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
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a setting unit configured to set, an obtaining unit configured to obtain and an inspection unit configured to perform the type of inspection in claim 1, a registration unit configure to register in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claims recite a method of generating cost estimates for a vehicle repair and repainting using an image. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such.
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
YES. Claims 1 and 15 are directed to an apparatus , i.e., a machine, claim 18 is directed to a CRM, i.e., manufacture and claim 17 is directed to a method, i.e., process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
YES, the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e., abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claims 1, 15, 17 and 18 comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind therefore, an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 15, 17 and 18 recites:
setting a type of inspection to be performed on code images in a print product in which the code images are printed (a human can select type of inspection) as a mental process as an abstract idea);
performing the set type of inspection (a human can inspect image data) as a mental process as an abstract idea); and
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Because both product and process claims may recite a "mental process", the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas, for instance the product claims to computer systems and computer-readable media in Versata Dev. Group. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As such, a person could perform inspection of an image either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by one or more hardware processors (e.g. processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mental step which could be performed with a simple tool such as a pen and paper, then it falls within the “mental steps” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1- 18 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Claim 18 recites:
a computer, cause the computer to perform a
control method (instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Claim 1, 17 and 18 recite:
an obtaining unit configured to obtain a read image(adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea);
Claim 15 recite:
a printing unit configured to generate a print product by printing at least code
images on a print medium; a reading unit configured to generate a read image of the print product by reading the print product; and a transmission unit configured to transmit the read image to an inspection apparatus to inspect the read image, and an obtaining unit configured to obtain the read image obtained by reading the print product (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea);
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
With regard to (2b) the Guidance provided the following examples of limitations that may be enough to qualify as “significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception:
Improvement to another technology or technical field
Improvement to functioning of computer itself and/or applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Adding a specific limitation other that what is well understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application
Meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The Guidance further set forth limitations that were found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Adding words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement abstract ideas on a computer
Simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception, e.g. a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic
Computer to perform generic computer functions that are well -understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1- 18 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The above identified additional computer components, using instructions to apply the judicial exception, are merely generic computer components that are well-known, routine, and conventional as is evidenced by Bancorp Services v. Sun Life (Fed. Cir. 2012) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014).
claims 1, 8 and 15 recite:
a printing unit configured to generate a print product by printing at least code
images on a print medium; a reading unit configured to generate a read image of the print product by reading the print product; and a transmission unit configured to transmit the read image to an inspection apparatus to inspect the read image, and an obtaining unit configured to obtain the read image obtained by reading the print product (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea);
Thus, since claims 1 and 15 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, claims 1 15 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101. Similar analysis is made for the dependent claims 2-14 and 16 and the dependent claims are similarly identified as: being directed towards an abstract idea, not reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and not reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Madden et al. (US 2015/0356717).
With respect to claim 1, Madden et al. teach a setting unit (Fig, 7 Inspection Configuration) configured to set a type of inspection to be performed on code images (bar code in Fig. 10 and 11) in a print product in which the code images are printed, for each of inspection regions including the code images being inspection targets (para [0021], the inspection definitions define type of inspection and the location and dimension of the inspection definition specifies the region of the reference image to which the inspection definition applies, para [0044]-[0045], specifying inspection requirements on a per-region basis, the inspection requirements are provided as an inspection context which is a structured, layered, hierarchical, description of required inspection configurations, and the method includes developing a context during design time, and the method comprises the system automatically generating inspection configurations in run time),;
an obtaining unit configured to obtain a read image (Fig. 10 and 11) obtained by reading the print product (para [0009], the scanner is mounted in a housing of a fixture arranged to be incorporated into or onto a printer to receive a feed of labels driven by a printer without need for a drive dedicated to the inspection; para [0011] the scanner controller is adapted to cause image acquisition in real time in a manner which is synchronized with speed of the printer label movement) ; and
an inspection unit (Fig, 7 PI RunTime) configured to perform the type of inspection set by the setting unit for each of the inspection regions in the read image (para [0122], Fig. 7 PI(Print Inspector) Inspection Designer GUI uses the PI(Print Inspector) Inspection Configuration API to capture these details and to set up an Inspection Configuration, which is stored in the PI(Print Inspector28) DB. The PI RunTime Command Interface Proxy interacts with PI RunTime);
wherein the type of inspection includes a first type of inspection and a second type of inspection, the second type of inspection including more inspection items than the first type of inspection (para [0021], the inspection definitions define type of inspection and the location and dimension of the inspection definition specifies the region of the reference image to which the inspection definition applies, para [0044]-[0045], specifying inspection requirements on a per-region basis, the inspection requirements are provided as an inspection context which is a structured, layered, hierarchical, description of required inspection configurations, and the method includes developing a context during design time, and the method comprises the system automatically generating inspection configurations in run time).
With respect to claim 2, Madden et al. teach that the setting unit sets the type of inspection for each of the inspection regions in advance before the inspection by the inspection unit (para [0016], processor is adapted to generate and store an inspection configuration for each type of label, with an inspection definition per label region and a reference image. In one embodiment, the inspection configuration contains inspection definitions in layers with containers holding inspection definitions to be applied at that layer).
With respect to claim 3, Madden et al. teach that the setting unit obtains information on time usable for the inspection of the read image by the inspection unit and information on inspection time corresponding to the type of inspection, and performs control of setting the type of inspection based on the information such that the inspection unit is capable of executing the inspection of the read image within the usable time (para [0067], The processor can be programmed to inspect an already-received image while another image is simultaneously being received. The system can thus be made to inspect labels in real time without impacting print speed).
With respect to claim 4, Madden et al. teach that the setting unit obtains at least information on inspection time in a case where a code image corresponding to a type of the code image included in the inspection region is inspected in the second type of inspection, as the information on the inspection time corresponding to the type of inspection (para [0016-0017], processor is adapted to generate and store an inspection configuration for each type of label, with an inspection definition per label region; variable placeholders including a code placeholder).
With respect to claim 11, Madden et al. teach that the second type of inspection is a grade inspection in which the code images are inspected by measuring evaluation values of the code images (para [0036], the inspection tools include a tool for barcode testing, said tool being adapted to locate and decode one barcode line in a region of an input image, and to characterize the barcode in quality terms. )
With respect to claim 12, Madden et al. teach that in a case where the grade inspection is set as the type of inspection, the setting unit sets at least one inspection item for which inspection is to be performed in the grade inspection from among a plurality of inspection items (para [0036], the inspection tools include a tool for barcode testing, said tool being adapted to locate and decode one barcode line in a region of an input image, and to characterize the barcode in quality terms. )
With respect to claim 14, Madden et al. teach that the first type of inspection is a decoding inspection (para [0037], said tool is adapted to compare a decoded string against a fixed value or a batch-defined value).
With respect to claim 15, Madden et al. teach a printing unit configured to generate a print product by printing at least code images on a print medium (Fig. 1 and 2; printer);
a reading unit (Fig. 1 ref label 10, scanner; Fig. 2 and 3 ref label 55, scanner; ) configured to generate a read image of the print product by reading the print product (para [0009], the scanner is mounted in a housing of a fixture arranged to be incorporated into or onto a printer to receive a feed of labels driven by a printer without need for a drive dedicated to the inspection; para [0011] the scanner controller is adapted to cause image acquisition in real time in a manner which is synchronized with speed of the printer label movement); and
a transmission unit configured to transmit the read image to an inspection apparatus to inspect the read image (para [0076], The control circuit converts the data from analogue data to a digital image and sends it to the host VPU; para [0061] visual processing unit (“VPU”) and the VPU executes inspection software, called the “PrintInspector Runtime” software.), wherein the inspection apparatus includes:
a setting unit configured to set a type of inspection to be performed on the code images in the print product in which the code images are printed, for each of inspection regions including the code images being inspection targets (para [0021], the inspection definitions define type of inspection and the location and dimension of the inspection definition specifies the region of the reference image to which the inspection definition applies, para [0044]-[0045], specifying inspection requirements on a per-region basis, the inspection requirements are provided as an inspection context which is a structured, layered, hierarchical, description of required inspection configurations, and the method includes developing a context during design time, and the method comprises the system automatically generating inspection configurations in run time);
an obtaining unit configured to obtain the read image obtained by reading the print product (para [0009], the scanner is mounted in a housing of a fixture arranged to be incorporated into or onto a printer to receive a feed of labels driven by a printer without need for a drive dedicated to the inspection; para [0011] the scanner controller is adapted to cause image acquisition in real time in a manner which is synchronized with speed of the printer label movement) ; and
an inspection unit configured to perform the type of inspection set by the setting unit for each of the inspection regions in the read image (para [0122], Fig. 7 PI(Print Inspector) Inspection Designer GUI uses the PI(Print Inspector) Inspection Configuration API to capture these details and to set up an Inspection Configuration, which is stored in the PI(Print Inspector28) DB. The PI RunTime Command Interface Proxy interacts with PI RunTime); and
the type of inspection includes a first type of inspection and a second type of inspection, the second type of inspection including more inspection items than the first type of inspection (para [0021], the inspection definitions define type of inspection and the location and dimension of the inspection definition specifies the region of the reference image to which the inspection definition applies, para [0044]-[0045], specifying inspection requirements on a per-region basis, the inspection requirements are provided as an inspection context which is a structured, layered, hierarchical, description of required inspection configurations, and the method includes developing a context during design time, and the method comprises the system automatically generating inspection configurations in run time).
Claim 17 is rejected as same reason as claim 1 above.
Claim 18 is rejected as same reason as claim 1 above.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kazumi (US 2023/0062675).
With respect to claim 1, Kazumi discloses a setting unit (Fig, 5) configured to set a type of inspection to be performed on code images (Fig. 5 ref. label 0502) in a print product in which the code images are printed, for each of inspection regions including the code images being inspection targets (Fig. 5, ref label 0507 SETTING FOR BARCODE INSPECTION);
an obtaining unit configured to obtain a read image 3obtained by reading the print product (Fig. 5, ref label 0501) ; and
an inspection unit configured to perform the type of inspection set by the setting unit for each of the inspection regions in the read image (Fig. 6, INSPECTING);
wherein the type of inspection includes a first type of inspection and a second type of inspection, the second type of inspection including more inspection items than the first type of inspection (para [0004]-[0005], The first type is an inspection (hereinafter referred to as “reading inspection” and The second type is an inspection (hereinafter referred to as “collation inspection”) in which correct data is prepared beforehand, a result of reading a code image (a barcode or two-dimensional code) is collated with the correct data, and an inspection failure is determined if there is a difference therebetween as a result of the collation).
With respect to claim 2, Kazumi discloses that the setting unit sets the type of inspection for each of the inspection regions in advance before the inspection by the inspection unit (Fig, 5).
With respect to claim 11, Kazumi discloses that the second type of inspection is a grade inspection in which the code images are inspected by measuring evaluation values of the code images (para [0005], The second type is an inspection (hereinafter referred to as “collation inspection”) in which correct data is prepared beforehand, a result of reading a code image (a barcode or two-dimensional code) is collated with the correct data, and an inspection failure is determined if there is a difference therebetween as a result of the collation).
With respect to claim 12, Kazumi discloses that in a case where the grade inspection is set as the type of inspection, the setting unit sets at least one inspection item for which inspection is to be performed in the grade inspection from among a plurality of inspection items (Fig. 5 and Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 14, Kazumi discloses that the first type of inspection is a decoding inspection (para [0004], The first type is an inspection (hereinafter referred to as “reading inspection”) in which, in a case where a code image (a barcode or two-dimensional code) cannot be read (cannot be decoded), an inspection result report is output as an inspection failure).
With respect to claim 15, Kazumi discloses a printing unit configured to generate a print product by printing at least code images on a print medium (para [0021], A print job is generated in the client computer);
a reading unit configured to generate a read image of the print product by reading the print product (para [0027], an image capturing function (a scan function) using a contact image sensor (CIS)); and
a transmission unit configured to transmit the read image to an inspection apparatus to inspect the read image (para [0027], transmits an image generated by capturing an image (performing reading scan) of a sheet passing through the inspection unit 0106 to the inspection apparatus 0108 via the inspection apparatus I/F 0215) wherein the inspection apparatus includes:
a setting unit (Fig, 5) configured to set a type of inspection to be performed on code images (Fig. 5 refl label 0502) in a print product in which the code images are printed, for each of inspection regions including the code images being inspection targets (Fig. 5, ref label 0507 SETTING FOR BARCODE INSPECTION);
an obtaining unit configured to obtain a read image 3obtained by reading the print product (Fig. 5, ref label 0501) ; and
an inspection unit configured to perform the type of inspection set by the setting unit for each of the inspection regions in the read image (Fig. 6, INSPECTING);
wherein the type of inspection includes a first type of inspection and a second type of inspection, the second type of inspection including more inspection items than the first type of inspection (para [0004]-[0005], The first type is an inspection (hereinafter referred to as “reading inspection” and The second type is an inspection (hereinafter referred to as “collation inspection”) in which correct data is prepared beforehand, a result of reading a code image (a barcode or two-dimensional code) is collated with the correct data, and an inspection failure is determined if there is a difference therebetween as a result of the collation).
With respect to claim 16, Kazumi discloses: a conveyance unit configured to convey the print product; and a reception unit configured to receive an inspection result of the read image corresponding to the print product from the inspection apparatus, wherein the conveyance unit conveys the print product such that a discharge destination of the print product is switched depending on the inspection result received by the reception unit. (para [0035] Fig. 3, The CPU 0221 performs control to discharge a sheet having a defect detected by the inspection apparatus 0108 to the top tray 0320. In a case where the sheet is output to the top tray 0320, the sheet is conveyed from the sheet conveyance path 0319 to the top tray 0320 via a sheet conveyance path 0321)
Claim 17 is rejected as same reason as claim 1 above.
Claim 18 is rejected as same reason as claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randolph Chu whose telephone number is 571-270-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday from 7:30 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella can be reached on (571) 272-7778.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/RANDOLPH I CHU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667