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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed 3/23/23 and 3/7/24 are acknowledged, the references therein relating to the general background of applicant’s invention.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Image forming apparatus for defect analysis of an image in which confidential data is included”.
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.
1) Claim(s) 1, 2, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. patent application publication 2018/0146119 by Nakamura.
2) Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches an image forming apparatus (figure 1, item 1; a printer) comprising: a processor (paragraph 36; a CPU) configured to: generate second image forming data for defect analysis in which confidential data included in first image forming data is invisible in a case where a defect occurs in image forming processing of the first image forming data (figure 3; defect is detected [paragraph 62] within a printed image [i.e. a first image] that contains masked confidential data [paragraphs 7, 51 and 156], wherein the same image can then be printed again [i.e. a second image] as disclosed in paragraph 67); execute the image forming processing for the generated second image forming data (paragraph 67; figure 3; the same steps of figure 3 can be implemented by reprinting the previous print that contained an abnormality and masked data); and output defect analysis data corresponding to a processing result of the image forming processing executed for the second image forming data (figure 3, item S1090; paragraph 75; a log of the abnormal image and machine state is stored).
3) Regarding claim 2, Nakamura teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: output the defect analysis data including the second image forming data in a case where the defect is reproduced in the image forming processing of the second image forming data (figure 3, item S1090; log data is stored when an abnormality is detected, therefore in the case of printing a defective job again [paragraph 67] wherein thew abnormality is again detected, “analysis data” is stored).
4) Claims 9 and 10 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
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.
5) Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2018/0146119 by Nakamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2019/0138254 by Itou.
6) Regarding claim 3, Nakamura does not specifically teach the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: output the defect analysis data including difference data indicating a difference between the first image forming data and the second image forming data and the second image forming data in a case where the defect is not reproduced in the image forming processing of the second image forming data.
Itou teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: output the defect analysis data including difference data indicating a difference between the first image forming data and the second image forming data and the second image forming data in a case where the defect is not reproduced in the image forming processing of the second image forming data (paragraphs 73, 87 and 88; analysis determination at item S24 that a defect is not reproduced in the reprint is output to the processor to bypass correction of the original defect).
Nakamura and Itou are combinable because they are both from the printing defect detection field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention wad effectively filed to combine Nakamura with Itou to add output analysis when a defect is not reproduced. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine that a defect is not “reproduceable” and to therefore avoid a correction process (paragraph 88). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Nakamura with Itou to obtain the invention of claim 3.
7) Regarding claim 4, Nakamura teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to: output the defect analysis data further including a processing result of the image forming processing of the first image forming data (figure 3, item S1090; log of first printing with an abnormality is stored).
8) Regarding claim 5, Itou (as combined with Nakamura in the rejection of claim 3 above) teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to: specify whether or not the defect is reproduced by using a comparison result between log data recorded in the image forming processing of the first image forming data and log data recorded in the image forming processing of the second image forming data (figure 5, item S24; paragraphs 74 and 87; stored image defect results from printing and reprinting are compared to determine a reproduced defect).
9) Claims 6 and 7 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 5 above.
10) Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2018/0146119 by Nakamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2020/0267280 by Tong.
Nakamura does not specifically teach the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the confidential data is personal data that is able to specify a person.
Tong teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the confidential data is personal data that is able to specify a person (paragraphs 21-23; redacted confidential information can be personal data).
Nakamura and Tong are combinable because they are both from the data masking field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention wad effectively filed to combine Nakamura with Tong to add masking personal information. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce time and worry of the user (paragraph 20). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Nakamura with Tong to obtain the invention of claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights