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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically claim 14 recites “the print medium” and separately “the first print medium”. It is unclear whether these refer to the same print medium or different print medium. Neither claim 14, nor claims 1 or 2 from which claim 14 depends, introduce “a print medium”; claim 2, from which claim 14 depends, recites “a first print medium”, but it is presently unclear whether this is the same as “the print medium” recited in claim 14, particularly in view of claim 14’s simultaneous use of “the first print medium”. Additionally, claim 14 is constructed with “the print medium has the color reproduction characteristic different from a standard…[of] the image of the first print medium,” which seems inconsistent if these “print mediums” are intended to be the same “print medium”. In the furtherance of compact prosecution, an attempt will be made to interpret claim 14 in its current form for the purposes of prior art rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-5, 14, 17, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2018/0020127).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2018/0020127) discloses:
An image processing method comprising:
acquiring first image data (Figure 9, paragraphs [0002], [0141], a scan image is generated by scanning a document); and
performing first image processing with respect to the acquired first image data to acquire the first image data subjected to the first image processing as second image data (Figure 9, S930/S940, paragraphs [0147]-[0150], the image is gamma corrected based on the paper color information of the document), the first image processing including correction of an influence on an image quality, the influence being generated in the acquiring the first image data and correction of a color reproduction (paragraphs [0055]-[0062], the paper color of the document influences the quality of the reproduction, thus necessitating the gamma correction)
Regarding claim 2, Kim et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the first image data is image data which is acquired from a first print medium on which an image is printed (Figure 9, paragraphs [0002], [0141], a scan image is generated by scanning a document on a print medium); and
the first image processing is image processing according to a color reproduction characteristic of the first print medium (paragraphs [0055]-[0062], the paper color of the document influences the quality of the reproduction, thus necessitating the gamma correction)
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the first image processing is image processing of correcting color reproduction of the image changed due to the color reproduction characteristic with respect to the first image data (paragraphs [0055]-[0062], the paper color of the document influences the quality of the reproduction, thus necessitating the gamma correction)
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the first image data is image data acquired by imaging (Figure 9, paragraphs [0002], [0141], a scan image is generated by scanning a document on a print medium)
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the correction of the influence on the image quality of the first image data is correction of the influence on the image quality, the influence being generated by imaging (paragraphs [0055]-[0062], the paper color of the document influences the quality of the reproduction from the scanning process, thus necessitating the gamma correction)
Regarding claim 14, Kim et al. additionally discloses:
wherein, in the first image processing, it is discriminated that the print medium has the color reproduction characteristic different from a standard from at least one of a frame design, a print medium size, or the image of the first print medium (paragraphs [0046], [0055], [0062], the color is corrected when the color reproduction characteristic of the image of the first print medium (the document) falls outside a predetermined range (outside a “standard”))
Regarding claim 17, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. The apparatus including an acquiring device and process is explicitly taught by Kim in paragraph [0052].
Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to claim 2 are applicable. The apparatus including an acquiring device and process is explicitly taught by Kim in paragraph [0052].
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.
Claim(s) 6, 11, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in view of Tsukada (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2011/0268350).
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 5).
Kim additionally discloses:
wherein a target of the correction is an influence of reflected light during imaging and/or ambient light on the image quality (paragraph [0053], the image data received is necessarily related to the reflected light; therefore, the gamma correction made relates to an influence of reflected light during image)
Even assuming arguendo that Kim does not disclose:
wherein a target of the correction is an influence of reflected light during imaging and/or ambient light on the image quality
Tsukada (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2011/0268350) discloses:
wherein a target of the correction is an influence of reflected light during imaging and/or ambient light on the image quality (Figure 5, paragraphs [0105]-[0106], the image is corrected to account for the influence of reflection)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Tsukada with the system of Kim such that the system would have been configured to have the target of the correction be an influence of reflected light during imaging and/or ambient light on the image quality as described in Tsukada. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “enabl[ing] the color of an object having complex reflection characteristics…to be reproduced with high accuracy” (paragraph [0112] of the Tsukada reference).
Regarding claim 11, Kim et al. discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 1).
Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose:
wherein, in the second image processing, a user is able to manually adjust an image quality parameter, and one or more of the image quality parameters are stored in a terminal as terminal information.
Tsukada discloses:
wherein, in the second image processing, a user is able to manually adjust an image quality parameter, and one or more of the image quality parameters are stored in a terminal as terminal information (paragraph [0126], the user can freely adjust the quantity of the specular component with the user interaction unit; the corrected result is displayed)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Tsukada with the system of Kim such that the system would have been configured to have a user be able to manually adjust an image quality parameter, and one or more of the image quality parameters are stored in a terminal as terminal information as described in Tsukada. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of allowing for “an output image desired by the user [to] be generated” (paragraph [0112] of the Tsukada reference).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kim and Tsukada disclose the method of the parent claim (claim 11).
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
wherein, in the second image processing, the image quality parameter stored in the terminal as the terminal information is updated in a case in which the image quality parameter is adjusted.
Tsukada discloses:
wherein, in the second image processing, the image quality parameter stored in the terminal as the terminal information is updated in a case in which the image quality parameter is adjusted (paragraph [0126], the user can freely adjust the quantity of the specular component with the user interaction unit; the corrected result is displayed)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Tsukada with the system of Kim such that the system would have been configured to have the image quality parameter stored in the terminal as the terminal information be updated in a case in which the image quality parameter is adjusted as described in Tsukada. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of allowing for “an output image desired by the user [to] be generated” (paragraph [0112] of the Tsukada reference).
Regarding claim 15, Kim et al. discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 1).
Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose:
wherein an identifier that identifies that specific image processing is included in the first image processing is stored in a terminal as terminal information, or is stored in the second image data as accessory information
Tsukada discloses:
wherein an identifier that identifies that specific image processing is included in the first image processing is stored in a terminal as terminal information, or is stored in the second image data as accessory information (paragraphs [0126]-[0127], the user can freely adjust the quantity of the specular component with the user interaction unit; the specific value of the quantity can be adjusted through the GUI – this implies the storage, at least temporarily, in the terminal)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Tsukada with the system of Kim such that the system would have been configured to have the image quality parameter stored in the terminal as the terminal information be updated in a case in which the image quality parameter is adjusted as described in Tsukada. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of allowing for “an output image desired by the user [to] be generated” (paragraph [0112] of the Tsukada reference).
Claim(s) 7-10, 16, and 19-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. in view of Ogawa et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2013/0021654).
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al. discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 2).
Kim additionally discloses:
wherein the first image data is photographic image data acquired by imaging the first print medium with a camera-equipped terminal (Figure 9, paragraphs [0002], [0141], a scan image is generated by scanning a document on a print medium);
However, even assuming arguendo that the scanner of Kim et al. does not constitute a “camera equipped terminal”, Ogawa et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2013/0021654) discloses:
wherein the first image data is photographic image data acquired by imaging the first print medium with a camera-equipped terminal (paragraph [0035], PC with book scanner including camera)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Ogawa with the system of Kim such that the first image data was photographic image data acquired by imaging the first print medium with a camera-equipped terminal as described in Ogawa. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of having “planarization [be] performed on an image of a distorted paper surface in order to obtain a planarized image of the paper surface of the two-page spread” (paragraph [0033] of the Ogawa reference).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kim and Ogawa discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 7).
Kim additionally discloses:
wherein the second image data is stored in the terminal in association with the first image data (paragraphs [0148]-[0150], the correct image is stored)
Ogawa additionally discloses:
wherein the second image data is stored in the terminal in association with the first image data (paragraphs [0038], [0046], [0056] [0075]-[0077], the planarized version of pages A1 and A2 is stored)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Ogawa with the system of Kim such that the second image data is stored in the terminal in association with the first image data as described in Ogawa. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of having “planarization [be] performed on an image of a distorted paper surface in order to obtain a planarized image of the paper surface of the two-page spread” (paragraph [0033] of the Ogawa reference).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kim and Ogawa discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 7).
Kim additionally discloses:
wherein the terminal includes a display device and a playback mode in which the image data is played back, and in the playback mode, the second image data is displayed on the display device based on a mode set by a user (paragraph [0089]-[0090], [0150], the corrected scan image may be displayed through the display according to the selected setting)
Ogawa additionally discloses:
wherein the terminal includes a display device and a playback mode in which the image data is played back, and in the playback mode, the second image data is displayed on the display device based on a mode set by a user (paragraphs [0059], [0060], [0064], [0068], in the operation mode, the user is shown a preview of the image)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Ogawa with the system of Kim such that the second image data is stored in the terminal in association with the first image data as described in Ogawa. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of having “planarization [be] performed on an image of a distorted paper surface in order to obtain a planarized image of the paper surface of the two-page spread” (paragraph [0033] of the Ogawa reference).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kim and Ogawa discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 7).
As previously noted, Ogawa discloses:
wherein the first image data is photographic image data acquired by imaging the first print medium with a camera-equipped terminal (paragraph [0035], PC with book scanner including camera)
Kim additionally discloses:
wherein the terminal transmits the second image data to a printer (paragraph [0118], the corrected scan image can be sent to the printer)
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kim and Ogawa discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 7).
As previously noted, Ogawa discloses:
wherein the first image data is photographic image data acquired by imaging the first print medium with a camera-equipped terminal (paragraph [0035], PC with book scanner including camera)
Kim additionally discloses:
wherein an imaging condition and/or an adjustment condition in a case of imaging with the camera-equipped terminal is decided based on information on a specific region of the first print medium (paragraph [0128], the paper color information is based on a predetermined area of the first copy)
Regarding claim 19, arguments analogous to claim 7 are applicable. The apparatus including an acquiring device and process is explicitly taught by Kim in paragraph [0052].
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kim and Ogawa discloses the apparatus of the parent claim (claim 19)
Kim additionally discloses:
wherein the processor corrects an influence of imaging with the camera-equipped terminal on the image quality as the correction with respect to the first image data (paragraphs [0055]-[0062], the paper color of the document influences the quality of the reproduction from the scanning process, thus necessitating the gamma correction)
Ogawa additionally discloses:
wherein the processor corrects an influence of imaging with the camera-equipped terminal on the image quality as the correction with respect to the first image data (paragraphs [0045]-[0046], the image data is planarized by projective transformation)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Ogawa with the system of Kim such that the system would correct an influence of imaging with the camera-equipped terminal on the image quality as the correction with respect to the first image data as described in Ogawa. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of having “planarization [be] performed on an image of a distorted paper surface in order to obtain a planarized image of the paper surface of the two-page spread” (paragraph [0033] of the Ogawa reference).
Regarding claim 21, arguments analogous to claim 8 are applicable. The apparatus including an acquiring device and process is explicitly taught by Kim in paragraph [0052].
Regarding claim 22, arguments analogous to claim 9 are applicable. The apparatus including an acquiring device and process is explicitly taught by Kim in paragraph [0052].
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Donahoe et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2006/0192991).
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 2).
Kim does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first print medium has a first region and a second region, and the second image data has a third region and a fourth region corresponding to the first region and the second region, respectively, and image data in which the third region of the second image data is cut out is transmitted to a printer.
Donahoe et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2006/0192991) discloses:
wherein the first print medium has a first region and a second region, and the second image data has a third region and a fourth region corresponding to the first region and the second region, respectively (paragraphs [0056], [0075], a scan can be color corrected; a photo may contain multiple image regions and the corrected photo would produce correct versions of those regions), and image data in which the third region of the second image data is cut out is transmitted to a printer (paragraphs [0062]-[0063], [0075], the photo can additionally be cropped; the cropped region would be the third region that is “cut out”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Donahoe et al. with the system of Kim such that a first and second region in the scanned image were modified to produce a third and fourth region and image data in which the third region of the second image data is cut out is transmitted to a printer as described in Donahoe et al. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “allow[ing] for scrapbooking participants to easily create scrapbooking pages and easily make copies of the scrapbooking pages” (paragraph [0003] of the Donahoe et al. reference).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30-5 PM.
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 at 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 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.
/JOHN R WALLACE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
