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 required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abe Yoshito (JP 1999003427/JP 3998758 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshito discloses a print inspection apparatus (¶ [1]) comprising:
circuitry configured (¶ [11]) to
generate a difference image based on a comparison between a read image obtained by reading printed matter printed by a printer and a reference image (¶ [8] grayscale image obtained from comparing reference image and target image), and
inspect a defect of the printed matter using the difference image (¶ [8] determine defect), a plurality of size thresholds, and a plurality of density thresholds corresponding to each of the plurality of size thresholds (¶ [8] pixel value (density) threshold values and size of area in a defect threshold; ¶ [21]).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshito discloses the print inspection apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the circuitry is configured to determine a defect of the printed matter using the plurality of density thresholds (¶ [18]), and further determine whether the defect having determined using the plurality of density thresholds is a defect using the plurality of size thresholds (¶ [7] defect detected based on density value and size of area; ¶ [30] defect detection utilizing combination of density difference thresholds and size of area thresholds).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshito print inspection apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the circuitry is configured to inspect the defect of the printed matter based on a sum of defective pixels determined as defects using the plurality of density thresholds and the plurality of size thresholds (¶ [31] defect detected based on logical sum of density/area combinations).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshito discloses the print inspection apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the plurality of density thresholds vary depending on the corresponding size thresholds (¶ [7]).
Regarding claim 18, Yoshito discloses a print system (¶ [11-12]) comprising:
a printer to print an image on a print medium to output printed matter (¶ [12]); and
a print inspection apparatus communicably connected with the printer (¶ [11]), comprising:
a reading device to read the printed matter into a read image (¶ [11]); and
circuitry configured to generate a difference image based on a comparison between the read image and a reference image (see rejection of claim 1), and inspect a defect of the printed matter using the difference image, a plurality of size thresholds, and a plurality of density thresholds corresponding to each of the plurality of size thresholds (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 19, Yoshito discloses print inspection method (see rejection of claim 1) comprising:
generating a difference image based on a comparison between a read image obtained by reading printed matter printed by a printer and a reference image (see rejection of claim 1); and
inspecting a defect of the printed matter using the difference image, a plurality of size thresholds, and a plurality of density thresholds corresponding to each of the plurality of size thresholds (see rejection of claim 1).
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 5-7, 9, 15, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe Yoshito (JP 1999003427) in view of Oya Masashi (JP 2023014650 A).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshito discloses the print inspection apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Yoshito fails to explicitly disclose a memory that stores a plurality of threshold sets each including a combination of the plurality of density thresholds and the plurality of size thresholds.
Masashi, in the same field of endeavor of detecting print image defects based on a comparison between a read image and target reference data (Abstract), teaches a memory that stores a plurality of threshold sets each including a combination of the plurality of density thresholds and the plurality of size thresholds (¶ [33] and ¶ [44] inspection parameters include density thresholds and size thresholds in the form of “filters”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the print inspection apparatus as disclosed by Yoshito comprising circuitry configured to generate a difference image based on a comparison between a read image obtained by reading printed matter printed by a printer and a reference image to utilize the teachings of Masashi which teaches a memory that stores a plurality of threshold sets each including a combination of the plurality of density thresholds and the plurality of size thresholds to improve the accuracy of defect detection while maintaining productivity.
Regarding claim 6, Yoshito discloses the print inspection apparatus according to claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5).
Yoshito fails to explicitly disclose wherein the circuity is configured to display, on a display, a user interface screen for selecting one threshold set from the plurality of threshold sets.
Masashi teaches the circuity is configured to display, on a display, a user interface screen for selecting one threshold set from the plurality of threshold sets (¶ [44] and ¶ [48]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the print inspection apparatus as disclosed by Yoshito comprising circuitry configured to generate a difference image based on a comparison between a read image obtained by reading printed matter printed by a printer and a reference image to utilize the teachings of Masashi which teaches the circuity is configured to display, on a display, a user interface screen for selecting one threshold set from the plurality of threshold sets to avoid false defect detection by enabling adjustment to increase ability to avoid false detection of defects in printed image data.
Regarding claim 7, Yoshito discloses the print inspection apparatus according to claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6).
Yoshito fails to explicitly disclose wherein the circuity is configured to control printing of a test chart including a plurality of defects, generate a confirmation image to confirm a defect that is determined using the one threshold set among the plurality of defects, and display the confirmation image on the user interface screen.
Masashi teaches the circuity is configured to control printing of a test chart including a plurality of defects (¶ [19-20]), generate a confirmation image to confirm a defect that is determined using the one threshold set among the plurality of defects (¶ [20]), and display the confirmation image on the user interface screen (¶ [37]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the print inspection apparatus as disclosed by Yoshito comprising circuitry configured to generate a difference image based on a comparison between a read image obtained by reading printed matter printed by a printer and a reference image to utilize the teachings of Masashi which teaches the circuity is configured to control printing of a test chart including a plurality of defects, generate a confirmation image to confirm a defect that is determined using the one threshold set among the plurality of defects, and display the confirmation image on the user interface screen to improve detection accuracy and productivity.
Regarding claim 9, Yoshito discloses the print inspection apparatus according to claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5).
wherein the circuity is configured to cause a display to display a setting screen to set the threshold sets (see rejection of claim 6).
Regarding claim 15, Yoshito discloses the print inspection apparatus according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2).
Yoshito fails to explicitly disclose wherein the circuitry determines, as the defect, a dot-shaped defect of the printed matter, and wherein the plurality of density thresholds and the plurality of size thresholds include a combination of the plurality of density thresholds and the plurality of size thresholds to determine the dot-shaped defect.
Masashi teaches the circuitry determines, as the defect, a dot-shaped defect of the printed matter (¶ [32]), and wherein the plurality of density thresholds and the plurality of size thresholds include a combination of the plurality of density thresholds and the plurality of size thresholds to determine the dot-shaped defect (¶ [33] point-shaped defects).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the print inspection apparatus as disclosed by Yoshito comprising circuitry configured to generate a difference image based on a comparison between a read image obtained by reading printed matter printed by a printer and a reference image to utilize the teachings of Masashi which teaches the circuitry determines, as the defect, a dot-shaped defect of the printed matter, and wherein the plurality of density thresholds and the plurality of size thresholds include a combination of the plurality of density thresholds and the plurality of size thresholds to determine the dot-shaped defect to improve accuracy of defect detection while maintaining productivity.
Regarding claim 16, Yoshito discloses the print inspection apparatus according to claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15).
Yoshito fails to explicitly disclose wherein the circuitry determines, as the defect, a linear defect of the printed matter, and wherein the plurality of density thresholds and the plurality of size thresholds include a combination of the plurality of density thresholds and the plurality of size thresholds to determine the linear defect.
Masashi teaches the circuitry determines, as the defect, a linear defect of the printed matter (¶ [32]), and wherein the plurality of density thresholds and the plurality of size thresholds include a combination of the plurality of density thresholds and the plurality of size thresholds to determine the linear defect (¶ [40]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the print inspection apparatus as disclosed by Yoshito comprising circuitry configured to generate a difference image based on a comparison between a read image obtained by reading printed matter printed by a printer and a reference image to utilize the teachings of Masashi teaches the circuitry determines, as the defect, a linear defect of the printed matter, and wherein the plurality of density thresholds and the plurality of size thresholds include a combination of the plurality of density thresholds and the plurality of size thresholds to determine the linear defect to improve accuracy of defect detection while maintaining productivity.
Regarding claim 20, Yoshito discloses performing the print inspection method according to claim 19 (see rejection of claim 19).
Yoshito fails to explicitly disclose a non-transitory recording medium storing a plurality of instructions which, when executed by one or more processors causes the one or more processors to execute an inspection process.
Masashi et al teaches a non-transitory recording medium storing a plurality of instructions which, when executed by one or more processors causes the one or more processors to execute an inspection process (¶ [87]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the print inspection apparatus as disclosed by Yoshito comprising circuitry configured to generate a difference image based on a comparison between a read image obtained by reading printed matter printed by a printer and a reference image to utilize the teachings of Masashi teaches a non-transitory recording medium storing a plurality of instructions which, when executed by one or more processors causes the one or more processors to execute an inspection process to realize the functionality of the apparatus in the most efficient manner in accordance with known techniques in the art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshito in view of Masashi as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Tsuchiya Takashi et al (US 20200301336 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshito discloses the print inspection apparatus according to claim 7 (see rejection claim 7).
Yoshito fails to explicitly disclose wherein the test chart includes the plurality of defects arranged in an XY plane, and wherein the plurality of defects are arranged to have sizes or densities varying in an X direction and a Y direction of the XY plane.
Takashi et al, in the same field of endeavor of detecting image defects utilizing a test chart (Abstract), teaches the test chart includes the plurality of defects arranged in an XY plane (¶ [80]; Fig. 5), and wherein the plurality of defects are arranged to have sizes or densities varying in an X direction and a Y direction of the XY plane (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the print inspection apparatus as disclosed by Yoshito comprising circuitry configured to generate a difference image based on a comparison between a read image obtained by reading printed matter printed by a printer and a reference image to utilize the teachings of Takashi et al which teaches the test chart includes the plurality of defects arranged in an XY plane, and wherein the plurality of defects are arranged to have sizes or densities varying in an X direction and a Y direction of the XY plane to improve defect detection depending on the type of defect when multiple types of defects occur.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 and 17 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMARES Q WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/JAMARES Q WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
February 21, 2026