DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-9 are pending in this preliminary amended application.
Priority
3. Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on application JP 2023-063518 filed on 04/10/2023 under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d)..
Drawings
4. The drawing has been filed on 04/09/2024 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement filed on 04/09/2024 is in compliance with the provision of the 37 CFR 1.97 and therefore has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-9 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “generate a second inspection target image, based on a result of a reader reading a reference face; detect a defect in the second inspection target image; generate a first inspection target image, based on an image read at the reader from a printed matter printed at a printing apparatus; and determine a defect in the printed matter, based on the first inspection target image and a master image generated from print data of the printed matter, wherein, in a case where the defect is detected in the second inspection target image, the circuitry is configured to exclude a position of the detected defect from an area where a defect in the printed matter is inspected”.
The claim limitation of “determine a defect in the printed matter, based on the first inspection target image and a master image generated from print data of the printed matter, wherein, in a case where the defect is detected in the second inspection target image, the circuitry is configured to exclude a position of the detected defect from an area where a defect in the printed matter is inspected”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component. That is, other than reciting “by a circuitry” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a circuitry” language, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determining a defect in the printed matter. Similarly, the limitations of determining a defect in the printed matter, based on the first inspection target image and a master image generated from print data of the printed matter as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component. For example, but for the “by a circuitry” language, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking that the inspection apparatus should be determining the defect in the printed matter that was printer at printer. If claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim doesn’t recite single or at least one additional element – using a circuitry to perform transforming the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter steps. The circuitry in last step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic circuitry performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this circuitry element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the circuitry element of using to perform both the determining and excluding steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 (abstract idea), set forth in this Office action.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
9. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Terauchi (US Pub 2019/0230229) teaches at least in Figs. 6a-b & paras., 0065-0077 that a method implemented by an image reading device includes at least a reader is configured to read an image of an object to be conveyed. The opposing member has a plurality of opposing portions that include reference surfaces selectively switchable to be placed at a reading position of the reader. The reference surfaces include two or more identical reference surfaces. The circuitry is configured to determine whether an evaluation reading value of reading values read by the reader on each of the two or more identical reference surfaces is within a prescribed range and perform correction operation of the image reading device with the evaluation reading value within the prescribed range out of the reading values of the two or more identical reference surfaces.
Kobayashi (US Pub 2023/0336668) teaches at least in Figs. 5-6, 9, 15 & paras., 0064-0074, 0087-0089 that a method implemented by an inspection apparatus reads a printed material; sets a setting relating to check inspection data for checking data formed on a printed material; derives data defined by a predetermined rule according to setting content set in the setting and generating check inspection data for a plurality of sections in a printed material; and detects a defect in an inspection target printed material by comparing data read in the reading from the inspection target printed material and the corresponding check inspection data.
The independent claim 1 is allowable over the prior arts of record since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “determine a defect in the printed matter, based on the first inspection target image and a master image generated from print data of the printed matter, wherein, in a case where the defect is detected in the second inspection target image, the circuitry is configured to exclude a position of the detected defect from an area where a defect in the printed matter is inspected”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed in independent claim 1.
The independent claim 8 is allowable over the prior arts of record since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “determining a defect in the printed matter, based on the first inspection target image and a master image generated from print data of the printed matter; and based on the detecting detects the defect in the second inspection target image, excluding a position of the detected defect from an area where a defect in the printed matter is inspected”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed in independent claim 8.
The independent claim 9 is allowable over the prior arts of record since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “determining a defect in the printed matter, based on the first inspection target image and a master image generated from print data of the printed matter; and based on the detecting detects the defect in the second inspection target image, excluding a position of the detected defect from an area where a defect in the printed matter is inspected”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed in independent claim 9.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARIS SABAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday/Thursday from 7:00AM to 5:30PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Benny Tieu, can be reached on (571)272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The Examiner’s personal fax number is (571)-270-4917.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HARIS SABAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2682