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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno (US 2017/0076185 A1) in view of Ikuno (US 2013/0215470 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mizuno discloses an image processing device for performing printing based on image data on a recording medium using a printing device, the image processing device (e.g., FIG. 2 is a cross sectional view of the MFP 101. The MFP 101 mainly includes the reading unit 118, which reads a document to generate image data, and the printing unit 120, which prints an image onto a sheet (e.g., normal sheet, thick sheet, transparent film) based on the image data, paragraph 36) comprising a processor configured to:
divide the image data into a plurality of image regions with different colors for each of a plurality of different processes to print an image of the image data by the plurality of different processes (e.g., the rotary development unit 13 applies magenta (M) toner, cyan (C) toner, yellow (Y) toner, and black (K) toner to the electrostatic latent image formed on the surface of the photosensitive drum 11 to form a toner image, paragraph 38);
assign the image region to a plurality of job layers for each of the different processes (e.g., The toner image formed on the surface of the photosensitive drum 11 is transferred onto the intermediate transfer belt 14, and the toner image on the intermediate transfer belt 14 is transferred onto a sheet S by the transfer roller 15, paragraph 38); and
generate print data by combining the plurality of the job layers (e.g., At the time of forming a full-color toner image, the rotary development unit 13 is rotated to sequentially locate each of the developing devices 13K, 13Y, 13M, and 13C in the development position, and the development of the respective colors is sequentially performed, paragraph 39); wherein
Mizuno does not specifically disclose the processor is configured to assign the image region to the job layer so as not to overlap the image region of another job layer.
Ikuno discloses the processor is configured to assign the image region to the job layer so as not to overlap the image region of another job layer (e.g., It is the portion where the sheets are processed. The processed area is larger than that when a staple is used. Therefore, the image needs to be adjusted not to overlap the area, paragraph 55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Mizuno to include the processor is configured to assign the image region to the job layer so as not to overlap the image region of another job layer as taught by Ikuno. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Mizuno by the teaching of Ikuno to have properly printing based on image data on a recording medium.
Regarding claim 2, Mizuno discloses wherein mask process is performed on a region other than the assigned image region in the job layer (e.g., The image processing unit 124 performs image processing on the image data 401 to mask with white pixels a portion outside a rectangular region based on coordinates a (47, 47) of a starting point and coordinates b (4913, 6968) of an end point. As a result of this masking processing, image data is acquired in which 47 pixels (i.e., four 2-mm borders) of the four borders of the image data 401 are replaced by white pixels, paragraph 51).
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 is an image processing method claim with limitations similar of limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected as set forth above as claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Mizuno discloses wherein the plurality of different processes comprises printing using different materials and different methods, the different materials comprise different coloring materials, the different methods comprise different data conversion process for the image region and printing by different inkjet heads (e.g., While the electrophotographic method is described as the printing method of the printing unit 120 in the present exemplary embodiment, the printing method is not limited thereto. For example, the printing method of the printing unit 120 may be an ink jet method or any other printing methods (e.g., thermal transfer method), paragraph 41).
Claims 3, 6, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno (US 2017/0076185 A1) in view of Ikuno (US 2013/0215470 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura (US 2018/0314922 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Mizuno in view of Ikuno does not specifically disclose wherein a predetermined job layer among the plurality of the job layers is replaced with the plurality of the job layers generated separately.
Nakamura discloses wherein a predetermined job layer among the plurality of the job layers is replaced with the plurality of the job layers generated separately, (e.g., figures 6A-6G, paragraph. 82).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Mizuno in view of Ikuno to include wherein a predetermined job layer among the plurality of the job layers is replaced with the plurality of the job layers generated separately as taught by Nakamura. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Mizuno in view of Ikuno by the teaching of Nakamura to use for a particular application.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 is an image processing method claim with limitations similar of limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected as set forth above as claim 3.
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura discloses wherein the different coloring materials comprise dye, pigment, color ink, adhesive ink, solvent ink, and UV ink (e.g., a recording medium which is used for print processing which the image forming apparatus in the present embodiment performs is not limited to the above-mentioned sheet, but various media can be used. For example, plain paper, photo paper, overhead projector (OHP) sheets, transparent films, special paper of metallic color with bonded aluminum films, acrylic plates, and cardboard can be used, paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 11, Nakamura discloses wherein the plurality of different processes comprises printing using different materials and different methods, the different materials comprise different coloring materials, the different methods comprise different data conversion process for the image region and printing by different inkjet heads (e.g., a recording medium which is used for print processing which the image forming apparatus in the present embodiment performs is not limited to the above-mentioned sheet, but various media can be used. For example, plain paper, photo paper, overhead projector (OHP) sheets, transparent films, special paper of metallic color with bonded aluminum films, acrylic plates, and cardboard can be used. Moreover, a recording agent which is used for print processing which the image forming apparatus in the present embodiment performs is not limited to liquid ink, but various agents can be used according to a printing type to be employed. For example, in the image forming apparatus in the present embodiment, solid ink or toner can be used, paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 12, Nakamura discloses wherein the different coloring materials comprise dye, pigment, color ink, adhesive ink, solvent ink, and UV ink (e.g., a recording medium which is used for print processing which the image forming apparatus in the present embodiment performs is not limited to the above-mentioned sheet, but various media can be used. For example, plain paper, photo paper, overhead projector (OHP) sheets, transparent films, special paper of metallic color with bonded aluminum films, acrylic plates, and cardboard can be used. Moreover, a recording agent which is used for print processing which the image forming apparatus in the present embodiment performs is not limited to liquid ink, but various agents can be used according to a printing type to be employed. For example, in the image forming apparatus in the present embodiment, solid ink or toner can be used, paragraph 19).
Claims 4, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno (US 2017/0076185 A1) in view of Ikuno (US 2013/0215470 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iguchi (US 2010/0079798 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Mizuno in view of Ikuno does not specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured to assign the image region overlapping the image region assigned to another job layer to some of the job layers.
Iguchi discloses wherein the processor is configured to assign the image region overlapping the image region assigned to another job layer to some of the job layers (e.g., the apparatus comprising: a first determination unit configured to determine whether the fixed object overlaps another fixed object; a generation unit configured, when the first determination unit determines that the fixed object overlaps the other fixed object, to generate data by performing either first image forming processing to combine the fixed object and the other fixed object or second image forming processing to process the fixed object or the other fixed object; a storage unit configured to store the data generated by the generation unit; and an output unit configured to extract the data stored in the storage unit, combine the data with the variable object to generate print data, and output the print data, paragraph 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Mizuno in view of Ikuno to include wherein the processor is configured to assign the image region overlapping the image region assigned to another job layer to some of the job layers as taught by Iguchi. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Mizuno in view of Ikuno by the teaching of Iguchi to apply for a particular application.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is an image processing method claim with limitations similar of limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected as set forth above as claim 4.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is an image processing method claim with limitations similar of limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected as set forth above as claim 4.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 QUANG N VO whose telephone number is (571)270-1121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, EST.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at 571-270-5254. 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.
/QUANG N VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights