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 1-13 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings received on 11/6/2024 are accepted for examination purposes.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/6/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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, 3-6, 8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujino (US-2018/0149521) in view of Sugita (US-2014/0355017).
As to Claim 13, Fujino teaches ‘An information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least a memory coupled to the at least one processor and having instructions stored thereon, and when executed by the at least one processor, acting as: a first acquisition unit configured to acquire reference values of patches of a color chart and information on layout of the patches [par 0025, 0045 – a host apparatus including a CPU and ROM/RAM that acquires a reference value (e.g., expected color values L1, a1, and b1) prepared for a patch]; a second acquisition unit configured to acquire colorimetric values obtained by performing colorimetry on the color chart [par 0025, 0046 – acquire a colorimetric value (e.g.,, L2, a2, and b2) of the patch using a colorimetric device]; and a specification unit configured to specify a row of the color chart on which a user has performed colorimetry based on the reference values of the patches and the information on the layout of the patches acquired by the first acquisition unit, and the colorimetric values acquired by the second acquisition unit [par 0025, 0053, 0071-0076 – host apparatus selects a target patch to be displayed based on the forming positions (x, y) of all the patches and displays the corresponding colorimetric values corresponding to the expected color values generated by associated the respective ink consumptions Cxy, Mxy, Yxy, and Kxy of the CMYK colors with the colorimetric values]’.
Fujino does not disclose expressly ‘by a spectrophotometer’, although Fujino teaches a colorimetric device [par 0025, 0046].
Sugita teaches ‘by a spectrophotometer [Figs 3, 5, par 0070, 0072, 0080 – color measurement device to measure linear calibration chart of single color rows of color patches with different densities, Spectrolino]’.
Fujino and Sugita are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing and measuring 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 color measurement device, such as a Spectrolino, as taught by Sugita. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently determine whether it is necessary to perform a color adjustment for a mixed color. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sugita with Fujino to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Further, in regards to claim 1, the information processing apparatus of claim 13 performs the method of claim 1.
Further, in regards to claim 12, the method of claim 1 is fully embodied on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 12.
As to Claim 3, Sugita teaches ‘wherein the patches are arranged in each of rows to enable unique specification of each of the rows in the color chart [Figs 3, 5, par 0070, 0072, 0080 – color measurement device to measure linear calibration chart of single color rows of color patches with different densities]’.
Fujino and Sugita are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing and measuring 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 linear calibration charts of single color rows, as taught by Sugita. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently determine whether it is necessary to perform a color adjustment for a mixed color. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sugita with Fujino to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
As to Claim 4, Fujino teaches ‘wherein a patch for uniquely specifying a row in the color chart is arranged in each of the rows [Fig 4 (S116): par 0071 – selecting a target patch from one out of the forming positions (x, y) (i.e., rows and columns) of all the patches to be displayed and processed according to the decision result with respect to the colorimetric values]’.
As to Claim 5, Fujino teaches ‘wherein the row of the color chart on which the user has performed colorimetry is specified by comparing the acquired reference values of the patches and the acquired colorimetric values [par 0065-0067 – calculating a color difference between the colorimetric values and the expected color values with respect to each of the patches measured]’.
As to Claim 6, Fujino teaches ‘wherein color verification is performed by comparing the acquired reference values of the patches and the acquired colorimetric values [par 0065-0067 – calculating a color difference between the colorimetric values and the expected color values with respect to each of the patches measured to decide approval status]’.
As to Claim 8, Fujino teaches ‘wherein the information on the layout includes a number of rows and a number of columns [par 0025, 0053, 0071-0076 – patches are formed and displayed based on the forming positions (x, y) of all the patches]’.
As to Claim 11, Sugita teaches ‘wherein, in the color chart, the patches are arranged by using four color components of cyan, magenta, yellow, and black, the color components being different for respective rows [Figs 3, 5, par 0070, 0072, 0080 – color measurement device to measure linear calibration chart of single color rows of color patches with different densities]’.
