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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/9/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 10/27/2023 are accepted.
Specification
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Inspecting unit in claim(s) 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 13 and 15 [CPU 211];
Management unit in claim(s) 1 [CPU 211];
Generating unit in claim(s) 1, 3, 5 and 6 [CPU 211];
Control unit in claim(s) 7, 8 and 10-13 [CPU 211];
Setting unit in claim(s) 12-14 [CPU 211].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 11, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson et al., (US Pub No. 20090207449).
Claim 1: Johnson discloses an information processing apparatus [Abstract] comprising:
an inspecting unit configured to inspect a printed material based on a read image obtained by reading the printed material [data about a property related to a proof or other product produced by the printing system is read using any of a few well-known techniques, such as using a measurement device or scanner to measure or scan the product, p0060];
a management unit configured to manage first information relating to an inspection result obtained by inspection performed by the inspecting unit [Once the data about the property or machine is read from a proof or other product, the processor 107 translates that data and compares it to benchmark data (e.g., acceptable spectral values or ranges) that has previously been stored in database 110, p0033 & p0062]; and
a generating unit configured to generate data for displaying second information indicating temporal change in the inspection result based on the first information [performance and trend analysis which allows such users to check historical performance and improvements to the printing system … within display 800, the user 102 can also keep track and analyze visual color measurements as well as control color variations over time by clicking or selecting the trend analysis icon 818, p0039, p0046 & p0073].
Claim 2: Johnson discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second information is a graph indicating temporal change in the inspection result [within display 800, the user 102 can also keep track and analyze visual color measurements as well as control color variations [i.e., temporal changes] over time by clicking or selecting the trend analysis icon 818, p0039, p0046 & p0073].
Claim 3: Johnson discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where there is a plurality of inspection items for the inspecting unit, the generating unit generates the data for displaying the second information for each of the inspection items [processor 107 operates according to a software program 108, which is able to monitor a printing system by using sensors in the printing system for checking the status of each component and/or monitoring numerous properties of components of the printing system and/or printed materials that come from the printing system to check for their accuracy and quality … the server 104 generates reports regarding the overall or specific performance of any or all of printing system(s) 105 or any components thereof. These reports can consist of any data retrieved from database 118 and thereby include the status of the printing system 105 at certain time periods and/or whether the components or products met a particular benchmark, environmental conditions and the like, p0033 & p0052].
Claim 4: Johnson discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second information includes a tolerance value corresponding to the inspection result for each inspection item, and the tolerance value for an inspection item related to an image quality defect is lower than the tolerance value for an inspection item not related to the image quality defect [Database 110 can have tables which a) maintain user 102 information, b) maintain specific information about the devices on the printing system 106, c) store benchmark and tolerance ranges, and d) track the most recent measurement data and data related to the success or failure of measurement comparisons to benchmarks … System 100 uses these tolerance values to classify any deviation and whether such deviation is acceptable to a user, p0036 & p0047].
Claim 5: Johnson discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the generating unit generates the data while the inspecting unit continues inspection, and wherein the data is output every time the data is generated [Database 110 can have tables which a) maintain user 102 information, b) maintain specific information about the devices on the printing system 106, c) store benchmark and tolerance ranges, and d) track the most recent measurement data [i.e., every time data is generate] and data related to the success or failure of measurement comparisons to benchmarks … remote database 118 maintains long term information storage of all tracked conditions while the local database 110 preferably stores data for a more concise period of time (e.g., the last 24 hours). Additionally, unlike local database 110, which stores information about that specific user, remote database 118 preferably stores data about all user locations … System 100 uses these tolerance values to classify any deviation and whether such deviation is acceptable to a user, p0036-0038 & p0047].
Claim 6: Johnson discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein, every time a new inspection result is obtained by the inspecting unit performing an inspection, the generating unit generates the data so as to include the new inspection result in the second information [Database 110 can have tables which a) maintain user 102 information, b) maintain specific information about the devices on the printing system 106, c) store benchmark and tolerance ranges, and d) track the most recent measurement data [i.e., every time data is generate] and data related to the success or failure of measurement comparisons to benchmarks … remote database 118 maintains long term information storage of all tracked conditions while the local database 110 preferably stores data for a more concise period of time (e.g., the last 24 hours). Additionally, unlike local database 110, which stores information about that specific user, remote database 118 preferably stores data about all user locations … System 100 uses these tolerance values to classify any deviation and whether such deviation is acceptable to a user, p0036-0039 & p0047].
Claim 7: Johnson discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a control unit configured to control an inspection level of the inspecting unit to be changed in a case where the inspection result satisfies a predetermined condition [the user is able to set tolerance values to set deviations that are acceptable to the user 102 … System 100 uses these tolerance values to classify any deviation and whether such deviation is acceptable to a user … This value can either be an indication that the proof is "ok" or that the proof "is out of tolerance" [interpreted to mean providing the user sufficient information to make a decision regarding setting tolerance values] … if a particular user is not as concerned with a particular color property in their end-product, the range of appropriate property benchmark values for that particular color in the database can be quite broad [interpreted as controlling the inspection level being relaxed]. Conversely, if a particular color property is quite vital to an end product, the range for that particular property will be narrowed or even require an exact match [interpreted as controlling the inspection level being tight], p0047, p0050 & p0066].
Claim 8: Johnson discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the control unit controls the inspection level of the inspecting unit to be more relaxed in a case where a value based on the inspection result exceeds a predetermined value, and wherein the inspecting unit continues inspection with the inspection level changed by the control unit [display can be color-coded to show the severity of any errors in the print systems being monitored. For example, a print system listed in red can mean that a severe condition exists because there were more than a certain number of read errors in the last 24 hours, a yellow listing can indicate that a severe condition existed in the print system in the last two days, and a green listing can indicate that there has not been a severe condition in the last two days. Additionally, the user can click or select any particular listing from within the widget application and get more detailed information about the error that has occurred. This widget application can be designed in numerous ways as is known in the programming art and can show the user 102 various degrees of information about the print system and errors that have occurred over the last set period of time … processor 107 has indicated a "fail" condition [e.g., out of tolerance condition], the system attempts to ensure that the fail condition was not caused by a failure in the hardware or improper input by the user and that the proof or product was read properly. Thus, processor 107 will also test to determine whether there was a misread [e.g., continued inspection]. Isolating misreads either by device or user error insures that the "error" is isolated before any unnecessary queries or corrective steps are taken [interpreted to mean more relaxed since remedy is not immediately executed], p0054, p0061 & p0067].
Claim 10: Johnson discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein, in a case where there is a plurality of inspection items for the inspecting unit, the control unit determines whether the inspection result of each inspection item satisfies the predetermined condition, and controls the inspection level of the inspection item determined to satisfy the predetermined condition to be changed [the user is able to set tolerance values to set deviations that are acceptable to the user 102 … System 100 uses these tolerance values to classify any deviation and whether such deviation is acceptable to a user … This value can either be an indication that the proof is "ok" or that the proof "is out of tolerance" … processor 107 has indicated a "fail" condition [e.g., out of tolerance condition], the system attempts to ensure that the fail condition was not caused by a failure in the hardware or improper input by the user and that the proof or product was read properly. Thus, processor 107 will also test to determine whether there was a misread [e.g., continued inspection]. Isolating misreads either by device or user error insures that the "error" is isolated before any unnecessary queries or corrective steps are taken [interpreted to mean more relaxed since remedy is not immediately executed, p0047, p0050 & p0067 – NOTE: this is a contingency limitation. When the “in a case” does not happen, then the remainder of the contingency does not happen either. The limitation is only cited for the convenience of the applicant as the cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)].
Claim 11: Johnson discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the control unit controls the inspection level to be changed only for an inspection item related to an image quality defect [the user is able to set tolerance values to set deviations that are acceptable to the user 102 … System 100 uses these tolerance values to classify any deviation and whether such deviation is acceptable to a user … This value can either be an indication that the proof is "ok" or that the proof "is out of tolerance" [interpreted to mean providing the user sufficient information to make a decision regarding setting tolerance values], p0047 & p0050].
Claims 16 and 17: the method and program herein have been executed or performed by the apparatus of claim 1 and are therefore likewise rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al., (US Pub No. 20090207449) in view of Takahashi et al., (JP Pub 200403001).
Claim 9: Johnson discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 8.
Johnson discloses wherein the value based on the inspection result indicates any one of the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed [processor 107 has indicated a "fail" condition [e.g., out of tolerance condition], the system attempts to ensure that the fail condition was not caused by a failure in the hardware or improper input by the user and that the proof or product was read properly. Thus, processor 107 will also test to determine whether there was a misread [e.g., continued inspection]. Isolating misreads either by device or user error insures that the "error" is isolated before any unnecessary queries or corrective steps are taken [interpreted to mean more relaxed since remedy is not immediately executed], p0067], a ratio of the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed to the number of inspections, a value indicating an amount of change in the number determined as inspection failed, or an amount of change in the ratio.
Johnson appears to fail to explicitly disclose a ratio of the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed to the number of inspections, a value indicating an amount of change in the number determined as inspection failed, or an amount of change in the ratio.
Takahashi discloses in a related system from the same field of endeavor [Abstract] wherein the value based on the inspection result indicates any one of the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed [since the integrated number of printed matter, the integrated number of defective sheets, the defect occurrence information, and the operation information of each device are recorded in the recording means in a time-series manner, the number of defective integrated sheets is subtracted from the total number of printed sheets, p0015], a ratio of the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed to the number of inspections [loss rate calculation unit configured to calculate a loss rate of the printing paper based on a total number of prints carried out from the printing press and a total number of failed sheets calculated by the first to third calculation units … the loss rate calculating means M6 is a calculating means for calculating the ratio (loss rate) discharged as a defective printed matter, and includes the count values of the counters D1 to D3, the accumulated number F1 of stavn damaged paper, which is an internal calculation value, and the robot loss, p0018 & p0044], a value indicating an amount of change in the number determined as inspection failed, or an amount of change in the ratio.
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have explicitly provided in Johnson wherein the value based on the inspection result indicates any one of the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed as a ratio of the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed to the number of inspections as disclosed by Takahashi because recording the history of the printed matter until it is delivered to the bookbinding process in chronological order instead of managing it, it is possible to grasp the printing failure that occurred in each process, and easily identify the cause of the failure occurrence as discussed by Takahashi in at least paragraph 0055.
Claim 15: Johnson discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Johnson appears to fail to explicitly disclose wherein the inspection result includes at least one of a ratio of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed, a ratio of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection passed, and the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection passed.
Takahashi discloses in a related system from the same field of endeavor [Abstract] wherein the inspection result includes at least one of a ratio of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed, a ratio of the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed to the number of inspections [since the integrated number of printed matter, the integrated number of defective sheets, the defect occurrence information, and the operation information of each device are recorded in the recording means in a time-series manner, the number of defective integrated sheets is subtracted from the total number of printed sheets … loss rate calculation unit configured to calculate a loss rate of the printing paper based on a total number of prints carried out from the printing press and a total number of failed sheets calculated by the first to third calculation units … the loss rate calculating means M6 is a calculating means for calculating the ratio (loss rate) discharged as a defective printed matter, and includes the count values of the counters D1 to D3, the accumulated number F1 of stavn damaged paper, which is an internal calculation value, and the robot loss, p0015, p0018 & p0044], the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection passed [since the integrated number of printed matter, the integrated number of defective sheets, the defect occurrence information, and the operation information of each device are recorded in the recording means in a time-series manner, the number of defective integrated sheets is subtracted from the total number of printed sheets [i.e., the remaining sheets after the defective sheets are subtracted are those that passed inspection], p0015].
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have explicitly provided in Johnson wherein the inspection result includes at least one of a ratio of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection failed, a ratio of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection passed, and the number of inspections the inspecting unit has determined as inspection passed as disclosed by Takahashi because recording the history of the printed matter until it is delivered to the bookbinding process in chronological order instead of managing it, it is possible to grasp the printing failure that occurred in each process, and easily identify the cause of the failure occurrence as discussed by Takahashi in at least paragraph 0055.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al., (US Pub No. 20090207449) in view of Yanagawa (US Pub No. 20110179961).
Claim 12: Johnson discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, further comprising a setting unit configured to set a first mode for ending the inspection performed by the inspecting unit or a second mode for continuing the inspection performed by the inspecting unit [from display 800, user 102 can define and create a print target by clicking or selecting icon 820. The "print target" defines the dot area values that are to be verified on a printing plate, the target values, and the allowed tolerances, p0047], wherein, in a case where the inspection result satisfies the predetermined condition, if a mode set by the setting unit is the second mode, the control unit controls the inspection level to be changed [the user is able to set tolerance values to set deviations that are acceptable to the user 102 … System 100 uses these tolerance values to classify any deviation and whether such deviation is acceptable to a user … This value can either be an indication that the proof is "ok" or that the proof "is out of tolerance" [interpreted to mean providing the user sufficient information to make a decision regarding setting tolerance values], p0047, p0050 & p0066 – NOTE: this is a contingency limitation. When the “in a case” does not happen, then the remainder of the contingency does not happen either. The limitation is only cited for the convenience of the applicant as the cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)].
Johnson does not appear to disclose setting a first mode for ending the inspection performed by the inspecting unit.
Yanagawa discloses in a related system from the same field of endeavor [Abstract] comprising a setting unit configured to set a first mode for ending the inspection performed by the inspecting unit or a second mode for continuing the inspection performed by the inspecting unit [print settings include print information (such as the number of pages of a document to be printed, sheet size, one-sided/double-sided printing, and finishing mode) and inspection information (such as inspection execution mode/inspection off mode, inspection judgment threshold value, printing displacement allowable value, and book-binding printing displacement allowable value), p0086], wherein, in a case where the inspection result satisfies the predetermined condition, if a mode set by the setting unit is the second mode, the control unit controls the inspection level to be changed [threshold values respectively corresponding to the levels 1 to 10 is transmitted as the inspection judgment threshold value to the printing controller 20, p0086 – NOTE: this is a contingency limitation. When the “in a case” does not happen, then the remainder of the contingency does not happen either. The limitation is only cited for the convenience of the applicant as the cited reference includes sufficient structure to perform the function should the “case” occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II)].
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have explicitly provided in Johnson support for setting a first mode for ending the inspection performed by the inspecting unit or a second mode for continuing the inspection performed by the inspecting unit
Claim 13: Johnson discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein, in a case where the inspection result satisfies the predetermined condition, if the mode set by the setting unit is the first mode, the inspection level is not changed by the control unit, and the inspection performed by the inspecting unit is ended [NOTE: this is a contingency limitation. When the “in a case” does not happen, then the remainder of the contingency does not happen either. See MPEP 2111.04(II)].
Claim 14: Johnson discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein, in a case where the inspection result satisfies the predetermined condition, if the mode set by the setting unit is the first mode, printing a printing unit ends the printing [NOTE: this is a contingency limitation. When the “in a case” does not happen, then the remainder of the contingency does not happen either. See MPEP 2111.04(II)].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Esfahani in EP 0772145, where inspection can be either relaxed or stricter depending on whether a first inspection passed or failed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA D REINIER whose telephone number is (571)270-5082. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu 10am - 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Benny Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/BARBARA D REINIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682