CTNF 18/463,566 CTNF 84829 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Claims 1-7 are pending in this application. Claims 8-15 have been withdrawn from consideration by election of invention [5/5/2026]. Election/Restriction 08-08 AIA Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claim s 1-7 , drawn to information processing system generating a screen on which diagnosis item groups and evaluation information for each group are displayed , classified in G06F3/121 . II. Claim s 8-15 , drawn to image forming apparatus for outputting setting information referring to a setting which is made on the image forming apparatus and with which a diagnostic image is formed , classified in H04N1/00045 . 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I – Claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 5/5/2026 is acknowledged. 08-06 AIA Claim s 8-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/5/2026 . Drawings The drawings received on 9/8/2023 are accepted for examination purposes. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/8//2023, 3/18/2024, 6/3/2024, 8/6/2025 and 5/1/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim( s) 1-2 are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a )(1) as being a nticipated b y S hibata (US-2024/0004596). A s 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 ]’. 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 ]’ . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3-7 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 3, Shibata teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in dependent claim 2 and independent claim 1. Shibata does not disclose expressly ‘wherein the processor is configured to: in response to a diagnosis item group being selected by a user from among the diagnosis item groups included in the generated screen, generate a new screen on which the diagnosis item belonging to the diagnosis item group selected by the user and the diagnosis result for the diagnosis item are additionally displayed on the screen’, however Shibata does teach 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 [ Figs 5B, 6A, par 0068-0073 ]. Wakui in the proposed combination of Shibata teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: in response to a diagnosis item group being selected by a user from among the diagnosis item groups included in the generated screen, generate a new screen on which the diagnosis item belonging to the diagnosis item group selected by the user and the diagnosis result for the diagnosis item are additionally displayed on the screen [Fig 8 (110, 112), par 0082-0091, 0096-0098, 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 which can be handled by the image forming apparatus and characteristic of the print, where a request from an operator can edit and add further mode selections, e.g., a gradation-oriented mode, to be displayed on an updated screen generated ]’. 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 3. As to Claim 4, Wakui in the proposed combination 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: 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, Wakui in the proposed combination 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: 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, Wakui in the proposed combination teaches ‘wherein the processor is configured to: in response to a diagnosis item group being selected by a user from among the diagnosis item groups included in the radar chart, generate a new screen on which the diagnosis item belonging to the diagnosis item group selected by the user and the diagnosis result for the diagnosis item are additionally displayed on the radar chart [ Shibata: 0068-0083, 0103, 0108-0111, 0118; Wakui: Fig 8, 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 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 radar chart on 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 6. As to Claim 7, Wakui in the proposed combination 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: 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record a. US Publication No. 2024/0004596 b. US Publication No. 2012/0257256 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 Application/Control Number: 18/463,566 Page 2 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/463,566 Page 4 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/463,566 Page 5 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/463,566 Page 6 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/463,566 Page 7 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/463,566 Page 8 Art Unit: 2681 Application/Control Number: 18/463,566 Page 9 Art Unit: 2681
Prosecution Insights