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 .
Claim analysis - 35 USC § 112
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-12 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof because claims 1-12 use the ‘nonce’ term “unit”, and are modified by functional language and are not modified by structural language, and therefore invoke 112(f) in their interpretation.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation for the claims invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), stated above: Fig 5 Para 50-60.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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, 3, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiwata (JP 2008087287A A).
Regarding claim 1, Chiwata teaches an image processing apparatus comprising: a first obtaining unit configured to obtain a first inspection target image obtained by receiving reflected light from a printed material and a second inspection target image obtained by receiving transmitted light from the printed material (Para 10, irradiating with light, an image reading step for reading the transmission image of the image and the reflection image of the image, and the transmission image of the image and the image when the ink is normally ejected to form the image. Furthermore, Fig 7 and Para 59, transmission density measurement data is obtained by irradiating the print image with the light source 22 and measuring with the transmission sensor 23, and further irradiating the print image with the light source 24 and measuring with the reflection sensor 26. Thus, reflection density measurement data is acquired (step S6). i.e. obtain a first inspection target image obtained by receiving reflected light from a printed material (see Para 1-9) and a second inspection target image obtained by receiving transmitted light from the printed material);
a second obtaining unit configured to obtain a first reference image corresponding to the first inspection target image and a second reference image corresponding to the second inspection target image (Para 10, a reference image calculation step for calculating a reference transmission image and a reference reflection image to be predicted as a reflection image, and a difference image between the transmission image read in the reading step and the reference transmission image calculated in the reference image calculation step. Furthermore, Fig 7 Para 57, the print control unit 80 reflects the transmissive sensor 23 and the reflection when the white ink and the colored ink are normally ejected and printed on the medium 16 based on the ink amount data of each color generated in step S2. Density data measured by the mold sensor 26 is predicted and calculated as transmission density reference data and reflection density reference data (step S3). Note that the spectral absorption characteristics of ink and media are taken into consideration in the calculation. i.e. a second unit configured to obtain a first reference image corresponding to the first inspection target image and a second reference image corresponding to the second target image);
and an inspection unit configured to perform at least one of first inspection using the first reference image and the first inspection target image and second inspection using the second reference image and the second inspection target image for each of regions in the printed material (Para 10, a differential transmission image and a differential reflection image that is a difference image between the reflection image read in the reading step and the reference reflection image calculated in the reference image calculation step are calculated. Furthermore, Para 61, the transmission density difference data and the reflection density difference data obtained by collating the calculated transmission density reference data with the measured transmission density measurement data, and the calculated reflection density reference data with the measured reflection density measurement data, respectively. Is calculated (step S7). i.e. perform a first inspection using the first reference and target image and a second inspection using the second reference and target image, both the first and second inspection are performed on the printed material).
Regarding claim 3, Chiwata teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inspection unit performs the first inspection for a region in which a transparency is low, and performs the second inspection for a region in which the transparency is high (Para 41-46, it can be seen that the presence or absence of reflected light and transmitted light differs depending on the presence or absence of white ink on the medium, and the characteristics of reflected light or transmitted light differ depending on the presence or absence of colored ink. Therefore, it can be seen that both the reflected light and the transmitted light need to be measured by the sensor in order to detect the non-ejection of the ink on the medium printed with the white ink and the colored ink. i.e. the inspection process performs the first and second inspection (transmittance and reflectance inspection) in both cases if the transparency is low or high (performing first inspection for a low transparency region and second inspection for a high transparency region)).
Regarding claim 11, Chiwata teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first reference image and the second reference image are images generated by synthesizing a plurality of images obtained by reading the printed material (Para 57, the print control unit 80 reflects the transmissive sensor 23 and the reflection when the white ink and the colored ink are normally ejected and printed on the medium 16 based on the ink amount data of each color generated in step S2. Density data measured by the mold sensor 26 is predicted and calculated as transmission density reference data and reflection density reference data (step S3). Note that the spectral absorption characteristics of ink and media are taken into consideration in the calculation. i.e. the first and second reference images are generated by synthesizing (printing) images).
Regarding claim 12, Chiwata teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first reference image and the second reference image are images generated based on print data for printing the printed material (Para 56-57, ink amount data for each color is generated (step S2). Specifically, the image data stored in the image memory 74 is sent to the print control unit 80 via the system controller 72, and the print control unit 80 generates ink amount data for each color. Next, the print control unit 80 reflects the transmissive sensor 23 and the reflection when the white ink and the colored ink are normally ejected and printed on the medium 16 based on the ink amount data of each
color generated in step S2. i.e. the first and second reference images are generated based on print data (ink amount data for each color) for printing the printed material).
Regarding claim 13-14, claims 13-14 rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiwata (JP 2008087287A A) in view of Kobayashi et al (JP 2007132729 A).
Regarding claim 2, Chiwata teaches that the "spectral absorption characteristics of ink and media are taken into consideration in the calculation" in the printed material but does not teach specifically performing this first and second inspection based on a transparency. Chiwata does not specifically teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inspection unit performs at least one of the first inspection and the second inspection based on a transparency of each of the regions in the printed material.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kobayashi et al teaches, determining a transparency that is used in performing a first (reflection) light image defect detection and a second (transmitted) light image defect detection (Para 58-61, the light amount adjusting unit 55 controls the drive motor 13 and the drive motor 23 to adjust the light amounts of the transmitted illumination light and the incident illumination light […] specifically, prior to defect detection, only transmitted illumination light is irradiated to an arbitrary position on the photomask 30 and a transmitted image is captured by the detector 42. In addition, a reflected image is picked up by the detector 42 by irradiating only an incident illumination light on an arbitrary position of the photomask 30. Then, the light amount adjusting unit 55 compares the detected light amount at the pixel of the light shielding pattern 31 in the reflected image with the detected light amount at the pixel of the transmissive pattern 32 in the transmitted image, and the light quantity adjustment part 55 adjusts the ratio of transmitted illumination light and epi-illumination light. […] That is, when the reflected image is captured, the transmitted illumination light is shielded by the transmission filter 12, and when the transmitted image is captured, the incident illumination light is shielded by the incident light filter 22. i.e. the inspection unit performs the first inspection and the second inspection (prior to defect detection), based on a transparency of each of the regions in the printed material (the ratio of transmitted illumination light and epi-illumination light)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Chiwata (JP 2008087287A A) in view of Kobayashi et al (JP 2007132729 A) so that the inspections are performed based on a transparency. Doing so would allow each of the reflected image and transmitted image for adjusting light quantity to be imaged easily (Kobayahi et al, Para 58).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiwata (JP 2008087287A A) in view of Hisaaki et al (JP 6815469 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Chiwata does not teach, the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inspection unit performs alignment processing on the first and second reference images and the first and second inspection target images.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hisaaki et al teaches, the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inspection unit performs alignment processing on the first and second reference images and the first and second inspection target images (Para 48-49, in this way, a reference image to be compared with the frame image (optical image) is created […] comparison step (S108), the comparison circuit 108 inspects the defect of the pattern by using the optical image of the transmitted light image or the reflected light image of the imaged pattern of the mask substrate 101. The comparison circuit 101 (comparison unit) compares the frame image (optical image) with the reference image for each pixel. Specifically, first, the frame image (optical image) to be compared and the reference image to be compared are aligned by a predetermined algorithm. For example, alignment is performed using the method of least squares. Then, the comparison circuit 108 compares the two for each pixel according to a predetermined determination condition, and determines the presence or absence of a defect such as a shape defect. As a determination condition, for example, the presence or absence of a defect is determined by comparing the two for each pixel according to a predetermined algorithm. i.e. the inspection unit performs alignment processing on the first (reflected) and second (transmitted) light references images and the corresponding first and second inspection target images (see Para 36, the inspection device 100 can perform one or both of the transmitted light scan and the reflected light scan))).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Chiwata (JP 2008087287A A) in view of Hisaaki et al (JP 6815469 B2) so that the inspection unit performs alignment processing on the first and second reference images and the first and second inspection target images. Doing so would provide an inspection device for images formed when exposure transfer is performed by an exposure device for inspecting minute defects, on the order of nanometers (Para 8 and 23, Hisaaki et al).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 4: the primary reference Chiwata does not teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a derivation unit configured to derive usage ratio distribution of the reflected light and the transmitted light based on a transparency in each of the regions of the printed material, wherein the inspection unit assigns weights to a result of the first inspection and a result of the second inspection based on the usage ratio distribution. The examiner has identified this limitation as the inventive concept of the instant application. No prior art alone or in combination teaches the limitations of claim 4. Claims 5-9 are objected based on dependency on claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JP-2003107670-A
JP-2015059894-A
US-20020131052-A1
US-20050139792-A1
US-20050040348-A1
US-20170214812-A1
US-20210323329-A1
US-20240354930-A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK PETER KRAYNAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 5 PM.
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.
/JACK PETER KRAYNAK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2668
/UTPAL D SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights