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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-16 were pending for examination in Application No. 18,300,019, filed April 13th, 2023. In the remarks and amendments received on March 2nd, 2026, claims 1, 3, 6, and 15-16 are amended, claims 2 and 9 are cancelled, and no claims are added. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-8, and 10-16 are pending for examination in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 2nd, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1, have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references, facilitated by Applicant’s newly submitted amendments being used in the current rejection.
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. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (US-20230074128-A1), and further in view of Lefevere et al. (US-7463772-B1).
Regarding claim 1, Fujita teaches a printed-matter inspection system (“an inspection apparatus that performs quality inspection on a printed matter printed by a printer,” Para [0009]) comprising:
a processor that inspects printed matter (“including at least one processor,” Para [0009]); and
a display device that displays a result of the inspection (“inspection status screen 501 further displays the number of inspected sheets, the number of sheets each determined as inspection result NG, a defect rate, and the number of times of occurrence of each cause of the inspection result NG on a real-time basis during the inspection,” Para [0104]),
wherein the processor is configured to:
compare a scanned image (“a scanned image of a printed matter,” Para [0003]) with a reference image of an inspection-target page of the printed matter (“an image before printed, such as a RIP image, is set as the reference image,” Para [0003]) to perform inspection for at least one defect that is present in the scanned image (“in a case where a difference is detected as a result of comparison between the pre-printed image and the scanned image… receive a user input concerning whether or not the detected difference is a defect,” Para [0009]), the scanned image being obtained by scanning the inspection-target page (“generates a scanned image by photographing a sheet passing through the inspection unit,” Para [0053]);
and display, on the display device, the at least one detected defect on a page (Fig. 9, assumed defect is marked on “Print result”) of the plurality of pages (Fig. 7, Step S703, many pages are scanned in succession)
PNG
media_image1.png
671
499
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
709
487
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fujita fails to teach the following limitations as further claimed. Lefevere, however, further teaches:
obtain information about post-processing (de-warping) that is to be performed on the printed matter (“generate a model that describes the three-dimensional profile of a page… The model can be used to "de-warp" a two-dimensional image of the page,” Col. 3, Lines 25-26, 28-29));
on a basis of the information about the post-processing, form at least one simulated image (“de-warp[ed]… two-dimensional image of a page,” Col. 3, Lines 30-31) of the printed matter obtained after the post-processing (“de-warping”) from the scanned image (“page 301,” Col. 3, Pg. 33), the at least one simulated image comprising a plurality of pages (“model 455 may be generated for each page or pair of pages of the document,” Col. 5, Lines 45-47, where the document can be a book, such as in Fig. 1);
PNG
media_image3.png
357
418
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and display, on the display device, the at least one detected defect on a page (Fujita, Fig. 9, assumed defect is marked on “Print result”) of the plurality of pages (Fujita, Fig. 7, Step S703, many pages are scanned in succession) of the at least one simulated image (Lefevere, “de-warp[ed]… two-dimensional image of a page,” Col. 3, Lines 30-31).
Lefevere is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of compensating for distortions when scanning printed documents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lefevere into Fujita for the benefit of a clearer output image that is not marred by defects or warps.
Regarding claim 8, the rejections of claims 1 is incorporated herein. Fujita in view of Lefevere teaches the system of claim 1, and Fujita further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: further display a type of the at least one defect on the display device (“The inspection apparatus 108 thus identifies a type of the detected defect based on features of each defect and displays the identified type on the inspection NG list,” Para [0111]).
Claims 15 and 16 are non-transitory computer readable medium and system claims that correspond to system claim 1. Claims 15 and 16 are thus rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim(s) 3, 6-7, 10, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (US-20230074128-A1) and Lefevere et al. (US-7463772-B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seto (US-20140293304-A1).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Fujita in view of Lefevere teach the system of claim 1, but are not relied upon to teach the following limitations. Seto, however, further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
convert, for display, a position of the at least one defect in the scanned image (“position deviation of each page area 108“) to a position in the at least one simulated image (“two-dimensional position deviation for each page area 108 in the form of the virtual product VP”) of the printed matter obtained after the post-processing (“reflect the position deviation of each page area 108 generated at the time of post-processing as the two-dimensional position deviation for each page area 108 in the form of the virtual product VP,” Para [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have incorporated the teachings of Seto into Fujita and Lefevere for the benefit of an operator being more able to find the page of a book that has a defect.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Fujita in view of Lefevere teach the system of claim 1, but are not relied upon to teach the following limitations. Seto, however, further teaches wherein the at least one simulated image comprises a plurality of simulated images corresponding to the plurality of images (“faithfully visualize a degree of the position deviation of each page area,” I.E., page area is one page,” Para [0008]), and wherein the processor is configured to:
display, in page order (“based on the post-processing information relating to the post-processing included in the imposition data acquired by the data acquisition unit,” (Para [0009]) I.E., imposition data inherently contains page order), the simulated images of the printed matter obtained after the post-processing (Figs. 11A and 11B, showing the virtual product, which is a virtual version of the “final product”, or, the finished book),
PNG
media_image4.png
656
365
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and display the at least one defect (“mapping a page image indicating the page area on the printed matter shifted as much as the position deviation amount… on the virtual product”) in accordance with the page order (“creates preview image data indicating the virtual product by mapping a page image indicating the page area on the printed matter shifted as much as the position deviation amount estimated by the position deviation amount estimation unit onto the page area on the virtual product,” Para [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have incorporated the teachings of Seto into Fujita and Lefevere for the benefit of an operator being more able to find the page of a book that has a defect.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated herein. Fujita in view of Lefevere teach the system of claim 6, but are not relied upon to teach the following limitations. Seto, however, further teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
display, in a spread, the simulated images of the printed matter obtained after the post-processing (Fig. 11A, the “virtual product”),
and display the at least one defect in the spread (“mapping a page image indicating the page area on the printed matter shifted as much as the position deviation amount estimated by the position deviation amount estimation unit onto the page area on the virtual product,” Para [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have incorporated the teachings of Seto into Fujita and Lefevere for the benefit of an operator being more able to find the page of a book that has a defect.
Regarding claims 10 and 13-14, the rejections of claims 3 and 6-7 are incorporated herein. Fujita in view of Lefevere and Seto teach the system of claims 3 and 6-7, and Fujita further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: further display a type of the at least one defect on the display device (“The inspection apparatus 108 thus identifies a type of the detected defect based on features of each defect and displays the identified type on the inspection NG list,” Para [0111]).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (US-20230074128-A1) in view of Lefevere et al. (US-7463772-B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seto (US-20140293304-A1) and Atwood et al. (US-20220309634-A1).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Fujita in view of Lefevere teach the system of claim 1, but are not relied upon to teach the following limitations. Seto, however, further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: among the defects that are present in the scanned image, cause a defect that is not present in the at least one simulated image of the printed matter (I.E., not in the “cut out area”) obtained after the post-processing, to be hidden (“the image creation unit 78 acquires each page image 170 that includes the cut out area or each page image 170 that does not include the cut out area, and creates the virtual product VP according to the instruction operation of the operator,” Para [0091]).
Seto fails to teach the following limitations as further claimed. Atwood, however, further teaches: wherein the at least one defect comprises a plurality of defects (“The defect detection component 152 is configured for identifying, where present, one or more defects in the scanned image,” Para [0070]).
Atwood is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of defect detection in printed images or text. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have incorporated the teachings of Atwood into Fujita, Lefevere, and Seto for the benefit of a more effective defect detection system.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have incorporated the teachings of Seto into Fujita and Lefevere for the benefit of a more refined virtual visualization of the book or printed product.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated herein. Fujita in view of Lefevere, Seto, and Atwood teach the system of claim 4, and Seto further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: among the defects that are present in the scanned image, cause a defect that is at a position of a register mark or at a position in a margin in the printed matter (“Examples of the cut out area include trimming (finishing), bleeding (cutting margin) and creeping (the thickness of the sheet 36 and the space required to fold the sheet of each folded book),” Para [0091]) obtained after the post-processing, to be hidden (“the image creation unit 78 acquires each page image 170 that includes the cut out area or each page image 170 that does not include the cut out area, and creates the virtual product VP according to the instruction operation of the operator,” Para [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have incorporated the teachings of Seto into the combination for the benefit of a more refined virtual visualization of the book or printed product.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the rejections of claims 4 and 5 are incorporated herein. Fujita in view of Lefevere, Seto, and Atwood teach the system of claims 4 and 5, and Fujita further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: further display a type of the at least one defect on the display device (“The inspection apparatus 108 thus identifies a type of the detected defect based on features of each defect and displays the identified type on the inspection NG list,” Para [0111]).
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 RACHEL A OMETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2535. The examiner can normally be reached 6:45am-4:00pm ET Monday-Thursday, 6:45am-1:00pm ET every other Friday.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/Rachel Anne Ometz/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 3/17/26
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668