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 .
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 7 April 2025 and 11 June 2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “receiving unit” of claims 1 and 28, the “obtaining unit” of claims 1 and 28, the “conversion unit” of claims 1 and 28, the first correction unit” of claims 1 and 28, the “estimation unit” of claim 13, the “grouping unit” of claim 16, the “second determination unit” of claim 17, the “second correction unit” of claim 19, and the “generation un it” of claim 23 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a receiving unit configured to…” in claims 1 and 28 (No Detailed Disclosure);
“an obtaining unit configured to…” in claims 1 and 28 (No Detailed Disclosure);
“a conversion unit configured to…” in claims 1 and 28 (No Detailed Disclosure);
“a first correction unit configured to…” in claims 1 and 28 (No Detailed Disclosure);
“an estimation unit configured to…” in claim 13 (No Detailed Disclosure);
“a grouping unit configured to…” in claim 16 (No Detailed Disclosure);
“a second determination unit configured to…” in claim 17 (No Detailed Disclosure);
“a second correction unit configured to…” in claim 19 (No Detailed Disclosure); and
“a generation unit configured to…” in claim 23 (No Detailed Disclosure).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-28 are 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.
Claim limitations “a receiving unit configured to…” in claims 1 and 28, “an obtaining unit configured to…” in claims 1 and 28, “a conversion unit configured to…” in claims 1 and 28, “a first correction unit configured to…” in claims 1 and 28, “an estimation unit configured to…” in claim 13, “a grouping unit configured to…” in claim 16, “a second determination unit configured to…” in claim 17, “a second correction unit configured to…” in claim 19, and “a generation unit configured to…” in claim 23 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any detailed structure that performs the function in the claim.
Therefore, claims 1-26 and 28 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the receiving unit.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of copending Application No. 19/012,431 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims and the copending claims are obvious variations.
Below is a comparison between present claim 1 and copending claim 18:
Present claim 1
Copending claim 18
An information processing apparatus comprising:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
a receiving unit configured to receive, from an apparatus configured to sequentially transmit respective divided images into which an image has been divided, a divided image;
wherein the first obtaining unit obtains the first color information from an image in a partial area in the first image.
wherein the partial area is an area constituted by one or more divided areas obtained by dividing the image into a plurality of areas.
an obtaining unit configured to obtain, from a first divided image received by the receiving unit, color information of a first color defined in a first color gamut and color information of a second color defined in the first color gamut;
a first obtaining unit configured to obtain first color information from a first image, which includes a pixel representing color information of a first color defined in a first color gamut and a pixel representing color information of a second color defined in the first color gamut;
a conversion unit configured to perform first color conversion processing for converting the first color into a third color defined in a second color gamut different from the first color gamut and converting the second color into a fourth color defined in the second color gamut; and
a conversion unit configured to perform color conversion processing in which the corrected first conversion parameter is used on a second image different from the first image.
a first correction unit configured to, in a case where a color difference between the third color and the fourth color is smaller than a predetermined threshold, correct the conversion parameter for the first color conversion processing such that a color difference between a fifth color obtained by converting the first color into a color defined in the second color gamut and the fourth color is greater than the color difference between the third color and the fourth color,
a first correction unit configured to, in a case where a color difference between a third color defined in a second color gamut and obtained by converting the first color by color conversion processing and a fourth color defined in the second color gamut and obtained by converting the second color by the color conversion processing is less than a predetermined threshold, correct a first conversion parameter for the color conversion processing such that a color obtained by converting the first color is a fifth color whose color difference from the fourth color is greater than the color difference between the third color and the fourth color and which is different from the third color; and
wherein the obtaining unit, the conversion unit, and the first correction unit operate in response to the receiving unit receiving the divided image.
As shown above, besides wording, the main difference between the claims is that present claim 1 recites “wherein the obtaining unit, the conversion unit, and the first correction unit operate in response to the receiving unit receiving the divided image” whereas copending claim 18 fails to recite this feature. However, clearly the image needs to be received for the units to perform their functions, and thus even without the feature being recited, the units clearly function in response to receiving the image. Therefore, the claims are merely obvious wording variations claiming the same inventions, and thus are not patentably distinct.
Claims 2-28 are similarly rejected over claims 1-25 of copending Application No. 19/012,431 (reference application).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented, however, it is noted that a Notice of Allowance has been issued in the copending application.
Claims 1-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of copending Application No. 18/957,482 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims and the copending claims are obvious variations.
Below is a comparison between present claim 1 and copending claim 19:
Present claim 1
Copending claim 19
An information processing apparatus comprising:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
at least one processor configured to function as:
a receiving unit configured to receive, from an apparatus configured to sequentially transmit respective divided images into which an image has been divided, a divided image;
wherein the obtaining unit obtains the first color information from an image of a partial area in the image.
wherein the partial area is an area constituted by one or more divided areas obtained by dividing the image into a plurality of areas
an obtaining unit configured to obtain, from a first divided image received by the receiving unit, color information of a first color defined in a first color gamut and color information of a second color defined in the first color gamut;
an obtaining unit configured to obtain first color information from an image that
includes a pixel representing color information of a first color defined in a first color gamut and a pixel representing color information of a second color defined in the first color
gamut;
a setting unit configured to set second color information indicating particular color information;
a conversion unit configured to perform first color conversion processing for converting the first color into a third color defined in a second color gamut different from the first color gamut and converting the second color into a fourth color defined in the second color gamut; and
a conversion unit configured to execute, on the image, color conversion processing for converting the first color into a third color defined in a second color gamut and converting the second color into a fourth color defined in the second color gamut; and
a first correction unit configured to, in a case where a color difference between the third color and the fourth color is smaller than a predetermined threshold, correct the conversion parameter for the first color conversion processing such that a color difference between a fifth color obtained by converting the first color into a color defined in the second color gamut and the fourth color is greater than the color difference between the third color and the fourth color,
a first correction unit configured to:
in a case where a color difference between the third color and the fourth color is less than a predetermined threshold,
in a case where the first color is not included in the particular color
information, correct a conversion parameter in the color conversion processing such that a color obtained by converting the first color is a fifth color whose color difference from the fourth color is greater than the color difference between the third color and the fourth color and which is defined in the second color gamut, and
in a case where the first color is included in the particular color information, correct a conversion parameter in the color conversion processing such that a color obtained by converting the second color is a sixth color whose color difference from the third color is greater than the color difference between the third color and the fourth color and which is defined in the second color gamut.
wherein the obtaining unit, the conversion unit, and the first correction unit operate in response to the receiving unit receiving the divided image.
As shown above, besides wording, and the fact that the present claims are generally broader, the main difference between the claims is that present claim 1 recites “wherein the obtaining unit, the conversion unit, and the first correction unit operate in response to the receiving unit receiving the divided image” whereas copending claim 19 fails to recite this feature. However, clearly the image needs to be received for the units to perform their functions, and thus even without the feature being recited, the units clearly function in response to receiving the image. Therefore, the claims are merely obvious wording variations claiming the same inventions, and thus are not patentably distinct.
Claims 2-28 are similarly rejected over claims 1-22 of copending Application No. 18/957,482 (reference application).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/602,872 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims and the copending claims are obvious variations.
Below is a comparison between present claim 1 and copending claim 1:
Present claim 1
Copending claim 2
An information processing apparatus comprising:
An image processing apparatus comprising:
a receiving unit configured to receive, from an apparatus configured to sequentially transmit respective divided images into which an image has been divided, a divided image;
a division unit configured to divide the image data into a plurality of region data;
an obtaining unit configured to obtain, from a first divided image received by the receiving unit, color information of a first color defined in a first color gamut and color information of a second color defined in the first color gamut;
an image obtaining unit configured to obtain image data;
a conversion unit configured to perform first color conversion processing for converting the first color into a third color defined in a second color gamut different from the first color gamut and converting the second color into a fourth color defined in the second color gamut; and
a conversion information obtaining unit configured to obtain first color conversion information applicable to the image data;
wherein the first color conversion information is conversion information for converting a color in a first color gamut into a color in a second color gamut in a predetermined color space.
a first correction unit configured to, in a case where a color difference between the third color and the fourth color is smaller than a predetermined threshold, correct the conversion parameter for the first color conversion processing such that a color difference between a fifth color obtained by converting the first color into a color defined in the second color gamut and the fourth color is greater than the color difference between the third color and the fourth color,
a correction unit configured to correct the first color conversion information to generate second color conversion information; and
a processing unit configured to apply, to each of the plurality of region data, color conversion processing based on one of the first color conversion information and the second color conversion information, wherein for each of the plurality of region data, if a color difference between a third color and a fourth color obtained by converting a first color and a second color included in the region data based on the first color conversion information is smaller than a predetermined color difference, the correction unit generates the second color conversion information such that a color difference between a fifth color and a sixth color obtained by converting the first color and the second color based on the second color conversion information becomes larger than the predetermined color difference, and the processing unit applies color conversion processing based on the second color conversion information corresponding to each region data to at least one region data among the plurality of region data, for which the second color conversion information is generated.
wherein the obtaining unit, the conversion unit, and the first correction unit operate in response to the receiving unit receiving the divided image.
As shown above, besides wording, the main difference between the claims is that (i) present claim 1 receives the divided image whereas copending claim 2 divides the image that is obtained, and (ii) present claim 1 recites “wherein the obtaining unit, the conversion unit, and the first correction unit operate in response to the receiving unit receiving the divided image” whereas copending claim 2 fails to recite this feature. However, clearly the image needs to be received/obtained for the units to perform their functions, and thus even without the feature being recited, the units clearly function in response to receiving the image. Further, it is merely an obvious design variation as to receiving a divided image vs dividing an image that is obtained. Therefore, the claims are merely obvious wording variations claiming the same inventions, and thus are not patentably distinct.
Claims 2-28 are similarly rejected over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/602,872 (reference application).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-5 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (EP 0 961 488 A2) in view of Youn et al. (US 2015/0243248).
Regarding claim 1, Ito et al. disclose an information processing apparatus comprising:
a receiving unit configured to receive, from an apparatus configured to sequentially transmit respective images, an image (Figure 2, the input picture in RGB is received from the monitor 62.);
an obtaining unit configured to obtain, from a first image received by the receiving unit, color information of a first color defined in a first color gamut and color information of a second color defined in the first color gamut (Figure 2 the color information of the RGB picture is obtained, which would have R G and B, thus comprising a first color and a second color in the first color gamut of the monitor.);
a conversion unit configured to perform first color conversion processing for converting the first color into a third color defined in a second color gamut different from the first color gamut and converting the second color into a fourth color defined in the second color gamut (Paragraph [0027], gamut mapping involves transforming the colors form the first gamut [input] to the second color gamut [output gamut of the printer], thus the first color will be mapped to a third color, and the second color will be mapped to a fourth color.); and
a first correction unit configured to, in a case where a color difference between the third color and the fourth color is smaller than a predetermined threshold, correct the conversion parameter for the first color conversion processing such that a color difference between a fifth color obtained by converting the first color into a color defined in the second color gamut and the fourth color is greater than the color difference between the third color and the fourth color (Paragraphs [0018] and [0042]-[0046] detail correction, where when a color difference between the converted colors is smaller than a threshold, then correction is made such that the color difference after correction is greater.),
wherein the obtaining unit, the conversion unit, and the first correction unit operate in response to the receiving unit receiving the image (Clearly the units will only function to perform their operations when an image is received.).
Ito et al. fails to teach wherein the image is a divided image
Youn et al. disclose wherein an image is a divided image (See Figure 2, S260).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination Ito et al. performs the same function as it does separately of performing gamut mapping, and Youn et al. performs the same function as it does separately of dividing an image.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in the image being a divided image and performing gamut mapping on a divided image.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Ito et al. and Youn et al. disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the first color and the second color are colors expressed in any color space among CIE-L*a*b*, RGB, HLS, and HSV (Ito et al.: Figure 2, RGB).
Regarding claim 5, Ito et al. and Youn et al. disclose the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second color gamut is a color reproduction gamut for printing by an image forming apparatus (Ito et al.: Figure 2, output CMYK for the printer 63.).
Regarding claim 27, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 28, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 6-26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, AND if a Terminal Disclaimer(s) is filed to overcome the Double Patenting rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Young et al. (US 2022/0084260) disclose of efficient color mapping systems and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
22 September 2026
Prosecution Insights