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 1-9 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Togashi (US-2015/0015900).
As to Claim 1, Togashi teaches ‘An image forming apparatus comprising: a colorimeter; a reader that reads an image formed on a recording medium; and a hardware processor that determines, in accordance with an operation state of the image forming apparatus or a type of a color measurement execution instruction, whether to execute color measurement by the colorimeter or to execute color measurement using the reader [Figs 3 (14, 26, 126), 6, 7, par 0021, 0026, 0045, 0062-0063, 0065, 0069 – image forming apparatus includes an image reading unit that reads a color chart for correction of color characteristics, an inline sensor reads an image fixed by the fixing unit and also functions as a colorimeter that reads a color chart used for color correction and subjects the color chart to colorimetry, and a colorimeter connection IF for connecting a colorimeter with the image forming apparatus for reading a color chart used for color correction and subjecting colors of the color chart to colorimetry; for each colorimeter, the type(s) of correction that the colorimeter is capable of performing is (are) defined]’.
Further, in regards to claim 9, the image forming apparatus of claim 1 performs the color measurement control method of claim 9.
As to Claim 7, Togashi teaches ‘wherein, when the hardware processor determines to execute the color measurement by the colorimeter, the colorimeter executes color measurement on a fed test sheet for color measurement [par 0026 – inline sensor arranged downstream of the fixing unit and reads an image fixed and formed on the recording sheet, and that also functions as a colorimeter that reads a color chart used for color correction and subjects the color chart to colorimetry]’.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Togashi in view of Nakase et al. (US-2023/0048843).
As to Claim 2, Togashi teaches all the claimed element/features as recited in independent claim 1. Togashi does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the operation state includes an initial setup state, an activation state after long-term stop, and a state in which there is component replacement that affects printing’.
Nakase teaches ‘wherein the operation state includes an initial setup state, an activation state after long-term stop, and a state in which there is component replacement that affects printing [par 0062 – calibration triggers include a power-on of the multifunction peripheral, a replacement of a replaceable member of the image forming unit, or a change in an environmental condition (for example, an environmental temperature or an environmental humidity) exceeding a threshold]’.
Togashi and Nakase 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 calibration triggers, as taught by Nakase. The motivation for doing so would have been to suppression of variation in color appearance and density of images formed while enhancing productivity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nakase with Togashi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Togashi in view of Takagi et al. (US-2022/0309298).
As to Claim 3, Togashi teaches all the claimed element/features as recited in independent claim 1. Togashi does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the type of the color measurement execution instruction includes regular color measurement, color measurement before and after execution of a print job, and color measurement during execution of a print job’.
Togashi does teach performing single-color calibration and/or multidimensional calibration using a platen (i.e., regular color measurement), inline sensor arranged downstream of fixing unit and/or connected colorimeter (i.e., has the capabilities of performing regular color measurement and measuring a color chart before, after and during execution of a print job) [Figs 5, 6, 8A, 8B].
Takagi in the proposed combination of Togashi teaches ‘wherein the type of the color measurement execution instruction includes regular color measurement, color measurement before and after execution of a print job, and color measurement during execution of a print job [par 0087-0088, 0092, 0117, 0126-0127, 0131 – performing a calibration process before the start of printing, during the printing operation, and after the execution of the image printing process]’.
Togashi and Takagi 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 performing calibration at different times with respect to a printing process, as taught by Takagi. The motivation for doing so would have been to be capable of faithfully capturing printed images and inspecting the printed images with high accuracy, even if printing is continued for a long period of time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Takagi with Togashi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Togashi in view of Nakahara (US-2019/0089868).
As to Claim 6, Togashi teaches all of the claimed element/features as recited in independent claim 1. Togashi does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the hardware processor acquires, from a read image of a test sheet for creation of a color value conversion table read by the reader, RGB values of each patch included in the test sheet for the creation of the color value conversion table, acquires, from a read image of a test sheet for color measurement read by the reader, RGB values of each patch included in the test sheet for the color measurement, creates a color value conversion table for converting the RGB values into a pixel value in a Lab color space of the colorimeter by using a colorimetric value of each patch included in the test sheet for the creation of the color value conversion table measured by the colorimeter and the acquired RGB values of each patch, and converts the RGB values of each patch included in the read image of the test sheet for the color measurement read by the reader into a pixel value in the Lab color space, based on the color value conversion table’.
Nakahara in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the hardware processor acquires, from a read image of a test sheet for creation of a color value conversion table read by the reader, RGB values of each patch included in the test sheet for the creation of the color value conversion table, acquires, from a read image of a test sheet for color measurement read by the reader, RGB values of each patch included in the test sheet for the color measurement, creates a color value conversion table for converting the RGB values into a pixel value in a Lab color space of the colorimeter by using a colorimetric value of each patch included in the test sheet for the creation of the color value conversion table measured by the colorimeter and the acquired RGB values of each patch, and converts the RGB values of each patch included in the read image of the test sheet for the color measurement read by the reader into a pixel value in the Lab color space, based on the color value conversion table [par 0030-0031, 0038, 0067-0068, 0074-0075 – creating a scanner profile based on RGB values of patches taken by scanner (or the in-line scanner) with the measurement result Lab values taken with the spectrocolorimeter (or the in-line colorimeter) and performs update for correcting grid point data of scanner profile, and performing color conversion]’.
Togashi and Nakahara 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 scanner profile creation, as taught by Nakahara. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhancing the accuracy of the scanner profile even if a small number of patches are used for each partial correction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate Nakahara with Togashi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
As to Claim 8, Nakahara teaches ‘wherein, when the hardware processor determines to execute the color measurement using the reader, the hardware processor executes color value conversion on the read image of the test sheet for the color measurement read by the reader [par 0074-0075 – using the in-line scanner to obtain RGB values for color conversion based on patches printed]’.
Togashi and Nakahara 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 scanner profile creation, as taught by Nakahara. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhancing the accuracy of the scanner profile even if a small number of patches are used for each partial correction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate Nakahara with Togashi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Togashi in view of Nakase, Nakahara does not teach nor render obvious “wherein, in response to reception of a first color measurement execution instruction after activation of the image forming apparatus, the hardware processor determines to execute the color measurement by the colorimeter when the operation state is any of the initial setup state, the activation state after the long-term stop, and the state in which there is the component replacement that affects the printing, and determines to execute the color measurement using the reader when the operation state is a state other than the initial setup state, the activation state after the long-term stop, and the state in which there is the component replacement that affects the printing” as recited in dependent claim 4; and “wherein, in response to reception of a color measurement execution instruction other than a first color measurement execution instruction after activation of the image forming apparatus, the hardware processor determines to execute the color measurement using the reader when the type of the color measurement execution instruction is any of the regular color measurement, the color measurement before and after the execution of the print job, and the color measurement during the execution of the print job, and determines to execute the color measurement by the colorimeter when the type of the color measurement execution instruction is other than the regular color measurement, the color measurement before and after the execution of the print job, and the color measurement during the execution of the print job” as recited in dependent claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Publication No. 2015/0015900
b. US Publication No. 2023/0048843
c. US Publication No. 2022/0309298
d. US Publication No. 2019/0089868
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
e. US Publication No. 2024/0070919
f. US Publication No. 2014/0036284
g. US Publication No. 2005/0207768
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