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 filed 2 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1-7, applicant argues that Suzuki does disclose “reduce…a detection process of an abnormal sound is performable within a processing time for processing a next processing target.” Arguments at 7. In support of this argument, applicant acknowledges the statistical values P as being “used to establish a baseline for abnormal sound detection” but that “Suzuki is not concerned about the temporal relationship with the processing time required for the next processing target.” Arguments, pages 6-7. Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive in this regard.
As applicant acknowledges, Suzuki discloses the reduction of data to 100 statistical values. See Non-Final Rejection at 3. Applicant’s distinction regarding “Suzuki not…[being] concerned about the temporal relationship with the processing time required for the next processing target” carries little patentable weight given that neither “a processing type” or “a next processing target” are not elsewhere recited in the claims, nor explicitly defined in the specification. Consequently, claims 1, 6, and 7 merely require, under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard applied during prosecution, that “the detection process…is performable” within some amount of time designated for some future processing to occur— a totally unbounded amount of time. Consequently, claims 1-7 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding claim 8, the Examiner notes that Suzuki additionally discloses that the actuator speed is varied according to paper thickness (paragraphs [0034], [0044] of Suzuki).
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0350614) in view of Shih (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0129748).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0350614) discloses:
A processing apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to:
acquire, in a case where a plurality of processes having different required times and accompanied by operating sounds are continuously executed, data representing a collection result of the operating sounds (paragraph [0041], the received sound processing unit 140 measures sound in the printer at different timings);
derive the number of pieces of data in a case where the data is subjected to analysis from an operating condition (paragraphs [0045]-[0047], more than 100 statistic values can be obtained);
reduce analysis result data of the derived number of pieces of data after the analysis to the number of pieces of data with which a detection process of an abnormal sound is performable within a processing time for processing a next processing target (paragraphs [0045]-[0047], the number of used sound wave level data is reduced to 100 statistical values P); and
detect the abnormal sound by using the reduced analysis result data (paragraphs [0048], the new sound is checked against the TH-P to determine whether it is normal/abnormal)
Suzuki does not explicitly disclose:
Wherein the collected sound is subjected to frequency analysis from an operating condition;
Shih (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0129748) discloses:
Wherein the collected sound is subjected to frequency analysis from an operating condition (paragraph [0034], the frequency is checked to determine if the machine is producing a sound of abnormal frequency);
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 Shih with the system of Suzuki such that the combination would have been configured to have the analysis of system sound be subjected to frequency analysis related to an operating condition as described in Shih. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of detecting “an abnormality that may produce a high-frequency sound which is not perceivable by humans” (paragraph [0034] of the Shih reference).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki additionally discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to: acquire data representing a collection result of operating sound generated in relation to printing as the operating sounds (paragraphs [0037], [0041], the system collects operating sound related to printing)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Suzuki and Shih discloses the apparatus of the parent claim (claim 1).
As previously noted, Shih (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0129748) discloses:
Where the analysis is frequency analysis from an operating condition (paragraph [0034], the frequency is checked to determine if the machine is producing a sound of abnormal frequency);
Suzuki additionally discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to: reduce the analysis result data by thinning out the analysis result data after the analysis (paragraphs [0045]-[0047], the number of used sound wave level data is reduced to 100 statistical values P)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Suzuki and Shih discloses the apparatus of the parent claim (claim 1).
As previously noted, Shih (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0129748) discloses:
Where the analysis is frequency analysis from an operating condition (paragraph [0034], the frequency is checked to determine if the machine is producing a sound of abnormal frequency)
Suzuki additionally discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to: reduce the analysis result data by averaging a plurality of pieces of analysis result data after the frequency analysis (paragraphs [0045]-[0047], the number of used sound wave level data is reduced to 100 statistical values P; these values are averaged to yield a threshold value TH-P);
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Suzuki and Shih discloses the apparatus of the parent claim (claim 1).
Suzuki does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to: reduce the analysis result data by comparing two pieces of analysis result data after the frequency analysis and adopting the data having a larger value.
Shih discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to: reduce the analysis result data by comparing two pieces of analysis result data after the frequency analysis and adopting the data having a larger value (paragraph [0030], data values that have greater values are increased (i.e. more adopted) while data values that are relatively lower are decreased)
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 Shih with the system of Suzuki such that the system would reduce the analysis result data by comparing two pieces of analysis result data after the frequency analysis and adopting the data having a larger value as described in Shih. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to “alleviat[e] effects of ambient noise on a result of the time-frequency analysis” (paragraph [0030] of the Shih reference).
Regarding claim 6, the structural elements of apparatus claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 6. Thus, claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. The computer readable medium is explicitly taught as evidenced by paragraph [0086] of Suzuki.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Suzuki and Shih discloses the apparatus of the parent claim (claim 1).
As previously noted, Shih discloses:
Wherein the collected sound is subjected to frequency analysis from an operating condition (paragraph [0034], the frequency is checked to determine if the machine is producing a sound of abnormal frequency);
Suzuki additionally discloses:
wherein the operating condition includes at least one of a paper size and a paper transporting speed (paragraphs [0034], [0044], the actuator speed is varied according to paper thickness)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights