DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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 of this title, 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.
3. Claims 1, 3-6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kauffman (US Pub: 2008/0204772) and in further view of Kuo et al (US Pub: 2008/0253783) and Harrington (US Pub: 2008/0204829).
Regarding claim 1 (Original), Kauffman teaches: A computer-implemented method for performing a color preflight operation, the method comprising:
(a) providing, with a computer, a subject digital artwork design having a first set of color
values, a color profile associated with the digital artwork design, and a tolerance for color reproduction [p0012, p0034, p0046].
(b) providing, with the computer, more than two press configurations, each press
configuration associated with a press, a substrate, and a colorant set, and including a press-specific, substrate-specific color-profile and a set of rules for automatically converting any digital artwork design to that press configuration [p0032, p0037, p0038];
(c) converting, with the computer, the subject digital artwork design in accordance with the corresponding set of rules for each of the plurality of press configurations, for all colors in the subject digital artwork design [p0042];
(d) predicting, with the computer, a color output associated with each conversion
corresponding to each press configuration, each color output defining a set of press-configuration-specific converted color values expressed in a selected device-independent colorspace [p0033, p0044, claim 16];
(e) comparing, with the computer, the predicted color output associated with each
conversion against a comparison color output defined by the first set of color values mapped to or otherwise expressed in the selected device-independent colorspace [p0042, p0044], identifying any portion of the predicted color output that is out of tolerance, and reporting a metric defining a relative amount that the predicted color output is out of tolerance [p0045, p0046]; and one or both of:
(f) for one or more selected conversions, generating with the computer and displaying on a computer display, a comparison image comprising an image corresponding to the subject digital artwork design with highlighting corresponding to each portion of the predicted color output that is out of tolerance [p0041, p0045];
(g) with the computer, automatically identifying one or more acceptable press
configurations based upon a first set of predetermined criteria, and optionally, automatically selecting from the acceptable press configurations an optimum press configuration based upon a second set of predetermined criteria [p0034, p0046, p0049].
Kauffman does not specify substrate-specific color profile. In the same field of endeavor, Kuo et al teaches: converting any digital artwork design to that press configuration using the press-specific, substrate-specific color profile [p0004]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kuo et al’s substrate specific ICC profiling in Kauffman’s configuration specific color conversion so that color reproduction reflects actual press and substrate more accurately.
Kauffman in view of Kuo et al does not automatically provide an alert for unfitting configuration. In the same field of endeavor, Harrington teaches: automatically providing an alert indicating that none of the press configurations are acceptable [p0034]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to send alarm for unacceptable configuration for notification purpose.
Regarding claim 3 (Original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Kauffman in view of Kuo et al would have made the following limitation obvious: the method of claim 1, wherein all of the more than two press configurations comprise digital press configurations because Kauffman teaches multiple printing configurations and Kuo et teaches digital press configuration as discussed in claim 1. Therefore, the combined teaching would have made multiple digital press configuration an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Kauffman in view of Kuo et al further teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the more than two press configurations comprises at least one configuration for a different substrate than at least one other configuration [Kauffman: p0032, claim 7; Kuo: p0023].
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Kauffman further teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the more than two press configurations includes at least one configuration with a colorant set having fewer colorants than at least one other configuration in the plurality of press configurations [p0038-p0040].
Regarding claim 6 (Original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 5 has been incorporated herein. Kauffman further teaches: The method of claim 5, wherein the more than two press configurations comprises two or more of: at least one configuration having 3-colorants, at least one configuration having 4-colorants, at least one configuration having 5-colorants, at least one configuration having 6-colorants, and at least one configuration having 7-colorants [p0038].
Regarding claim 20 (Currently Amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Kauffman further teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the metric defining the relative amount that the predicted color output is out of tolerance comprises delta-E [p0046].
4. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kauffman (US Pub: 2008/0204772), Kuo et al (US Pub: 2008/0253783) and Harrington (US Pub: 2008/0204829); and in further view of Plettinck (US Pub: 2019/0339914).
Regarding claim 2 (Original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Kauffman in view of Kuo et al and Harrington does not specify one digital and one non-digital press. In the same field of endeavor, Plettinck teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the more than two press configurations
comprises at least one digital press configuration and at least one non-digital press configuration [p0036]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to apply digital and non-digital press configuration for providing more options for artwork production.
5. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kauffman (US Pub: 2008/0204772), Kuo et al (US Pub: 2008/0253783) and Harrington (US Pub: 2008/0204829); and in further view of Huber et al (US Pub: 2015/0281471).
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Kauffman in view of Kuo et al and Harrington does not disclose different tolerance for different portions. In the same field of endeavor, Huber et al teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein providing the tolerance for color reproduction includes identifying at least one first portion of the digital artwork design having a different tolerance than at least one second portion of the digital artwork [abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to modify Kauffman’s color reproduction evaluation to apply different tolerance values to different part of artwork as different parts may have different sensitivity to reproduction errors for providing more accurate determination of whether reproduced art is acceptable.
Regarding claim 8 (Original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 7 has been incorporated herein. Huber et al further teaches: The method of claim 7, wherein the at least one first portion is identified as an object or as a bounded area of the digital artwork design [claim 1, p0016].
6. Claims 9-11, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kauffman (US Pub: 2008/0204772), Kuo et al (US Pub: 2008/0253783) and Harrington (US Pub: 2008/0204829); and in further view of Kondo et al (US Pub: 2010/0220341).
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Kauffman in view of Kuo et al and Harrington does not disclose a value for total area out of tolerance. In the same field of endeavor, Kondo teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the metric defining the relative amount that the predicted color output associated each conversion is out of tolerance comprises a value for total area out of tolerance [p0077, p0085 (non color reproduction area different)]. Kondo determines whether reproduced image colors exceed an allowable color different and calculate non color reproduction area ratio. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement Kauffman’s color difference evaluation with Kondo’s non color reproduction area ratio by quantifying proportion of an image whose reproduced colors exceed an allowable color difference for a more representative result.
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 9 and in accordance with Kondo’s further teaching on: The method of claim 1, further comprising identifying one or more of the plurality of press configurations having a least total area value outside of tolerance [p0091].
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 9 and in accordance with Kauffman in view of Kondo’s further teaching on: The method of claim 1, wherein comparing the predicted color output associated with each conversion against the subject digital artwork design comprises calculating delta-E for each portion of the predicted color output [Kauffman: p0046, Kondo: p0077].
Regarding claim 18 (Currently Amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Kauffman in view of Kuo et al and Harrington does not specify percentage. In the same field of endeavor, Kondo teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the total area value outside of tolerance is expressed as a percentage of total area of the digital artwork design, is expressed in dimensional units squared, or a combination thereof [p0077]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to provide an out of tolerance area as a relative percentage of image area for data analysis.
Regarding claim 19 (Currently Amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 18 and in accordance with Kondo’s further teaching on: The method of claim 1, further comprising defining a maximum value, an average value, a total value, or a combination thereof, for the metric defining a relative amount that the predicted color output [p0077, p0085, p0086 (failing pixels based on aggregate result)].
7. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kauffman (US Pub: 2008/0204772), Kuo et al (US Pub: 2008/0253783) and Harrington (US Pub: 2008/0204829); and in further view of Kondo et al (US Pub: 2010/0220341) and Filatov et al (US Pub: 2009/0132916).
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Kauffman in view of Kuo et al and Harrington does not input change in tolerance. In the same field of endeavor, Kondo teaches revising metric defining the relative amount out of tolerance for the user-input change in tolerance [p0077, p0085 (non color reproduction area different)].
Filatov et al teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a user-input change in the tolerance, and re-displaying the color-managed image, revising the highlighting of each portion that is out of tolerance [p0037, p0038, p0040]. Therefore, given Kondo’s teaching on whether reproduced image colors exceed an allowable color different and calculate non color reproduction area ratio; and Filatov et al’s teaching on receiving user specified new threshold value, analyzing image using new threshold and displaying change accordingly, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Filatov et al’s user adjustable threshold and reanalyzing affected image part with Kondo’s out of tolerance area metric to update displayed region automatically when user makes a change.
Regarding claim 13 (Original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 12 has been incorporated herein. Filatov et al further teaches: The method of claim 12, wherein the user-input change in tolerance is received via a graphical user interface comprising a slide operable between relatively lower values and relatively higher values, a displayed numeric tolerance value modifiable by entering a different numeric value, or a combination thereof [p0030, p0037].
8. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kauffman (US Pub: 2008/0204772), Kuo et al (US Pub: 2008/0253783) and Harrington (US Pub: 2008/0204829); and in further view of Ivers (US Pub: 2004/0257445).
Regarding claim 14 (Currently Amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Kauffman in view of Kuo et al and Harrington does not display in or out of tolerance areas in different false colors. In the same field of endeavor, Ivers teaches: The method of claim 1, comprising depicting in the comparison image areas that are within tolerance in a first false coloration relative to the actual coloration of the subject digital artwork design and depicting the highlighting in a second false coloration [p0011, p0015]. Ivers displays acceptable image part in one coloration and gamut error in a different coloration. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify comparison image of color preflight system based on Ivers’ false color display technique to identify error region and improve clarity.
9. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kauffman (US Pub: 2008/0204772), Kuo et al (US Pub: 2008/0253783) and Harrington (US Pub: 2008/0204829); and in further view of FR834’ (FR Pub: 3067834) and Ivers (US Pub: 2004/0257445).
Regarding claim 15 (Currently Amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Kauffman in view of Kuo et al and Harrington does not bound the highlighting within a highlight window. In the same field of endeavor, FR834’ and Ivers teach: The method of 1, further comprising bounding the highlighting within a highlight window having the actual color of the subject digital artwork design or a third false coloration relative to the actual color of the subject digital artwork design, wherein the third false coloration is perceptively distinguishable from the first false coloration and the second false coloration [FR834’ page 7: claim 7, page 5: p05, p06, p08; Ivers: p0011, p0013-p0015 (A third false coloration differs from the first and the second.)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine FR834’ colored frame surrounding a highlighted defect with Ivers’ multiple different false colors to improve visualization.
Regarding claim 16 (Original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 15 has been incorporated herein. FR834’ further teaches: The method of claim 15, wherein the first false coloration is dimmer or brighter than the actual coloration [page 7: claim 6].
10. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kauffman (US Pub: 2008/0204772), Kuo et al (US Pub: 2008/0253783) and Harrington (US Pub: 2008/0204829); and in further view of FR834’ (FR Pub: 3067834).
Regarding claim 17 (Currently Amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Kauffman in view of Kuo et al and Harrington does not specify a contrast color. In the same field of endeavor, FR834’ further teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the highlighting of each portion that is out of tolerance is provided in a color that is complementary or contrasting relative to the actual coloration of the subject digital artwork design or a user-selected coloration [page 7: claim 7]. Therefore, having a contracting color for out of tolerance part would have been obvious to a skilled in the art per design choice.
Contact
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights