DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments and response received 12/17/2025 have been entered. Claims 20, 21, 23-26, 28-31, 33 and 34 are currently pending in this application. Claims 20, 21, 24-26, 29-31 and 34 have been amended and claims 22, 27 and 32 canceled. Amendments and response are addressed hereinbelow.
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.
Claims 20, 21, 23-26, 28-31, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki Kawabata et al (US 20150221077 A1) in view of Miyai Katsumasa (JP 2007241413 A) and Takao Kurohata (US 20200322492 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Kawabata et al discloses an inspection system (¶ [7]) comprising:
a hardware processor (¶ [7]) that compares a scanned image obtained by scanning a sheet on which an image is formed with reference image and thereby performs inspection of the scanned image (¶ [15] and ¶ [53]; also see ¶ [55] and ¶ [96]); and
a display part that displays a first image that is a first scanned image and a second image that is different from the first image and that enables discrimination of a position, in a page, of an abnormality in the first scanned image (¶ [239]; Fig. 14).
Kawabata et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the hardware processor compares a plurality of scanned images obtained by scanning a plurality of sheets, performing inspection of the plurality of scanned images, and performs control for storing, in a storage medium, a second scanned image of the plurality of scanned images for which non-inspection target setting to make the second scanned image to be excluded from a target of inspection is received.
Katsumasa, in the same field of endeavor of detecting printed page errors through inspection (¶ [1]), teaches comparing a plurality of scanned images obtained by scanning a plurality of sheets (¶ [38] and ¶ [59] reading/capturing images of the pages for inspection), performing inspection of the plurality of scanned images (¶ [29]) and performing control for storing, in a storage medium, a second scanned image of the plurality of scanned images for which non-inspection target setting to make the second scanned image to be excluded from a target of inspection is received (¶ [34] and ¶ [48]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the inspection system as disclosed by Kawabata et al comprising a display part that displays a first image that is a first scanned image and a second image that is different from the first image and that enables discrimination of a position, in a page, of an abnormality in the first scanned image to utilize the teachings of Katsumasa which teaches performing control for storing, in a storage medium, the scanned image for which non-inspection target setting to make the scanned image to be excluded from a target of inspection is received to improve productivity and speed of the system by omitting unnecessary processing.
Kawabata et al fails to explicitly disclose the hardware processor receives a setting on whether a scanned image of the plurality of scanned images is an inspection target on the basis of a sheet type of a sheet on which the scanned image of the plurality of scanned images is formed.
Kurohata, in the same field of endeavor of image quality inspection wherein a user may exclude particular image regions from inspection (Abstract), teaches receiving a setting on whether a scanned image of the plurality of scanned images is an inspection target on the basis of a sheet type of a sheet on which the scanned image of the plurality of scanned images is formed (¶ [43]; see also ¶ [53]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the inspection system as disclosed by Kawabata et al comprising a display part that displays a first image that is a first scanned image and a second image that is different from the first image and that enables discrimination of a position, in a page, of an abnormality in the first scanned image to utilize the teachings of Kurohata which teaches receiving a setting on whether a scanned image of the plurality of scanned images is an inspection target on the basis of a sheet type of a sheet on which the scanned image of the plurality of scanned images is formed to avoid wasteful processing and time by bypassing types of sheets unsuitable for automatic inspection.
Regarding claim 21, Kawabata et al discloses the inspection system according to claim 20 (see rejection of claim 20), wherein the hardware processor further performs control for storing, in the storage medium, the first scanned image (¶ [91]).
Regarding claim 23, Kawabata et al discloses the inspection system according to claim 20 (see rejection of claim 20), wherein the hardware processor does not perform inspection when the sheet is a non-inspection target (see rejection of claim 20 wherein the storage storing non-inspection image data not subject to inspection).
Regarding claim 24, Kawabata et al discloses the inspection system according to claim 20 (see rejection of claim 20), wherein the hardware processor creates an inspection report on the basis of the scanned image stored in the storage medium (¶ [210]).
Regarding claim 25, Kawabata et al discloses an inspection method (see rejection of claim 20) comprising:
comparing a plurality of scanned images obtained by scanning a plurality of sheets on which an image is formed with a reference image and thereby performing inspection of the plurality of scanned images (see rejection of claim 20),
displaying a first image that is a first scanned image of the plurality of scanned images and a second image that is different from the first image and that enables discrimination of a position, in a page, of an abnormality in the first scanned image (see rejection of claim 20), and
performing control for storing, in a storage medium, a second scanned image of the plurality of scanned images for which non-inspection target setting to make the second scanned image to be excluded from a target of inspection is received (see rejection of claim 20), and
receiving a setting on whether a scanned image of the plurality of scanned images is an inspection target on the basis of a sheet type of a sheet on which the scanned image of the plurality of scanned images is formed (see rejection of claim 20).
Regarding claim 26, Kawabata et al discloses the inspection method according to claim 25 (see rejection of claim 25), further comprising performing control for storing, in the storage medium, the first scanned image (see rejection of claim 21).
Regarding claim 28, Kawabata et al discloses the inspection method according to claim 25 (see rejection of claim 25), wherein inspection is not performed when the sheet is a non-inspection target (see rejection of claim 23).
Regarding claim 29, Kawabata et al discloses the inspection method according to claim 25 (see rejection of claim 25), further comprising creating an inspection report on the basis of the scanned image images stored in the storage medium (see rejection of claim 24).
Regarding claim 30, Kawabata et al discloses a non-transitory recording medium encoded with a program instructing a computer to perform a method (¶ [338]) comprising:
comparing a plurality of scanned images obtained by scanning a plurality of sheets on which an image is formed with a reference image and thereby performing inspection of the plurality of scanned images (see rejection of claim 20),
displaying a first image that is a first scanned image of the plurality of scanned images and a second image that is different from the first image and that enables discrimination of a position, in a page, of an abnormality in the first scanned image (see rejection of claim 20),
performing control for storing, in a storage medium, a second scanned image of the plurality of scanned images for which non-inspection target setting to make the second scanned image to be excluded from a target of inspection is received (see rejection of claim 20), and
receiving a setting on whether a scanned image of the plurality of scanned images is an inspection target on the basis of a sheet type of a sheet on which the scanned image of the plurality of scanned images is formed (see rejection of claim 20).
Regarding claim 31, Kawabata et al discloses the non-transitory recording medium according to claim 30 (see rejection of claim 30), wherein the method further comprises performing control for storing, in the storage medium, the first scanned image (see rejection of claim 21).
Regarding claim 33, Kawabata et al discloses the non-transitory recording medium according to claim 30 (see rejection of claim 30), wherein inspection is not performed by the method when the sheet is a non-inspection target (see rejection of claim 23).
Regarding claim 34, Kawabata et al discloses the non-transitory recording medium according to claim 30 (see rejection of claim 30), wherein the method further comprises creating an inspection report on the basis of the scanned images stored in the storage medium (see rejection of claim 24).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 20, 25 and 30 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMARES Q WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMARES Q WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
January 23, 2026