Fujino and Sugita are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing and measuring 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 linear calibration charts of single color rows, as taught by Sugita. The motivation for doing so would have been to efficiently determine whether it is necessary to perform a color adjustment for a mixed color. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sugita with Fujino to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Claim(s) 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujino in view of Sugita and further in view of Shindo et al. (US-2023/0353687).
As to Claim 2, Fujino in view of Sugita teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 1. Fujino in view of Sugita does not disclose expressly ‘further comprising displaying the specified row to be identified by the user’.
Shindo teaches ‘further comprising displaying the specified row to be identified by the user [Fig 10, par 0077-0080 – displaying a measured row, current row and unmeasured rows in subsequent rows]’.
Fujino in view of Sugita are analogous art with Shindo because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing and measuring 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, displaying measured and unmeasured rows, as taught by Shindo. The motivation for doing so would have been to enabling realization of a mechanism that allows colorimetry operation errors to be easily checked while occurrence of colorimetry operation errors is suppressed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shindo with Fujino in view of Sugita to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
As to Claim 7, Shindo teaches ‘wherein, in the specifying, a direction in which the user has performed colorimetric is further specified [Fig 10, par 0077-0080 – displaying a measured row, current row and unmeasured rows in subsequent rows]’.
Fujino in view of Sugita are analogous art with Shindo because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing and measuring 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, displaying measured and unmeasured rows, as taught by Shindo. The motivation for doing so would have been to enabling realization of a mechanism that allows colorimetry operation errors to be easily checked while occurrence of colorimetry operation errors is suppressed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shindo with Fujino in view of Sugita to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujino in view of Sugita and further in view of Yamamoto (US-2013/0050784).
As to Claim 9, Fujino in view of Sugita teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 1. Fujino in view of Sugita does not disclose expressly ‘further comprising notifying an error in a case where the row is not specified’.
Yamamoto teaches ‘further comprising notifying an error in a case where the row is not specified [Fig 2 (S105), par 0028 – when processing for failed colorimetry is determined, displaying a message indicating that colorimetry has failed and that the same row is to be measured again]’.
Fujino in view of Sugita are analogous art with Yamamoto because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing and measuring 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, displaying a message based on failed colorimetry, as taught by Yamamoto. The motivation for doing so would have been to determining an error or automatically determining a scanning direction in the use of a colorimeter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shindo with Fujino in view of Sugita to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujino in view of Sugita and further in view of Arazaki (US-2020/0298586).
As to Claim 10, Fujino in view of Sugita teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 1. Fujino in view of Sugita does not disclose expressly ‘wherein, in a case where a plurality of colorimetric values is acquired for one patch, a colorimetric value to be used is selected from the plurality of colorimetric values, and the row is specified’.
Fujino teaches host apparatus selects a target patch to be displayed based on the forming positions (x, y) of all the patches and displays the corresponding colorimetric values corresponding to the expected color values generated by associated the respective ink consumptions Cxy, Mxy, Yxy, and Kxy of the CMYK colors with the colorimetric values [par 0025, 0053, 0071-0076].
Arazaki in the proposed combination of Fujino in view of Sugita teaches ‘wherein, in a case where a plurality of colorimetric values is acquired for one patch, a colorimetric value to be used is selected from the plurality of colorimetric values, and the row is specified [par 0040-0041, 0075-0076 – “patches not yet measured” refers to patches for which colorimetry has not been fully completed, and includes patches for which only a portion of the wavelength regions of light have been read such that the color measuring elements scans the same patch multiple times then specifies the wavelength with respect to the measured patch]’.
Fujino in view of Sugita are analogous art with Arazaki because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing and measuring 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, multiple scans of a same patch, as taught by Arazaki. The motivation for doing so would have been to improving colorimetric accuracy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Arazaki with Fujino in view of Sugita to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Publication No. 2018/0149521
b. US Publication No. 2014/0355017
c. US Publication No. 2023/0353687
d. US Publication No. 2013/0050784
e. US Publication No. 2020/0298586
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
f. US Publication No. 2023/0171365
g. US Publication No. 2023/0140709
h. US Publication No. 2023/0095581
i. US Publication No. 2005/0238374
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