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 submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/22/2024, have being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: Paragraph [0023], line 13, “network 40” (labeled as #90 in Fig. 1). 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. 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 changes are not accepted by the examiner, 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
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, line 26, the term “processing performed again.” should be changed to “processing performed in order to avoid typographical issue.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim 11, recites limitations that use words like “means” (or “step”) or similar terms with functional language and do invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claim 11; recites the limitation, “a printing apparatus configured to…..” [Line 2].
Claim 11; recites the limitation, “an inspection apparatus configured to…..” [Line 4].
Claim 11; recites the limitation, “printing apparatus performs…..” [Line 21].
Claim 11; recites the limitation, “inspection apparatus performs…..” [Line 24].
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.
After a careful analysis, as disclosed above, and a careful review of the specification the following limitations in claim 11;
(i) “printing apparatus” (Fig. 2, #100. Paragraph [0023-0027]- An in-line inspection system 10 has a function to perform printing (image formation), image inspection, and finishing integrally and comprises an image forming apparatus (printing apparatus) 100, an inspection apparatus 200, and a finisher 300. The image forming apparatus 100 comprises a main controller 110, a printer unit 120, and a UI unit 130. The main controller 110 receives PDL data from the client PCs 20/21 or the print server 30 and converts the PDL data into print data that can be processed in the printer unit 120 and outputs to the printer unit 120. The printer unit 120 prints an image on a sheet based on the print data received from the main controller 110. The UI unit 130 is a user interface used by a user to select various functions and give various operation instructions. The UI unit 130 comprises a liquid crystal display on the surface of which a touch panel is provided, a keyboard on which various keys, such as a start key, a stop key, and a tenkey, are arranged, and the like. The main controller 110 has a network I/F (interface) unit 111, a CPU 112, a RAM 113, a ROM 114, an image processing unit 115, an engine I/F unit 116, and an internal bus 117. The printing apparatus, which is an image forming apparatus, is illustrated in Fig. 2, as #100 thus has sufficient structure, wherein a CPU, RAM, a main controller, and a display.)
(ii) “inspection apparatus” (Fig. 4A, #200. Paragraph [0032]-the printed material, which is the sheet output from the main controller 110 and for which print processing has already been performed, is pulled into the inspection apparatus 200 by a sheet feed roller 401. After that, the printed material is read by an inspection sensor 403 as an image reading unit, which is located above a conveyance belt 402 while being conveyed by the conveyance belt 402. Then, an inspection apparatus control unit 405 performs inspection processing by using the image (scanned image) obtained by the reading of the inspection sensor 403. In the following, the inspection-target scanned image obtained by reading the printed material is called “inspection image”. Further, the inspection apparatus control unit 405 also controls the whole inspection apparatus 200. The inspection results are sent to the finisher 300. After inspection is performed, the printed material is output from a discharge roller 404. Although not shown schematically here, the inspection sensor 403 may have a structure capable of reading also from the lower side of the conveyance belt 402 in order to deal with a double-sided printed material. The inspection apparatus is illustrated in Fig. 4A, as #200, thus has sufficient structure of an inspection sensor with a conveyance belt and a discharge roller.)
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Regarding Independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-10
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a device, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 recites, in part:
“obtaining an inspection image which is to be inspected by reading the printed material;
detecting an image defect by first collation collating a reference image taken as a reference of the inspection, which corresponds to the printed material, with the inspection image; and
detecting a data defect by second collation collating specific data extracted from the inspection image with correct data corresponding to the specific data set in advance.”
The limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations of:
“obtaining an inspection image…printed material” is a step, under BRI, to be what a human mind can also perform through a mental process of observation and evaluation such as, the human mind can observe images of the printed material.
“detecting an image defect…inspection image” is a step, under BRI, to be what a human mind can also perform through a mental process of observation and evaluation such as, the human mind can observe some images and determine the defects according to certain conditions.
“detecting a data defect…set in advance” is a step, under BRI, to be what a human mind can also perform through a mental process of observation and evaluation such as, the human mind can observe some images and determine the defects according to certain conditions.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s) –
“one or more memories storing instructions; and
one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the inspection apparatus to perform:”
The additional elements of processors and memories - recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a processor performing executing instructions stored, a memory storing instruction program, a computer to have computer components executing the instructions of the invention, a non-transitory computer readable medium performing storing instructions, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.. Please see MPEP §2106.04.(d).III.C.
Step 2B Analysis: there are no additional elements, such as for these additional elements as indicated above, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Please see MPEP §2106.05. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
For all of the foregoing reasons, claim 1 does not comply with the requirements of 35 USC 101.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-10 do not provide elements that overcome the deficiencies of the independent claim 1.
Moreover, claim 2 recites, in part, “determining whether or not recovery processing…is possible” which is an additional mental process that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.
Claim 3, recites, in part, “the recovery processing is determined to be possible” which is an additional mental process that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.
Claim 4, recites, in part, “the recovery processing is determined to be not possible” which is an additional mental process that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.
Claim 5, recites, in part, “causing a display unit to display a UI screen indicating results of the determination” which includes an additional element recited at a high level of generality and a mental process that a human can perform with pen and paper.
Claim 6, recites, in part, a wherein clauses of giving further specification of the data displayed on the UI.
Claim 7, recites, in part, “wherein the UI screen is configured so as to be capable of receiving instructions by a user as to whether the recovery processing is performed” which is data and displaying of data which is well known in the art and does not add significantly more.
Claim 8, recites, in part, a wherein clause giving further specification of when a warning is displayed, which is an additional mental process can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.
Claims 9 and 10 recite, in part, wherein clauses of being merely data and further specification of the data.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-10 are not patent eligible under 101.
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 1-2, 5-7, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARAKAWA (US 20130148987 A1), hereinafter referenced as ARAKAWA, in view of TAKEUCHI et al. (US 20220172333 A1), hereinafter referenced as TAKEUCHI.
Regarding Claim 1, ARAKAWA explicitly teaches an inspection apparatus configured to perform inspection of a printed material output from a printing apparatus (Fig. 4A. #102 called inspection apparatus. Paragraph [0029]), the inspection apparatus comprising:
one or more memories storing instructions (Fig. 2. Paragraph [0035]-ARAKAWA discloses the main control unit 203 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), and a random access memory (RAM).); and
one or more processors (Fig. 2. Paragraph [0035]-ARAKAWA discloses the main control unit 203 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), and a random access memory (RAM).), wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the inspection apparatus to perform (Fig. 2. Paragraph [0035]-ARAKAWA discloses the main control unit 203 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), and a random access memory (RAM), which are cooperatively operable and function as a control unit. The main control unit 203 can control data transmission/reception between an internal device provided in the apparatus and an external device located outside the apparatus. Further, the main control unit 203 can control the communication between the image forming apparatus 101 and the inspection apparatus 102.):
obtaining an inspection image which is to be inspected by reading the printed material (Fig. 9. Paragraph [0138]-ARAKAWA discloses the determination unit 712 selects one of the unprocessed image defect candidate image blocks as a target image block to be processed in step S906 to step S912.);
detecting an image defect by first collation collating a reference image taken as a reference of the inspection, which corresponds to the printed material, with the inspection image (Fig. 9. Paragraph [0156]-ARAKAWA discloses in step S909, the collation unit 711 performs collation processing based on the partial scanned image and the partial reference image obtained in step S908 (wherein the partial scanned image is the inspection image). Further in Paragraph [0157]-ARAKAWA discloses the determination unit 712 performs image defect determination processing using the collation result obtained in step S909.); and
ARAKAWA fails to explicitly teach detecting a data defect by second collation collating specific data extracted from the inspection image with correct data corresponding to the specific data set in advance.
However, TAKEUCHI explicitly teaches detecting a data defect by second collation collating specific data extracted from the inspection image with correct data corresponding to the specific data set in advance (Fig. 2. Paragraph [0026]-TAKEUCHI discloses the correct image acquisition unit 12 acquires a correct image as a reference for a target image. In the present exemplary embodiment, image information of a correct image generated in advance is acquired for the correct image. Further in Paragraph [0031]-TAKEUCHI discloses the block collation unit 22 executes a process of detecting a defect by collating the correct image with the target image for each block set by the block setting unit 20. Further in Paragraph [0061]-TAKEUCHI discloses the defect of the image is detected by collating an edge-extracted block of the correct image and an edge-extracted block of the target image.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of ARAKAWA of an inspection apparatus configured to perform inspection of a printed material output from a printing apparatus, the inspection apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the inspection apparatus to perform: obtaining an inspection image which is to be inspected by reading the printed material; detecting an image defect by first collation collating a reference image taken as a reference of the inspection, which corresponds to the printed material, with the inspection image; and with the teachings of TAKEUCHI of detecting a data defect by second collation collating specific data extracted from the inspection image with correct data corresponding to the specific data set in advance.
Wherein having ARAKAWA’s print inspection apparatus detecting a data defect by second collation collating specific data extracted from the inspection image with correct data corresponding to the specific data set in advance.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to obtain a print inspection apparatus that enhances the processing speed and accuracy. Since both ARAKAWA and TAKEUCHI are print inspection apparatuses, wherein ARAKAWA the processing speed can be increased, while TAKEUCHI suppressing a decrease of the defect inspection accuracy. Please see ARAKAWA (US 20130148987 A1), Paragraph [0007], and TAKEUCHI et al. (US 20220172333 A1), Paragraph [0004].
Regarding Claim 2, ARAKAWA in view of TAKEUCHI explicitly teach the inspection apparatus according to claim 1,
ARAKAWA further explicitly teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the inspection apparatus to perform (Fig. 2. Paragraph [0035]-ARAKAWA discloses the main control unit 203 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), and a random access memory (RAM), which are cooperatively operable and function as a control unit. The main control unit 203 can control data transmission/reception between an internal device provided in the apparatus and an external device located outside the apparatus. Further, the main control unit 203 can control the communication between the image forming apparatus 101 and the inspection apparatus 102.):
ARAKAWA fails to explicitly teach determining whether or not recovery processing to perform printing and inspection again for obtaining a new printed material which is alternative of the printed material is possible based on results of the second collation,
However, TAKEUCHI explicitly teaches determining whether or not recovery processing to perform printing and inspection again for obtaining a new printed material which is alternative of the printed material is possible based on results of the first collation and results of the second collation (Fig. 6. Paragraph [0043]-TAKEUCHI discloses the CPU 10A determines whether or not the collation between the correct image and the target image for all the blocks is ended. In a case where the CPU determines that the collation for all the blocks is not ended, the process returns to Step S110 and the above process is repeated for the next block.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of ARAKAWA of an inspection apparatus configured to perform inspection of a printed material output from a printing apparatus, the inspection apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the inspection apparatus to perform: obtaining an inspection image which is to be inspected by reading the printed material; detecting an image defect by first collation collating a reference image taken as a reference of the inspection, which corresponds to the printed material, with the inspection image; and with the teachings of TAKEUCHI of determining whether or not recovery processing to perform printing and inspection again for obtaining a new printed material which is alternative of the printed material is possible based on results of the first collation and results of the second collation.
Wherein having ARAKAWA’s print inspection apparatus determining whether or not recovery processing to perform printing and inspection again for obtaining a new printed material which is alternative of the printed material is possible based on results of the first collation and results of the second collation.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to obtain a print inspection apparatus that enhances the processing speed and accuracy. Since both ARAKAWA and TAKEUCHI are print inspection apparatuses, wherein ARAKAWA the processing speed can be increased, while TAKEUCHI suppressing a decrease of the defect inspection accuracy. Please see ARAKAWA (US 20130148987 A1), Paragraph [0007], and TAKEUCHI et al. (US 20220172333 A1), Paragraph [0004].
Regarding Claim 5, ARAKAWA in view of TAKEUCHI explicitly teach the inspection apparatus according to claim 2,
ARAKAWA further explicitly teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the inspection apparatus to perform (Fig. 2. Paragraph [0035]-ARAKAWA discloses the main control unit 203 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), and a random access memory (RAM), which are cooperatively operable and function as a control unit. The main control unit 203 can control data transmission/reception between an internal device provided in the apparatus and an external device located outside the apparatus. Further, the main control unit 203 can control the communication between the image forming apparatus 101 and the inspection apparatus 102.):
causing a display unit to display a UI screen indicating results of the determination (Fig. 7. Paragraph [0069]-ARAKAWA discloses an operation unit 705 can display an inspection processing result on its operation panel).
Regarding Claim 6, ARAKAWA in view of TAKEUCHI explicitly teach the inspection apparatus according to claim 5,
ARAKAWA further explicitly teaches wherein on the UI screen, results of the first collation and results of the second collation are further indicated (Fig. 7. Paragraph [0069]-ARAKAWA discloses an operation unit 705 can display an inspection processing result on its operation panel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art at the time the invention was made to have used the UI screen to display multiple collation results. Thus, providing the user with more data at once and increasing the efficiency of the system.).
Regarding Claim 7, ARAKAWA in view of TAKEUCHI explicitly teach the inspection apparatus according to claim 5,
ARAKAWA further explicitly teaches wherein the UI screen is configured so as to be capable of receiving instructions by a user as to whether the recovery processing is performed (Fig 2. Paragraph [0038]-ARAKAWA discloses an operation unit 207 can display selectable information that enables each user to control operations of the image forming apparatus 101, the inspection apparatus 102, and the finisher 103 and status information of respective apparatuses 101 to 103 on an operation panel (not illustrated). Further, the operation unit 207 can receive a user instruction via the operation panel and transmit the instruction information to the main control unit 203. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art at the time the invention was made to have used the UI screen to receive instructions from the user regarding recovery processing. Thus, in order to provide the user with an option of confirming whether recovery processing is performed.).
Regarding Claim 12, ARAKAWA explicitly teaches an inspection method of performing inspection of a printed material output from a printing apparatus (Fig. 9, illustrates inspection method. Paragraph [0125]), the inspection method comprising:
obtaining an inspection image which is to be inspected by reading the printed material (Fig. 9. Paragraph [0138]-ARAKAWA discloses the determination unit 712 selects one of the unprocessed image defect candidate image blocks as a target image block to be processed in step S906 to step S912.);
detecting an image defect by collating a reference image taken as a reference of the inspection (Fig. 9. Paragraph [0156]-ARAKAWA discloses in step S909, the collation unit 711 performs collation processing based on the partial scanned image and the partial reference image obtained in step S908 (wherein the partial scanned image is the inspection image).), which corresponds to the printed material, with the inspection image (Fig. 9. Paragraph [0156]-ARAKAWA discloses in step S909, the collation unit 711 performs collation processing based on the partial scanned image and the partial reference image obtained in step S908 (wherein the partial scanned image is the inspection image). Further in Paragraph [0157]-ARAKAWA discloses the determination unit 712 performs image defect determination processing using the collation result obtained in step S909.); and
ARAKAWA fails to explicitly teach detecting a data defect by collating specific data extracted from the inspection image with correct data corresponding to the specific data set in advance
However, TAKEUCHI explicitly teaches detecting a data defect by collating specific data extracted from the inspection image with correct data corresponding to the specific data set in advance (Fig. 2. Paragraph [0026]-TAKEUCHI discloses the correct image acquisition unit 12 acquires a correct image as a reference for a target image. In the present exemplary embodiment, image information of a correct image generated in advance is acquired for the correct image. Further in Paragraph [0031]-TAKEUCHI discloses the block collation unit 22 executes a process of detecting a defect by collating the correct image with the target image for each block set by the block setting unit 20. Further in Paragraph [0061]-TAKEUCHI discloses the defect of the image is detected by collating an edge-extracted block of the correct image and an edge-extracted block of the target image.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of ARAKAWA of an inspection method of performing inspection of a printed material output from a printing apparatus, the inspection method comprising: obtaining an inspection image which is to be inspected by reading the printed material; detecting an image defect by collating a reference image taken as a reference of the inspection, which corresponds to the printed material, with the inspection image; and with the teachings of TAKEUCHI of detecting a data defect by collating specific data extracted from the inspection image with correct data corresponding to the specific data set in advance.
Wherein having ARAKAWA’s print inspection apparatus detecting a data defect by collating specific data extracted from the inspection image with correct data corresponding to the specific data set in advance.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to obtain a print inspection apparatus that enhances the processing speed and accuracy. Since both ARAKAWA and TAKEUCHI are print inspection apparatuses, wherein ARAKAWA the processing speed can be increased, while TAKEUCHI suppressing a decrease of the defect inspection accuracy. Please see ARAKAWA (US 20130148987 A1), Paragraph [0007], and TAKEUCHI et al. (US 20220172333 A1), Paragraph [0004].
Regarding Claim 13, ARAKAWA explicitly teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs including instructions (Fig. 2. Paragraph [0035]-ARAKAWA discloses the main control unit 203 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), and a random access memory (RAM), which are cooperatively operable and function as a control unit.), which when executed by one or more processors of an inspection apparatus (Fig. 2. Paragraph [0035]-ARAKAWA discloses the main control unit 203 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), and a random access memory (RAM), which are cooperatively operable and function as a control unit.), cause the inspection apparatus to perform an inspection method of performing inspection of a printed material output from a printing apparatus (Fig. 2. Paragraph [0035]-ARAKAWA discloses the main control unit 203 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), and a random access memory (RAM), which are cooperatively operable and function as a control unit. The main control unit 203 can control data transmission/reception between an internal device provided in the apparatus and an external device located outside the apparatus. Further, the main control unit 203 can control the communication between the image forming apparatus 101 and the inspection apparatus 102.), the inspection method comprising:
obtaining an inspection image which is to be inspected by reading the printed material (Fig. 9. Paragraph [0138]-ARAKAWA discloses the determination unit 712 selects one of the unprocessed image defect candidate image blocks as a target image block to be processed in step S906 to step S912.);
detecting an image defect by collating a reference image taken as a reference of the inspection, which corresponds to the printed material, with the inspection image (Fig. 9. Paragraph [0156]-ARAKAWA discloses in step S909, the collation unit 711 performs collation processing based on the partial scanned image and the partial reference image obtained in step S908 (wherein the partial scanned image is the inspection image). Further in Paragraph [0157]-ARAKAWA discloses the determination unit 712 performs image defect determination processing using the collation result obtained in step S909.); and
ARAKAWA fails to explicitly teach detecting a data defect by collating specific data extracted from the inspection image with correct data corresponding to the specific data set in advance.
However, TAKEUCHI explicitly teaches detecting a data defect by collating specific data extracted from the inspection image with correct data corresponding to the specific data set in advance (Fig. 2. Paragraph [0026]-TAKEUCHI discloses the correct image acquisition unit 12 acquires a correct image as a reference for a target image. In the present exemplary embodiment, image information of a correct image generated in advance is acquired for the correct image. Further in Paragraph [0031]-TAKEUCHI discloses the block collation unit 22 executes a process of detecting a defect by collating the correct image with the target image for each block set by the block setting unit 20. Further in Paragraph [0061]-TAKEUCHI discloses the defect of the image is detected by collating an edge-extracted block of the correct image and an edge-extracted block of the target image.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of ARAKAWA of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs including instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of an inspection apparatus, cause the inspection apparatus to perform an inspection method of performing inspection of a printed material output from a printing apparatus, the inspection method comprising: obtaining an inspection image which is to be inspected by reading the printed material; detecting an image defect by collating a reference image taken as a reference of the inspection, which corresponds to the printed material, with the inspection image; and with the teachings of TAKEUCHI of detecting a data defect by collating specific data extracted from the inspection image with correct data corresponding to the specific data set in advance.
Wherein having ARAKAWA’s print inspection apparatus detecting a data defect by collating specific data extracted from the inspection image with correct data corresponding to the specific data set in advance.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to obtain a print inspection apparatus that enhances the processing speed and accuracy. Since both ARAKAWA and TAKEUCHI are print inspection apparatuses, wherein ARAKAWA the processing speed can be increased, while TAKEUCHI suppressing a decrease of the defect inspection accuracy. Please see ARAKAWA (US 20130148987 A1), Paragraph [0007], and TAKEUCHI et al. (US 20220172333 A1), Paragraph [0004].
Claims 3-4 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARAKAWA (US 20130148987 A1), hereinafter referenced as ARAKAWA, in view of TAKEUCHI et al. (US 20220172333 A1), hereinafter referenced as TAKEUCHI, and further in view of KANO et al. (US 20090202134 A1), hereinafter referenced as KANO.
Regarding Claim 3, ARAKAWA in view of TAKEUCHI explicitly teach the inspection apparatus according to claim 2,
ARAKAWA further explicitly teaches wherein in the determining, in a case where an image defect is detected by the first collation (Fig. 9. Paragraph [0156]-ARAKAWA discloses in step S909, the collation unit 711 performs collation processing based on the partial scanned image and the partial reference image obtained in step S908 (wherein the partial scanned image is the inspection image). Further in Paragraph [0157]-ARAKAWA discloses the determination unit 712 performs image defect determination processing using the collation result obtained in step S909.),
ARAKAWA in view of TAKEUCHI fail to explicitly teach the recovery processing is determined to be possible irrespective of whether a data defect is detected by the second collation.
However, KANO explicitly teaches the recovery processing is determined to be possible irrespective of whether a data defect is detected by the second collation (Fig. 13. Paragraph [0116]-KANO discloses the page determined to be NG can be printed again by the system printer 70 through reference to the inspection log).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of ARAKAWA in view of TAKEUCHI of an inspection apparatus configured to perform inspection of a printed material output from a printing apparatus, the inspection apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the inspection apparatus to perform: obtaining an inspection image which is to be inspected by reading the printed material; detecting an image defect by first collation collating a reference image taken as a reference of the inspection, which corresponds to the printed material, with the inspection image; and with the teachings of KANO of the recovery processing is determined to be possible irrespective of whether a data defect is detected by the second collation
Wherein having ARAKAWA’s print inspection apparatus the recovery processing is determined to be possible irrespective of whether a data defect is detected by the second collation.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to obtain a print inspection apparatus that enhances the processing speed and accuracy. Since both ARAKAWA and KANO are print inspection apparatuses, wherein ARAKAWA the processing speed can be increased, while KANO a system printer which allows fast printing at high precision. Please see ARAKAWA (US 20130148987 A1), Paragraph [0007], and KANO et al. (US 20090202134 A1), Paragraph [0002].
Regarding Claim 4, ARAKAWA in view of TAKEUCHI explicitly teach the inspection apparatus according to claim 3, ARAKAWA in view of TAKEUCHI fail to explicitly teach wherein in the determining, in a case where an image defect is not detected by the first collation and a data defect is detected by the second collation, the recovery processing is determined to be not possible.
However, KANO explicitly teaches wherein in the determining, in a case where an image defect is not detected by the first collation and a data defect is detected by the second collation, the recovery processing is determined to be not possible (Paragraph [0092]-KANO discloses when the customer code is specified as the uniqueness specific area, a page of the clipped image can be recognized by referring to a page number (refer to FIG. 7) corresponding to the customer code in the inspection job data if the matching data does not exist. However, for example, the same customer code is printed on different pages when a plurality of account statements are issued for the same customer, and therefore, the page cannot be identified (wherein code matching is a data defect and wherein when the page is not identified recovery is not possible).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of ARAKAWA in view of TAKEUCHI of an inspection apparatus configured to perform inspection of a printed material output from a printing apparatus, the inspection apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the inspection apparatus to perform: obtaining an inspection image which is to be inspected by reading the printed material; detecting an image defect by first collation collating a reference image taken as a reference of the inspection, which corresponds to the printed material, with the inspection image; and with the teachings of KANO of wherein in the determining, in a case where an image defect is not detected by the first collation and a data defect is detected by the second collation, the recovery processing is determined to be not possible.
Wherein having ARAKAWA’s print inspection apparatus wherein in the determining, in a case where an image defect is not detected by the first collation and a data defect is detected by the second collation, the recovery processing is determined to be not possible.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to obtain a print inspection apparatus that enhances the processing speed and accuracy. Since both ARAKAWA and KANO are print inspection apparatuses, wherein ARAKAWA the processing speed can be increased, while KANO a system printer which allows fast printing at high precision. Please see ARAKAWA (US 20130148987 A1), Paragraph [0007], and KANO et al. (US 20090202134 A1), Paragraph [0002].
Regarding Claim 8, ARAKAWA in view of TAKEUCHI explicitly teach the inspection apparatus according to claim 5,
ARAKAWA further explicitly teaches a warning to the effect that there is a possibility that an image defect is detected from a printed material obtained by the recovery processing is displayed on the UI screen (Fig. Paragraph [0038]-ARAKAWA discloses an operation unit 207 can display selectable information that enables each user to control operations of the image forming apparatus 101, the inspection apparatus 102, and the finisher 103 and status information of respective apparatuses 101 to 103 on an operation panel (not illustrated). Further, the operation unit 207 can receive a user instruction via the operation panel and transmit the instruction information to the main control unit 203. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art at the time the invention was made to have used the UI screen to display a warning related to printing. Thus, in order to provide the user with information regarding the printing status.).
ARAKAWA in view of TAKEUCHI fail to explicitly teach wherein in a case where the recovery processing is determined to be possible, on a condition that an image defect is detected by the first collation and a data defect is not detected by the second collation.
However, KANO explicitly teaches wherein in a case where the recovery processing is determined to be possible (Fig. 13. Paragraph [0116]-KANO discloses the page determined to be NG can be printed again by the system printer 70 through reference to the inspection log), on a condition that an image defect is detected by the first collation and a data defect is not detected by the second collation (Fig. 12. Paragraph [01017]-KANO discloses each inspection terminal 32 determines whether or not the feature amounts are computed as for the characters of all of the inspection areas EF (step 326). When the determination is negative, the process returns to the step 322 to continue the character clipping as for the next inspection area EF. Further in Paragraph [0158]-KANO discloses each inspecting terminal image-recognizes whether or not a barcode exists in a predetermined area (barcode area BC) of an image data received in the step 308 (step 318) (wherein barcode inspection is image defect inspection and character inspection is data defect inspection.).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of ARAKAWA in view of TAKEUCHI of an inspection apparatus configured to perform inspection of a printed material output from a printing apparatus, the inspection apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the inspection apparatus to perform: obtaining an inspection image which is to be inspected by reading the printed material; detecting an image defect by first collation collating a reference image taken as a reference of the inspection, which corresponds to the printed material, with the inspection image; and with the teachings of KANO of wherein in a case where the recovery processing is determined to be possible, on a condition that an image defect is detected by the first collation and a data defect is not detected by the second collation.
Wherein having ARAKAWA’s print inspection apparatus wherein in a case where the recovery processing is determined to be possible, on a condition that an image defect is detected by the first collation and a data defect is not detected by the second collation.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to obtain a print inspection apparatus that enhances the processing speed and accuracy. Since both ARAKAWA and KANO are print inspection apparatuses, wherein ARAKAWA the processing speed can be increased, while KANO a system printer which allows fast printing at high precision. Please see ARAKAWA (US 20130148987 A1), Paragraph [0007], and KANO et al. (US 20090202134 A1), Paragraph [0002].
Regarding Claim 9, ARAKAWA in view of TAKEUCHI explicitly teach the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, ARAKAWA in view of TAKEUCHI fail to explicitly teach the specific data is data of a character string included in the printed material, and correct data corresponding to the specific data is data indicating a character string to be printed in the printed material.
However, KANO explicitly teaches wherein the specific data is data of a character string included in the printed material (Fig. 3. Paragraph [0089]-KANO discloses the print server 60 outputs print data to the system printer 70 to cause the system printer 70 to print a character string desired by the operator.), and
correct data corresponding to the specific data is data indicating a character string to be printed in the printed material (Fig. 3. Paragraph [0089]-KANO discloses the print server 60 causes the system printer 70 to print a character string on a dedicated continuous business form for preparing dictionary (wherein the character string printed to the dictionary is correct data).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of ARAKAWA of an inspection apparatus configured to perform inspection of a printed material output from a printing apparatus, the inspection apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the inspection apparatus to perform: obtaining an inspection image which is to be inspected by reading the printed material; detecting an image defect by first collation collating a reference image taken as a reference of the inspection, which corresponds to the printed material, with the inspection image; and with the teachings of KANO of the specific data is data of a character string included in the printed material, and correct data corresponding to the specific data is data indicating a character string to be printed in the printed material.
Wherein having ARAKAWA’s print inspection apparatus the specific data is data of a character string included in the printed material, and correct data corresponding to the specific data is data indicating a character string to be printed in the printed material.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to obtain a print inspection apparatus that enhances the processing speed and accuracy. Since both ARAKAWA and KANO are print inspection apparatuses, wherein ARAKAWA the processing speed can be increased, while KANO a system printer which allows fast printing at high precision. Please see ARAKAWA (US 20130148987 A1), Paragraph [0007], and KANO et al. (US 20090202134 A1), Paragraph [0002].
Regarding Claim 10, ARAKAWA in view of TAKEUCHI explicitly teach the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, ARAKAWA in view of TAKEUCHI fail to explicitly teach the specific data is data of a barcode included in the printed material, and correct data corresponding to the specific data is data indicating a character string that should have been encoded by a barcode to be printed in the printed material.
However, KANO explicitly teaches wherein the specific data is data of a barcode included in the printed material (Fig. 5. Paragraph [0048]-KANO discloses a barcode area BC where a one-dimensional or two-dimensional barcode is printed.), and
correct data corresponding to the specific data is data indicating a character string that should have been encoded by a barcode to be printed in the printed material (Fig. 12. Paragraph [0107]-KANO discloses each inspection terminal 32 image-recognizes and decodes the barcode inside the barcode area BC with reference to the inspection job data in step 321, determines whether or not decoded barcode information matches with the data of the barcode in the inspection job data.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of ARAKAWA of an inspection apparatus configured to perform inspection of a printed material output from a printing apparatus, the inspection apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the inspection apparatus to perform: obtaining an inspection image which is to be inspected by reading the printed material; detecting an image defect by first collation collating a reference image taken as a reference of the inspection, which corresponds to the printed material, with the inspection image; and with the teachings of KANO of the specific data is data of a barcode included in the printed material, and correct data corresponding to the specific data is data indicating a character string that should have been encoded by a barcode to be printed in the printed material.
Wherein having ARAKAWA’s print inspection apparatus the specific data is data of a barcode included in the printed material, and correct data corresponding to the specific data is data indicating a character string that should have been encoded by a barcode to be printed in the printed material.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to obtain a print inspection apparatus that enhances the processing speed and accuracy. Since both ARAKAWA and KANO are print inspection apparatuses, wherein ARAKAWA the processing speed can be increased, while KANO a system printer which allows fast printing at high precision. Please see ARAKAWA (US 20130148987 A1), Paragraph [0007], and KANO et al. (US 20090202134 A1), Paragraph [0002].
Regarding Claim 11, ARAKAWA explicitly teaches an inspection system of a printed material (Fig. 4A. #102 called inspection apparatus. Paragraph [0029]), the inspection system comprising:
a printing apparatus (Fig. 1, #101 called an image forming apparatus (e.g., a printing apparatus)) configured to perform print processing based on image data (Fig. 1 and 6. Paragraph [0028]-ARAKAWA discloses an image forming apparatus (e.g., a printing apparatus) 101 can process various input data and can perform printing based on the processed data to output a printed product. Paragraph [0031]-ARAKAWA discloses the image forming apparatus 101 can access an external device (e.g., a print server or a client PC) via a network and can perform data transmission/reception processing. Paragraph [0049]-ARAKAWA discloses the control device 506 includes a main control unit 601, which is constituted by a CPU, a ROM, and a RAM (although they are not illustrated in the drawing), which are cooperatively operable and function as a control unit. Further in Paragraph [0038]-ARAKAWA discloses an operation unit 207 can display selectable information that enables each user to control operations of the image forming apparatus 101, the inspection apparatus 102, and the finisher 103 and status information of respective apparatuses 101 to 103 on an operation panel (not illustrated).);
and an inspection apparatus (Fig. 4A, #102 called inspection apparatus. Paragraph [0056]) configured to perform inspection for a printed material for which print processing has been performed in the printing apparatus (Fig. 4A. Paragraph [0057]-ARAKAWA discloses printed product is conveyed by a conveyance belt 402 and read by an inspection sensor 403 provided closely to the conveyance belt 402. Although not illustrated, it is useful to provide a pair of inspection sensors on the upper and lower sides of the conveyance belt 402 so that a two-sided printed product can be read by two inspection sensors 403. Further in Paragraph [0059]-ARAKAWA discloses a discharge roller 404 conveys each printed product having been subjected to the inspection processing to the finisher 103.), the inspection apparatus (Fig. 4A, #102 called inspection apparatus. Paragraph [0056]) comprising:
one or more memories storing instructions (Paragraph [0035]-ARAKAWA discloses the main control unit 203 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), and a random access memory (RAM).);
and one or more processors (Fig. 2. Paragraph [0035]-ARAKAWA discloses the main control unit 203 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), and a random access memory (RAM).),
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the inspection apparatus to perform (Fig. 2. Paragraph [0035]-ARAKAWA discloses the main control unit 203 includes a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), and a random access memory (RAM), which are cooperatively operable and function as a control unit. The main control unit 203 can control data transmission/reception between an internal device provided in the apparatus and an external device located outside the apparatus. Further, the main control unit 203 can control the communication between the image forming apparatus 101 and the inspection apparatus 102.):
obtaining an inspection image which is to be inspected by reading the printed material (Fig. 9. Paragraph [0138]-ARAKAWA discloses the determination unit 712 selects one of the unprocessed image defect candidate image blocks as a target image block to be processed in step S906 to step S912.);
detecting an image defect by first collation collating a reference image taken as a reference of the inspection, which corresponds to the printed material, with the inspection image (Fig. 9. Paragraph [0156]-ARAKAWA discloses in step S909, the collation unit 711 performs collation processing based on the partial scanned image and the partial reference image obtained in step S908 (wherein the partial scanned image is the inspection image). Further in Paragraph [0157]-ARAKAWA discloses the determination unit 712 performs image defect determination processing using the collation result obtained in step S909.);
ARAKAWA fails to explicitly teach detecting a data defect by second collation collating specific data extracted from the inspection image with correct data corresponding to the specific data set in advance; and determining whether or not recovery processing to perform printing and inspection again for the printed material is possible based on results of the first collation and results of the second collation.
However, TAKEUCHI explicitly teaches detecting a data defect by second collation collating specific data extracted from the inspection image with correct data corresponding to the specific data set in advance (Fig. 2. Paragraph [0026]-TAKEUCHI discloses the correct image acquisition unit 12 acquires a correct image as a reference for a target image. In the present exemplary embodiment, image information of a correct image generated in advance is acquired for the correct image. Further in Paragraph [0031]-TAKEUCHI discloses the block collation unit 22 executes a process of detecting a defect by collating the correct image with the target image for each block set by the block setting unit 20. Further in Paragraph [0061]-TAKEUCHI discloses the defect of the image is detected by collating an edge-extracted block of the correct image and an edge-extracted block of the target image.);
and determining whether or not recovery processing to perform printing and inspection again for the printed material is possible based on results of the first collation and results of the second collation (Fig. 6. Paragraph [0043]-TAKEUCHI discloses the CPU 10A determines whether or not the collation between the correct image and the target image for all the blocks is ended. In a case where the CPU determines that the collation for all the blocks is not ended, the process returns to Step S110 and the above process is repeated for the next block.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of ARAKAWA of an inspection system of a printed material, the inspection system comprising: a printing apparatus configured to perform print processing based on image data; and an inspection apparatus configured to perform inspection for a printed material for which print processing has been performed in the printing apparatus, the inspection apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the inspection apparatus to perform: obtaining an inspection image which is to be inspected by reading the printed material, with the teachings of TAKEUCHI of detecting a data defect by second collation collating specific data extracted from the inspection image with correct data corresponding to the specific data set in advance; and determining whether or not recovery processing to perform printing and inspection again for the printed material is possible based on results of the first collation and results of the second collation.
Wherein having ARAKAWA’s print inspection apparatus detecting a data defect by second collation collating specific data extracted from the inspection image with correct data corresponding to the specific data set in advance; and determining whether or not recovery processing to perform printing and inspection again for the printed material is possible based on results of the first collation and results of the second collation.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to obtain a print inspection apparatus that enhances the processing speed and accuracy. Since both ARAKAWA and TAKEUCHI are print inspection apparatuses, wherein ARAKAWA the processing speed can be increased, while TAKEUCHI suppressing a decrease of the defect inspection accuracy. Please see ARAKAWA (US 20130148987 A1), Paragraph [0007], and TAKEUCHI et al. (US 20220172333 A1), Paragraph [0004].
ARAKAWA in view of TAKEUCHI fail to explicitly teach wherein the printing apparatus performs print processing again using image data of the printed material in a case where the recovery processing is determined to be possible in the determining, and the inspection apparatus performs again the obtaining an inspection image, the detecting an image defect, the detecting a data defect, and the determining for a printed material obtained by the print processing performed again.
However, KANO explicitly teaches wherein the printing apparatus performs print processing again using image data of the printed material in a case where the recovery processing is determined to be possible in the determining (Paragraph [0116]-KANO discloses the page determined to be NG can be printed again by the system printer 70 through reference to the inspection log, or it may be corrected by handwriting or the like (wherein the reference to the inspection log is image data).),
and the inspection apparatus performs again the obtaining an inspection image, the detecting an image defect, the detecting a data defect, and the determining for a printed material obtained by the print processing performed again (Paragraph [0160]-KANO discloses each inspection terminal 32 once stores the image data and so on received in the step 336 to the hard disk (step 348), and waits until the next image data and so on are transmitted. When the determination is affirmative, each inspection terminal 32 recognizes the registration form name from the inspection job data, acquires the positional information of the inspection area EF from the registration form name, clips each inspection area EF and the barcode area BC by using the clipping reference position (when it is determined to be negative in the step 344) or the clipping reference correction position (when it is determined to be affirmative in the step 344) as the reference (step 347), and decodes the barcode of the barcode area BC (step 352).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of ARAKAWA of an inspection system of a printed material, the inspection system comprising: a printing apparatus configured to perform print processing based on image data; and an inspection apparatus configured to perform inspection for a printed material for which print processing has been performed in the printing apparatus, the inspection apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the inspection apparatus to perform: obtaining an inspection image which is to be inspected by reading the printed material, with the teachings of KANO of wherein the printing apparatus performs print processing again using image data of the printed material in a case where the recovery processing is determined to be possible in the determining, and the inspection apparatus performs again the obtaining an inspection image, the detecting an image defect, the detecting a data defect, and the determining for a printed material obtained by the print processing performed again.
Wherein having ARAKAWA’s print inspection apparatus wherein the printing apparatus performs print processing again using image data of the printed material in a case where the recovery processing is determined to be possible in the determining, and the inspection apparatus performs again the obtaining an inspection image, the detecting an image defect, the detecting a data defect, and the determining for a printed material obtained by the print processing performed again.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to obtain a print inspection apparatus that enhances the processing speed and accuracy. Since both ARAKAWA and KANO are print inspection apparatuses, wherein ARAKAWA the processing speed can be increased, while KANO a system printer which allows fast printing at high precision. Please see ARAKAWA (US 20130148987 A1), Paragraph [0007], and KANO et al. (US 20090202134 A1), Paragraph [0002].
Conclusion
Listed below are prior arts made of record and not relied upon but are considered
pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
KOBASHI (US 20210256677 A1) - An inspection apparatus comprises an obtaining unit configured to obtain first captured images of printed pages, a first setting unit configured to set an inspection region within a selected captured image selected from the first captured images of the respective pages obtained by the obtaining unit, and a second setting unit configured to perform setting performed on the selected captured image for the first captured image of a page decided based on a result of image analysis on the first captured images of the respective pages obtained by the obtaining unit.
SHIMAMURA et al. (US 20070139703 A1) - A print inspecting apparatus which can perform print inspection flexibly at high precision while excluding influence due to individual differences among printers is provided. A print inspecting apparatus 1 prepares a dictionary defining correspondence relationship between character information of all characters which is preliminarily inputted from a print server 60 and can be printed on a continuous business form by a printer 70 and feature amounts of all characters which are printed on a continuous business form sheet by the printer 70 and are read by a main unit 10 and computed in a processing unit 30 and determines whether or not a feature amount of a character to be inspected which is read from the continuous business form and computed in the processing unit 30 is equal to or more than a determination reference value preliminarily set to the feature amount of the character whose correspondence relationship has been defined in the dictionary utilizing correct solution information regarding a character string preliminarily inputted from the print server 60 and printed on the continuous business form by the printer as index.
OKI et al. (US 20200234423 A1) - An inspection image is assumed to contain many abnormalities when a reference image and an inspection image are misaligned. It has been impossible to determine whether the abnormalities are attributed to the inspection image. An image inspecting apparatus includes: a print alignment portion that aligns a print position of a reference image with a print position of an inspection image; an abnormality detector that detects an abnormality in the inspection image based on a difference between the reference image and the inspection image after print positions are aligned; and a print alignment result evaluator that evaluates a print position alignment result from aligning a print position of the reference image with a print position of the inspection image including an abnormality detected based on dispersion of the difference included in an evaluation region around an edge calculated from a printout image included in the reference image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN N WOLFSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1898. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/ETHAN N WOLFSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673