DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Oath/Declaration
3. The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/16/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawing(s) filed on 02/16/2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
6. Claims 1-19 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
10. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
11. Claims 1-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Ikari (US 2015/0146264) in view of Chuto (US 2021/0070069).
Regarding Claim 1:
Ikari discloses a diagnostic apparatus (Ikari: Fig. 1 ‘image inspection apparatus 110’) for diagnosing an abnormal portion of an image forming apparatus (Ikari: ‘an apparatus and a method for estimating, when an abnormality has occurred in a printer, a cause of the abnormality’; ¶[0002]), comprising:
at least one memory device that stores a set of instructions (Ikari: Fig. 8; e.g., ‘HDD 1104 stores system software and a program for realizing the image inspection process’ ; ¶[0064]) ; and
at least one processor that executes the set of instructions (Ikari: Fig. 8; ‘CPU 1101 reads programs, such as an operating system (OS) and application software, from the HDD 1104 to execute the programs and thus provides various functions’; ¶[0064]) to
extract a diagnosis region for specifying the abnormal portion from a read image obtained by a reading unit reading a printing medium conveyed along a conveying path from an image forming unit (Ikari: Fig. 12 ‘In step S201, the CPU 1101 receives the scanned image data obtained by scanning the analysis charts and the blank paper from the image forming apparatus. The scanned image data is the data transmitted from the image forming apparatus in step S105 of the flowchart illustrated in FIG. 11. If CPU 1101 receives the scanned image data obtained by scanning the analysis charts and the blank paper (YES in step S201), the process proceeds to step S202. In step S202, the CPU 1101 analyzes the blank paper scanned image data obtained by scanning the blank document among the received scanned image data. More specifically, such an analysis is a function of the image analysis unit 1111, and the image analysis unit 1111 calculates the feature amount using the blank paper scanned image data for confirming the abnormality location in the scanner. As described above, the feature amount is for identifying, if a pixel which is not a white pixel is included in the image data obtained by scanning the blank paper, the pixel as the abnormal pixel. Further, the analysis result is calculated as the feature amount similarly as when the chart analysis is performed.’ ¶¶[0099-0100]).
determine an abnormality in the extracted diagnosis region (Ikari: Fig. 12 Step S203 ‘DETECTED SCANNER ABNORMALITY Y/N’; ¶[0101]), and
specify the abnormal portion on a basis of a result of the determination (Ikari: Fig. 12 Step S204 ‘ESTIMATE SCANNER ABNORMALITY LOCATION’ ¶¶[0101-0102]),
Ikari does not expressly disclose wherein the diagnosis region includes an external region which is a region outside the printing medium of the read image.
Chuto discloses wherein the diagnosis region includes an external region which is a region outside the printing medium of the read image.
Chuto: Fig. 4 discloses wherein medium conveyance surface 160S of the medium conveyance belt 160 has a gray color, which is remarkably different from white, and the image reading range RZ of the medium reading device 120 is set across the full printable width WA of the conveyance surface, a range that encompasses both the print paper and the conveying path background (medium conveyance surface) lying outside the print paper boundary. (Chuto: ¶¶[0033-0035]).
Chuto further discloses wherein abnormality detector 220 generates contrast medium region data by setting a threshold value for identifying the color of the print paper and the gray color of the medium conveyance surface 160S, binarizing the mask data MD with this threshold value and setting a pixel value of the print paper at “0”, and a pixel value of the medium conveyance surface 160S (the region outside the printing medium boundary) at “1”. (Chuto: Fig. 5 ¶¶[0036-0038]).
Ikari in view of Chuto are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing (inline reading of printing media and determining abnormalities). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chuto’s teaching of reading and analyzing the conveying path region outside the paper boundary into Ikari’s inline diagnosis system. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to improve the accuracy of specifying whether the abnormal portion is the reading unit or the image forming unit, because a reading unit abnormality such as dust or dirt on the glass plate produces a streak that can extend across the full width glass plate while a printing unit abnormality produces a streak confined to the paper surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ikari with Chuto to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2:
The proposed combination of Ikari in view of Chuto further discloses the diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor executes instructions in the memory device to:
specify the reading unit as the abnormal portion in a case where there is an abnormality in the external region extracted as the diagnosis region.
Ikari discloses that when abnormal pixels are detected in the blank paper scan data, CPU 1101 proceeds to estimate the scanner 140 (reading unit) as the abnormal portion via scanner abnormality estimation unit 1112 (Step S204). (Ikari: ¶¶[0081-0084]) Fig. 12, steps S202-S204]). Ikari further discloses that scanner 140 abnormalities, including dust adhering to the document positioning glass plate 1401, produce a linear streak that extends across the full width of the read image in the sub-scanning direction, and that such abnormalities are attributable to the reading unit rather than the printer (Ikari: ¶¶[0007;0048-0049]).
Chuto teaches that the external region oft the read image (the conveying path background outside the paper boundary) is captured and analyzed as part of the diagnosis region. (Chuto: ¶¶0033-0038]).
Ikari in view of Chuto are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing (inline reading of printing media and determining abnormalities). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that when an abnormality is detected in the external region of the read image (the area outside the paper boundary where only a reading unit abnormality, not a printer abnormality, could produce a mark), the reading unit should be specified as the abnormal portion. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to determine if the abnormality is coming from the reading unit (scanner) or the printing unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ikari with Chuto to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3:
The proposed combination of Ikari in view of Chuto further discloses the diagnostic apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor executes instructions in the memory device to: obtain four corners of the printing medium included in the read image and extract a region outside of a region defined by the four corners as the external region.
Chuto discloses that medium reading device 120 acquires mask data MD as a two-dimensional image of the print paper P1 on the medium conveyance surface 160S, and that abnormality detector 220 generates contrast medium region data by binarizing the mask data MD to distinguish the print paper P1 region from the medium conveyance surface 160S region, thereby identifying the boundary of the printing medium withing the read image (Chuto: ¶¶[0020; 0038]). Chuto further discloses that the print medium region 160Z is defined between a first paper end part position 160Z1 and a second paper end part position 160Z2, identifying the lateral boundary edges of the print paper withing the read image, and that the region outside the print medium region 160Z, i.e., the medium conveyance surface beyone the paper edges, is separately identified and analyzed as the external region. (Chuto: ¶¶[0034; 0036-0038]); Fig. 5).
Ikari in view of Chuto are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing (inline reading of printing media and determining abnormalities). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain four corners of the printing medium included in the read image and extract a region outside of a region defined by the four corners as the external region.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is recognize the boundary of the print medium in the read image so that the external region can be extracted. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ikari with Chuto to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4:
The proposed combination of Ikari in view of Chuto further discloses the diagnostic apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor executes instructions in the memory device to: in addition to the external region, extract a non-image region in the printing medium where an image not formed from the read image as the diagnosis region.
Ikari expressly discloses that the blank paper scan data, obtained by scanning a blank document that does not include printed information, corresponding to a non-image region in the printing medium where no image is formed, is used as a diagnosis region together with the analysis chart scan data in the same scanning operation. (Ikari: ¶¶[0079-0081; 0094]). The blank paper constitutes a non-image region withing the printing medium (paper white throughout, with not toner formed), and is extracted alongside the analysis chart data as a distinct diagnosis region. (Ikari: ¶¶[0079-0082]; Fig. 11, step S104; Fig. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ikari with Chuto to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5:
The proposed combination of Ikari in view of Chuto further discloses the diagnostic apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor executes instructions in the memory device to:
specify the reading unit as the abnormal portion in a case where there is an abnormality in the external region and the non-image region.
Chuto teaches that the external region is also captured in the read image and that an abnormality in the external region is attributable to the reading unit. (Chuto: ¶¶[0033-0041]).
Ikari in view of Chuto are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing (inline reading of printing media and determining abnormalities). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the reading unit as the abnormal portion in a case where there is an abnormality in the external region and the non-image region. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to provide stronger and more reliable identification of the reading unit as the abnormal portion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ikari with Chuto to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6:
The proposed combination of Ikari in view of Chuto further discloses the diagnostic apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor executes instructions in the memory device to: extract at least two or more types of regions with different read densities from the read image as the diagnosis region.
Ikari discloses that the diagnosis region encompasses two distinct region types with different read densities in the same read image. Frist, the analysis charts, particularly color patch chart 403 comprising patches 404 at defined toner densities, provide image regions of higher read density when scanned (Ikari: ¶¶[0071; 0075-0077]). Second, the blank paper scan data and the non-image areas of the analysis chart provide regions of lower read density corresponding to paper white. (Ikari:¶¶[0079-0081]). Image analysis unit 1111 extracts and analyzes both region types as the diagnosis region, relying on their density difference to calculate feature amounts and detect abnormalities (Ikari: ¶¶[0066-0077; 0082-0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ikari with Chuto to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7:
The proposed combination of Ikari in view of Chuto further discloses the diagnostic apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the at least one processor executes instructions in the memory device to: extract, from the read image, a non-image region in the printing medium where an image is not formed and with a different read density to the external region as the diagnosis region.
Ikari discloses that the blank paper scan data, the non-image region within the printing medium where no image is formed, is extracted and used as a diagnosis region, exhibiting uniformly low read density (paper white). (Ikari: ¶¶[0079-0081]).
Chuto teaches that the external region is the conveying path background (medium conveyance surface 160S), which has a gray color, a color different from white, and therefore a different read density from the blank paper non-image region of the printing medium. (Chuto: ¶¶[0033; 0038]).
Ikari in view of Chuto are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing (inline reading of printing media and determining abnormalities). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extract, from the read image, a non-image region in the printing medium where an image is not formed and with a different read density to the external region as the diagnosis region. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to extract the non-image region from within the printing medium as a distinct diagnosis region with a read density different from the external region. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ikari with Chuto to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8:
The proposed combination of Ikari in view of Chuto further discloses the diagnostic apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the at least one processor executes instructions in the memory device to:
extract, from the read image, an image region in the printing medium where an image is formed and with a different read density to the external region as the diagnosis region.
Ikari discloses that the analysis chart image data, particularly the patches 404 of color patch chart 403 and the solid chart 401, which are image regions within the printing medium where toner is formed at defined densities, are extracted and analyzed as diagnosis regions, exhibiting higher read density values due to the presence of toner. (Ikari: ¶¶[0066-0077]).
Chuto teaches that the external region has a gray read density different from the toner image regions of the printing medium (Chuto: ¶¶[0033; 0038]).
Ikari in view of Chuto are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing (inline reading of printing media and determining abnormalities). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extract, from the read image, an image region in the printing medium where an image is formed and with a different read density to the external region as the diagnosis region as directly taught by both references.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is because one of the regions is toner formed and the other is not. The toner formed region inherently has a higher density. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ikari with Chuto to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9:
The proposed combination of Ikari in view of Chuto further discloses the diagnostic apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor executes instructions in the memory device to: the external region in the read image is a region obtained by the reading unit reading the conveying path.
Chuto expressly discloses that medium reading device 120 acquires mask data MD as an image of the print paper P1 on the medium conveyance belt 160, wherein the image reading range RZ is set across the full printable width WA of the medium conveyance surface 160S, outside the print paper boundary, such that the medium reading device directly reads the conveying path as part of the acquired read imge (Chuto: ¶¶[0018; 0033-0035]).
Ikari in view of Chuto are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing (inline reading of printing media and determining abnormalities). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the external region in the read image is a region obtained by the reading unit reading the conveying path.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to detect an abnormality, such as deterioration and failure, so that the abnormality does not appear in the scanned image and the print image as disclosed by Chuto at ¶[0036]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ikari with Chuto to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10:
The proposed combination of Ikari in view of Chuto further discloses the diagnostic apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor executes instructions in the memory device to: the external region is a region of the read image at an upper end in a direction in which the printing medium is conveyed along the conveying path.
Chuto discloses that the medium reading device 120 is arranged on the conveyance path upstream of image forming unit 130, and reads the print paper P1 as it is conveyed along the medium conveyance belt 160 in the conveyance direction T. (Chuto: ¶¶[0017-0018; 0035]). The image reading range RZ encompasses the full printable width WA across the medium conveyance surface, including the area of the medium conveyance surface not covered by the paper. (Chuto: Fig. 4 and ¶¶[0034-0035]). Because the reading unit reads across the full width of the conveying path in the main scanning direction, the region of the read image at the leading (upper) end of the printing medium in the conveyance direction, i.e., the conveying path area ahead of the paper’s leading edge, is inherently captured as the external region in the sub-scanning direction (Chuto: Figs. 4 and 6; ¶¶[0033-0035]).
Ikari in view of Chuto are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing (inline reading of printing media and determining abnormalities). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the region at the upper end of the read image in the conveyance direction as the external diagnosis region. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is that this area is always guaranteed to be free of any image formed by the printer and thus any detected abnormality there is attributable to the reading/scanning unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ikari with Chuto to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11:
The proposed combination of Ikari in view of Chuto further discloses the diagnostic apparatus according to claim 3, wherein a test chart is formed by the image forming unit on the printing medium using toner of one color from among toner of a plurality of colors, and the at least one processor executes instructions in the memory device to: extract an image region and a non-image region of the test chart to specify an abnormality of the image forming unit.
Ikari expressly disclose that the printer 120, forms analysis charts (solid chart 401) on sheets as the test chards and that the solid chart is required for each color such that the solid chart is formed using toner of one color from among the plurality of CMYK colors. (Ikari: ¶[0066]). Image analysis unit 1111 extracts image regions (the solid toner areas of the analysis chart, where toner is formed) and non image regions (the paper white areas, where no toner is formed), and uses the feature amounts derived from both to specify the printer abnormality location via printer abnormality location estimation unit 1113. (Ikari at ¶¶[0066-0073; 0082-0084]; Fig. 13.
As disclosed in Claim 3 above, Chuto teaches extraction of the external region defined by the four corners of the printing medium.
Ikari in view of Chuto are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing (inline reading of printing media and determining abnormalities). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein a test chart is formed by the image forming unit on the printing medium using toner of one color from among toner of a plurality of colors, and …extract an image region and a non-image region of the test chart to specify an abnormality of the image forming unit. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to detect an abnormality, such as deterioration and failure, so that the abnormality does not appear in the scanned image and the print image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ikari with Chuto to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12:
The proposed combination of Ikari in view of Chuto further discloses the diagnostic apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor executes instructions in the memory device to: obtain an average value of read signals of each region extracted as the diagnosis region from the read image and determine a pixel with a difference value between a pixel value of the read image and an average value of a corresponding region greater than a predetermined threshold as an abnormality.
Ikari discloses that image analysis unit 1111 performs real-space analysis on all pixels (step S302) of the scanned image data, and that histogram analysis of signal values is obtained as a feature amount and compared against reference histograms of normal images to detect abnormal differences. (Ikari: ¶¶[0072-0073; 0083]; Fig. 13, step S302). Ikari further discloses that a pixel is identified as an abnormal pixel when its value deviates from an expected value, specifically, identifying pixels that are not white pixels in the blank paper scan data inherently involves a threshold comparison between pixel values and the expected average value of a blank (white) region. (Ikari: ¶[0081]).
Ikari in view of Chuto are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing (inline reading of printing media and determining abnormalities). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain an average value of read signals of each region extracted as the diagnosis region from the read image and determine a pixel with a difference value between a pixel value of the read image and an average value of a corresponding region greater than a predetermined threshold as an abnormality. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is that the obtaining of an average of read signals of each region and comparing them to pixel values with a threshold to identify abnormal pixels is a standard technique in image processing to detect an abnormality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ikari with Chuto to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding Claim 13:
The proposed combination of Ikari in view of Chuto further discloses the diagnostic apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the predetermined threshold is set for each diagnosis region.
Ikari discloses that different types of analysis charts are used for different image problem types, and that the density of the soldi chart 401 must be adjusted according to the type of image problem to be detected, for example, using intermediate density for dust detection and high density for streak detection. (Ikari: ¶¶[0068-0070]). This expressly teaches that analysis parameters, including detection thresholds, are tailored per region type and per detection objective. Ikari further discloses that since frequency feature amounts and color feature amounts are calculated from separate analysis methods, there may be a plurality of databases, each specific to the region and analysis type. (Ikari: ¶[0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ikari with Chuto to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Regarding Claim 16:
The proposed combination of Ikari in view of Chuto further discloses the diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising the reading unit that connects to the image forming apparatus.
Ikari discloses that scanner 140 (the reading unit) is connected to the image forming apparatus via scanner IF image processing unit 2400 and controller 200, communicating with a CPU included in scanner 140, and serves as the image input device operably connected to the image forming apparatus. (Ikari: ¶¶[0052; 0055]).
Regarding Claim 17:
The proposed combination of Ikari in view of Chuto further discloses the diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising the reading unit and the image forming unit integrally formed with the image forming apparatus.
Ikari discloses that scanner 140 (the reading unit) and printer 120 (the image forming unit) are both integrally formed withing the same image forming apparatus, collectively controlled by controller 200, and are housed together as integrated units of the same image forming apparatus as shown in Fig.2 (Ikari: ¶¶[0033-0036; 0052]).
Regarding Claim 18: (drawn to a method)
The proposed combination of Ikari in view of Chuto, explained in the rejection of apparatus claim 1, renders obvious the steps of the method of claim 18 because these steps occur in the operation of the proposed combination as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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.
13. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
14. Claims 14, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikari (US 2015/0146264).
Regarding Claim 14:
Ikari discloses a diagnostic apparatus (Ikari: Fig. 1 ‘image inspection apparatus 110’) for diagnosing an abnormal portion of an image forming apparatus (Ikari: ‘an apparatus and a method for estimating, when an abnormality has occurred in a printer, a cause of the abnormality’; ¶[0002]), comprising:
at least one memory device that stores a set of instructions (Ikari: Fig. 8; e.g., ‘HDD 1104 stores system software and a program for realizing the image inspection process’ ; ¶[0064]) ; and
at least one processor that executes the set of instructions (Ikari: Fig. 8; ‘CPU 1101 reads programs, such as an operating system (OS) and application software, from the HDD 1104 to execute the programs and thus provides various functions’; ¶[0064]) to
extract a diagnosis region for specifying the abnormal portion from a read image obtained by a reading unit reading a printing medium conveyed along a conveying path from an image forming unit (Ikari: Fig. 12 ‘In step S201, the CPU 1101 receives the scanned image data obtained by scanning the analysis charts and the blank paper from the image forming apparatus. The scanned image data is the data transmitted from the image forming apparatus in step S105 of the flowchart illustrated in FIG. 11. If CPU 1101 receives the scanned image data obtained by scanning the analysis charts and the blank paper (YES in step S201), the process proceeds to step S202. In step S202, the CPU 1101 analyzes the blank paper scanned image data obtained by scanning the blank document among the received scanned image data. More specifically, such an analysis is a function of the image analysis unit 1111, and the image analysis unit 1111 calculates the feature amount using the blank paper scanned image data for confirming the abnormality location in the scanner. As described above, the feature amount is for identifying, if a pixel which is not a white pixel is included in the image data obtained by scanning the blank paper, the pixel as the abnormal pixel. Further, the analysis result is calculated as the feature amount similarly as when the chart analysis is performed.’ ¶¶[0099-0100]).
determine an abnormality in the extracted diagnosis region (Ikari: Fig. 12 Step S203 ‘DETECTED SCANNER ABNORMALITY Y/N’; ¶[0101]), and
specify the abnormal portion on a basis of a result of the determination (Ikari: Fig. 12 Step S204 ‘ESTIMATE SCANNER ABNORMALITY LOCATION’ ¶¶[0101-0102]), and
wherein the diagnosis region includes at least two types of regions in the read image with different read densities (Ikari discloses that the diagnosis region encompasses two distinct region types with different read densities in the same read image. First, the analysis charts, particularly color patch chart 403 comprising patches 404 at defined toner densities, provide image regions of higher read density when scanned (Ikari: ¶¶[0071; 0075-0077]). Second, the blank paper scan data and the non-image areas of the analysis chart provide regions of lower read density corresponding to paper white. (Ikari:¶¶[0079-0081]). Image analysis unit 1111 extracts and analyzes both region types as the diagnosis region, relying on their density difference to calculate feature amounts and detect abnormalities (Ikari: ¶¶[0066-0077; 0082-0084]).
Accordingly, Claim 14 is unpatentable over Ikari.
Regarding Claim 15:
Ikari discloses the diagnostic apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the at least two types of regions include a non-image region where an image is not formed in the printing medium and an image region where an image is formed in the printing medium.
Ikari expressly discloses both region types as components of the diagnosis region. First, blank paper scan data obtained by scanning a blank document that does not include any printed information, constitutes the non-image region within the printing medium where no image is formed, exhibiting uniformly low read density (paper white). (Ikari: ¶¶[0079-0081]). Second, the analysis charts, particularly solid chart 401 and color patch chart 403, printed by printer 120 on the printing medium and read by scanner 140, constitute the image region within the printing medium where an image (toner) is formed, exhibiting higher read density values at the toner areas. (Ikari: ¶¶[0062; 0066-0071; 0075-0077]). Image inspection apparatus 110 uses feature amounts derived from both region types as the overall diagnosis region to specify the abnormal portion. (Ikari: ¶¶[0079-0084]; Fig. 9 and Fig. 12)
Accordingly, Claim 15 is unpatentable over Ikari.
Regarding Claim 19: (drawn to a method)
The proposed rejection of apparatus claim 14, over Ikari is similarly cited to reject the steps of the method of claim 19 because these steps occur in the operation of the device as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 14 are equally applicable to claim 19.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Middleton et al. (US 3017/0118356) relates to media handling systems, including systems transporting sheet media for such processing purposes as printing, imaging, copying, sorting, arranging and binding, and more particularly to methods and apparatus for sensing medium handling problems during the separation, feeding, and transport of the sheet media for processing. Middleton further discloses media processing apparatus are particularly prone to problems during the separation of the queued media in the input tray which can also be caused by poor document preparation or stacking, folds or wrinkles in the fed media sheets, different media weights and thicknesses, and other media-related problems, as well as problems with the media transport components themselves, caused by wear, dust and dirt, and other factors. These problems can be particularly acute with high-speed media processing apparatus or with media processing apparatus that handle fragile media. Failure to detect a problem with the handling of the media in time can damage the original media, causing loss of data, require special handling to correct the problem, and reduce equipment efficiency due to down time.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R MCLEAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6AM - 4PM, PST.
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 M 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.
/NEIL R MCLEAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681