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
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-7 and 16 are pending in this application [8/20/2026].
Title and Claims 1, 3, and 6 have been amended [8/20/2026].
Claim 16 has been newly added [8/20/2026].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 5, last paragraph to page 6, first full paragraph of Applicant’s Arguments, Applicant argues Shibata does not disclose “generate evaluation information for each of diagnosis item groups, each diagnosis item group being a group to which one or more of the diagnosis items belong, based on the diagnosis result for each diagnosis item belonging to the diagnosis item group, the evaluation information being information about an evaluation on the diagnosis item group; and generate a screen on which each of the diagnosis item groups and the evaluation information on each of the diagnosis item groups are displayed, wherein, in response to a diagnosis item group being selected by a user from among the diagnosis item groups displayed on the generated screen, the processor is configured to generate another screen on which the diagnosis item belonging to the selected diagnosis item group and the diagnosis result for the diagnosis item are displayed”, because Shibata’s result I612 for each diagnosis item does not constitute “evaluation information” for “diagnosis item groups”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because Shibata shows diagnosis items and results, where diagnosis items displayed is a diagnosis item group including “positional shift – vertical and horizontal”, “dirt (streak – vertical and horizontal)”, etc. These different diagnosis items are displayed as a diagnosis item group in which they belong [Figs 6B-6D]. In addition, each of the diagnosis items of the diagnosis item group displayed on the image diagnosis result screen shows the results of each diagnosis items next to associated. Shibata’s results correspond to evaluation information, where a vertical positional shift is normal (i.e., evaluated) and vertical streak for dirt is abnormal (i.e., evaluated) [Fig 6D]. Thus, a diagnosis item includes evaluation information as a result of the diagnosed item. Therefore, Shibata does teach “generate evaluation information for each of diagnosis item groups, each diagnosis item group being a group to which one or more of the diagnosis items belong, based on the diagnosis result for each diagnosis item belonging to the diagnosis item group, the evaluation information being information about an evaluation on the diagnosis item group; and generate a screen on which each of the diagnosis item groups and the evaluation information on each of the diagnosis item groups are displayed”, as recited in independent claim 1.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 6, second full paragraph to page 8, first paragraph of Applicant’s Arguments, Applicant argues Shibata and Wakui does not disclose “wherein, in response to a diagnosis item group being selected by a user from among the diagnosis item groups displayed on the generated screen, the processor is configured to generate another screen on which the diagnosis item belonging to the selected diagnosis item group and the diagnosis result for the diagnosis item are displayed”, because Shibata does not disclose generating evaluation information for each of diagnosis item groups and Wakui’s second selector is a re-weighting control that changes how individual evaluation values are weighted to calculate a generalized evaluation value – it is not a selection if a displayed diagnosis item group to reveal the diagnosis items belonging to that group and their diagnosis results.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because Shibata, as expressed in the above response, does teach generating evaluation information for each of diagnosis item groups, each diagnosis item group being a group to which one or more of the diagnosis items belong, based on the diagnosis result for each diagnosis item belonging to the diagnosis item group, the evaluation information being information about an evaluation on the diagnosis item group; and generate a screen on which each of the diagnosis item groups and the evaluation information on each of the diagnosis item groups are displayed. In addition, Shibata teaches displaying another screen [Shibata: Figs 6B-6C (I613)] which displays an image diagnosis result that displays a result of the image diagnosis which are abnormal [Shibata: Figs 6C-6D, par 0074-0077]. While Shibata doesn’t teach a user selection, although Shibata’s selection could be considered the abnormal results of the corresponding diagnosis items being generating in another screen of the diagnosis results, Wakui teaches a result display screen including a second selection menu for manual selection of a mode (i.e., Shibata’s diagnosis item of a group) and visually displaying a generalized evaluation value of the print (i.e., Shibata’s abnormal diagnosis items) [Wakui: Fig 8 (110, 112), par 0091, 0096-0098]. Thus, Wakui teaches generating a new screen [Wakui: Fig 8 (112)] of the diagnosis item of a diagnosis item group in response to user selection [Wakui: Fig 8 (110)]. Therefore, the proposed combination of Shibata in view of Wakui does teach “wherein, in response to a diagnosis item group being selected by a user from among the diagnosis item groups displayed on the generated screen, the processor is configured to generate another screen on which the diagnosis item belonging to the selected diagnosis item group and the diagnosis result for the diagnosis item are displayed” as recited in independent claim 1.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 8, second paragraph of Applicant’s Arguments, Applicant argues neither Shibata nor Wakui discloses or suggests generating a screen on which diagnosis items belonging to a selected diagnosis item group and their diagnosis results are additionally displayed on an existing screen or radar chart as recited in amended claims 3 and 6.
Examiner, respectfully disagrees because teaches displaying another screen [Shibata: Figs 6B-6C (I613)] which displays an image diagnosis result that displays a result of the image diagnosis including contents of automatic correction displayed and/or a cause of the abnormality and a measure [Shibata: Figs 6C-6D, par 0074-0077]. While Shibata doesn’t teach a user selection, although Shibata’s selection could be considered the abnormal results of the corresponding diagnosis items being generating in another screen of the diagnosis results, Wakui teaches a result display screen including a second selection menu for manual selection of a mode (i.e., Shibata’s diagnosis item of a group) and visually displaying a generalized evaluation value as radar charts of the print (i.e., Shibata’s abnormal diagnosis items) [Wakui: Fig 8 (110, 112), par 0091, 0096-0098]. Thus, Wakui teaches generating another screen [Wakui: Fig 8 (112)] of the diagnosis item of a diagnosis item group in response to user selection [Wakui: Fig 8 (110)]. Therefore, the proposed combination of Shibata in view of Wakui does teach generating a screen on which diagnosis items belonging to a selected diagnosis item group and their diagnosis results are additionally displayed on an existing screen or radar chart as recited in amended claims 3 and 6.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 8, last paragraph of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues the combination of Shibata and Wakui does not disclose or suggest the limitations of claim 16 including “generate, based on the evaluation information, as the another screen, a screen on which the diagnosis item, the diagnosis result for the diagnosis item, and a handling method associated with the diagnosis result are displayed; and in response to a portion displaying the handling method being selected by the user, cause measures to be taken for a portion of an image forming apparatus to be displayed, the measures including a method for repairing the portion of the image forming apparatus that affects the diagnosis result associated with the handling method selected by the user”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Shibata teaches displaying another screen [Shibata: Figs 6B-6C (I613)] which displays an image diagnosis result that displays a result of the image diagnosis which are abnormal including contents of automatic correction displayed and/or a cause of the abnormality and a measure (i.e., handling method) [Shibata: Figs 6C-6D, par 0074-0077]. While Shibata does not teach a user selection, although Shibata’s selection could be considered the abnormal results of the corresponding diagnosis items and any automatic correction and/or cause and measure of the abnormality being generated in another screen of the diagnosis results, Wakui teaches a result display screen including a second selection menu for manual selection of a mode (i.e., Shibata’s diagnosis item of a group) and visually displaying a generalized evaluation value of the print (i.e., Shibata’s image diagnosis result screen) [Wakui: Fig 8 (110, 112), par 0091, 0096-0098]. Thus, Wakui teaches generating another screen [Wakui: Fig 8 (112)] of the diagnosis item of a diagnosis item group in response to user selection [Wakui: Fig 8 (110)]. Therefore, the proposed combination of Shibata in view of Wakui does teach “generate, based on the evaluation information, as the another screen, a screen on which the diagnosis item, the diagnosis result for the diagnosis item, and a handling method associated with the diagnosis result are displayed; and in response to a portion displaying the handling method being selected by the user, cause measures to be taken for a portion of an image forming apparatus to be displayed, the measures including a method for repairing the portion of the image forming apparatus that affects the diagnosis result associated with the handling method selected by the user” as recited in independent claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata (US-2024/0004596) in view of Wakui (US-2012/027256).
As to Claim 1, Shibata teaches ‘An information processing system comprising: a processor configured to: acquire a diagnosis result which is a result of a diagnosis made on an image formed on a recording medium, the diagnosis result including diagnosis results each being for a corresponding one of a plurality of diagnosis items [Figs 6B-6D, par 0073-0083, 0103 – image processing system with CPU performs executing image diagnosis with settings selected to obtain an image diagnosis execution result of a read image read by an image reading sensor that was formed on a recording sheet having a display screen for setting an item for which the necessity for image diagnosis of a print defect is to be determined among diagnosis target settings including a positional shift factor, a dirt (streak), a dirt (point) factor and a target color]; generate evaluation information for each of diagnosis item groups, each diagnosis item group being a group to which one or more of the diagnosis items belong, based on the diagnosis result for each diagnosis item belonging to the diagnosis item group, the evaluation information being information about an evaluation on the diagnosis item group [Figs 6A-6D, par 0068-0077, 0087-0089, 0108-0111 – determining a result for each selected diagnosis item indicating a detailed diagnosis result (i.e., evaluation information) of each diagnosis item including “normal”, “abnormal” “to be automatically corrected”, and “—” indicating an item that is not an image diagnosis target]; and generate a screen on which each of the diagnosis item groups and the evaluation information on each of the diagnosis item groups are displayed [Figs 6B-6D, par 0073-0083, 0118 – displaying an image diagnosis execution result including corresponding detailed diagnosis results of selected diagnosis items]’.
Shibata does not disclose expressly ‘wherein, in response to a diagnosis item group being selected by a user from among the diagnosis item groups displayed on the generated screen, the processor is configured to generate another screen on which the diagnosis item belonging to the selected diagnosis item group and the diagnosis result for the diagnosis item are displayed’.
Shibata teaches displaying another screen which displays an image diagnosis result that displays a result of the image diagnosis which are abnormal [Figs 6B-6D (I613), par 0074-0077].
While Wakui teaches a result display screen including a second selection menu for manual selection of a mode (i.e., Shibata’s diagnosis item of a group) and visually displaying a generalized evaluation value of the print (i.e., Shibata’s abnormal diagnosis items) based on the selected mode [Wakui: Fig 8 (110, 112), par 0091, 0096-0098].
Shibata in view of Wakui teaches ‘wherein, in response to a diagnosis item group being selected by a user from among the diagnosis item groups displayed on the generated screen, the processor is configured to generate another screen on which the diagnosis item belonging to the selected diagnosis item group and the diagnosis result for the diagnosis item are displayed [Shibata: Figs 6B-6D (I613), par 0074-0077; Wakui: Fig 8 (110, 112), par 0091, 0096-0098]’.
Shibata and Wakui are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include evaluation items in another screen in response to user selection, as taught by Wakui with Shibata’s image diagnosis results of the diagnosis items including abnormalities. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimizing the evaluation of images printed allowing evaluation criteria to be changed by a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wakui with Shibata to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
As to Claim 2, Shibata teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: generate, as the screen, a screen on which each of the diagnosis item groups and the evaluation information are displayed in association with each other [Figs 6B-6D, par 0073-0083, 0118 – displaying an image diagnosis execution result including corresponding detailed diagnosis results of selected diagnosis items]’.
As to Claim 3, Shibata in the proposed combination of Wakui teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: generate, as the another screen, a screen on which the diagnosis item belonging to the selected diagnosis item group and the diagnosis result for the diagnosis item are additionally displayed on the screen [Shibata: Figs 6B-6D (I613), par 0074-0077 – displaying another screen which displays an image diagnosis result that displays a result of the image diagnosis of the abnormal diagnosis items; Wakui: Fig 8 (110, 112), par 0091, 0096-0098 – a result display screen including a second selection menu for manual selection of a mode (i.e., Shibata’s diagnosis item of a group) and visually displaying a generalized evaluation value of the print in second result display field (i.e., Shibata’s contents off automatic correction/cause of abnormality and measure)].
Shibata and Wakui are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include evaluation items in another screen in response to user selection, as taught by Wakui. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimizing the evaluation of images printed allowing evaluation criteria to be changed by a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wakui with Shibata to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
As to Claim 4, Shibata in view of Wakui teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: generate, as the screen, a screen on which each of the diagnosis item groups and the evaluation information are displayed on a graph [Shibata: Figs 6B-6D (I613), 0068-0083, 0103, 0108-0111, 0118; Wakui: Fig 8 (112), par 0082-0091, 0098, 0106 – generating a result display screen including radar charts made up of individual evaluation items concerning image quality and made up of production aptitude based on selected signal processing conditions for a plurality of candidates]’.
Shibata and Wakui are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include radar charts based on evaluation items, as taught by Wakui. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimizing the evaluation of images printed allowing evaluation criteria to be changed by a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wakui with Shibata to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
As to Claim 5, Shibata in the proposed combination of Wakui teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: generate, as the screen, a screen on which each of the diagnosis item groups and the evaluation information are displayed on a radar chart [Shibata: Figs 6B-6D (I613), 0068-0083, 0103, 0108-0111, 0118; Wakui: Fig 8 (112), par 0082-0091, 0098, 0106 – generating a result display screen including radar charts made up of individual evaluation items concerning image quality and made up of production aptitude based on selected signal processing conditions for a plurality of candidates]’.
Shibata and Wakui are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include radar charts based on evaluation items, as taught by Wakui. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimizing the evaluation of images printed allowing evaluation criteria to be changed by a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wakui with Shibata to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
As to Claim 6, Shibata in the proposed combination of Wakui teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: generate, as the another screen, a screen on which the diagnosis item belonging to the selected diagnosis item group and the diagnosis result for the diagnosis item are additionally displayed on the radar chart [Shibata: Figs 6B-6D (I613), par 0074-0077 – displaying another screen which displays an image diagnosis result that displays a result of the image diagnosis including contents of automatic correction displayed and/or a cause of the abnormality and a measure; Wakui: Fig 8 (110, 112), par 0091, 0096-0098 – a result display screen including a second selection menu for manual selection of a mode (i.e., Shibata’s diagnosis item of a group) and visually displaying a generalized evaluation value of the print as radar charts in second result display field (i.e., Shibata’s contents off automatic correction/cause of abnormality and measure)]’.
Shibata and Wakui are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include radar charts that can be changed based on evaluation item selected, as taught by Wakui. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimizing the evaluation of images printed allowing evaluation criteria to be changed by a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wakui with Shibata to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
As to Claim 7, Shibata in the proposed combination of Wakui teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: in response to the evaluation information being changed, generate a new screen on which each of the diagnosis item groups and the changed evaluation information are displayed [Shibata: Figs 6B-6D (I613), 0068-0083, 0103, 0108-0111, 0118; Wakui: Fig 8 (110, 112), par 0082-0091, 0096-0099, 0106 – generating a result display screen including radar charts made up of individual evaluation items concerning image quality and made up of production aptitude based on selected signal processing conditions for a plurality of candidates which can be handled by the image forming apparatus and characteristic of the print, where the selections can be edited and displayed according to a request from the operator (user) to generate an updated screen]’.
Shibata and Wakui are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include radar charts that can be changed based on evaluation items, as taught by Wakui. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimizing the evaluation of images printed allowing evaluation criteria to be changed by a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wakui with Shibata to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
As to Claim 16, Shibata in the proposed combination of Wakui teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: generate, based on the evaluation information, as the another screen, a screen on which the diagnosis item, the diagnosis result for the diagnosis item, and a handling method associated with the diagnosis result are displayed; and in response to a portion displaying the handling method being selected by the user, cause measures to be taken for a portion of an image forming apparatus to be displayed, the measures including a method for repairing the portion of the image forming apparatus that affects the diagnosis result associated with the handling method selected by the user [Shibata: Figs 6A-6D, par 0068-0077, 0087-0089, 0108-0111 – displaying another screen which displays an image diagnosis result that displays a result of the image diagnosis of the abnormal diagnosis items including contents of automatic correction displayed and/or a cause of the abnormality and a measure (i.e., handling method); Wakui: Fig 8 (110, 112), par 0091, 0096-0098 – a result display screen including a second selection menu for manual selection of a mode (i.e., Shibata’s diagnosis item of a group) and visually displaying a generalized evaluation value of the print in second result display field (i.e., Shibata’s contents off automatic correction/cause of abnormality and measure)]’.
Shibata and Wakui are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include evaluation items in another screen in response to user selection, as taught by Wakui with Shibata’s contents of automatic correction/cause of abnormality. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimizing the evaluation of images printed including cause information allowing evaluation criteria to be changed by a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wakui with Shibata to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Conclusion
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 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 MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 830-530.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
