Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim analysis - 35 USC § 112
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-7 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof because claims 1-7 use the nonce term "apparatus" and "unit", and are modified by functional language and are not modified by structural language, and therefore invoke 112(f) in their interpretation.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation for the claims invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), stated above: Fig 2 and Para 47-53.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayuki (JP 2015047837 A) in view of Levant (US 20210182001 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takayuki teaches an image forming system comprising: an image forming apparatus configured to form an image on a sheet (S901 Para 56 Takes image of printed paper sheet);
a reading apparatus configured to read the image formed on the sheet conveyed from the image forming apparatus (S902 Para 57, the alignment unit 432 performs the above-described alignment process based on the master image and the reference point input from the reference point extraction unit 431 and the read image input from the read image acquisition unit 401);
an inspection unit configured to inspect the image read by the reading apparatus to detect defect on the image; and a controller configured to (S903 Para 57, then, the defect determination unit 433 inputs the image of the inspection range extracted from the master image and the read image to the comparison inspection unit 404 based on the result of the alignment processing by the alignment unit 432, and performs the defect determination):
control, in a case where a first type of defect (Para 58 S903-S905, as a result of the inspection in S903, if a defect is detected in the page under inspection (S904 / YES), the defect recording unit 435 determines that the job being executed has a defect according to the defect type identified by the defect type identification unit 434. The number is counted for each defect type, the defect rate for each defect type is calculated, and the number of defects and the defect rate are stored in the defect log storage unit 436 (S905). i.e. first and second type of defect (multiple types of defect) are determined and classified and the number (amount) is calculated. Also see Para 59-60),
is detected by the inspection unit during formation of a plurality of images by the image forming apparatus (Para 59, based on the determination result of the defect determination unit 433, the condition determination unit 437 starts to determine whether to stop or continue the job being executed (hereinafter referred to as “job stop determination”). In the job stop determination, the condition determination unit 437 first refers to the defect log stored in the defect log storage unit 436, and calculates the predicted defect rate for each defect type (S906). i.e. a 'stop' or 'continue' condition is determined based on the defect type and defect rate (amount)),
the image forming apparatus to stop the formation (Para 50-62, if it is determined in S909 that P is less than P th (S909 / NO), that is, if the possibility of completing the job within the set upper limit print number is lower than a predetermined threshold, the printer interlocking unit 439 However, based on the determination result of the condition determination unit 437, a print job stop request is transmitted to the engine control unit 202 (S912), and the process ends. i.e. stopping the printing process if the defect type and amount that is used in the probability calculating process in Para 60 is lower than a threshold of the print being successful. As is stated in Para 50: Furthermore, the condition determining unit 437 determines the probability that the print job can be completed within the defined upper limit number of printed sheets based on each of the calculated predicted defect rates for each type of defect (hereinafter, “possible completion probability”)),
-and control, in a case where a second type of defect is detected by the inspection unit during the formation of the plurality of images by the image forming apparatus, the image forming apparatus to continue the formation, wherein the second type of defect is different from the first type of defect (Para 61, the calculated possible probability P is compared with the threshold value P th set in the printing continuation condition setting unit 438 (S909), and if P is equal to or more than P th (S909 / YES), that is, it is set. If the possibility that the job can be completed within the upper limit number of printed sheets is equal to or more than a predetermined threshold, the printer interlocking unit 439 transmits a reprint request to the engine control unit 202 based on the determination result of the condition determination unit 437 ( S910). The inspection control unit 403 repeats the processing from S901 until output of all pages is completed for one print job (S911 / NO), and ends processing when output and inspection of all pages are completed (S911 / YES). i.e. based on the defect type (see Para 50, and 51-60, the probability of continuing a print job is calculated and if it is greater than a threshold than the printing (image formation) continues. See Para 46-47 regarding different defects that determine if the printing process stops or continues based on their detection)).
Takayuki does not teach an adjustment operation for adjusting a quality of an image to be formed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Levant teaches, specifically executing an adjustment operation for adjusting a quality of an image to be formed (Para 71, the processor of station 55 is configured to decide whether to stop the operation of system 10, for example, in case the defect density is above a specified threshold. The processor of station 55 is further configured to initiate a corrective action in one or more of the modules and stations of system 10, as described above. The corrective action may be carried out on-the-fly (while system 10 continue the printing process), or offline, by stopping the printing operation and fixing the problem in a respective modules and/or station of system 10. In other embodiments, any other processor or controller of system 10 (e.g., processor 20 or controller 54) is configured to start a corrective action or to stop the operation of system 10 in case the defect density is above a specified threshold. i.e. corrective action is executing an adjustment operation for adjusting a quality of an image (detected defect) formed by the image forming apparatus, can occur after printer has been stopped after detecting a defect).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Takayuki (JP 2015047837 A) in view of Levant (US 20210182001 A1) so that the process executes an adjustment operation for adjusting a quality of an image to be formed. Doing so would allow the estimation and correction of registration errors in printing of a digital image on a target substrate (Para 20, Levant).
Regarding claim 2, Takayuki does not teach the image forming system according to claim 1 further comprising: a setting unit configured to set an image forming condition to be applied when the image forming apparatus forms the plurality of images on the sheets, based on second image data acquired by reading a test chart by the reading apparatus, the test chart being formed by the image forming apparatus, wherein the image forming apparatus starts forming the plurality of images on the sheets based on the image forming condition which is set based on the second image data.
In a similar field of endeavor, Levant teaches the image forming system according to claim 1 further comprising: a setting unit configured to set an image forming condition to be applied when the image forming apparatus forms the plurality of images on the sheets (Para 64, station 55 is configured to inspect the quality of the printed images (and a test pattern if available), so as to monitor various attributes, such as but not limited to full image registration with sheet 50, color-to-color (CTC) registration, printed geometry, image uniformity, profile and linearity of colors, and functionality of the print nozzles. In some embodiments, processor 20 is configured to automatically detect geometrical distortions or other errors in one or more of the aforementioned attributes. For example, processor 20 is configured to compare between a design version (also referred to herein as a “master” or a “source image” of a given digital image and a digital image of the printed version of the given image, which is acquired by the camera. i.e. the image forming condition can be considered the test pattern, or first pattern printed which then analyzes printing quality/settings (image forming condition), before continuing to print),
based on second image data acquired by reading a test chart by the reading apparatus, the test chart being formed by the image forming apparatus, wherein the image forming apparatus starts forming the plurality of images on the sheets based on the image forming condition which is set based on the second image data (Para 65, may apply any suitable type image processing software, e.g., to the printed image, for detecting distortions indicative of the aforementioned errors. In some embodiments, processor 20 is configured to analyze the detected distortion in order to apply a corrective action to the malfunctioning module, and/or to feed instructions to another module or station of system 10, so as to compensate for the detected distortion. i.e. reading the test image (test chart) by the image inspection allows for compensation of detected distortion to occur, allowing for a changed/updated image forming condition which is set on the inspected image data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Takayuki (JP 2015047837 A) in view of Levant (US 20210182001 A1) so that the method further includes a setting unit configured to set an image forming condition to be applied when the image forming apparatus forms the plurality of images on the sheets. Doing so would allow the estimation and correction of registration errors in printing of a digital image on a target substrate (Para 20, Levant).
Regarding claim 4, Takayuki does not teach, the image forming system according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where an amount of positional deviation of the image read by the reading apparatus with respect to an image corresponding to reference data, is a prescribed value or more, the inspection unit detects the first type of defect on the image, and wherein the quality of an image to be formed by the image forming apparatus is the amount of positional deviation.
In a similar field of endeavor, Levant teaches, the image forming system according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where an amount of positional deviation of the image read by the reading apparatus with respect to an image corresponding to reference data, is a prescribed value or more, the inspection unit detects the first type of defect on the image (Para 70, processor 20 is configured to detect these defects by comparing between a section of the printed and a respective reference section of the original design, also referred to herein as a master. Processor 20 is further configured to classify the defects, and, based on the classification and predefined criteria, to reject sheets 50 having defects that are not within the specified predefined criteria. i.e. amount of positional deviation (see Para 68-69) is a defect that is detected, and based on predefined criteria (prescribed value or more) the inspection unit detects the first type of defect on the image (positional deviation), first defect stops the printing process - see Para 70-72 regarding processing stops when positional deviation is detected of printed image in comparison to reference image),
and wherein the quality of an image to be formed by the image forming apparatus is the amount of positional deviation (Para 69, for example, absence of ink in a designated location in the printed image is indicative of a missing or blocked nozzle. A partially blocked nozzle may result in a distorted pattern. A shift of a printed pattern (relative to the original design) is indicative of inaccurate positioning of a respective print bar 62 or of one or more nozzles of the respective print bar. Non-uniform thickness and/or width of a printed feature of the image is indicative of width differences between respective print bars 62, referred to above as bar to bar width delta. i.e. the quality of an image to be formed is amount of positional deviation in the printed image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Takayuki (JP 2015047837 A) in view of Levant (US 20210182001 A1) so that in a case where an amount of positional deviation of the image read by the reading apparatus with respect to an image corresponding to reference data, is a prescribed value or more, the inspection unit detects the first type of defect on the image. Doing so would allow the estimation and correction of registration errors in printing of a digital image on a target substrate (Para 20, Levant).
Regarding claim 5, Takayuki teaches the image forming system according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where a noise image which does not exist in an image corresponding to reference data exists in the image read by the reading apparatus, the inspection unit detects the second type of defect on the image (Para 44-Para 46, the defect type identification unit 434 identifies the type of defect for each page based on the result of the defect determination input from the defect determination unit 433. The types of defects indicate, for example, point-like defects such as point-like dirt, linear defects such as black stripes, and surface-like defects such as stains and dirt of a certain area. Specifically, for example, the defect type specification unit 434 performs a labeling process on the image of the page determined as a defect. Then, the defect type identification unit 434 identifies the type of defect from the feature amount such as the area and length of the labeling-connected connected component present at the defect position included in the result of the defect determination. i.e. the master image and the comparison image are compared to determine the defect, which includes noise defects such as point or streak defects. These defects can be a 'second type' of defect that do not completely stop the processing of the printing based on their print finish probability, see Para 79-90).
Regarding claim 6, Takayuki teaches the image forming system according to claim 5, wherein the noise image is a streak (Para 46-47 and 50-62, noise defect in printing that is detected can be a streak).
Regarding claim 7, Takayuki teaches the image forming system according to claim 5, wherein the noise image is a black dot (Para 46-47 and 50-62, noise defect in printing that is detected can be a black dot).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayuki (JP 2015047837 A) in view of Levant (US 20210182001 A1) and Deppisch et al (US 20240327159 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Takayuki and Levant do not teach, the image forming system according to claim 1, wherein the controller, in a case where a consecutive number of sheets having an image on which a first type of defect is detected by the inspection unit during formation of a plurality of images by the image forming apparatus reaches a predetermined number, controls the image forming apparatus to stop the formation and executes the adjustment operation.
In a similar field of endeavor, Deppisch et al teaches, the image forming system according to claim 1, wherein the controller, in a case where a consecutive number of sheets having an image on which a first type of defect is detected by the inspection unit during formation of a plurality of images by the image forming apparatus reaches a predetermined number, controls the image forming apparatus to stop the formation and executes the adjustment operation (Para 111-112, the printed image monitoring system 726 preferably inspects the substrate 02, preferably each passing substrate 02, for defects of the substrate 02 per se […]. Defects of the print image encompass, in particular, missing and/or additional image-producing elements of at least one print image element and, additionally or alternatively, the color of the print image, in particular the ink quality, and/or of the respective print image elements and, additionally or alternatively, spatters of printing fluid, for example in undesirable locations. If the deviation within a tolerance range of the controlled substrate 02, preferably at least the print image thereof, from a reference is minor, the operation of the processing machine 01 preferably continues. If a series defect exists, that is, a defect that occurs on several substrates 02 in a row, with respect to a deviation of the controlled substrate 02, preferably at least the print image thereof, from a reference, the infeed for feeding new substrates 02 to be processed into the processing machine 01 is preferably stopped. i.e. when a consecutive number of sheets that are being inspected for defects have a first type of defect (series defect) for a predetermined number of images by the forming apparatus (if a series defect exists, that is, a defect occurs on several substrates in a row), the formation of the printed sheets is stopped for adjustment to occur, see also Para 115-118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Takayuki (JP 2015047837 A) in view of Levant (US 20210182001 A1) and Deppisch et al (US 20240327159 A1) so that in a case where a consecutive number of sheets having an image on which a first type of defect is detected by the inspection unit during formation of a plurality of images by the image forming apparatus reaches a predetermined number, controls the image forming apparatus to stop the formation and executes the adjustment operation. Doing so would also provide processing machines and methods for the relative alignment of a substrate with respect to a processing unit in a processing machine (Para 16, Deppisch et al), in the context of a printing defect detection on the sheets of substrate (Abst, Para 26, Deppisch et al).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JP-2021133609-A
KR-102389018-B1
US 20210304385 A1
US 20210241447 A1
US 20200068081 A1
US 20130136315 A1
US 20100245941 A1
US 20090016649 A1
US 11303762 B2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK PETER KRAYNAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vu Le can be reached at (571) 272-7332. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACK PETER KRAYNAK/Examiner, Art Unit 2668
/UTPAL D SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights