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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2023 and 05/15/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 1 is shown with numerals pointing to empty "boxes/objects". The unlabeled rectangular boxes shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement-drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the examiner does not accept the changes, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 9-11, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Toda Takeshi (JP 2008059062 A).
Regarding claim 1, Takeshi discloses an information processing system (¶ [4]) comprising:
a processor (¶ [5] control device) configured to:
receive information regarding a first threshold (¶ [8]); and
cause, based on information regarding a rejection ratio which is a ratio of printed matters not satisfying a printing criterion each image forming apparatus has and the first threshold, the image forming apparatus in which the rejection ratio is equal to or less than the first threshold value to execute a printing operation (¶ [8], ¶ [19] and ¶ [86]; printer not exceeding the rejection threshold is used in printing).
Regarding claim 2, Takeshi discloses the information processing system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1),
wherein the printing criterion includes a plurality of criteria whose content is different from each other (¶ [137] criterion or reasons for rejecting print output), and
the processor is configured to:
cause, based on the information regarding the rejection ratio corresponding to at least one selected criterion (¶ [136-137]) and the first threshold value, the image forming apparatus in which the rejection ratio is equal to or less than the first threshold value to execute the printing operation (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Takeshi discloses the information processing system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the processor is configured to:
receive information regarding a determination result from a determination apparatus that determines whether or not the printed matters satisfy the printing criterion (¶ [81] and ¶ [85-86]), and
the information regarding the determination result is the information regarding the rejection ratio or information in which the processor is configured to calculate the information regarding the rejection ratio (¶ [85-86]).
Regarding claim 10, Takeshi et al discloses an image forming system (see rejection of claim 1) comprising:
the information processing system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1);
a plurality of the image forming apparatuses configured to execute the printing operation (¶ [80]); and
a determination apparatus that determines whether or not the printed matters satisfy the printing criterion and that transmits a determination result to the information processing system (¶ [81] and ¶ [85-86]).
Regarding claim 11, Takeshi discloses an image forming system comprising:
the information processing system according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2);
a plurality of the image forming apparatuses configured to execute the printing operation (¶ [80]); and
a determination apparatus that determines whether or not the printed matters satisfy the printing criterion and that transmits a determination result to the information processing system (¶ [81] and ¶ [85-86]).
Regarding claim 18, Takeshi et al discloses an image forming system (see rejection of claim 1) comprising:
the information processing system according to claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9);
a plurality of the image forming apparatuses configured to execute the printing operation (¶ [80]); and
a determination apparatus that determines whether or not the printed matters satisfy the printing criterion and that transmits a determination result to the information processing system (¶ [81] and ¶ [85-86]).
Regarding claim 19, Takeshi discloses an information processing system (see rejection of claim 1) comprising:
a processor (¶ [5]) configured to:
receive information regarding a first threshold (¶ [8]); and
cause, based on information regarding a rejection ratio which is a ratio of printed matters not satisfying a printing criterion each image forming apparatus has and the first threshold, the image forming apparatus in which the rejection ratio is equal to or less than the first threshold value to execute a printing operation (see rejection of claim 1).
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.
Claims 3, 4, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toda Takeshi (JP 2008059062 A) in view of Yano Takaaki (JP 7117863 B2) and Eunah Song et al (US 20200193247 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Takeshi discloses the information processing system according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2).
Takeshi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of criteria includes a tint criterion.
Takaaki et al, in the same field of endeavor of selecting a favorable printing apparatus among plural printers to output a print job (¶ [10]), teaches the plurality of criteria includes a tint criterion (¶ [10]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed for the information processing system as disclosed by Takeshi comprising a processor configured to cause the image forming apparatus in which the rejection ratio is equal to or less than the first threshold value to execute a printing operation to utilize the teachings of Takaaki et al which teaches the plurality of criteria includes a tint criterion as the tint reproduction in a printing environment is essential in selecting a printer which most accurately reproduces a desired color output.
Takeshi et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of criteria includes a blurring criterion.
Song et al, in the same field of endeavor of determining image quality defect scores for output print devices (¶ [132]), teaches the plurality of criteria includes a blurring criterion (¶ [56-57]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed for the information processing system as disclosed by Takeshi comprising a processor configured to cause the image forming apparatus in which the rejection ratio is equal to or less than the first threshold value to execute a printing operation to utilize the teachings of Song et al which teaches the plurality of criteria includes a blurring criterion to evaluate different aspects of image quality to achieve the most accurate reproduction of a desired output.
Regarding claim 4, Takeshi et al discloses the information processing system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the printing criterion includes at least one of a tint criterion, a blurring criterion, or a printing position criterion (see rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claim 12, Takeshi et al discloses an image forming system (see rejection of claim 1) comprising:
the information processing system according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3);
a plurality of the image forming apparatuses configured to execute the printing operation (¶ [80]); and
a determination apparatus that determines whether or not the printed matters satisfy the printing criterion and that transmits a determination result to the information processing system (¶ [81] and ¶ [85-86]).
Regarding claim 13, Takeshi et al discloses an image forming system (see rejection of claim 1) comprising:
the information processing system according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4);
a plurality of the image forming apparatuses configured to execute the printing operation (¶ [80]); and
a determination apparatus that determines whether or not the printed matters satisfy the printing criterion and that transmits a determination result to the information processing system (¶ [81] and ¶ [85-86]).
Claims 5-8 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi et al in view of Shijo Takako (JP 2015117957 A).
Regarding claim 5, Takeshi et al discloses the information processing system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Takeshi et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to cause, in a case where the information regarding the first threshold value is input by using an input device, a display unit to display the input information regarding the first threshold value.
Takako, in the same field of endeavor of determining printer quality based on set quality threshold values (¶ [3]), teaches in a case where the information regarding the first threshold value is input by using an input device (¶ [33]), a display unit to display the input information regarding the first threshold value (¶ [50]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed for the information processing system as disclosed by Takeshi comprising a processor configured to cause the image forming apparatus in which the rejection ratio is equal to or less than the first threshold value to execute a printing operation to utilize the teachings of Takako which teaches in a case where the information regarding the first threshold value is input by using an input device, a display unit to display the input information regarding the first threshold value to provide a print quality inspection method while confirming the influence of changing the threshold as the determination criterion.
Regarding claim 6, Takeshi discloses the information processing system according to claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5).
Takeshi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to cause, in a case where information regarding a second threshold value having the rejection ratio larger than the first threshold value is input by using the input device, the display unit to display the input information regarding the second threshold value.
Takako teaches the processor is configured to cause, in a case where information regarding a second threshold value having the rejection ratio larger than the first threshold value is input by using the input device, the display unit to display the input information regarding the second threshold value (¶ [59-60]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed for the information processing system as disclosed by Takeshi comprising a processor configured to cause the image forming apparatus in which the rejection ratio is equal to or less than the first threshold value to execute a printing operation to utilize the teachings of Takako which teaches in a case where information regarding a second threshold value having the rejection ratio larger than the first threshold value is input by using the input device, the display unit to display the input information regarding the second threshold value to achieve the most accurate quality inspection determinations as the judgement standard fluctuates.
Regarding claim 7, Takeshi et al discloses the information processing system according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6), wherein the processor is configured to: recognize the image forming apparatus having the rejection ratio equal to or larger than the second threshold value as a specific image forming apparatus. (see rejection of claim 2 wherein the printer is selected in accordance with the set threshold, whether previously set or newly changed).
Regarding claim 8, Takeshi discloses the information processing system according to claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7), wherein the processor is configured to: cause the display unit to display information regarding the specific image forming apparatus (¶ [64-66]).
Regarding claim 14, Takeshi et al discloses an image forming system comprising:
the information processing system according to claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5);
a plurality of the image forming apparatuses configured to execute the printing operation (¶ [80]); and
a determination apparatus that determines whether or not the printed matters satisfy the printing criterion and that transmits a determination result to the information processing system (¶ [81] and ¶ [85-86]).
Regarding claim 15, Takeshi et al discloses an image forming system comprising:
the information processing system according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6);
a plurality of the image forming apparatuses configured to execute the printing operation (see rejection of claim 10); and
a determination apparatus that determines whether or not the printed matters satisfy the printing criterion and that transmits a determination result to the information processing system (see rejection of claim 10).
Regarding claim 16, Takeshi discloses an image forming system comprising:
the information processing system according to claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7);
a plurality of the image forming apparatuses configured to execute the printing operation (see rejection of claim 10); and
a determination apparatus that determines whether or not the printed matters satisfy the printing criterion and that transmits a determination result to the information processing system (see rejection of claim 10).
Regarding claim 17, Takeshi discloses an image forming system comprising:
the information processing system according to claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8);
a plurality of the image forming apparatuses configured to execute the printing operation (see rejection of claim 10); and
a determination apparatus that determines whether or not the printed matters satisfy the printing criterion and that transmits a determination result to the information processing system (see rejection of claim 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMARES Q WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4:30pm.
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.
/JAMARES Q WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights