DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kamada’860 does not anticipate the feature “specify the first region based on a type of a printed matter specified from the setting information”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitation does not define what the printed matter is nor what the setting information is, or when is that setting information defined. Examiner believes Kamada’860 still reads on the broad claim limitation. The type being the flatness which is defined based on the analysis result using the thresholds defined ahead, being read as the setting for what will define the type. Paragraph [0061] specifically says that the thresholds are setting values that are set beforehand describing settings within the scope of interpretation of “a type of printed matter specified from a setting information”. It is suggested the applicant defines what the type of printed matter is, how the printed matter is specified from the setting information, and/or what the setting information is. Rejection is upheld.
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)(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.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamada (US 2020/0009860 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Kamada’860 shows an information processing system (figure 1, inspection system 1000) comprising: a processor is configured to:
specify a first region in an image represented by printing data based on a type of a printed matter specified from a setting information for a printing process based on the printing data (paragraph [0048] identifying an image area for each type based on a flatness analysis result, paragraph [0060] area determiner 111 determines “a background area”, “an edge area”, and “a pattern area” in a printing area based on the calculated values each indicating a degree of flatness, paragraphs [0061]-[0062] the area determiner 111 allocates a plurality of thresholds (e.g., setting values such as “45”, “30”, “15”, and “4”) that have been set in stages beforehand to the respective types of the identified image areas and in paragraph [0066] image area type basis for “a blank area”, “a background area”, “a pattern area”, and “an edge area” (type of printing occurring in each area)); and
generate instruction information for an instruction to inspect the specified first region with inspection accuracy higher than inspection accuracy in a region other than the first region (paragraphs [0059]-[0061] change a threshold for each area such as a character portion, a pattern portion, and solid portion), as instruction information for an inspection device that inspects a result of the printing process (paragraph [0061] a defect determination process is desirably performed using different thresholds for a smooth area having a high degree of flatness (an area having a small change in pixel value) and a non-smooth area having a low degree of flatness (an area having a large change in pixel value) to improve the accuracy of the printing area inspection).
With respect to Claims 7-8, rejection analogous to those presented for claim 1, are applicable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada (US 2020/0009860 A1) in view of Ishizuka et al. (US 2021/0017429 A1).
With respect to Claim 3, Kamada’860 shows the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: [ ], specify [ ] the first region (paragraph [0048] identifying an image area for each type).
Kamada’860 does not specifically show in a case where the specified type is a pressure-bonded printed matter, specify a region that is pressure-bonded and hidden.
Ishizuka’429 shows specified type is a pressure-bonded printed matter, specify a region that is pressure-bonded and hidden, as the first region (paragraph [0109] identifying the printed matter as pressure-bonded).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify Kamada’860 to include specify a region that is pressure-bonded and hidden, as the first region method taught by Ishizuka’429. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the system’s ability to be able to improve adhesion that improves the printing result (paragraphs [0110] and [0308]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada (US 2020/0009860 A1) in view of Kimura et al. (US 2018/0239562 A1).
With respect to Claim 4, Kamada’860 shows the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: [ ], specify a region [ ], as the first region (paragraph [0048] identifying an image area for each type).
Kamada’860 does not specifically show in a case where the specified type is a folded printed matter, specify a region that is hidden from an outside in a folded state
Kimura’562 show in a case where the specified type is a folded printed matter, specify a region that is hidden from an outside in a folded state (paragraph [0064] when printed matter includes folded pages, displaying the folded pages in a folded state).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify Kamada’860 to include in a case where the specified type is a folded printed matter, specify a region that is hidden from an outside in a folded state method taught by Kimura’562. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the system’s ability to represent the correct printed matter with availability of folded state (paragraph [0064]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada (US 2020/0009860 A1) in view of Ito (US 2011/0193907 A1).
With respect to Claim 5, Kamada’860 shows the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: [ ] specify a region, as the first region (paragraph [0048] identifying an image area for each type).
Kamada’860 does not specifically show in a case where the specified type is a seal, specify a region within a cut line of the seal
Ito’907 shows show in a case where the specified type is a seal, specify a region within a cut line of the seal (paragraph [0029] a set printing area 52 is an area in a rectangular cut portion which is inserted in only the seal of the sealing paper).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify Kamada’860 to include show in a case where the specified type is a seal, specify a region within a cut line of the seal method taught by Ito’907. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the system’s ability to print based on the target (paragraph [0006] and [0029]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada (US 2020/0009860 A1) in view of Matsushita (US 2020/0128135 A1).
With respect to Claim 6, Kamada’860 does not specifically shows the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: generate, as the instruction information, the instruction information including information for an instruction to inspect a region in which fixed data is printed in the first region, with accuracy lower than accuracy in a region in which variable data is printed in the first region.
Matsushita’135 generate, as the instruction information, the instruction information including information for an instruction to inspect a region in which fixed data is printed in the first region, with accuracy lower than accuracy in a region in which variable data is printed in the first region (paragraph [0011] achieve image inspection of variable print job with high accuracy, paragraph [0053] variable printed matter).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify Kamada’860 to include inspect a region in which fixed data is printed in the first region, with accuracy lower than accuracy in a region in which variable data is printed in the first region method taught by Matsushita’135. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the system’s ability to be able to improve the inspection of variable data (paragraph [0011]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shinnae (US 2023/0064686 A1): shows in paragraphs [0045]-[0046] and figure 4 setting inspection levels based on the type of data.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRIANA CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3246. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6.
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.
/IRIANA CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights