CTNF 18/489,870 CTNF 83290 DETAILED ACTION 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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) 1-3, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Shijoh (US 2016/0142560) . (1) regarding claims 1, 9, and 10: Shijoh ‘560 discloses an inspection level setting system (print inspecting system in Fig. 1) comprising: a processor (CPU in paragraph [0052]) configured to: display an inspection result (602 and 603 in Fig. 6) of inspecting whether an output material output from an output apparatus is a good product in an inspection device in which an inspection level serving as a reference for determining whether the output material is the good product is set (paragraphs [0066]-[0067], and [0086-[0089], where inspections are conducted to determine if a product has any defects, if no defects are found then it is deemed a good product); receive, from a user, an input of a determination result as to whether the output material inspected by the inspection device is the good product (paragraph [0073]-[0075], where a user after seeing some results will determine if a product is good or not); and change, in a case where the inspection result by the inspection device does not match the determination result of the user, the inspection level set in the inspection device to be brought close to a determination criterion of the user (paragraph [0073]-[0075], and [0090]-[0092], where a user will choose a new threshold for the inspection device, when it is determined that the inspection result is not the desirable result). (2) regarding claim 2: Shijoh ‘560 further discloses set, in a case where the inspection result by the inspection device is the good product and the input from the user is not the good product, the inspection level to be stricter than a current inspection level (paragraphs [0091]-[0096], where even if the inspecting system detects a good product, if the user has determined he/she wants a different threshold to measure the products, then the setting get adjusted to the new standards); and set, in a case where the inspection result by the inspection device is not the good product and the input from the user is the good product, the inspection level to be looser than the current inspection level (paragraphs [0091]-[0096], where if the inspecting system determines that the product is good, but the user believes it is defecting, then the user can adjust the threshold to make the system conform to the new standards of the user). (3) regarding claim 3: Shijoh ‘560 further discloses change the inspection level in a case where a mismatch satisfying a set condition occurs, regarding the mismatch between the inspection result by the inspection device and an input result from the user (paragraphs [0091]-[0096], where even if the inspecting system detects a good product, if the user has determined he/she wants a different threshold to measure the products, then the setting get adjusted to the new standards). (4) regarding claim 6: Shijoh ‘560 further discloses wherein the inspection level is set for each output content (paragraphs [0091]-[0096], where even if the inspecting system detects a good product, if the user has determined he/she wants a different threshold to measure the products, then the setting get adjusted to the new standards, each time an output is obtained, the user can repeat his operations). (5) regarding claim 7: Shijoh ‘560 further discloses wherein the inspection level is set for each requester requesting an output (paragraphs [0091]-[0096], where even if the inspecting system detects a good product, if the user has determined he/she wants a different threshold to measure the products, then the setting get adjusted to the new standards, each user of the system can set its own thresholds). (6) regarding claim 8: Shijoh ‘560 further discloses wherein the inspection level is further set for each output content (paragraphs [0091]-[0096], where even if the inspecting system detects a good product, if the user has determined he/she wants a different threshold to measure the products, then the setting get adjusted to the new standards, each time the inspection result is obtained, a user can change the threshold) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 4 and 5 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: A. Claim 4 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “ wherein the set condition is that a ratio of the number of times in which the mismatch occurs in the set number of output materials is equal to or larger than a set ratio ”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter. B. Claim 5 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “ wherein the set condition is that the number of times in which the mismatch occurs in the set number of output materials is equal to or larger than the set number of times ”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENNIN R RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-7:00pm. 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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at 571-270-5254. 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. /LENNIN R RODRIGUEZGONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/489,870 Page 2 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/489,870 Page 3 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/489,870 Page 4 Art Unit: 2683 Application/Control Number: 18/489,870 Page 5 Art Unit: 2683
Prosecution Insights