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 .
2. Claims 1-14 are pending in this amended application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-3, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukishima, US Pub 2016/0101638 in view of Matsuzaki, US Pub 2017/0064095.
As to claim 1 [independent], Ukishima teaches Soriano teaches an information processing system comprising [0012]:
a scanner configured to scan a chart image formed on a recording medium and generate read image data [figs., 3, 5, 8; 0158-0159, 0194, 0199-0201 Ukishima teaches that the test chart 510 is created by the test forming unit 31, and then it is read out by a scanner to acquire or generated reading image data on the test image 510 created to generate reading image data as a detection profile of the generated reading data on the test image 510];
a processor configured to [fig. 6, element 302; 0161]:
acquire the read image data from the scanner [figs., 3, 5, 8; 0158-0159, 0194, 0199-0202 Ukishima teaches that the test chart 510 is created by the test forming unit 31, and then it is read out by a scanner to acquire or generated reading image data on the test image 510 created to generate reading image data as a detection profile of the generated reading data on the test image 510];
generate a diagnosis result for each of a plurality of diagnostic items based on analysis of the read image data and a difference between the read image data and a predetermined reference value corresponding to each of the plurality of diagnostic items [0203-0205, 0213-0217, 0259 Ukishima teaches that the processor 302 generated and stored the diagnosis result for each of a plurality of diagnostic items (e.g., 0259) and detects a white streak from a test image to identify a plurality of recording elements expected to include an abnormal recording element (e.g., 0203-0205, 0213-0217) based on the difference between the read image data and a predetermined reference profile];
acquire the diagnosis result for each of the plurality of diagnostic items, the diagnosis result being a result of diagnosing an image formed on a recording medium [0203-0205, 0213-0217, 0259 Ukishima teaches that the processor 302 generated and stored the diagnosis result for each of a plurality of diagnostic items (e.g., 0259) and detects a white streak from a test image to identify a plurality of recording elements expected to include an abnormal recording element (e.g., 0203-0205, 0213-0217) based on the difference between the read image data and a predetermined reference profile];
Ukishima doesn’t teach rearrange the acquired plurality of diagnosis results such that the plurality of diagnosis results are arranged in a predetermined order; and
generate a screen in which the plurality of diagnosis results are arranged in the predetermined order.
Matsuzaki teaches rearrange the acquired plurality of diagnosis results such that the plurality of diagnosis results are arranged in a predetermined order [figs. 6-8, 10, 13; 0074-0079, 0119-0123, 0130 Matsuzaki teaches that the processor (e.g., para., 0130) has rearranged the multiple diagnosis results in predetermined order (e.g., figs. 7a-b, 13) and displayed them for the user in the predetermined order]; and
generate a screen in which the plurality of diagnosis results are arranged in the predetermined order [figs. 6-8, 10, 13; 0074-0079, 0119-0123, 0130 Matsuzaki teaches that the processor (e.g., para., 0130) has rearranged the multiple diagnosis results in predetermined order (e.g., figs. 7a-b, 13) and displayed them for the user in the predetermined order].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Matsuzaki teaching to rearrange the plurality of diagnosis results on a generated screen in a predetermined order to modify Ukishima’s teaching for clipping an arbitrary area from image data acquired by reading a chart output from an image forming unit, acquires a signal value relating to positions in scanning direction of the clipped area and transmits information about the clipped area and the acquired signal value that is an average value of pixel values of pixels aligned in direction orthogonal to the scanning direction of the clipped area and automatically detect such an “abnormal image” to generate the results on display. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to provide an apparatus that generates an image enabling easy detection of streak/unevenness with small amount of data so that the service engineer can accurately understand an image quality problem without visiting the location of the printer in question.
As to claim 2 [dependent from claim 1], Matsuzaki teaches wherein the processor is configured to: rearrange the plurality of diagnosis results such that the plurality of diagnosis results are arranged in an order of a poor evaluation or a good evaluation, in rearranging the plurality of diagnosis results [figs. 6-8, 10, 13; 0074-0079, 0119-0123, 0130 Matsuzaki teaches that the processor (e.g., para., 0130) has rearranged the multiple diagnosis results in predetermined order (e.g., figs. 7a-b, 13) and displayed them for the user in the predetermined order indicating in the order of good evaluation with step by step and further increased or decreased in size in accordance with the predetermined order (e.g., figs. 7a-b, 13)].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Matsuzaki teaching to rearrange the plurality of diagnosis results on a generated screen in a predetermined order to modify Ukishima’s teaching for clipping an arbitrary area from image data acquired by reading a chart output from an image forming unit, acquires a signal value relating to positions in scanning direction of the clipped area and transmits information about the clipped area and the acquired signal value that is an average value of pixel values of pixels aligned in direction orthogonal to the scanning direction of the clipped area and automatically detect such an “abnormal image” to generate the results on display. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to provide an apparatus that generates an image enabling easy detection of streak/unevenness with small amount of data so that the service engineer can accurately understand an image quality problem without visiting the location of the printer in question.
As to claim 3 [dependent from claim 1], Matsuzaki teaches wherein the processor is configured to: generate the screen in which the plurality of diagnosis results are arranged in the predetermined order and a display size of each of the diagnosis results is increased or decreased in accordance with the order, in generating the screen [figs. 6-8, 10, 13; 0074-0079, 0119-0123, 0130 Matsuzaki teaches that the processor (e.g., para., 0130) has rearranged the multiple diagnosis results in predetermined order (e.g., figs. 7a-b, 13) and displayed them for the user in the predetermined order indicating in the order of good evaluation with step by step and further increased or decreased in size in accordance with the predetermined order (e.g., figs. 7a-b, 13)].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Matsuzaki teaching to rearrange the plurality of diagnosis results on a generated screen in a predetermined order to modify Ukishima’s teaching for clipping an arbitrary area from image data acquired by reading a chart output from an image forming unit, acquires a signal value relating to positions in scanning direction of the clipped area and transmits information about the clipped area and the acquired signal value that is an average value of pixel values of pixels aligned in direction orthogonal to the scanning direction of the clipped area and automatically detect such an “abnormal image” to generate the results on display. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to provide an apparatus that generates an image enabling easy detection of streak/unevenness with small amount of data so that the service engineer can accurately understand an image quality problem without visiting the location of the printer in question.
As to claim 13 [independent], However, the independent claim 13 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the independent claim 1 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the independent claim 13 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the independent claim 1.
As to claim 14 [independent], However, the independent claim 14 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the independent claim 1 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the independent claim 14 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the independent claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 4-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
6. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The dependent claim 4 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the processor is configured to: generate the screen in which the diagnosis result having a rank closer to a first rank has a larger display size, and the diagnosis result having a rank closer to a last rank has a smaller display size, in generating the screen”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 5 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the processor is configured to: rearrange the plurality of diagnosis results such that the plurality of diagnosis results are arranged in an order of a poor evaluation, in rearranging the plurality of diagnosis results; and generate the screen in which the plurality of diagnosis results are arranged in the order of the poor evaluation and the diagnosis result having a poorer evaluation has a larger display size, in generating the screen”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 6 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the processor is configured to: rearrange the plurality of diagnosis results such that the plurality of diagnosis results are arranged in an order of a poor evaluation, in rearranging the plurality of diagnosis results; and generate the screen in which the diagnosis result having a poorer evaluation is located at an upper portion of the screen and the diagnosis result having a better evaluation is located at a lower portion of the screen, in generating the screen”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 7 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the processor is configured to: generate the screen in which the plurality of diagnosis results are arranged in the predetermined order and a color of each of the diagnosis results is different in accordance with the order, in generating the screen”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 8 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the processor is configured to: specify a selection diagnostic item that is the diagnostic item selected by a user among the plurality of diagnostic items; rearrange the diagnosis result corresponding to the selection diagnostic item such that the diagnosis result is arranged in the predetermined order, in rearranging the plurality of diagnosis results; and generate the screen in which the diagnosis result corresponding to the selection diagnostic item is arranged in the predetermined order, in generating the screen”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 9 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein information regarding a group to which the diagnostic item belongs is associated with each of the plurality of diagnostic items, and the processor is configured to: rearrange the diagnosis result corresponding to a dependent diagnostic item that is the diagnostic item belonging to a group selected by a user such that the diagnosis result is arranged in the predetermined order, in rearranging the plurality of diagnosis results; and generate the screen in which the diagnosis result corresponding to the dependent diagnostic item is arranged in the predetermined order, in generating the screen”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 10 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the processor is configured to: change the diagnosis result for the diagnostic item designated by a user based on an instruction from the user; in a case where the diagnosis result is changed by the user, rearrange a plurality of diagnosis results including the changed diagnosis result such that the plurality of diagnosis results are arranged in the predetermined order; and generate the screen in which the plurality of diagnosis results including the changed diagnosis result are arranged in the predetermined order”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claims 11-12 are allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the processor is configured to: acquire information regarding strictness of diagnosis for a designation diagnostic item that is the diagnostic item designated by a user, from the user; change the diagnosis result for the designation diagnostic item based on the acquired information regarding the strictness; rearrange a plurality of diagnosis results including the changed diagnosis result for the designation diagnostic item such that the plurality of diagnosis results are arranged in the predetermined order; and generate the screen in which the plurality of diagnosis results including the changed diagnosis result for the designation diagnostic item are arranged in the predetermined order., wherein the processor is configured to: change the diagnosis result such that the stricter the strictness specified by the information regarding the strictness, the worse an evaluation of the diagnosis result for the designation diagnostic item, in changing the diagnosis result for the designation diagnostic item”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new prior reference(s) is/are being employed in this current rejection and the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARIS SABAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday/Friday from 9:00AM to 5:30PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Benny Tieu, can be reached on (571)272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The Examiner’s personal fax number is (571)270-4917.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HARIS SABAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights