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 .
Claims 1 – 15 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2023 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Applicants have not provided an explanation of relevance of cited document(s) discussed below.
Yamamoto (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2015/0156351 or JP 2015-107555 A) teaches a printing system including a plurality of printers (MFPs), when a first MFP 100A receives a ubiquitous job from a PC 300 that has issued the ubiquitous job (S11), the MFP 100A stores the job in a memory thereof when the print setting is determined to be processable by its own print function, and transfers the job to the next MFP 100B when determined to be not processable (S12). This processing is executed from the first MFP 100A to the N-th MFP 100E in this order, which is specified in advance (S12-S16). With this execution, the ubiquitous job is stored in the memory of the processable MFP.
Ogasawara et al. (JP 2012-000876 A) provide a variable printing inspection device for inspecting a printed matter made by variable printing includes: an image compositing part for compositing an object to the fixed area and variable area of variable printing thereby generating a composite image; a printing part for printing the composite image on a paper to create the printed matter; an image reading part for reading the printed matter to output a scan image; and an inspection part for determining whether or not the printed matter is good based on the result of comparing the composite image with the scan image. The inspection part uses the object composited to the fixed area as a target for comparison to compare the fixed area according to a first determination criterion.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitations are: "inspection master generating unit" and "processing management unit" in claims 1 and 6.
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.
The inspection master generating unit is read by the examiner as being item 100 of Fig. 3, in which is incorporated in a control unit 10 (e.g., CPU), ¶0043 with ¶0045 and ¶0073.
The processing Management Unit is read by the examiner as being item 110 of Fig. 3, in which is also incorporated in the control unit 10 (e.g., CPU), ¶0043 with ¶0045 and ¶0073.
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 § 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.
Claims 1 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2022/0300227 A1, hereinafter ‘Nakayama’) in view of Fuijita et al. (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2021/0294552 A1, hereinafter ‘Fujita’) and further in view of Kitai (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2023/0350615 A1, hereinafter ‘Kitai’).
With respect to claim 1, Nakayama teaches an industrial printing system (e.g. an information processing system for manufacturing, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, ¶0026, ¶0031 - ¶0032) having a plurality of print servers (e.g., including print servers 24 and 26, ¶0045, Fig. 9), printing apparatuses (e.g., also including printers 25 and 27, ¶0045, Fig. 2), and inspecting apparatuses and performing variable printing of print data for production printing (e.g., inspecting means should be involved each time a print job is being executed and/or adjusted, ¶0033, ¶0040 - ¶0042, ¶0102, Fig. 8), and each of the plurality of print servers comprises: a processing management unit configured to transmit the print data and the master data generated by the inspection master generating unit to other print server and request processing (e.g., transmit the print job and data related to inspection to the second print server 26 and continue processing, ¶0101 - ¶0102, ¶0107, ¶0114, ¶0126, Fig. 6); but fails to teach
that said industrial printing system specifically having inspecting apparatuses;
an inspection master generating unit configured to generate master data for inspection in which inspection processing and good-quality standard are set for the print data; the inspecting apparatus inspects printed matter of the print data based on the master data.
However, with respect to above difference (a), the mentioned claimed limitations are well-known in the art as evidenced by Fuijita. In particular, Fuijita teaches a printing system having a plurality of apparatuses (e.g. printing apparatuses and inspection apparatuses, ¶0003 with ¶0007, ¶0079 and ¶0145).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the information processing system (for manufacturing) of Nakayama as taught by Fujita since Fujita suggested with ¶0003 and ¶0079 that such modification of having an inspection apparatus in each production line would perform a quality verification process for work processes and printed products in order to meet quality requirements and/or obtain the printed product which has been ordered.
Nakayama, modified by Fujita, fails to teach above difference (b). However, also in the same field of endeavor of inspecting printed matter, Kitai teaches: an inspection master generating unit (e.g., a master image generation unit 308, ¶0086, Fig. 7) configured to generate master data for inspection in which inspection processing and good-quality standard are set for the print data (e.g., configured to generate master image for inspection in which inspection is made and “quality” (e.g., related to a determination on whether defect(s) is present or not, etc.) are set for the print data, ¶0086, ¶0093 - ¶0097, ¶0112); the inspecting apparatus inspects printed matter of the print data based on the master data (e.g., inspection device 13 inspects printed matter of the print data based on master image, ¶0006, ¶0090, ¶0112).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the information processing system for manufacturing of Nakayama in view of Fujita as taught by Kitai by adding/installing the master image generation unit of Kitai alongside each production line of Nakayama and Fujita that such modification or design of having the master image generation unit of Kitai would generate a difference image data in order to compare and performs processing using a threshold value on the difference image data, to determine whether a defect is present in a printed matter (a print image printed on a sheet) in order to determine if there is still a defect on the printed matter yet or not before sending/transferring print data for another solution.
With respect to claim 2, Nakayama in view of Fuijita and further in view of Kitai teaches the industrial printing system according to claim 1, wherein Kitai teaches the master data includes variable data for inspecting each record of the print data, and the inspecting apparatus inspects each record (e.g., master image includes variable (adjustable) data for inspecting and comparing, ¶0093 - ¶0097, ¶0112, ¶0118).
With respect to claim 3, Nakayama in view of Fuijita and further in view of Kitai teaches the industrial printing system according to claim 2, wherein Kitai teaches the print data includes ID data printed for each record, and the inspecting apparatus reads the ID to identify the record (e.g. refer to reference information included in a print job data, ¶0100 - ¶0102).
With respect to claim 4, Nakayama in view of Fuijita and further in view of Kitai teaches the industrial printing system according to claim 1, wherein Kitai teaches the inspection processing and good-quality standard are set for each object of the print data (e.g., up to the user to adjust threshold value for the print data in order to fix defect(s), ¶0081, ¶0128, Fig. 22).
With respect to claim 5, Nakayama in view of Fuijita and further in view of Kitai teaches the industrial printing system according to claim 1, wherein the other print server selects whether to print again based on the master data or report the poor-quality to a print server requested the processing when the inspecting apparatus determines that the printed matter is poor-quality; and the print server requested the processing sends the print data corresponding to the printed matter, which has been reported to be the poor-quality, to a print server different from the other print server (e.g., a result is given including that a color of a printed material is strange (e.g., quality not good), to cause a user to change and execute reprint using another printer (e.g., second printer 27) via another print server (e.g., second print server 26), ¶0090 - ¶0101; ¶0114, Figs. 1, 2 & 6).
With respect to claim 6, this is an apparatus claim corresponding to the system claim 1. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the system claim 1.
With respect to claims 7 - 10, these are an apparatus claims corresponding to the system claims 2 - 5. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the system claims 2 – 5, respectively.
With respect to claim 11, this is a method claim corresponding to the system claim 1. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the system claim 1.
With respect to claim 12 - 15, these are method claims corresponding to the system claims 2 - 5. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as the system claims 2 – 5, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tanaka (U.S PG Publication No. 2021/0397385 A1)1
Miyahara (U.S PG Publication No. 2023/0068383 A1)2
Anno et al. (U.S Patent No. 11,847,358 B2)3
1This reference teaches a commercial printing system including a print server, a printing apparatus and an inspection apparatus in a single production line, wherein compares image data read by a sensor in the inspection apparatus with reference image data.
2This reference teaches transmits a reference image ID—issued in print job units—received from an inspection apparatus 109 to an external controller 102. By this, the external controller 102 additionally stores the reference image ID in a print attribute of the printed queue. When a print job stored in the printed queue is re-executed, the external controller 102 specifies the reference image ID in association with the print job. Thus, the printing apparatus 107 can perform a reprint of the print job and inspection of printed products at the time of a reprint without creating and registering reference images for the print job for which a reprint has been instructed.
3This reference teaches a management unit generating patch image data by using data. For example, a color management unit instructs the prepress control unit to add measurement patch image data to the margin of PDF data received as an order. Alternatively, the color management unit sends signal value information of a measurement patch to the print server or the printing apparatus and sends an instruction to the print server or the printing apparatus to generate patch image data in the production system. After the color management unit issues an instruction to the production system to print and measure patch image data, the color management unit receives measurement results as needed and uses the measurement results in, for example, the color grade checking process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN M GUILLERMETY whose telephone number is (571)270-3481. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Benny Q 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.
/JUAN M GUILLERMETY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682