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, see page 8, filed 11/21/25, with respect to the title have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument for claim 1, on page 10, that Nakamura does not teach the elements of claim 1, examiner views the argument as spurious. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Regarding applicant’s argument for claim 1, on page 10, that Itou does not teach defect analysis including a difference between first and second image when the defect is not reproduced, examiner disagrees. Paragraph 88 specifically discloses identifying a difference between defects in first and second images when the original defect is not reproduced, the defect analysis being stored in a log as detailed in paragraph 75 of Nakamura. Therefore the argument is overcome and the previous rejection remains.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: line 12 recites “performing detect analysis”, it appears applicant’s intention is the word “defect”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
1) Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2018/0146119 by Nakamura, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2019/0138254 by Itou.
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: receive first image forming data for executing a first image forming processing (paragraph 56; figure 3, item S1010; first image data is printed); generate second image forming data for executing a second image forming processing in a case where a defect occurs in the first 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), wherein the second image forming data is generated such that confidential data included in the first image forming data is made invisible by being replaced with replacement data (figure 7; paragraph 128; confidential data is overwritten as shown); execute the second image forming processing on 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 for performing defect analysis according to a processing result of the second image forming processing executed on the second image forming data (figure 3, item S1090; paragraph 75; a log of the abnormal image and machine state is stored), wherein the defect analysis data includes the second image forming data in a case where the defect is reproduced in the second image forming processing executed on 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).
Nakamura does not specifically teach the defect analysis data includes difference data indicating a difference between the first image forming data and the second image forming data in a case where the defect is not reproduced in the second image forming processing executed on the second image forming data.
Itou teaches the defect analysis data includes difference data indicating a difference between the first image forming data and the second image forming data in a case where the defect is not reproduced in the second image forming processing executed on 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 1.
3) Regarding claim 4, Nakamura teaches the image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the defect analysis data further includes a processing result of the first image forming processing of the first image forming data in the case where the defect data is not reproduced in the second image forming processing of the second image forming data (figure 3, item S1090; log of first printing with an abnormality is stored regardless of the condition of the second print output).
4) 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 first image forming processing of the first image forming data and log data recorded in the second 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).
5) Claims 7 is taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 5 above.
6) Claims 9 and 10 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
7) Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2018/0146119 by Nakamura, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2019/0138254 by Itou 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 Itou and Tong to obtain the invention of claim 8.
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 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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights