CTNF 18/516,128 CTNF 101541 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. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2023 and 4/9/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-13 AIA Claim s 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: “acquisition unit 31 acquires, within the range of the number of jobs…the instruction information for the image forming apparatus 12 and inspection results from the inspection apparatus 14” (see paragraph [0038]) “division generating unit 31 divides an inspection area 40 inspected by the inspection apparatus 14, and generates multiple divisions 41” (see paragraph [0040]); “abnormal-division specifying unit 33 specifies abnormal divisions 41E, which correspond to the positions…of abnormalities detected in an inspection, among the divisions 41 on the basis of the inspection result from the inspection apparatus 14” (see paragraph [0041]); “counting unit 34 counts abnormalities, which are detected in an inspection, for each division within the range of the number of jobs” (see paragraph [0043]); “when, within the range of the number of jobs…, a division-by-division-basis count of abnormalities, which are detected in an inspection, is greater than or equal to a specified number of inspections performed by the inspection apparatus 14, the inspection abnormality determining unit 35 determines that the inspection apparatus 14 is highly likely to be abnormal” (see paragraph [0044]); “map generating unit 36 generates a heat map 50, serving as an abnormality monitoring result, on the basis of the division-by-division-basis counts of abnormalities which are detected in an inspection” (see paragraph [0048]); and “notification unit 35 outputs the heat map 50 on the display 16A of the user terminal 16, and notifies the determination result from the inspection abnormality determining unit 35” (see paragraph [0050]). See In re Mayhew , 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). Independent claims 1, 9, and 10 must contain all the technical features essential to the definition of the invention. Claims 1, 9, and 10 recites the limitation " obtain instruction information for an image forming apparatus and an inspection result within a range of a setting condition which has been set in advance " in lines 3 and 4 of the claim . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The expression is vague and unclear and leaves doubt as to the meaning of the technical features to which they refer, thereby rendering the definition of the subject-matter of said claims unclear. Dependent claims 2-8 depend on independent claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons above . 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahiro et. al. (Japanese Patent JP 2007271638 A) in view of Kobayashi et. al. (United States Patent Application Publication US 2023/0153041 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Takahiro et. al. discloses an information processing system comprising: a processor configured to: the inspection result being obtained by an inspection apparatus which inspects an image formed on a recording medium by the image forming apparatus on a basis of the instruction information (Takahiro et. al. see abstract, “solder inspection for inspecting the printing state of the solder printed in a substrate, determination results obtained by inspections are accumulated and stored); and output an abnormality monitoring result obtained in accordance with division-by-division-basis counts of abnormalities in an inspection, the divisions being obtained by dividing an inspection area inspected by the inspection apparatus (Takahiro et. al. see abstract, “faulty positions and frequency of faults are displayed, on the solder printing position map of a screen 34” and figure 7). However, Takahiro et. al. fails to disclose obtain instruction information for an image forming apparatus and an inspection result within a range of a setting condition which has been set in advance. Kobayashi et. al. teaches obtain instruction information for an image forming apparatus and an inspection result within a range of a setting condition which has been set in advance (Kobayashi et. al. [0048], Fig. 6C, management unit of the calculation unit sets the condition for executing the analysis, and are stored in the storage apparatus. Note that, although the initial value of an execution condition is arbitrary, it can be a condition with the highest execution frequency, for example, “every day”. Furthermore, rather than setting the execution condition based on only the latest analysis result, configuration so as to set the execution condition based on the analysis results of the past several times is also possible). This is important to the claimed invention because setting the range of a setting condition in advance allows for a more streamlined inspection process that identifies printing defects at a much earlier step, which allows for optimal adjustment for calibrated equipment. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Takahiro et. a. and Kobayashi et. al. so that this feature is included in the solution for defect detection. Regarding claim 9, which is a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process corresponding to the information processing system according to claim 1, which the rejection analysis is incorporated herein. Regarding claim 10, which is an information processing method corresponding to the information processing system according to claim 1, which the rejection analysis is incorporated herein. Regarding claim 2, Takahiro et. al. and Kobayashi et. al. disclose the information processing system according to claim 1, and Takahiro et. al. further discloses wherein the processor is configured to: when a division-by-division-basis count among the division-by-division-basis counts of abnormalities in the inspection is greater than or equal to a specified number of inspections performed by the inspection apparatus, notify, as the abnormality monitoring result, possibility of an abnormality of the inspection apparatus (Takahiro et. al. [0021] Inspection threshold data is data indicating an allowable range of variation in the positional deviation with respect to the regular position of each solder printed part, and if the threshold determined as the allowable range is outside a NG (no-good) determination is made). Regarding claim 3, Takahiro et. al. and Kobayashi et. al. disclose the information processing system according to claim 1, and Takahiro et. al. further discloses wherein the processor is configured to: when a ratio of a division-by-division-basis count among the division-by-division-basis counts of abnormalities in the inspection with respect to a count of inspections performed by the inspection apparatus is greater than or equal to a threshold, notify possibility of an abnormality of the inspection apparatus (Takahiro et. al. [0021] Inspection threshold data is data indicating an allowable range of variation in the positional deviation with respect to the regular position of each solder printed part, and if the threshold determined as the allowable range is outside a NG (no-good) determination is made) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahiro et. al. (Japanese Patent JP 2007271638 A) in view of Kobayashi et. al. (United States Patent Application Publication US 2023/0153041 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (United States Patent US 11513745 B2) . Regarding claim 4, Takahiro et. al. and Kobayashi et. al. disclose the information processing system according to claim 1, however fail to disclose wherein the setting condition is a number of jobs or a number of days. Yamamoto teaches wherein the setting condition is a number of jobs or a number of days (Yamamoto col. 7, lines 40-50, the defect checking information acquired from the checking device is in units of a page and needs to be aggregated in units of a job so as to be displayed as a list on the UI). This is important because it allows a quantifiable means of tracking the activities done by the system and allows for adequate comparisons to be done in the methodology for detecting abnormalities. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Takahiro et. al., Kobayashi et. al. and Yamamoto so that the setting condition is a number of jobs so that the abnormality instance can be tracked from the numbering. Regarding claim 5, Takahiro et. al., Kobayashi et. al. and Yamamoto disclose the information processing system according to claim 4, and Yamamoto further discloses wherein the processor is configured to: even in the middle of the number of jobs or in the middle of the number of days, notify possibility of an abnormality of the inspection apparatus on a basis of the division-by-division-basis counts of abnormalities in the inspection (Yamamoto col 15, lines 14-25, the presence or absence of a state abnormality of a printed material is determined, grouping is executed on a print-job basis, the detailed checking result information that is uniformly managed in a databased is associated, and then search is conducted). Regarding claim 6, Takahiro et. al., Kobayashi et. al. and Yamamoto disclose the information processing system according to claim 4, and Yamamoto further discloses wherein the processor is configured to: when abnormalities occur in an identical division across jobs whose number is within the number of jobs, or when abnormalities occur in an identical division across days whose number is within the number of days, notify possibility of an abnormality of the inspection apparatus (Yamamoto col 15, lines 14-25, the presence or absence of a state abnormality of a printed material is determined, grouping is executed on a print-job basis, the detailed checking result information that is uniformly managed in a databased is associated, and then search is conducted) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahiro et. al. (Japanese Patent JP 2007271638 A) in view of Kobayashi et. al. (United States Patent Application Publication US 2023/0153041 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vandenbussche et. al. (International Publication WO 2022/079064 A1) . Regarding claim 7, Takahiro et. al. and Kobayashi et. al. disclose the information processing system according to claim 1. However, Takahiro et. al. and Kobayashi et. al. fail to disclose wherein the processor is configured to: generate a heat map as the abnormality monitoring result on a basis of the division-by-division-basis counts of abnormalities in the inspection, and notify possibility of an abnormality of the inspection apparatus. Vandenbussche et. al. teaches wherein the processor is configured to: generate a heat map as the abnormality monitoring result on a basis of the division-by-division-basis counts of abnormalities in the inspection, and notify possibility of an abnormality of the inspection apparatus (Vandenbussche et. al. [40], “heatmap” of printing errors). This is important to the claimed invention because it allows a more efficient and easily identifiable defect visualization. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Takahiro et. al., Kobayashi et. al. and Vandenbussche et. al. so that this feature is included within the system for inspecting defects. Regarding claim 8, Takahiro et. al., Kobayashi et. al. and Vandenbussche et. al. discloses the information processing system according to claim 7, and Vandenbussche et. al. further discloses wherein the heat map is formed of divisions, each of which is larger than each division obtained by dividing the inspection area (Vandenbussche et. al. [40]-[43], “heatmap” of printing errors. In some embodiments, the defect overlays have individual layers to show different types of defects (color variance, streak, spot, barcode) and these defect layers can be switched on and off in the heatmap per need). This is important to the claimed invention because it allows a more efficient and easily identifiable defect visualization. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Takahiro et. al., Kobayashi et. al. and Vandenbussche et. al. so that this feature is included within the system for inspecting defects. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA YIFANG LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6435. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-6:15pm, with optional day off. 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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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. /JESSICA YIFANG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 May 14, 2026 /VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/516,128 Page 2 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/516,128 Page 3 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/516,128 Page 4 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/516,128 Page 5 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/516,128 Page 6 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/516,128 Page 7 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/516,128 Page 8 Art Unit: 2668 Application/Control Number: 18/516,128 Page 9 Art Unit: 2668
Prosecution Insights