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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-16 were pending for examination in the amendments filed for Application No. 18,300,019, filed March 2nd, 2026. In the remarks and amendments received on June 23rd, 2026, claims 1 and 15-16 are amended, no claims are cancelled, and claims 17-18 are added. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-8, and 10-18 are pending for examination in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 23rd, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 15-16, 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 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (JP-2019184319-A) in view of Fujita (US-20230074128-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Watabe teaches:
A printed-matter inspection system (“This invention relates to an image forming apparatus, an image inspection apparatus, a management apparatus, and a program capable of determining the presence or absence of defects in a read image based on a read image obtained from a recording medium,” Para [0001]) comprising:
a processor (“image forming apparatus 10 further includes an image processing unit 104 that processes image data,” Para [0037]); and
a display device (“The image forming apparatus 10 has a display unit 103 that can display information and accept operation input,” Para [0036]),
wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain a scanned image (“read image”) by scanning printed matter including an inspection-target page (“an image reading unit reads a recording medium on which an image is formed and obtains a read image,” Para [0024]);
compare the scanned image (“read image”) with a reference image (“correct image”) of the inspection-target page of the printed matter to detect at least one defect that is present in the scanned image (“the control unit compares the correct image with the read image, extracts defect candidates in the read image based on the comparison result,” Para [0024]);
obtain information about post-processing that is to be performed on the printed matter, the post-processing being performed after scanning the printed matter (“it is determined whether the job will result in a final printed product, such as a booklet, containing multi-page print images (step s10),” Para [0063]);
on a basis of the information about the post-processing, form at least one simulated image of the printed matter obtained after the post-processing from the scanned image, the at least one simulated image comprising a plurality of pages (“If the final printed material will include printable images for multiple pages (step s10, Yes)… the scanned images of all pages are arranged and joined together to form the final printed appearance (step s12),” Para [0064]);
Watabe is not relied upon to teach the following limitation. However, Fujita further teaches:
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 (as taught by Watabe, above).
PNG
media_image1.png
671
499
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
709
487
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fujita is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of determining printing defects of printed matter. 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 Fujita into Watabe for the benefit of fewer printing errors in the final product, as the user can independently decide if a printing defect on a specific page is worth correcting or noting.
Regarding claim 8, the rejections of claims 1 is incorporated herein. Watabe in view of Fujita 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]).
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 Fujita into Watabe for the benefit of fewer printing errors in the final product, as the user can independently decide if a printing defect on a specific page is worth correcting or noting.
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.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Watabe in view of Fujita teaches the system of claim 1, and Watabe further teaches:
wherein the post-processing physically transforms the printed matter (“a post-processing device that performs post-processing on paper may be connected to network 2, enabling post-processing such as booklet processing, binding, and stapling to be performed by the post-processing device,” Para [0050]), and the at least one simulated image represents the printed matter as physically transformed by the post-processing (“If the final printed material will include printable images for multiple pages (step s10, Yes)… the scanned images of all pages are arranged and joined together to form the final printed appearance (step s12),” Para [0064]).
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Watabe in view of Fujita teaches the system of claim 1, and Watabe further teaches:
wherein the post-processing is a bookbinding process performed on the printed matter (“a post-processing device that performs post-processing on paper may be connected to network 2, enabling post-processing such as booklet processing, binding, and stapling to be performed by the post-processing device,” Para [0050]), the bookbinding process including folding and binding of the printed matter (“post-processing such as booklet processing, binding, and stapling to be performed by the post-processing device,” Para [0050]; additionally, folding is an inherent part of booklet processing because multiple pages of the booklet could be printed on the same page, as described in Para [0063]), and the at least one simulated image is a simulated image of a bound book (“the scanned images of all pages are arranged and joined together to form the final printed appearance (step s12),” Para [0064], where the final printed appearance can be a “booklet”).
Claim(s) 3, 6-7, 10, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (JP-2019184319-A) in view of Fujita (US-20230074128-A1) 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. Watabe in view of Fujita 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]).
Seto is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of post-processing visualization of media. 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 Seto into Watabe and Fujita 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. Watabe in view of Fujita 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_image3.png
656
365
media_image3.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 Watabe and Fujita 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. Watabe in view of Fujita 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 Watabe and Fujita 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. Watabe in view of Fujita 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]).
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 Fujita into Watabe and Seto for the benefit of fewer printing errors in the final product, as the user can independently decide if a printing defect on a specific page is worth correcting or noting.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe (JP-2019184319-A) in view of Fujita (US-20230074128-A1) 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. Watabe in view of Fujita 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 Watabe, Fujita, 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 Watabe and Fujita 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. Watabe in view of Fujita, 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. Watabe in view of Fujita, 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]).
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 Fujita into Watabe, Seto, and Atwood for the benefit of fewer printing errors in the final product, as the user can independently decide if a printing defect on a specific page is worth correcting or noting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Murakami (US-20240004591-A1) teaches a method for detecting defects in printed matter.
Matsuyama (US-20220391151-A1) teaches a method for determining a printed matter quality based on a reference image of the printed matter.
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 7/2/26
Rachel.ometz@uspto.gov
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights