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 § 101
Claims 1–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter
Claims 1–8 are directed to an abstract idea and do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2A, Prong One: The claims are directed to an abstract idea
The claims are directed to the abstract idea of collecting image and measurement information, analyzing that information to determine deterioration, and generating a modified image based on the analysis.
At a high level, the claims recite the following sequence of operations:
acquiring an image of wallpaper and measurement information;
analyzing deterioration of the wallpaper based on the measurement information;
generating a second image by removing the deterioration from the first image; and
in some claims, adding deterioration back to the second image, transmitting a print job, or forming an image on wallpaper based on the print job.
These limitations amount to information gathering, data analysis, and result generation, which are abstract ideas. The claims do not recite a specific technological improvement to image acquisition, image analysis, or printing hardware. Rather, they recite the use of generic computer-based image processing to manipulate image data and measurement data.
The wallpaper context does not alter the abstract character of the claims. The wallpaper subject matter is merely a field of use for the underlying abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1–8 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The claims are not integrated into a practical application
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements recited in the claims, such as:
circuitry,
an acquisition unit,
an analysis unit,
a generation unit,
a learning unit,
a print instruction unit,
a printing apparatus,
and transmission of a print job,
are generic computer or system components performing their ordinary functions of receiving, analyzing, generating, and transmitting information. These elements are recited at a high level of generality and do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea.
The claims do not recite:
a specific improvement in computer functionality,
a specific improvement in image processing technology,
a specific improvement in printing technology,
or another technological solution to a technological problem.
Instead, the claims use conventional computer functions to analyze wallpaper-related data and generate a modified image. The claims therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite significantly more
Individually and as an ordered combination, the additional claim elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The claims merely use:
generic circuitry or processors,
generic image acquisition,
generic analysis,
generic generation of image data,
generic learning of patterns,
generic transmission of data, and
generic printing operations.
Such additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities that do not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
The claims therefore lack an inventive concept sufficient to confer eligibility under § 101.
Claim-specific analysis
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites acquiring a first image obtained by imaging wallpaper and measurement information obtained by measuring the wallpaper, analyzing deterioration of the wallpaper based on the measurement information, and generating a second image by removing the deterioration from the first image.
These limitations are directed to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and generating a modified image. The claim recites only generic circuitry and generic image-processing functions. It does not improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim 2
Claim 2 further recites adding the deterioration to the second image based on the result obtained by analyzing the deterioration.
This is still image/data manipulation based on analysis of information. It merely adds another abstract image-processing step and does not provide significantly more.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites that the deterioration includes ultraviolet deterioration and that the circuitry acquires measurement information including ultraviolet information and analyzes the ultraviolet deterioration based on that information.
This merely narrows the type of data analyzed. It does not change the abstract nature of the claim or add a technological improvement.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites adding the ultraviolet deterioration to the second image based on the analysis result.
This remains an abstract image modification step carried out using generic circuitry. It does not add significantly more.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites that the deterioration includes wear deterioration, and the circuitry acquires unevenness information, analyzes wear deterioration based on that information, and generates the second image by removing the wear deterioration.
This is still data collection, analysis, and image generation. The claim remains directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites learning a tendency of wear deterioration based on the analysis result and adding the wear deterioration to the second image based on the learned tendency.
Learning a tendency from analyzed data and using that result to generate image data is still abstract information processing. The claim does not recite a specific technological improvement.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites a printing system including a printing apparatus and an image processing apparatus communicable via a network, where the image processing apparatus acquires a first image and measurement information, analyzes deterioration, generates a second image, and transmits a print job, and the printing apparatus forms an image on wallpaper based on the print job.
This claim merely applies the abstract idea in the context of printing. The network communication and printing recitations are generic and conventional. The claim does not recite a technical improvement to printing or networking.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites an image processing method including acquiring a first image obtained by imaging wallpaper and measurement information obtained by measuring the wallpaper, analyzing deterioration based on the measurement information, and generating a second image by removing the deterioration from the first image.
This method claim recites the same abstract idea as claim 1 in process form. It is directed to information gathering, analysis, and generation of modified image data, without reciting a specific technological improvement or other meaningful limitation sufficient to confer eligibility.
Conclusion
Claims 1–8 are directed to the abstract idea of collecting image and measurement information, analyzing deterioration, and generating a modified image. The additional elements are generic and conventional, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. Accordingly, claims 1–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi (US 12,632,946 B2) in view of Changzhen (CN 116993723 A cited in the IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Kikuchi teaches an image processing apparatus configured to:
acquire a plurality of images of a subject captured by a camera with overlapping imaging ranges from a plurality of viewpoints,
detect damage to a surface of the subject from the acquired plurality of images,
measure a size of the detected damage,
analyze each of the acquired plurality of images to estimate a position and posture of the camera at which each image has been captured,
generate three-dimensional point group data of feature points,
generate a three-dimensional patch model of the subject on the basis of the generated point group data,
select an image corresponding to each patch of the three-dimensional patch model from the acquired plurality of images,
extract an image applied to each patch from the selected image corresponding to each patch,
calculate, on the basis of the estimated position and posture of the camera at which the extracted image has been captured, a correction value for correcting a measurement result of the size of the detected damage in the extracted image, and
correct the measurement result of the size of the detected damage in the extracted image by the calculated correction value.
See, e.g., the abstract, claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12–15, and FIGS. 6, 11, 14, and 16.
However, Kikuchi does not expressly teach that the subject is wallpaper, nor does it teach acquiring a first image obtained by imaging wallpaper and measurement information obtained by measuring the wallpaper, as recited in claim 1 of the present application. Nor does it expressly teach generating a second image by removing deterioration from the first image or, in dependent claims, adding deterioration back into the image.
Changzhen teaches image processing of wallpaper images for quality detection. The reference discloses a wallpaper quality detection method based on image processing, including obtaining a wallpaper grayscale image, performing image interpolation on the wallpaper grayscale image, obtaining a first enhanced wallpaper image, analyzing gray-level change characteristics in a neighborhood of each interpolation pixel point, determining an optimal gray-level value, and obtaining a second enhanced wallpaper grayscale image for quality detection. See, e.g., the abstract and the process descriptions in the reference.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the image-based damage analysis and correction techniques of Kikuchi to apply to wallpaper and to use the wallpaper image enhancement/interpolation techniques of Changzhen in order to process wallpaper imagery, because both references are directed to image processing of surfaces and defects/deterioration, and both address improving the reliability of analysis from captured image data. The combination would merely use known image-processing techniques on a known subject matter, namely wallpaper, to obtain predictable results.
Claim 2
Claim 2 further recites that the circuitry adds the deterioration to the second image based on a result obtained by analyzing the deterioration.
While Kikuchi teaches correction of a measured defect value and selection of images corresponding to patches, and Changzhen teaches wallpaper image enhancement based on pixel interpolation and gray-level analysis, neither expressly discloses adding deterioration back into a second image.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combined teachings of Kikuchi and Changzhen to add deterioration patterns or degradation effects back into a repaired wallpaper image, because the references collectively teach analysis of surface defects/deterioration and generation of improved images based on that analysis. Adding a deterioration pattern based on the analyzed result is a predictable image-processing variation used to reproduce an aged or matched appearance.
Claim 5
Claim 5 further recites that the deterioration includes wear deterioration, and that the circuitry is configured to:
acquire measurement information that includes unevenness information obtained by measuring unevenness of the wallpaper,
analyze the wear deterioration of the wallpaper based on the unevenness information, and
generate the second image by removing the wear deterioration from the first image.
See, e.g., the abstract, claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12–15, and FIGS. 6, 11, 14, and 16.
Kikuchi teaches measuring damage on a surface, selecting images corresponding to patches, and correcting measured values based on camera geometry. Changzhen teaches wallpaper image enhancement for quality detection. It would have been obvious to apply these principles to wallpaper wear analysis using unevenness information, because unevenness is a known physical indicator of wear or surface damage and is a predictable measurement input for image-based defect analysis.
Accordingly, claim 5 would have been obvious over Kikuchi in view of Changzhen.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites an image processing method comprising:
acquiring a first image obtained by imaging wallpaper and measurement information obtained by measuring the wallpaper;
analyzing deterioration of the wallpaper based on the measurement information; and
generating a second image by removing the deterioration from the first image.
This method corresponds to the apparatus limitations discussed above. For the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to apply the damage-analysis/correction techniques of Kikuchi to wallpaper image processing as taught by Changzhen, resulting in a method for acquiring wallpaper image data, analyzing deterioration, and generating a corrected wallpaper image. The modification would have involved only the predictable application of known image-processing techniques to wallpaper imagery.
Accordingly, claim 8 would have been obvious over Kikuchi in view of Changzhen.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi (US 12,632,946 B2) in view of Changzhen (CN 116993723 A cited in the IDS) and further in view of Tsujiguchi (US 2017/0118374 A1 cited in the IDS).
Claim 6
Claim 6 further recites that the circuitry is configured to:
learn a tendency of wear deterioration of the wallpaper based on a result obtained by analyzing the wear deterioration; and
add the wear deterioration to the second image based on the tendency of wear deterioration. See FIGS. 4, 11, 12, 14, 16.
Kikuchi teaches generating three-dimensional point group data, patch models, and correction values based on analyzed image data. Changzhen teaches image enhancement through analysis of pixel-level gray-scale changes for wallpaper quality detection. In addition, Tsujiguchi teaches a system in which image data is associated with user-specific conditions and displayed/superimposed based on information retrieved from a server, demonstrating the use of stored information and processing logic to variably generate output image data (see Abstract; claim 1; claim 17; claim 19; FIGS. 2A, 2B, 4, 18, 20, 22–24.).
It would have been obvious to incorporate a tendency-learning step into the wallpaper image-processing workflow because learning patterns from analyzed deterioration is a predictable extension of the image-based analysis already taught by the references. Such a step merely automates the selection or generation of deterioration patterns according to recognized image characteristics.
Accordingly, claim 6 would have been obvious over Kikuchi in view of Changzhen, and further in view of Tsujiguchi to the extent the claim is interpreted as requiring variable generation/output based on stored or learned information.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites a printing system including:
a printing apparatus; and
an image processing apparatus communicable with the printing apparatus via a network,
where the image processing apparatus acquires the first image and measurement information, analyzes deterioration, generates a second image by removing the deterioration from the first image, and transmits a print job including the second image to the printing apparatus, and the printing apparatus receives the print job and forms an image on the wallpaper based on the print job.
Kikuchi and Changzhen teach the image-processing and image-enhancement aspects, namely image acquisition, damage/deterioration analysis, and generation of corrected/enhanced image data for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1 above.
Tsujiguchi teaches a system including a host PC, server, image forming apparatus, and terminal device communicable over a network, in which data is transmitted to the image forming apparatus for printing on a recording medium. It further teaches generation and transmission of print data and networked communication between devices for outputting an image.
Thus, Tsujiguchi teaches the networked printing system aspect and transmission of image data/print data to a printing apparatus (see Abstract; claim 3; claim 4; claim 7; FIGS. 1, 2A, 2B, 11, 17, 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to combine the image-processing techniques of Kikuchi and Changzhen with the networked printing workflow of Tsujiguchi so that a repaired or corrected wallpaper image could be generated and transmitted as print data to a printing apparatus. This is merely the predictable use of known printing-system architecture to output a known type of image data.
Accordingly, claim 7 would have been obvious over Kikuchi in view of Changzhen and further in view of Tsujiguchi.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Daher et al. (US2024/0211183) - Method, Apparatus, and Non-Transitory Computer-Readable Storage Medium For Altering a Digital Image For a Printing Job.
Moribe (US11652951) - Image Processing Apparatus, Image Processing Method, And Storage Medium For Correcting A Measurement Value Using A Recording Element That Ejects Ink.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENNY QUOC TIEU whose telephone number is (571)272-7490. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
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.
/BENNY Q TIEU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights