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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “printing unit,” “reading unit” and “inspection unit” in independent claims 1, 11 and 14, and “communication unit” in independent claims 11 and 14. The printing unit is implemented by print unit 709 (Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0062]). The reading unit is implemented by image reading unit 715 (Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0047]). The inspection unit is implemented by CPU 712 (Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0047]). The communication unit is implemented by communication I/F 701 (Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0043]).
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.
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 § 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 1-15 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.
Independent claim 1 recites a step of “determining periodicity of a detected defect based on inspection results by the inspection unit for a plurality of the printed printing media output successively wherein … the periodicity is determined based on results of processing that is in accordance with an operation mode in a case where double-sided printing is performed in the printing unit and which achieves consistency between page order in a case where printing is performed in the printing unit and page order in a case where reading is performed in the reading unit.” (Emphasis added) It is unclear how such consistency is achieved simply by determining a periodicity of a detected error, as there are no steps provided for applying the determined periodicity in such a way so as to achieve the consistency claimed. Therefore, this step is indefinite. Therefore, independent claim 1, and corresponding dependent claims 2-10, are rejected as being indefinite.
Independent claims 11, 14 and 15 similarly recite the indefinite steps of independent claim 1, and are thus are considered indefinite for the reasons set forth above. Therefore, these claims, along with corresponding dependent claims 12 and 13, are rejected as being indefinite as well.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
11. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, no prior art has been found to disclose or suggest Applicant’s printing apparatus, as best understood in view of Applicant’s specification, including one or more processors executing instructions to perform:
- determining periodicity of a detected defect based on inspection results by the inspection unit for a plurality of the printed printing media output successively, wherein
- the double-sided printing function includes two operation modes in which processing order of pages is different and
- the periodicity is determined based on results of processing that is in accordance with an operation mode in a case where double-sided printing is performed in the printing unit and which achieves consistency between page order in a case where printing is performed in the printing unit and page order in a case where reading is performed in the reading unit.
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, no prior art has been found to disclose or suggest Applicant’s printing apparatus, as best understood in view of Applicant’s specification, including a printing unit configured to perform printing on a printing medium by using color materials, and having a double-sided printing function with two operation modes in which processing order of pages is different; and further comprising one or more processors executing instructions to perform:
- transmitting inspection results by the inspection unit for a plurality of the printed printing media output successively to the external device; and receiving information on periodicity of a defect detected in the inspection results from the external device, wherein
- the periodicity is determined based on results of processing that is in accordance with an operation mode in a case where double-sided printing is performed in the printing unit and which achieves consistency between page order in a case where printing is performed in the printing unit and page order in a case where reading is performed in the reading unit.
Claims 12 and 13 depend from claim 11.
Claim 14, directed to a printing system, similarly recites the allowable subject matter of claim 11.
Claim 15, directed to a control method of a printing apparatus, similarly recites the allowable subject matter of claim 1.
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0077786 A1 (Tenda) discloses a selection device that obtains defect information of defect on an output result of image forming from each of a plurality of image forming apparatuses, receives an image formation instruction, generates defect rate information based on the obtained defect information and the image formation instruction, the generated defect rate information indicating a rate of occurrence of a defect by category of defect for each of the image forming apparatuses.
Japanese Application Publication JP 2015-172506 A discloses an image inspection system that determines the presence of defects periodically generated in a conveyance direction of a recording medium in a read image.
Japanese Application Publication JP 2015-094666 A discloses a system which compares a read image obtained by reading a sheet with an inspection image to inspect an output with an image formed thereon, while detecting periodic defects with high accuracy.
Japanese Application Publication JP 2018-155567 A discloses an inspection system which can detect periodic defects with no peaks appearing by frequency analysis.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS D LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7436. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at 571-270-5254. 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.
/THOMAS D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683