracted multiple image parts on one page into first image data; when there is an overlap, cancelling subsequent steps, generating one second image instruction based on the text part and the multiple image parts, and sending the page description language that comprises the second image instruction to the image forming device to execute the image forming job [par 0009-0010, 0024-0025, 0028-0030 – if it is determined there is no overlap between a text and graphic object, sending each non-overlapped text and/or graphic object directly to printer by driver, however if it is determined there is overlap (i.e., overlap of location of bitmap bounding rectangle) by driver, storing union bitmap location information to output buffer to output data to printer]’.
Hiroki in view of Inoue are analogous art with Nguyen 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 printer driver generating and storing union bitmap location information of overlapped text and graphic objects, as taught by Nguyen. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhancing performance and greater speed allowing advanced printer functions to be taken advantage of to the greatest extent possible without loss or degradation of printer performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nguyen with Hiroki in view of Inoue to obtain the invention as specified in claims 4 and 11.
As to Claims 5 and 12, Nguyen in the proposed combination of Hiroki and Inoue teaches ‘wherein determining whether there is the overlap between the text part and the multiple image parts comprises: determining an outline area of one of the multiple image parts, and determining whether a pixel position of the text part overlaps with the outline area of the one of the multiple image parts [par 0009-0010, 0024-0025, 0028-0030 – if it is determined there is no overlap between a text and graphic object, sending each non-overlapped text and/or graphic object directly to printer by driver, however if it is determined there is overlap (i.e., overlap of location of bitmap bounding rectangle) by driver, storing union bitmap location information to output buffer to output data to printer]’.
Hiroki in view of Inoue are analogous art with Nguyen 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 printer driver generating and storing union bitmap location information of overlapped text and graphic objects, as taught by Nguyen. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhancing performance and greater speed allowing advanced printer functions to be taken advantage of to the greatest extent possible without loss or degradation of printer performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nguyen with Hiroki in view of Inoue to obtain the invention as specified in claims 5 and 12.
As to Claim 6 and 13, Nguyen in the proposed combination of Hiroki and Inoue teaches ‘wherein determining the outline area of one of the multiple image parts comprises: determining a minimum coordinate and a maximum coordinate of the one of the multiple image parts; and determining an outline area of the one of the multiple image parts according to a rectangular frame determined by the minimum coordinate and the maximum coordinate [Fig 4 (174, 176, 166), par 0009-0010, 0024-0025, 0028-0031 – if it is determined there is no overlap between a text and graphic object, sending each non-overlapped text and/or graphic object directly to printer by driver, however if it is determined there is overlaps (i.e., overlap of location of bitmap bounding rectangles with different coordinates and sizes of text and graphic objects) by driver, storing union bitmap location information to output buffer to output data to printer]’.
Hiroki in view of Inoue are analogous art with Nguyen 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 printer driver generating and storing union bitmap location information of overlapped text and graphic objects, as taught by Nguyen. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhancing performance and greater speed allowing advanced printer functions to be taken advantage of to the greatest extent possible without loss or degradation of printer performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nguyen with Hiroki in view of Inoue to obtain the invention as specified in claims 6 and 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Publication No. 2006/0109492
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.
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