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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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) 1-5, 8, 11-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0318976) in view of Yamashita et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0281799).
Regarding claim 1, Ochiai (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0318976) discloses:
A printed material inspection system comprising:
a display (see, for example, paragraph [0035]); and
a processor (see paragraph [0030]) configured to:
acquire, as a defect corresponding to a defect criterion, a difference that satisfies the defect criterion among differences (paragraph [0036], [0052], [0058]-[0059], the defect/contrast is compared to a threshold) between a scanned image obtained by scanning a printed material of an inspection target page among pages configuring a job (paragraph [0037], the printed material is read by the reading unit and an inspection image is obtained) and a reference image of the inspection target page (paragraphs [0038], [0068], [0112], the printed image is compared to the correct (reference) image);
highlight the defect in the scanned image on the display (paragraph [0113], a UI screen with a highlighted defect (dot-line-frame, color frame, etc.) from the inspected image is displayed) and provide defect criterion display that is display for receiving setting for a defect criterion to be applied to the inspection target page on the display (Figures 9A, 9B, paragraph [0071], the user is able to set a value of inspection which corresponds to the threshold levels used in inspection); and
when a user operation for one of the highlighting of the defect and the providing of the defect criterion display is received (Figures 9A, 9B, 10, paragraphs [0074], [0083], the user makes a selection regarding inspection level), change a display mode of another one of the highlighting of the defect and the providing of the defect criterion display (Figures 9A, 9B, 10, paragraphs [0074], [0083], [0113], depending on the level set, different defects will be displayed to user in accordance with whether or not they meet the threshold)
Even assuming arguendo that Ochiai does not explicitly disclose:
when a user operation for one of the highlighting of the defect and the providing of the defect criterion display is received, change a display mode of another one of the highlighting of the defect and the providing of the defect criterion display
Yamashita et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0281799) discloses:
when a user operation for one of the highlighting of the defect and the providing of the defect criterion display is received (see, for example, the user interface pictured in Figure 15, in which the user can change the display method and the threshold value, paragraph [0127]), change a display mode of another one of the highlighting of the defect and the providing of the defect criterion display (Figure 15, paragraph [0127], the display mode of the highlighted defects changes in accordance with the user’s selection)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Ochiai with the system of Yamashita such that when a user operation for one of the highlighting of the defect and the providing of the defect criterion display is received, a display mode of another one of the highlighting of the defect and the providing of the defect criterion display is changed as described by Yamashita. The suggestion/motivation would have been to implement a system in which “[t]he state of the defect can be easily obtained” (paragraph [0138] of the Yamashita reference).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ochiai and Yamashita discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
Ochiai does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to, when the defect displayed on the display is selected by a user, highlight a region corresponding to the defect criterion corresponding to the defect in the defect criterion display.
Yamashita discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to, when the defect displayed on the display is selected by a user, highlight a region corresponding to the defect criterion corresponding to the defect in the defect criterion display (Figure 21, paragraph [0135], when the user clicks, the selected defect has a region focused (“highlighted”) for detail display)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Ochiai with the system of Yamashita such that when the defect displayed on the display is selected by a user, highlight a region corresponding to the defect criterion corresponding to the defect in the defect criterion display as described by Yamashita. The suggestion/motivation would have been to implement a system in which “[t]he state of the defect can be easily obtained” (paragraph [0138] of the Yamashita reference).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ochiai and Yamashita discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
Ochiai does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to, when a region corresponding to the defect criterion in the defect criterion display is selected by a user, highlight the defect corresponding to the defect criterion.
Yamashita discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to, when a region corresponding to the defect criterion in the defect criterion display is selected by a user, highlight the defect corresponding to the defect criterion (Figure 21, paragraph [0135], when the use clicks, the selected defect is focused (“highlighted”) for detail display)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Ochiai with the system of Yamashita such that when the defect displayed on the display is selected by a user, highlight a region corresponding to the defect criterion corresponding to the defect in the defect criterion display as described by Yamashita. The suggestion/motivation would have been to implement a system in which “[t]he state of the defect can be easily obtained” (paragraph [0138] of the Yamashita reference).
Regarding claim 4, Ochiai additionally discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to, when the defect criterion is changed by a user, highlight a difference that becomes regarded as a defect after the defect criterion is changed, among the differences (Figures 9A, 9B, 10, paragraphs [0074], [0083], [0113], depending on the level set, different defects will be displayed to user in accordance with whether or not they meet the threshold- e.g., an area that is regarded as a defect under level 4 but not level 3 is newly highlighted after switching from 3 to 4)
Regarding claim 5, Ochiai additionally discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to change a display mode of a difference that is regarded as a defect before the defect criterion is changed but is not regarded as a defect after the defect criterion is changed, among the differences (Figures 9A, 9B, 10, paragraphs [0074], [0083], [0113], depending on the level set, different defects will be displayed to user in accordance with whether or not they meet the threshold- e.g., an area that is regarded as a defect under level 4 but not level 3 is no longer highlighted after switching from 4 to 3)
Regarding claim 8, Ochiai additionally discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to highlight a difference that is regarded as a defect according to the defect criterion and a difference that is not regarded as a defect according to the defect criterion in different modes Figures 9A, 9B, 10, paragraphs [0074], [0083], [0113], depending on the level set, different defects will be displayed to user in accordance with whether or not they meet the threshold- e.g., a defect that is regarded as a defect in level 3 but not regarded as a defect in level 4 is displayed in level 3 but not level 4, whereas a defect that is regarded a defect in level 4 will be displayed in both level 3 and level 4)
Regarding claim 11, Ochiai additionally discloses:
wherein the defect criterion is a threshold for at least one of color difference, size, and shape of the difference (see, for example, Figure 9B, paragraph [0033], [0036], size is included in the threshold criteria)
Regarding claim 12, Ochiai additionally discloses:
wherein the defect criterion is a threshold for at least one of color difference, size, and shape of the difference (see, for example, Figure 9B, paragraph [0033], [0036], size is included in the threshold criteria)
Regarding claim 13, Ochiai additionally discloses:
wherein the defect criterion is a threshold for at least one of color difference, size, and shape of the difference (see, for example, Figure 9B, paragraph [0033], [0036], size is included in the threshold criteria)
Regarding claim 14, Ochiai additionally discloses:
wherein the defect criterion is a threshold for at least one of color difference, size, and shape of the difference (see, for example, Figure 9B, paragraph [0033], [0036], size is included in the threshold criteria)
Regarding claim 15, Ochiai additionally discloses:
wherein the defect criterion is a threshold for at least one of color difference, size, and shape of the difference (see, for example, Figure 9B, paragraph [0033], [0036], size is included in the threshold criteria)
Regarding claim 18, Ochiai additionally discloses:
wherein the defect criterion is a threshold for at least one of color difference, size, and shape of the difference (see, for example, Figure 9B, paragraph [0033], [0036], size is included in the threshold criteria)
Regarding claim 19, Ochiai additionally discloses:
wherein the defect criterion is a threshold for color difference and size of the difference, and wherein the processor is configured to provide the defect criterion display as a two- dimensional matrix regarding the color difference and the size (see, for example, Figure 9B, paragraph [0033], [0036], size is included in the threshold criteria along with contrast)
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. The computer readable medium is explicitly taught as evidenced by paragraph [0132] of Ochiai.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai in view of Yamashita in further view of Yamamoto (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0042065).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ochiai and Yamashita discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
The combination of Ochiai and Yamashita does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to be capable of performing setting in such a manner that a defect criterion for the inspection target page is applied to a page different from the inspection target page among the pages configuring the job.
Yamamoto (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0042065) discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to be capable of performing setting in such a manner that a defect criterion for the inspection target page is applied to a page different from the inspection target page among the pages configuring the job (Figure 13, paragraphs [0118]-[0123], the inspection threshold is applied to all of the pages of the job and across multiple jobs)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Yamamoto with the combination of Ochiai and Yamashita such that the system would have been configured to be capable of performing setting in such a manner that a defect criterion for the inspection target page is applied to a page different from the inspection target page among the pages configuring the job as described in Yamamoto. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of making it “easy to find the defective page from the printed material in a case where the page identification information is printed on each page of the printed material” (paragraph [0093] of the Yamamoto reference) as described in Yamamoto
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ochiai, Yamashita, and Yamamoto discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 9).
The combination of Ochiai and Yamashita does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to, in a case where the defect criterion is changed, notify a user of a page in which a difference that is regarded as a defect is changed.
Yamamoto discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to, in a case where the defect criterion is changed, notify a user of a page in which a difference that is regarded as a defect is changed (Figure 13, paragraphs [0118]-[0123], the threshold level is shown for each set of pages on the interface)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Yamamoto with the combination of Ochiai and Yamashita such that the system was configured to, in a case where the defect criterion is changed, notify a user of a page in which a difference that is regarded as a defect is changed as described in Yamamoto. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of making it “easy to find the defective page from the printed material in a case where the page identification information is printed on each page of the printed material” (paragraph [0093] of the Yamamoto reference) as described in Yamamoto
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30-5 PM.
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.
/JOHN R WALLACE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682