Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/622,597

INSPECTION SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND CONTROL METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Mar 29, 2024
Examiner
BAKER, CHARLOTTE M
Art Unit
2664
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
93%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 93% — above average
93%
Career Allow Rate
991 granted / 1067 resolved
+30.9% vs TC avg
Minimal -0% lift
Without
With
+-0.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
1082
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
21.6%
-18.4% vs TC avg
§103
24.7%
-15.3% vs TC avg
§102
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
§112
4.3%
-35.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1067 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 17-24 and 30-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The terms “first single item” and “second single item” are not found in Applicant’s Specification. Claims 22-26 recites the limitation "the print job". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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. Claim(s) 17-18, 21 and 25-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igawa (US 2020/0210115 A1) in view of Tsukamoto (US 2019/0238685 A1). Regarding claim 17: Igawa discloses a display unit configured to display (Fig. 1, display unit 14), on a same screen, a first single item and a second single item (Furthermore, after the processing in S5, the control unit 10 displays on the display unit 14 a first example (see FIG. 3) or a second example (see FIG. 5) of the input screen for accepting a determination result of a user. The user confirms the input screen displayed on the display unit 14, performs a first example or a second example of user determination described later, and enters a determination result through the operator 13. Further, after the processing in S5, the control unit 10 may transmit abnormality detection information to the PC (not shown) that has transmitted the print job instructing the current image formation. The abnormality detection information includes, for example, the page number of the page determined to be abnormal and the number of copies (which copy).m par. 74); the print unit (Fig. 1, image forming apparatus 2); and a discharging unit, wherein the first single item causes the discharging unit to discharge a printed product that passed the inspection and a printed product that failed the inspection to different trays (The paper output destination selection unit 206 selects a paper output tray (one example of a paper output destination) for the sheet after the analysis, in accordance with the analysis result of the read image analyzing unit 204. For example, when the analysis result of the read image analyzing unit 204 indicates that the image formed on the sheet is normal, this sheet is a normal sheet. Therefore, the paper output destination selection unit 206 causes the normal sheet to be discharged to the normal paper output tray 23. On the other hand, when the analysis result of the read image analyzing unit 204 indicates that the image formed on the sheet is abnormal, this sheet is an abnormal sheet. Therefore, the paper output destination selection unit 206 causes the abnormal sheet to be discharged to the abnormal paper output tray 24. Note that the abnormal paper output tray 24 is sometimes called a purge tray., pars. 57-58), and the print unit to re-print in lieu of the printed product that failed the inspection in response to the failure of the inspection (The analysis result is information including, for example, the position and size of the spot, the page number where the abnormality has occurred, and the like, which are factors that the read image has been determined to be abnormal. Further, when the read image has been determined to be normal, information including the page number determined to be normal and the like is also recorded as the analysis result. Moreover, the read image analyzing unit 204 instructs the image forming apparatus 2 through a communication I/F unit (not shown) to perform reprinting processing (called “recovery processing”) on a page for the read image determined to be abnormal. The image forming apparatus 2 instructed to perform the recovery processing again forms an image corresponding to the read image in which the abnormality has been detected by the read image analyzing unit 204., par. 55), and wherein the second single item causes the discharging unit to discharge a printed product that passed the inspection and a printed product that failed the inspection (The paper output destination selection unit 206 selects a paper output tray (one example of a paper output destination) for the sheet after the analysis, in accordance with the analysis result of the read image analyzing unit 204. For example, when the analysis result of the read image analyzing unit 204 indicates that the image formed on the sheet is normal, this sheet is a normal sheet. Therefore, the paper output destination selection unit 206 causes the normal sheet to be discharged to the normal paper output tray 23. On the other hand, when the analysis result of the read image analyzing unit 204 indicates that the image formed on the sheet is abnormal, this sheet is an abnormal sheet. Therefore, the paper output destination selection unit 206 causes the abnormal sheet to be discharged to the abnormal paper output tray 24. Note that the abnormal paper output tray 24 is sometimes called a purge tray., pars. 57-58) Igawa fails to specifically address to a same tray. Tsukamoto discloses to a same tray (Although this sheet discharge device 30 is provided with three sheet discharge destinations, the number of sheet discharge destinations is not particularly limited and one sheet discharge destination may be employed. In the sheet discharge device 30, the sheet discharge destination can be switched. In the sheet discharge device 30, in a case where an abnormality is detected in the sheet by image inspection or the like, the sheet can be distinguished from a normal discharged sheet when discharged. To distinguish the discharged sheets, the sheets may be discharged to different sheet discharge destinations; alternatively, the discharged sheets may be distinguished by changing the discharge position, orientation, and the like even at the same sheet discharge destination., par. 58; When the print mode is not the proof printing (step s14, No), the actual output is to be carried out and all the sheets having been fed and remaining in the apparatus are discharged to the abnormal sheet discharge tray (step s15)., par. 160). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include to a same tray in order to allow the choice of the sheet discharge destination as taught by Tsukamoto (par. 58). Regarding claim 18: Igawa in view of Tsukamoto satisfy all the elements of claim 17. Igawa further discloses wherein the first single item and the second single item are concurrently displayed on the same screen (Fig. 1, paper output destination selection unit 206). Regarding claim 21: Igawa in view of Tsukamoto satisfy all the elements of claim 17. Igawa further discloses further comprising a storage unit, wherein the second single item causes a result of the inspection to be stored, as a log, in the storage unit (The storage unit 22 is constituted by a large-capacity HDD or the like. Therefore, the storage unit 22 stores the normal image file and the abnormal image file generated by the file generation unit 205. The normal image file and the abnormal image file are also collected into one analysis result file. Then, the inspection unit 20 reads out the analysis result file from the storage unit 22 as necessary and uses the analysis result file for the analysis by the read image analyzing unit 204. Furthermore, the inspection unit 20 transmits the analysis result file to the image forming apparatus 2 as necessary., par. 59). Regarding claim 25: Igawa in view of Tsukamoto satisfy all the elements of claim 17. Igawa further discloses wherein the print job (print job, par. 74) includes a plurality of page images, and wherein the display unit is configured to display, while inspecting a read image of a subsequent page among the plurality of page images (Further, after the processing in S5, the control unit 10 may transmit abnormality detection information to the PC (not shown) that has transmitted the print job instructing the current image formation. The abnormality detection information includes, for example, the page number of the page determined to be abnormal and the number of copies (which copy)., par. 74), a result screen indicating that the read image of one page among the plurality of page images is defective (Further, after the processing in S5, the control unit 10 may transmit abnormality detection information to the PC (not shown) that has transmitted the print job instructing the current image formation. The abnormality detection information includes, for example, the page number of the page determined to be abnormal and the number of copies (which copy)., par. 74). Regarding claim 26: Igawa in view of Tsukamoto satisfy all the elements of claim 25. Igawa further discloses wherein the result screen displayed by the display unit includes identification information of the print job (Furthermore, after the processing in S57, the control unit 10 displays on a display unit 14 the second example (see FIG. 5) of the input screen for accepting the determination result of the user. The user confirms the input screen displayed on the display unit 14, performs a third example of the user determination described later, and enters the determination result through an operator 13. Further, after the processing in S57, the control unit 10 may transmit abnormality detection information to a PC (not shown) that has transmitted the print job instructing the current image formation. The abnormality detection information includes, for example, the page number of the page determined to be abnormal and the number of copies (which copy)., par. 133; The job number is, for example, a number associated with each print job instructing image formation. The number of copies indicates which number of copies out of the total number of copies designated in the print job. The page number indicates the page number of the sheet discharged to the abnormal paper output tray 24. Moreover, when the discharged sheet has been determined to be abnormal, “ABNORMAL” is displayed in a cell for normal/abnormal. On the other hand, when the discharged sheet is not determined to be abnormal, “NORMAL” is displayed in a cell for normal/abnormal., par. 195). Regarding claim 27: Igawa in view of Tsukamoto satisfy all the elements of claim 17. Igawa further discloses further comprising: a conveyance unit configured to convey the printed products (Based on the control by the control unit 10, the conveyance unit 17 drives a conveyance roller (not shown) provided on a conveyance path to convey a sheet. , par. 43) generated by the print unit (Fig. 1, image forming apparatus 2); and a reading unit configured to scan an image of each printed product conveyed by the conveyance unit (The reading unit 21 reads images formed on the front and back surfaces of the sheet conveyed from the image forming apparatus 2. The images read by the reading unit 21 are saved in a RAM 203 of the inspection unit 20 as read images. Note that the read images may be saved in the storage unit 22., par. 48). Regarding claim 28: Igawa in view of Tsukamoto satisfy all the elements of claim 17. Igawa further discloses further comprising an inspection apparatus that performs the inspection (Fig. 1, image inspection apparatus 3), wherein the display unit is disposed in the inspection apparatus (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 29: Igawa in view of Tsukamoto satisfy all the elements of claim 17. Igawa further discloses further comprising a printing apparatus that includes the print unit (Fig. 1, image forming apparatus 2). Regarding claim 30: Igawa in view of Tsukamoto satisfy all the elements of claim 17. Igawa further discloses wherein the first single item (Furthermore, after the processing in S5, the control unit 10 displays on the display unit 14 a first example (see FIG. 3) or a second example (see FIG. 5) of the input screen for accepting a determination result of a user. The user confirms the input screen displayed on the display unit 14, performs a first example or a second example of user determination described later, and enters a determination result through the operator 13. Further, after the processing in S5, the control unit 10 may transmit abnormality detection information to the PC (not shown) that has transmitted the print job instructing the current image formation. The abnormality detection information includes, for example, the page number of the page determined to be abnormal and the number of copies (which copy).m par. 74) 5, the control unit 10 displays on the display unit 14 a first example (see FIG. 3) or a second example (see FIG. 5) of the input screen for accepting a determination result of a user. The user confirms the input screen displayed on the display unit 14, performs a first example or a second example of user determination described later, and enters a determination result through the operator 13. Further, after the processing in S5, the control unit 10 may transmit abnormality detection information to the PC (not shown) that has transmitted the print job instructing the current image formation. The abnormality detection information includes, for example, the page number of the page determined to be abnormal and the number of copies (which copy).m par. 74). Igawa fails to specifically address is a single button; is another single button. Tsukamoto discloses is a single button (Fig. 13, normal button 1404); is another single button (Fig. 13, abnormal button 1405). Regarding claim 31: Igawa in view of Tsukamoto satisfy all the elements of claim 17. Igawa further discloses wherein the first single item (Furthermore, after the processing in S5, the control unit 10 displays on the display unit 14 a first example (see FIG. 3) or a second example (see FIG. 5) of the input screen for accepting a determination result of a user. The user confirms the input screen displayed on the display unit 14, performs a first example or a second example of user determination described later, and enters a determination result through the operator 13. Further, after the processing in S5, the control unit 10 may transmit abnormality detection information to the PC (not shown) that has transmitted the print job instructing the current image formation. The abnormality detection information includes, for example, the page number of the page determined to be abnormal and the number of copies (which copy).m par. 74) and the second single item (Furthermore, after the processing in S5, the control unit 10 displays on the display unit 14 a first example (see FIG. 3) or a second example (see FIG. 5) of the input screen for accepting a determination result of a user. The user confirms the input screen displayed on the display unit 14, performs a first example or a second example of user determination described later, and enters a determination result through the operator 13. Further, after the processing in S5, the control unit 10 may transmit abnormality detection information to the PC (not shown) that has transmitted the print job instructing the current image formation. The abnormality detection information includes, for example, the page number of the page determined to be abnormal and the number of copies (which copy).m par. 74) Igawa fails to specifically address are mutually exclusive, and cannot both be selected. Tsukamoto discloses are mutually exclusive, and cannot both be selected (A “normal” button 1404 and an “abnormal” button 1405 are displayed so as to be pressable on a lower side of the read image display column 1403 and, when the user ascertains that the image is normal, the determination that the read image is normal is settled by pressing the “normal” button 1404 and the image is registered as a correct image. When the user ascertains that the read image is abnormal, the determination that the image is abnormal is settled by pressing the “abnormal” button 1405.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include are mutually exclusive, and cannot both be selected in order to properly register whether an image is correct or not as taught by Tsukamoto (par. 200). Regarding claim 32: Arguments analogous to those stated in the rejection of claim 17 are applicable. Regarding claim 33: Igawa in view of Tsukamoto satisfy all the elements of claim 32. Arguments analogous to those stated in the rejection of claim 18 are applicable. Regarding claim 34: Igawa in view of Tsukamoto satisfy all the elements of claim 32. Arguments analogous to those stated in the rejection of claim 19 are applicable. Regarding claim 35: Igawa in view of Tsukamoto satisfy all the elements of claim 32. Arguments analogous to those stated in the rejection of claim 30 are applicable. Regarding claim 36: Igawa in view of Tsukamoto satisfy all the elements of claim 32. Arguments analogous to those stated in the rejection of claim 31 are applicable. Regarding claim 37: Igawa in view of Tsukamoto satisfy all the elements of claim 32. Igawa further discloses wherein the printed product is inspected by an inspection apparatus (The image inspection apparatus 3 inspects whether the image formed (printed) on the sheet conveyed from the image forming apparatus 2 is normal or abnormal. The sheet conveyed to the image inspection apparatus 3 is printed matter on which the image is formed on both sides or one side. The image inspection apparatus 3 reads the image, which is formed on both sides or one side of the sheet by the image forming apparatus 2, and performs a predetermined inspection., par. 30). Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igawa in view of Tsukamoto and further in view of Nakano (US 2020/0104987 A1). Regarding claim 24: Igawa in view of Tsukamoto satisfy all the elements of claim 17. Igawa further discloses wherein the print job (print job, par. 74) 206 selects a paper output tray (one example of a paper output destination) for the sheet after the analysis, in accordance with the analysis result of the read image analyzing unit 204. For example, when the analysis result of the read image analyzing unit 204 indicates that the image formed on the sheet is normal, this sheet is a normal sheet. Therefore, the paper output destination selection unit 206 causes the normal sheet to be discharged to the normal paper output tray 23. On the other hand, when the analysis result of the read image analyzing unit 204 indicates that the image formed on the sheet is abnormal, this sheet is an abnormal sheet. Therefore, the paper output destination selection unit 206 causes the abnormal sheet to be discharged to the abnormal paper output tray 24. Note that the abnormal paper output tray 24 is sometimes called a purge tray., pars. 57-58) and the print unit (Fig. 1, image forming apparatus 2) are operable based on the first single item (Furthermore, after the processing in S5, the control unit 10 displays on the display unit 14 a first example (see FIG. 3) or a second example (see FIG. 5) of the input screen for accepting a determination result of a user. The user confirms the input screen displayed on the display unit 14, performs a first example or a second example of user determination described later, and enters a determination result through the operator 13. Further, after the processing in S5, the control unit 10 may transmit abnormality detection information to the PC (not shown) that has transmitted the print job instructing the current image formation. The abnormality detection information includes, for example, the page number of the page determined to be abnormal and the number of copies (which copy).m par. 74). Igawa in view of Tsukamoto fail to specifically address has a finishing setting for binding a plurality of printed products, and, when the finishing setting is enabled. Nakano discloses has a finishing setting for binding a plurality of printed products, and, when the finishing setting is enabled (The post-processing unit 70 is disposed in the conveyance path 42c. The post-processing unit 70 performs a binding process, for example. The post-processing unit 70 includes a stacking unit that stacks paper sheets, and a stapling unit. After the stacking unit stacks a plurality of paper sheets S, the stapling unit performs a side stitching process using staples. The bundle of paper sheets S subjected to side stitching is ejected onto the sheet catch tray 44. Meanwhile, each paper sheet S not subjected to side stitching is ejected as it is through the conveyance path 42c., par. 37). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Igawa in view of Tsukamoto to include has a finishing setting for binding a plurality of printed products, and, when the finishing setting is enabled in order to provide post-processing as taught by Nakano (par. 37). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 19-20 and 22-23 are 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 and provided the rejection under 35 USC 112 (b) is overcome. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLOTTE M BAKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7459. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00. 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, JENNIFER MEHMOOD can be reached at (571)272-2976. 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. /CHARLOTTE M BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664 31 March 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 29, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 12, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 06, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 31, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602905
A Computer Software Module Arrangement, a Circuitry Arrangement, an Arrangement and a Method for Improved Object Detection Adapting the Detection through Shifting the Image
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12585654
Dynamic Vision System for Robot Fleet Management
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579900
UAV PERCEPTION VALIDATION BASED UPON A SEMANTIC AGL ESTIMATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12548331
TECHNIQUES TO PERFORM TRAJECTORY PREDICTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12543924
MEDICAL SUPPORT SYSTEM, MEDICAL SUPPORT DEVICE, AND MEDICAL SUPPORT METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
93%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (-0.2%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1067 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month