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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 06/17/2026 has been entered. Claims have been added. Claims 11-20 are still pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shijo (JP2015117957 IDS) in view of Ishizuka (US 20120120099) and Chen et al. (US 20250193485).
Regarding claim 1, Shijo teaches an image inspection apparatus comprising: processing circuitry configured to:
acquire inspection target image data (p0006:acquisition unit that acquires a read image of an image formed on a recording medium as an image to be inspected);
compare the acquired inspection target image data with comparison image data to detect a plurality of regions of an inspection target image as a plurality of detection target images (p0006: comparing the difference between the image to be inspected and a reference image; judgment threshold that is predetermined for each area of the image included in the image to be inspected)
Shijo does not teach merge a plurality of display frames indicating the plurality of regions detected as the plurality of inspection target images, which are determined to overlap, into a display frame after merge; and display the display frame after merge on the inspection target image, the display frame including the plurality of regions detected as the plurality of detection target images.
Isuizuka teaches merge a plurality of display frames indicating the plurality of regions detected as the plurality of inspection target images, which are determined to overlap, into a display frame after merge (p0068: similar regions are detected in images, and thereafter the images are automatically combined such that the similar regions overlap each other); and display the display frame after merge on the inspection target image, the display frame including the plurality of regions detected as the plurality of detection target images (p0068:As a result of this emphasized display, even if a large number of similar regions have been detected, the user can instruct the automatic combining of images after having checked the similar regions that will overlap each other when the images are combined).
Shijo and Isuizuka are combinable because they both deal with detecting image . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Shijo with the teaching of Isuizuka for purpose of enable appropriate and easy determination of a layout for multiple images suggested by Isuizuka (p0008).
Shijo and Isuizuka does not teach calculate coordinates for the display frame after merge by obtaining minimum start coordinates and maximum end coordinates of the display frames that are determined to overlap.
Chen teaches calculate coordinates for the display frame after merge by obtaining minimum start coordinates and maximum end coordinates o fthe display frames that are determined to overlap (p0010: calculate target coordinate data based on the currently received coordinate data, start position coordinate data, end position coordinate data).
Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Cheng are combinable because they both deal with detecting image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Shijo in view of Isuizuka with the teaching of Chen for purpose of display a program image of the target channel.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations are substantially similar to the claim 1, therefore it is rejected for the same reason as claim 1, except a printing system comprising: a printer to print an image on a recording medium, however Shijo teaches (p0011: The print inspection device 4 is an image inspection device that inspects the output results by comparing the scanned image generated by reading the paper (recording medium) output by the print engine 3 with the master image generated above).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 10, the structural elements of apparatus claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 10. Thus, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Shijo teaches The image inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: acquire the inspection target image data from the inspection target image that is read from an image printed on a recording medium (p0006:acquisition unit that acquires a read image of an image formed on a recording medium as an image to be inspected), the comparison image data being image data used for printing the image to be read; and detect a defective region of the inspection target image, as the detection target image (p0006: comparing the difference between the image to be inspected and a reference image; judgment threshold that is predetermined for each area of the image included in the image to be inspected).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikeda et al. (US 5963204).
Regarding claim 6, Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen does not teach the image inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the display frame has a predetermined shape.
Ikeda teaches wherein the display frame has a predetermined shape (col. 6, lines 30-35: This image reproducing apparatus can display the display frame of a motion image in various shapes).
Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen and Ikeda are combinable because they both deal with detecting object and display them. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen with the teaching of Ikeda for to provide an image reproducing apparatus capable of starting reproducing a plurality of motion images at the same timing.
Regarding claim 7, Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen and Ikeda teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to merge the plurality of display frames that are closer to each other than a predetermined distance into the display frame after merge (Ikeda: fig. 43).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 6 has been incorporated herein.
Claims 11-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaechi (US 20120200572).
Regarding claim 11, (New) Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen does not teach the image inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the processing circuitry is further configured to temporarily generate a temporary display frame for each of the plurality of detection target images by expanding a rectangle circumscribing a corresponding detection target image.
Kaechi wherein: the processing circuitry is further configured to temporarily generate a temporary display frame for each of the plurality of detection target images by expanding a rectangle circumscribing a corresponding detection target image (p0062:a temporary display frame 351 for the detected face is displayed on the LCD 206 (FIG. 5B).
Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen and Kaechi are combinable because they both deal with detecting object and display them. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen and Ikeda with the teaching of Kaechi for provides a target selection apparatus capable of quickly carrying out selection processing (p0011).
Regarding claim 12, (New) Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen and Kaechi teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 11, wherein: the processing circuitry is further configured to expand the rectangle circumscribing the corresponding detection target image by a predetermined size (Kaechi: fig. 2B: 351.. Changing from fig. 12b:351 to the rectangle shape would have been a matter of choice in design since the claimed structures and the function they perform are the same as the prior art. In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995) citing In re Gal, 980 F.2d 717, 719, 25 USPQ2d 1076, 1078 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also stare decisis regarding changes in size or proportion in MPEP § 2144.04.
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 12 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 15, (New) Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen and Kaechi teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 11, wherein: the processing circuitry is further configured to calculate coordinates for the display frame after merge by obtaining minimum start coordinates and maximum end coordinates of the temporary display frames that are determined to overlap (Chen:p0010: calculate target coordinate data based on the currently received coordinate data, start position coordinate data, end position coordinate data).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 12 has been incorporated herein.
Claims 18-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishii (US 20240169516).
Regarding claim 18, (New) Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen does not teach the image inspection apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an inline sensor including a light source and a line image sensor, wherein the inspection target image data is generated by the inline sensor.
Ishii teaches further comprising: an inline sensor including a light source and a line image sensor, wherein the inspection target image data is generated by the inline sensor (p0002:As a system for inspecting whether such print defects are present, a printing inspection system is present, which uses a camera, a line sensor of a scanner).
Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen and Ishii are combinable because they both deal with detecting object and display them. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen and Ikeda with the teaching of Ishii for inspecting whether such print defects
Regarding claim 19, (New) Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen and Ishii teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 18, wherein: the inline sensor reads the inspection target image by repeatedly performing an operation of reading for one line in a width direction of a sheet passing over a reading position (Ishii: p0002: a line sensor of a scanner, since it is line sensor scanner, it reads image one line by line).
The rational applied to the rejection of clam 18 has been incorporate herein.
Claims 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peleg (US 9430706).
Regarding claim 13, (New) Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen does not teach The image inspection apparatus according to claim 11, wherein: the processing circuitry is further configured to determine whether a first temporary display frame and a second temporary display frame overlap based on a distance between a center of the first temporary display frame and a center of the second temporary display frame.
Peleg teaches wherein: the processing circuitry is further configured to determine whether a first temporary display frame and a second temporary display frame overlap based on a distance between a center of the first temporary display frame and a center of the second temporary display frame (col. 2, lines 40-50: determined Determining a degree of overlap between pathology candidates may include calculating a Euclidian distance between a center of the pathology candidate in the first image of a pair of images and a center of the pathology candidate in the second image of the pair and fig. 4b).
Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen and Peleg are combinable because they both deal with determining overlap images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen with the teaching of Peleg for purpose of detect a frame sequence depicting/including a pathology, in an image stream captured in a body lumen.
Regarding claim 14, (New) Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen and Peleg teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 13, wherein: the processing circuitry is further configured to determine whether the first temporary display frame and the second temporary display frame overlap based further on half-lengths of sides of the first temporary display frame and the second temporary display frame (col. 2, lines 40-50 and fig. 4b).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 13 has been incorporated herein.
Claims 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shijo in view of Isuizuka, Chen and Kaechi as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kubota et al. (US 20240046599).
Regarding claim 16, (New) Shijo in view of Isuizuka, Chen and Kaechi does not teach the image inspection apparatus according to claim 11, wherein: the processing circuitry is further configured to repeat merging of the temporary display frames until a total number of the temporary display frames converges.
Kubota teaches wherein: the processing circuitry is further configured to repeat merging of the temporary display frames until a total number of the temporary display frames converges (p0057:when there are a plurality of regions in which the positions overlap among the extracted regions, merges all the regions, and selects the merged region as the region for display).
Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen and Kubota are combinable because they both deal with determining overlap images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen with the teaching of Kubota for purpose of detect a lesion region from image information, an endoscope device, and a method of generating a diagnostic image.
Regarding claim 17, (New) Shijo in view of Isuizuka and Chen and Kubota teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 16, wherein: upon merging two overlapping temporary display frames, the processing circuitry updates one of the two overlapping temporary display frames as the display frame after merge and sets the other of the two overlapping temporary display frames to indicate no display frame (Kubota:p0057).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 16 has been incorporated herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 2-5 and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Shijo (JP2015117957 IDS) teaches similar system. However, the closest prior art of record, namely Shijo (JP2015117957 IDS), does not disclose, teach or suggest, the claim limitation, as recited in dependent claim 2.
Claim 3-5 and 20 are found to be allowable because claims 3-5 and 20 are depending on claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Merouan, Abderrahim can be reached on (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 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights