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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 02 March 2026, with respect to claims 1-10 and 12, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (on page 6 of the response) that the processor is configured to "execute a displaying process for displaying, on a setting screen, a rasterized image generated from print data corresponding to a page, the rasterized image not being derived from a scanned image of a sheet printed from the print data", it was agreed in the Interview and is agreed now that Ikuta does not disclose the emphasized limitation. However, it has been found after further search based on the amended claims that this limitation is known in the prior art. See application of Rodriguez et al in the rejection below. And in additionally cited art, see the summary of Ishizuka, Goldwater et al, and Stodersching et al, which all disclose rasterizing print data (generating the bitmap) for display prior to printing (i.e., not being derived from a scanned printed sheet).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikuta (US 20200096925 A1) in view of Furukawa et al (US 7224821 B2) and Rodriguez et al (US 8817292 B1).
Referring to claims 1 and 6:
Ikuta discloses an information processing apparatus comprising a processor (50) configured to:
execute a displaying process for displaying, on a setting screen, an image generated from print data corresponding to page data (par. 79-80:reference images correspond to page data and setting screen and selected reference image RI is displayed on display section 26); and
execute a receiving process for receiving setting of at least one of an inspection target region serving as a target of an inspection or an inspection exception region to be excepted from the inspection, the setting being performed on the image displayed on the setting screen and the setting being received from a user (par. 85-90: describes different ways for the user to select the image inspection excluded area FDA, the area not selected as such being inherently selected as the inspection target area).
Ikuta does not disclose displaying “rasterized” image generated from print data corresponding to page data, the setting being performed on the “rasterized” image displayed on the setting screen, nor rasterizing the page in the displaying process with a resolution lower than a resolution of an image generated when the print data is printed.
However, Furukawa et al teach generating raster image data for displaying printed matter on a display device using a resolution whereby the printed matter is displayed at an actual size, or using a lower or higher resolution. Using the resolution to display a raster image on the display device that is the same size as the actual printed matter enables the user to better confirm placement of text and images. Lower resolution allows image inspection to be carried out more quickly, while higher resolution enables image inspection to be carried out with a higher degree of precision (abstract, col. 1, lines 47-52, col. 7, lines 8-20).
Therefore, for the reason noted above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display processing in Ikuta in view of Furukawa et al whereby “rasterized” image is generated from print data corresponding to page data and displayed on the setting screen, the setting being performed on the “rasterized” image displayed on the setting screen at a resolution lower than a resolution of an image generated when the print data is printed.
Ikuta does not disclose rasterized image generated from print data corresponding to a page, the rasterized image not being derived from a scanned image of a sheet printed from the print data. However, Rodriguez et al disclose a raster image process performance preflight technique to evaluate a document print job prior to document printing in order to allow the print job to be modified to improve the raster image processing results and enhance printing efficiency. To that end, a visual representation 350 (i.e., page view) of the specific preliminary raster page is displayed (see Fig. 3, col. 14, lines 22-32, and col 20, lines 13-17). The rasterized image not being derived from a scanned image of a sheet printed from the print data.
Therefore, for the reasons indicated above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ikuta in view of Rodriguez et al such that the displaying process for displaying, on a setting screen, a rasterized image generated from print data corresponding to a page, the rasterized image not being derived from a scanned image of a sheet printed from the print data.
Referring to claim 2:
In the combination, Ikuta discloses the processor is configured to output setting information indicating a detail of the setting of each of the inspection target region and the inspection exception region to an inspection setting file separate from the print data, the setting being received in the receiving process (par. 93: after setting all the image inspection excluded areas on reference image RI and selecting setting complete, all the settings related to the image inspection excluded areas and the related setting data are stored in the memory).
Referring to claim 5:
In the combination, Ikuta discloses the processor configured to every time designation of the page in the print data is received, execute the displaying process and the receiving process for the page (Fig. 4, par. 66-75: determining the reference image to be used in a quality check job).
Referring to claim 9:
This is the product or article of manufacture claim (i.e., a non-transitory computer readable medium) causing a computer to execute a process of performing the corresponding functions of the apparatus as set forth in claim 1. In the combination, Ikuta discloses such a product for this purpose (par. 16). Therefore, this claim is rejected for the same reasons as presented above.
Referring to claim 10:
This is the method claim for performing the corresponding functions of the apparatus as set for in claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as presented above.
Referring to claim 12:
While not disclosed by Ikuta, Rodrigues teaches the use of print jobs formatted in a page description language (PDL) that describe a document to be printed (col. 2, lines 39-42, col. 4, lines 33-39, and col 9, 1st and 2nd par.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ikuta in view of Rodriguez et al to configure the processor to generate the image displayed on the setting screen by rasterizing print data described in a page description language (PDL), the print data corresponding to a page, for the primary advantage of using an intermediary, high-level language that tells a printer how to render text, graphics, and images on a page that offers device-independence, high-quality, and efficient printing by enabling detailed, precise control over page layout and formatting.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikuta in view of Furukawa et al and Rodriguez et al as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Vans et al (US 8867796 B2).
Referring to claim 7:
The combination of Ikuta and Furukawa et al do not disclose the resolution lower than the resolution of the image generated when the print data is printed is identical to a resolution of a scanner used for the inspection.
However, Vans et al disclose processing a raster image and forming a printed image corresponding to the raster image onto a medium, and capturing a target image from at least a part of the printed image at a lower resolution than the printed image to detect a defect in the printed image (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Ikuta and Furukawa et al in view of Vans et al to inspect the target at a lower resolution identical to the resolution of a scanner used to capture the target image, thereby facilitating more cost efficient image detection (col. 12, lines 21-24).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 8 are 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. Referring to claims 3-4 and 8, the prior art searched and of record neither anticipates nor suggests the limitations added in the claimed combinations.
Claim 11 is allowed based on the limitations in claim 4 having been written into an independent form and the prior art searched and of record neither anticipating nor suggesting the limitations therein as set forth in the combination.
Cited Art
The prior art and other references made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishizuka (US 7317548 B2) discloses an image processing device according to the present invention has; a scanner which reads an original document, an image processor which takes in the read document image as digital information and processes and edits the data, an operation unit which combines and sets a plurality of image edit functions with respect to the document image, a bitmap data memory for displaying the edit picture image, and a display unit which displays the picture image set by combining the image edit functions on the operation panel, before starting copying (abstract).
Goldwater et al (US 8503030 B2 & US 8553260 B2) disclose an apparatus, method, system and medium are described that support functionality to receive document(s) to be printed at a printing device, and enable editing the document(s) prior to printing. Modifications to the document(s) may be generated based on the user edits, and a print preview of the modified documents may be displayed and may enable further edits. In some embodiments, the print preview may be provided to the user on a display that is part of the printing device. In some embodiments, the print preview may be provided to the user through a UI presented on a client device. Display of the modified document(s) may be a rasterized image of the modified document(s), generated based on capabilities of a selected printing device. In some embodiments, modifications may be made to an intermediate version of the document(s), and that intermediate version may be cached. See abstract.
Display of the document(s) (either before or after modification) may be following a rasterization, such that the display document(s) are raster images of the document made based on capabilities of the printing device on which the document(s) are to be printed. In this way, the user may be presented with an image of the modified document(s) that is an accurate depiction of the document(s) as they would be printed on the printing device. See the last par. in col 3.
Stodersching et al (US 20040150853 A1) disclose a method, a system or a computer program for visually checking a print data flow, wherein said print data flow is subjected to a first raster process for print output and to a second raster process for visual checking. The same raster method is used in both raster processes. The invention allows precise document checking before document printing by use of a raster process on an electronic display medium (abstract/summary).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott Rogers whose telephone number is 571-272-7467. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am to 7 pm flex.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached on 571-270-5254. 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.
/Scott A Rogers/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
04 April 2026