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 .
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
Priority
The present application claims foreign priority benefits from JP2024-057305 filed on 03/29/2024. The certified copy of the priority document was electronically retrieved on 04/15/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/18/2025 is considered and attached.
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. The following table lists the occurrences that use means and corresponding structure and associated algorithm.
Claim no.
112(f) elements
Corresponding structure (PGPub)
Associated algorithm (PGPub)
1
1
6
9
1
2
10
an obtaining unit configured to obtain
a calculation unit configured to calculate
the calculation unit starts to calculate
the calculation unit increases
a determination unit configured to determine
the determination unit determines
the determination unit determines
FIG. 1-2; para. [0019] central processing unit (CPU)
FIG. 3; para. [0014], [0023]-[0024]
FIG. 5-6; [0014], [0023]-[0040], [0042]-[0043]
3
7
an image formation unit … configured to form
the image formation unit forms the mark
FIG. 1-2; para. [0019] central processing unit (CPU)
Para. [0015]-[0016], [0019], [0021], [0031]-[0032]
4
an image formation unit … configured to form
FIG. 1-2; para. [0019] central processing unit (CPU)
Para. [0015]-[0016], [0019], [0021], [0031]-[0032]
8
a detection unit … configured to obtain
FIG. 1-2; para. [0019] central processing unit (CPU)
Para. [0036]
11
12
13
the downstream image formation unit forms an image
the downstream image formation unit identifies
the downstream image formation unit starts to form
FIG. 1-2; para. [0019] central processing unit (CPU)
Para. [0039]-[0041]
1
is conveyed by a conveyance unit
FIG. 1-2; para. [0016]-[0017], [0019]
5
the conveyance unit conveys roll paper
14
is conveyed by a conveyance unit
15
is conveyed by a conveyance unit
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 14-15
Analysis for claim 14 is provided in the following. Claim 14 is reproduced in the following (annotation added):
14. An image processing method comprising:
(a) obtaining a luminance value obtained by reading a transparent substrate which is conveyed by a conveyance unit included in a printing apparatus configured to print an image on each page, and on which a mark indicating a leading position of the page is already printed;
(b) calculating a distance by which the transparent substrate is conveyed by the conveyance unit while the luminance value obtained in the obtaining is being kept within a certain range; and
(c) determining a position of the mark on the transparent substrate based on the distance calculated in the calculating.
Step 1: Evaluating whether the claim belongs to one of the statutory categories.
Claim 14 recites a plurality of acts. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If no exception is recited, the claim is eligible. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If the claim recites an exception, go to Step 2A Prong Two.
Claim 14 step (b) recites mathematical calculation. Step (c), under broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically performed in the human mind and therefore recites mental processes. (Step 2A Prong One YES)
Step 2A Prong Two: Evaluating whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. If the answer to (a) is YES and (b) is NO, go to Step 2B; if the answer to (a) and (b) is YES, go to PATHWAY B, i.e., the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and the claim is eligible.
In claim 14, step (a) recites data acquisition and gathering, an insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Step 2A Prong Two NO).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
In claim 14, step (a) recites data acquisition and gathering, an insignificant extra-solution activity, elements that should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Step a) recites data acquisition in a high level of generality, which is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. These additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. (Step 2B: NO). Claim 14 is not eligible.
Claim 15, a computer-readable medium claim, recites similar steps as recited in claim 14 and similarly recites mathematical calculation and mental processes. Similar to claim 14 step (a), claim 15 recites data acquisition and gathering, an insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. The recited computer components, such as computer and computer-readable storage medium and stored program, are recited in high level of generality, and merely add generic computer components to perform the acts and therefore fail to provide an improvement to the technology or technical field. Claim 15 is not eligible.
Claim 1
Claim 1 is reproduced in the following (Annotation added).
1. An image processing apparatus comprising:
an obtaining unit configured to obtain a luminance value obtained by reading a transparent substrate which is conveyed by a conveyance unit included in a printing apparatus configured to print an image on each page, and on which a mark indicating a leading position of the page is already printed;
a calculation unit configured to calculate a distance by which the transparent substrate is conveyed by the conveyance unit while the luminance value obtained by the obtaining unit is being kept within a certain range; and
a determination unit configured to determine a position of the mark on the transparent substrate based on the distance calculated by the calculation unit.
Claim 1 recites similar steps as in method claim 14. Note above recited units, and associated function, when interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation, recite mathematical calculation and mental processes without significantly more. However, under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation, the corresponding algorithm of the above identified an obtaining unit, a calculation unit and a determination unit is being read into the units respectively. As described in the specification, the following algorithm is related to the above units: FIG. 3, 5-6; para. [0014], [0023]-[0040], [0042]-[0043]. These figures and paragraphs describe a specific manner of obtaining luminance value, calculating a distance and determining a position of the mark. Therefore these limitations provide improvements to the functioning of a computer, and apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Claim 1 is eligible.
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) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEGAWA (JP 2019117319 A, published 2019-07-18), in view of Moriyama (US 20150034715 A1).
As per claim 14, SEGAWA teaches an image processing method (Abstract) comprising:
obtaining a of the leading position of each label 46 in the direction of arrow A, which indicates the transport direction (para. [0030]); FIG. 6(c) shows the voltage detected by first black mark detection sensor 37 (Fig. 1; Fig. 8; para. [0044]-[0046]));
calculating a distance by which the transparent substrate is conveyed by the conveyance unit while the
determining a position of the mark on the transparent substrate based on the distance calculated in the calculating (SEGAWA not only determines a position of the mark on the transparent substrate based on the distance calculated in the calculating (FIG. 6(c)), but also corrects the position of the mark. SEGAWA further mentions that label pitch does not coincide with the label image pitch and there is a deviation (Fig. 11; para. [0084]-[0086]). Accordingly, SEGAWA aligns the positions of each label 46 and the corresponding toner image transferred to the label 46 (para. [0099]). That is to say SEGAWA determines the corrected position of the black mark based on the calculated label pitch and label image pitch.)
SEGAWA however, does not teach obtaining a luminance value, and calculating a distance by which the transparent substrate is conveyed by the conveyance unit while the luminance value obtained in the obtaining unit is being kept within a certain range.
Moriyama in the same field of endeavor discloses a method for detecting marks in a print tape (Abstract). The reverse surface of a print tape includes a reference portion and a non-reference portion. The reference portion is configured to identify a position of a print area. The non-reference portion includes a plurality of through holes. The reference portion includes a barcode that includes a first mark and a second mark. The first mark is a portion of a first color that is one of black and white. The second mark is a portion of a second color that is one of black and white and is different to the first color (FIG. 6 #91 (31A) and #92(31B) being 2 marks; para. [0008]). FIG. 12-13 show the luminance values captured by a reflective sensor (para. [0006]). In FIG. 12-13, the threshold values T1 and T2 are within an allowable threshold range (para. [0088]). The distance L11 and L12 are calculated by using the threshold T1 or T2 (para. [0091]-[0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventor to modify the teaching of SEGAWA to incorporate the teaching of Moriyama to obtain a luminance value, and calculate a distance by which the transparent substrate is conveyed by the conveyance unit while the luminance value obtained in the obtaining unit is being kept within a certain range. Doing so would accurately detect a reference portion that is used to identify a position of a print area, while suppressing an increase in complexity of a structure of the tape printer as recognized by Moriyama (para. [0007]).
Claim 15, an independent medium claim, recites steps corresponding to method claim 14. Therefore the recited steps of 15 are mapped to SEGAWA in view of Moriyama in the same manner as corresponding steps in claim 14. Further the rationale by combining SEGAWA and Moriyama as applied to claim 14 is also applicable here. Moriyama additionally teaches computer system elements, such as non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and a computer (FIG. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventor to modify the teaching of SEGAWA to incorporate the teaching of Moriyama to include computer system elements, such as computer and storage medium. By including such elements, one can implement the steps in claim 15 by using a computer system (Moriyama FIG. 4, para. [0047]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed.
The following is Examiner’s reasons for identification of allowable subject matter.
In independent claim 1, “an obtaining unit configured to obtain”, “a calculation unit configured to calculate” and “a determination unit configured to determine “are interpreted as invoking 35 USC 112 (f) claim interpretation. Since these units are computer-implemented elements, the corresponding algorithms in the specification are being read into the elements interpreted under 112(f) as identified above. Specifically, at least FIG. 3, 5-6; para. [0014], [0023]-[0040], [0042]-[0043] of the instant specification contains allowable subject matter when taken in combination with the entirety of the claim.
The following prior art is considered closest to the current application.
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, as per claim 1, SEGAWA (JP 2019117319 A, published 2019-07-18) teaches an image processing apparatus (Abstract; FIG. 1-2) comprising:
an obtaining unit (FIG. 1-2) configured to obtain a [0030]); FIG. 6(c) shows the voltage detected by first black mark detection sensor 37 (Fig. 1; Fig. 8; para. [0044]-[0046]));
a calculation unit (FIG. 1-2) configured to calculate a distance by which the transparent substrate is conveyed by the conveyance unit while the
a determination unit (FIG. 1-2) configured to determine a position of the mark on the transparent substrate based on the distance calculated in the calculating (SEGAWA not only determines a position of the mark on the transparent substrate based on the distance calculated in the calculating (FIG. 6(c)), but also corrects the position of the mark. SEGAWA further mentions that label pitch does not coincide with the label image pitch and there is a deviation (Fig. 11; para. [0084]-[0086]). Accordingly, SEGAWA aligns the positions of each label 46 and the corresponding toner image transferred to the label 46 (para. [0099]). That is to say SEGAWA determines the real position of the black mark based on the calculated label pitch and label image pitch.)
SEGAWA however, does not teach obtaining a luminance value, and calculating a distance by which the transparent substrate is conveyed by the conveyance unit while the luminance value obtained in the obtaining unit is being kept within a certain range.
Moriyama in the same field of endeavor discloses a method for detecting marks in a print tape (Abstract). The reverse surface of a print tape includes a reference portion and a non-reference portion. The reference portion is configured to identify a position of a print area. The non-reference portion includes a plurality of through holes. The reference portion includes a barcode that includes a first mark and a second mark. The first mark is a portion of a first color that is one of black and white. The second mark is a portion of a second color that is one of black and white and is different to the first color (FIG. 6 #91 (31A) and #92(31B) being 2 marks; para. [0008]). FIG. 12-13 show the luminance values captured by a reflective sensor (para. [0006]). In FIG. 12-13, the threshold values T1 and T2 are within an allowable threshold range (para. [0088]). The distance L11 and L12 are calculated by using the threshold T1 or T2 (para. [0091]-[0093]).
Prior art, either applied alone, or in combination with, fails to teach or suggest all the limitations as recited in claim 1 in view of 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation.
Conclusion
Prior art searched but not cited is recorded in PTO-892.
Additional prior art Osakama (US 20060044381 A1) discloses a printer including a first sensor and a second sensor disposed, respectively, upstream and downstream of a print head in the feeding direction of a roll of paper. The size of printing media is detected based on the distance between two consecutive detection marks sensed by the first sensor, and leading edges of the printing media sensed by the first sensor are detected by the second sensor (Abstract; FIG. 2; para. [0024])
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUEMEI G CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3480. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, John M Villecco can be reached on (571) 272-7319. 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.
/XUEMEI G CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights