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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings received on 5/22/2023 are accepted for examination purposes.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/22/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mashiko (US-2022/0299922).
As to Claim 1, Mashiko teaches ‘An information processing apparatus comprising: a processor configured to: acquire inspection results on a print product that has been printed in response to a plurality of print jobs [par 0051, 0097, 0151 – receiving inspection results of printed sheets by a printer]; and generate on each of page groups a reprint job used to print a page indicated as being disqualified by the inspection results, the page group sequentially printed and having an attribute common to the print jobs [Fig 15, par 0098, 0115, 0137, 0162, 0170, 0183 – when a defect is determined of a printed image sheet, generating slip sheet request information indicating the determination result for re-formation including the total number of pages in which the defect is detected, the job ID, the copy ID, the page ID, the defect detection page location of each defect detection page]’.
Further, in regards to claim 13 the information processing apparatus and processor of claim 1 performs the means for function of the information processing apparatus of claim 13.
Further, in regards to claim 14, the information processing apparatus of claim 1 performs the program on the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14.
As to Claim 2, Mashiko teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to acquire the inspection results by comparing a first image of the print product that is obtained by rasterizing the print job with a second image of the print product that is obtained by printing the print job [par 0111-0115, 0143-0148 – comparing master image data based on rasterized image data with read image data printed]’.
As to Claim 6, Mashiko teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to perform reprinting on a per page group basis if the reprinting is to be performed in response to the reprint job and a pending page of the page group in the print job is difficult to replace [Figs 9, 15, par 0133-0139, 0184-0187 – a setting screen to re-form a defective page (i.e. page 30 out of 200 pages of 3rd copy, making it difficult to replace) after a “separation of job” or “separation of copy” in addition to a slip sheet before re-formation]’.
As to Claim 10, Mashiko teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to set reprint jobs into a single reprint job if no fault occurs in a page order when reprint jobs to be sequentially performed are performed in bulk printing [par 0098, 0137, 0170 – when “separation of job” is selected re-forming after the last page of a job (i.e., bulk printing)]’.
As to Claim 11, Mashiko teaches ‘wherein the common attribute is a value indicating a cycle number, and wherein the processor is configured to generate a reprint job on each of the page groups having a common cycle number [par 0098, 0137, 0170 – when “separation of copy” is selected and the print job includes a plurality of copies, re-forming after the last page of a copy (i.e., cycle number)]’.
As to Claim 12, Mashiko teaches ‘wherein the common attribute is a value indicating a page number, and wherein the processor is configured to generate a reprint job on each of the page groups having a common page number [par 0098, 0137-0138, 0170 – when “page interval designation” is selected (i.e. common page number), the stop control unit determines whether the page count is a multiple of the page count designated in the page count input field in the print job being printed or the last page of the print job]’.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashiko in view of Fujita (US-2023/0074128).
As to Claim 3, Mashiko teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 1. Mashiko does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the processor is configured to display the first image and the second image side by side if the second image has a fault’.
Fujita teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to display the first image and the second image side by side if the second image has a fault [Fig 9 (902, 903), par 0151-0152, 0159-0162 – displaying reference image and print result/scanned image]’.
Mashiko and Fujita are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing and inspection systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include displaying reference and scanned images, as taught by Fujita. The motivation for doing so would have been to preventing unnecessary abnormality determination on a printed matter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fujita with Mashiko to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
As to Claim 4, Fujita teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to display the second image with a portion of the fault emphasized [Fig 9 (903), par 0160 – a place where the difference has been detected is indicated by a broken-line rectangle, for easy visual recognition]’.
Mashiko and Fujita are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing and inspection systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include displaying abnormality, as taught by Fujita. The motivation for doing so would have been to preventing unnecessary abnormality determination on a printed matter with easy visual recognition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fujita with Mashiko to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashiko in view of Fujita and further in view of Komazawa (US-2023/0114012).
As to Claim 5, Mashiko in view of Fujita teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 1. Mashiko in view of Fujita does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the processor is configured to: in response to displaying of the first image and the second image, receive an instruction as to whether to perform reprinting; and if the received instruction instructs the reprinting to be performed, perform the reprint job’.
Komazawa teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: in response to displaying of the first image and the second image, receive an instruction as to whether to perform reprinting; and if the received instruction instructs the reprinting to be performed, perform the reprint job [par 0080, 0083, 0093-0094, 0104-0105 – receiving a reprinting instruction including a rasterized image based on an abnormal image difference and performing reprinting]’.
Mashiko in view of Fujita are analogous art with Komazawa because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing and inspection systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a reprinting instruction, as taught by Komazawa. The motivation for doing so would have been to improving inspection accuracy quality required for different print mediums. Therefore, it would have bene obvious to combine Komazawa with Mashiko in view of Fujita to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashiko in view of Miyahara (US-2023/0068383).
As to Claim 7, Mashiko teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claim 1. Mashiko does not disclose expressly ‘wherein a case that the pending page of the page group in the print job is difficult to replace indicates that the print job is a stapling job’, although Mashiko teaches a setting screen to re-form a defective page (i.e. page 30 out of 200 pages of 3rd copy, making it difficult to replace) after a “separation of job” or “separation of copy” in addition to a slip sheet before re-formation [Figs 9, 15, par 0133-0139, 0184-0187].
Miyahara in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein a case that the pending page of the page group in the print job is difficult to replace indicates that the print job is a stapling job [par 0031, 0049, 0058, 0069-0075 – post-processing settings for printing and reprinting include stapling]’.
Mashiko and Miyahara are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing and inspection systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a stapling as print finishing settings, as taught by Miyahara. The motivation for doing so would have been to enabling a user to execute a reprint job even with a change in print settings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Miyahara with Mashiko to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
As to Claim 8, Miyahara teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to, if the reprint job is to be performed and a setting for the reprint job is modified, suspend execution of the reprint job or indicate that the setting is modified [par 0007, 0069-0076 – when it is determined a change in print settings of the held print job, recreating a reference image for inspection to pause reprinting]’.
Mashiko and Miyahara are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing and inspection systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a change in print settings, as taught by Miyahara. The motivation for doing so would have been to enabling a user to execute a reprint job even with a change in print settings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Miyahara with Mashiko to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
As to Claim 9, Miyahara teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: save a setting during execution of the print job; and if the reprint job is to be performed a setting for the reprint job is modified, perform the reprint job with the saved setting applied [par 0007, 0060-0061, 0064-0076 – when it is determined a change in print settings of the held print job, recreating a reference image for inspection and performing reprinting based on the changed print setting]’.
Mashiko and Miyahara are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing and inspection systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a change in print settings, as taught by Miyahara. The motivation for doing so would have been to enabling a user to execute a reprint job even with a change in print settings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Miyahara with Mashiko to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Publication No. 2022/0299922
b. US Publication No. 2023/0074128
c. US Publication No. 2023/0114012
d. US Publication No. 2023/0068383
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
e. US Publication No. 2022/0083294
f. US Publication No. 2011/0179961
g. US Publication No. 2025/0181282
h. US Publication No. 2023/0082522
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 830-530.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681