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 .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Oath/Declaration
3. The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawing(s) filed on 04/12/2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
6. Claims 1-22 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1, 6-11, 12, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobashi et al. (US 2021/0216261 A1), in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), and further in view of Kasahara (US 2022/0124222).
Regarding Claim 1:
Kobashi discloses an inspection apparatus that inspects an image formed on a sheet by an image forming apparatus
Kobashi discloses an inspection apparatus that inspects an image formed on a sheet by an image forming apparatus. Kobashi discloses a printing system in which "a sheet printed by a printing apparatus can be inspected by an inspection apparatus while the sheet is being transported" and in which "the inspection apparatus reads an image on the printed sheet which has been transported, evaluates the quality by analyzing the image which has been read, and on the basis of the evaluation result, determines whether or not the quality of the printed sheet meets a standard" (Kobashi: ¶[0002]). The image forming apparatuses 103 and 104 of Kobashi each include an image capturing unit 313 that ‘corresponds to an inspection apparatus in the image forming apparatus’ and "has a reading function for reading an image formed on a sheet" (Kobashi: ¶[0037]).
the inspection apparatus comprising:
an image sensor configured to read the image on the sheet;
Kobashi discloses that the image capturing unit 313 "is constituted by a scanner, for example, and executes processing for reading a document image of the output medium output by the printing unit 308" (Kobashi: ¶[0037]), thereby functioning as an image sensor that reads the image on the sheet.
and a controller configured to:
Kobashi discloses the workflow application 405 executed by the CPU 201 (Kobashi: ¶[0040]) as the controller.
accept user selection information indicating
Kobashi discloses that a user can manually set whether a print job is to be inspected and the type of inspection to be performed. Specifically, the UI screen of the workflow application 405 includes "a drop-down button [907] for manually changing the setting value for 'inspection method' in a print job. When the drop-down button 907 is pressed, options for designating theinspection method (in-line, off-line, none) are displayed, and can be changed as desired by the user" (Kobashi: ¶[0062]). Additionally, at step S503, the system determines whether an inspection request ("inspection" = "yes") has been set in the order information list(Kobashi: ¶[0051]), and at step S504, sets the corresponding print job to be inspected (Kobashi: ¶[0052]).
Kobashi does not expressly disclose accept user selection information indicating an inspection level for an inspection item to be inspected in the image read by the image sensor.
AAPA disclose accept user selection information indicating an inspection level for an inspection item to be inspected in the image read by the image sensor.
AAPA discloses in the Background of Invention/Related Art describes “a user setting an inspection level indicating the strictness of an inspection.” (AAPA: ¶¶[0002-0003]).
Kobashi in view of AAPA are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a user selectable inspection level indicating strictness, as admitted by AAPA into Kobashi’s inspection system, which already provides for user configured inspection instructions via the drop-down button 907 of Kobashi’s UI screen (Kobashi: ¶[0062). The suggestion/motivation for doing so merely refines the degree of the inspection instruction that Kobashi already accepts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kobashi with AAPA to obtain the invention as specified.
The proposed combination of Kobashi in view of AAPA further discloses obtain an adjustment setting pertaining to a frequency of executing adjustment processing in which the image forming apparatus forms an adjustment image,
AAPA further discloses “the image forming apparatus executes adjustment processing (calibration) to maintain its own printing capabilities. The execution frequency of the adjustment processing may be determined by an operator (a user).” (AAPA: ¶[0003]).
Kobashi in view of AAPA do not expressly disclose wherein based on a result of detecting the adjustment image, the image forming apparatus adjusts a quality of an image formed by the image forming apparatus;
Kasahara discloses wherein based on a result of detecting the adjustment image, the image forming apparatus adjusts a quality of an image formed by the image forming apparatus;
AAPA admits the concept of the adjustment setting pertaining to a frequency of executing adjustment processing, and discloses that the user determines the frequency as disclosed at ¶[0003], however AAPA does not describe how the adjustment processing is performed.
Kasahara discloses that the correction job involves "forming a patch image on a sheet" (the adjustment image) and "reading the patch image" with an inline sensor (Kasahara: claim 1). Based on the reading result, the image forming apparatus adjusts image quality (Kasahara: ¶[0044]). The correction processing uses the patch reading result to adjust image forming conditions including density and color balance, thereby adjusting image quality.
It is also noted that Kasahara discloses that during a print job, a predetermined condition triggers the execution of correction (adjustment) processing (Kasahara, claim 6: "wherein the predetermined condition indicates that a number of discharged pages reaches a set value"). Also see also Kasahara at ¶¶[0040-0042] wherein the system determines when to insert correction jobs during a print job based on the number of pages printed since the last correction. The "set value" for the number of discharged pages constitutes the adjustment setting pertaining to the frequency of executing adjustment processing, because it defines the interval, measured in number of sheets at which adjustment processing is triggered.
Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include forming a patch image and reading it to adjust image quality, as taught by Kasahara. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to provide a specific well-known mechanism by which the calibration admitted by the Applicant is performed. One of ordinary skill would have recognized patch based inline calibration as a standard implementation of the adjustment processing described in AAPA. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara to obtain the invention as specified.
The proposed combination of Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara further disclose
execute inspection at the inspection level indicated by the user selection information, in a case where a first adjustment setting is obtained;
Kobashi discloses an inspection condition table that "defines conditions for executing inspections in the image forming apparatus to which the workflow application 405 is connected" (Kobashi: ¶[0054]). The condition table defines conditions under which inspection cannot be executed, including when the paper type is "embossed" or "tabbed", when grammage is 200 gsm or more, or when special processing is "special color" (Kobashi: ¶[0055]; Fig. 8A). At step S508, the system determines "whether or not inspection can be performed for the print job of interest using the inspection apparatus of the image forming apparatus" by comparing the print job settings against the inspection condition table (Kobashi: ¶[0057]).
When the condition IS met, i.e., when the print job settings do not match any condition under which inspection cannot be performed, the system executes step S509 and sets the "inspection method" to "in-line inspection" (Kobashi: ¶[0058]), and subsequently at step S519 adds a description instructing inspection to be executed to the job ticket sent to the image forming apparatus (Kobashi: ¶[0070])).
and execute inspection at an inspection level lower than or equal to a predetermined inspection level, and not execute inspection at an inspection level higher than the predetermined inspection level, in a case a second adjustment setting in which the frequency is lower than in the first adjustment setting is obtained.
Kobashi discloses that when the condition is NOT met, the system modifies inspection behavior. Specifically, at step S508, if the print job uses embossed paper, "it is determined that inspection cannot be performed using the inspection apparatus of the image forming apparatus 'iPRCxxxxx'" (Kobashi: ¶[0057]). In response, the system executes step S510 and sets the "inspection method" to "off-line inspection" (Kobashi: ¶[0059]), thereby modifying inspection execution when reliable in-line inspection cannot be performed.
AAPA discloses that a ‘second adjustment setting’ (e.g., executing calibration every 1,000 sheets, a lower frequency) yields lower output quality than the ‘first adjustment setting’. AAPA further admits the consequences “the number of sheets determined to have failed may increase depending on the execution frequency of the adjustment processing.” This expressly discloses that lower calibration frequency causes higher inspection rates. (AAPA: ¶¶[0002-0004]).
Accordingly, claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara.
Regarding Claim 6:
The proposed combination of Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara further discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inspection item includes a first inspection item and a second inspection item, when the first adjustment setting is obtained, the first inspection item is inspected at the inspection level indicated by the user selection information, when the second adjustment setting is obtained, the first inspection item is inspected at an inspection level lower than or equal to the predetermined inspection level, and the first inspection item is not inspected at an inspection level higher than the predetermined inspection level, and the second inspection item is inspected at the inspection level indicated by the user selection information regardless of the adjustment setting.
Kobashi discloses that the inspection condition table (Figs. 8A, 8B) defines specific conditions, paper type, grammage, paper size, special processing — that affect whether reliable in-line inspection can be performed (Kobashi: ¶[0055]). This teaches that certain print job attributes affect specific types of inspection, while other inspection functions may be unaffected by the same attributes. Notably, Kobashi discloses a range of inspection items including "missing barcodes or ruled lines, image drops, printing defects, missing pages, color shifts" (Kobashi: ¶[0002]), establishing that multiple distinct inspection items are recognized in the art.
Kasahara teaches that correction processing adjusts specific image forming conditions including density and positional registration (Kasahara: ¶[0044]).
Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the calibration-frequency based restriction only to inspection items that are affected by calibration (the first inspection item), while leaving calibration-independent inspection items unrestricted (the second inspection item). The suggestion/motivation for doing so is because restricting items unaffected by calibration would unnecessarily reduce inspection coverage without improving reliability. One of ordinary skill would recognize that inspection items dependent on image forming quality, such as color accuracy and positional registration, are affected by calibration frequency, while inspection items related to physical contamination are independent of calibration state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7:
The proposed combination of Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara further discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the controller is configured to obtain a reference image to be compared with the image read by the image sensor, and the first inspection item is misalignment between the reference image and the image read by the image sensor.
Kobashi explicitly discloses obtaining a reference image and comparing it with the read image. Specifically, Kobashi discloses that in one inspection method, "image data obtained by scanning the output medium of a print job…determined to be normal through a visual inspection…is prepared in advance, which is compared with image data read by the image capturing unit 313 during printing to determine the presence or absence of defects." In another method, "a rasterized image of a print job generated by the external controller 105…is compared with image data read by the image capturing unit 313 during printing." In either method, "the print quality is evaluated by comparing that image to image data serving as a reference (called a 'reference image', 'reference image data', or the like)" (Kobashi: ¶[0042]).
Kasahara teaches that correction processing adjusts image position registration (Kasahara: ¶[0044]). Misalignment, positional deviation between a reference image and a read image, is directly affected by image forming calibration. When calibration is infrequent, positional drift increases, making high-strictness misalignment inspection prone to false failures.
Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to designate misalignment as the first inspection item subject to the adjustment-setting-based restriction. The suggestion/motivation for doing so because misalignment detection accuracy is directly dependent on the positional calibration state of the image forming apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8:
The proposed combination of Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara further discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the controller is configured to obtain a reference image to be compared with the image read by the image sensor, and the first inspection item is a difference in tint between the reference image and the image read by the image sensor.
Kobashi discloses comparing a reference image with a read image (Kobashi, para. [0042]) and identifies "color shifts" as a recognized inspection item (Kobashi, para. [0002]).
Kasahara teaches that correction processing adjusts density and color balance (Kasahara: ¶[0044]).
Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to designate tint difference as the first inspection item subject to the adjustment-setting-based restriction. The suggestion/motivation for doing so because tint difference, color deviation between a reference image and a read image, is directly affected by color calibration frequency. When calibration is infrequent, color drift increases, causing greater tint deviation that would trigger false failures at high strictness levels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9:
The proposed combination of Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara further discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the second inspection item is a black spot appearing in the image read by the image sensor.
AAPA discloses at paragraph [0002] that inspection for "black spots" is a known inspection item.
Kobashi similarly identifies "printing defects" and "image drops" as known inspection items (Kobashi, para. [0002]).
Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to designate black spot detection as the second inspection item (inspected at the user-selected level regardless of the adjustment setting). The suggestion/motivation for doing so because black spot occurrence is unaffected by calibration frequency and therefore does not suffer from the false-failure risk that motivates restricting calibration-dependent inspection items. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10:
The proposed combination of Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara further discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the adjustment processing is processing for adjusting an image forming condition of the image forming apparatus that affects a result of inspecting the inspection item.
AAPA discloses that the adjustment processing (calibration) is performed to “maintain [the iamge forming apparatus’s] own print capabilities”, i.e., to adjust image forming conditions. AAPA further admits that the execution frequency of this adjustment processing directly “affects” inspection ouotcomes (the number of sheets determined to have failed increases depending on calibration frequency). (AAPA: ¶¶[0002-0004]).
Kasahara teaches that the correction/adjustment processing adjusts image forming conditions including density and color balance (Kasahara: ¶[0044]). The correction job reads patch images and adjusts image forming parameters on the basis of the reading result to maintain outputquality.
Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wherein the adjustment processing is processing for adjusting an image forming condition of the image forming apparatus that affects a result of inspecting the inspection item.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to maintain output quality. These image forming conditions, density and color, directly affect the result of inspecting inspection items such as tint difference (claim 8) and misalignment (claim 7), because deviations in these conditions cause the inspection apparatus to detect differences between the referenceimage and the read image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11:
The proposed combination of Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara further discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the adjustment setting is information on a number of sheets on which the image forming apparatus has formed an image.
AAPA explicitly discloses this limitation. “the user determines that the adjustment processing is to be executed each time images have been formed on a predetermined number of sheets” This establishes that the adjustment setting IS information on a number of sheets on which the image forming apparatus has formed an image. AAPA further provides an example of “100 sheets” vs. “1000 sheets” (AAPA: ¶¶[0002-0004]).
Kasahara provides additional support See Kasahara, claim 6 wherein "wherein the predetermined condition indicates that a number of discharged pages reaches a set value."
Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wherein the adjustment setting is information on a number of sheets on which the image forming apparatus has formed an image.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to increase the quality of the output of the image forming apparatus as discloses by AAPA in the Background of Invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding Claims 12 and 17-22: (drawn to a method)
The proposed combination of Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara, explained in the rejection of apparatus claims 1, and 6-11, renders obvious the steps of the method of claims 12, and 17-22 because these steps occur in the operation of the proposed combination as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claims 1, and 6-11, are equally applicable to claims 12, and 17-22.
12. Claims 2-5 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Hubbard (US 2005/0125744 A1, hereinafter "Hubbard").
Regarding Claim 2:
The proposed combination of Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara further discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a display configured to display the inspection level for the inspection item to be selectable from a plurality of inspection levels,
Kobashi discloses a display for presenting inspection-related settings to the user (Kobashi, para. [0052]: inspection settings are configured through user interaction with the system).
AAPA discloses at ¶[0002] that displaying user-selectable inspection levels indicating strictness is known in the art.
Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara do not expressly disclose wherein when the second adjustment setting is obtained, the display does not display the inspection level higher than the predetermined inspection level.
Hubbard discloses wherein when the second adjustment setting is obtained, the display does not display the inspection level higher than the predetermined inspection level.
Hubbard teaches that when presenting a menu comprising a plurality of items to a user, it is known to handle unavailable items by omitting them from the displayed menu. See Hubbard, ¶[0004]: describing the established practice that computing systems differentiate between "selectable (also referred to herein as enabled, available or active) actions" and "unselectable (also referred to herein as disabled, unavailable or inactive) actions" and describing that some systems present only available options while omitting unavailable ones entirely from the displayed interface.
Hubbard, claim 1: "displaying a menu comprising a plurality of menu items" where the displayed plurality is configured based on which items are currently available.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the inspection level restriction of Kobashi, AAPA and Kasahara by not displaying the unavailable higher inspection levels on the display, as taught by Hubbard. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to omit unavailable options from the display because doing so simplifies the user interface and eliminates the possibility of user confusion from seeing options that cannot be selected, thereby streamlining the user's workflow. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kobashi, AAPA, Kasahara & Hubbard to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3:
The proposed combination of Kobashi, AAPA and Kasahara further discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a display configured to display the inspection level for the inspection item to be selectable from a plurality of inspection levels,
AAPA discloses in the Background of Invention/Related Art describes “a user setting an inspection level indicating the strictness of an inspection.” (AAPA: ¶¶[0002-0003]).
Kobashi, AAPA and Kasahara do not expressly disclose wherein when the second adjustment setting is obtained, the display displays the inspection level higher than the predetermined inspection level to be unselectable.
Hubbard discloses wherein when the second adjustment setting is obtained, the display displays the inspection level higher than the predetermined inspection level to be unselectable.
Hubbard explicitly teaches displaying menu items as unselectable. See Hubbard, claim 1: "displaying a menu comprising a plurality of menu items" where "at least one menu item of the plurality of menu items is an unselectable menu item." See also Hubbard, ¶ [0004]: "It has become common to display selectable…actions in one font or appearance on the display; and unselectable…actions in a second font." Hubbard thus teaches that displaying an item as present but visually distinguished as unselectable is a recognized technique for indicating to the user that the option exists but is currently unavailable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the inspection level restriction of Kobashi, AAPA and Kasahara by displaying the unavailable higher inspection levels as unselectable, as taught by Hubbard. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to display the option in a visually distinct unselectable state, rather than omitting it entirely, because this approach informs the user that the option exists but is currently unavailable due to the system configuration, which aids user understanding of the system's full capabilities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kobashi, AAPA, Kasahara & Hubbard to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4:
The proposed combination of Kobashi, AAPA, Kasahara & Hubbard further discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 3, wherein when the second adjustment setting is obtained, the display grays out the inspection level higher than the predetermined inspection level.
Hubbard explicitly teaches graying out unselectable options as the specific visual implementation of displaying items as unselectable. See Hubbard, ¶ [0004]: "Unselectable actions are often displayed in a low-contrast gray-on-gray font; unselectable actions are therefore referred to as 'grayed-out' choices. For example, but not by way of limitation, Microsoft Internet Explorer® uses grayed-out menu items." Graying out is thus a specific, well-known implementation of the unselectable display taught in Hubbard.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the unselectable display of claim 3 by graying out the unavailable inspection levels, as explicitly taught by Hubbard, because graying out is the most widely recognized visual convention for indicating that an option is currently unavailable, and would be immediately understood by any user of graphical user interfaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kobashi, AAPA, Kasahara & Hubbard to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5:
The proposed combination of Kobashi, AAPA and Kasahara further discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a display configured to display the inspection level for the inspection item to be selectable from a plurality of inspection levels,
AAPA discloses in the Background of Invention/Related Art describes “a user setting an inspection level indicating the strictness of an inspection.” (AAPA: ¶¶[0002-0003]).
Kobashi, AAPA and Kasahara do not expressly disclose wherein when the second adjustment setting is obtained, if the inspection level higher than the predetermined inspection level is selected, the display displays a message prompting the inspection level for the inspection item to be changed.
Hubbard discloses wherein when the second adjustment setting is obtained, if the inspection level higher than the predetermined inspection level is selected, the display displays a message prompting the inspection level for the inspection item to be changed.
Hubbard teaches detecting that a user has attempted to interact with an unselectable menu item and, in response, displaying a message regarding the unselectable item. See Hubbard, Abstract: "detecting user input requesting information regarding an unselectable (or grayed-out) menu item presently displayed…A message containing [information] regarding the unselectable item, including reasons for the item being unavailable and/or suggested remedies, is displayed." See also Hubbard, claim 1: "detecting a user request for information regarding an unselectable menu item" and "displaying a message containing the information regarding the unselectable menu item in response to the user request." Hubbard further teaches that the message includes "reasons and/or remedies for the unselectable item" (Hubbard: ¶[0006]). In the context of an unavailable inspection level, a "remedy" , as taught by Hubbard, would be prompting the user to select an available (lower) inspection level, since the remedy for selecting an unavailable option is directing the user to an available alternative.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the inspection level restriction of Kobashi, AAPA and Kasahara by displaying the higher inspection level as selectable and, upon user selection when the second adjustment setting is obtained, displaying a message prompting the user to change the inspection level, as taught by Hubbard's approach of providing explanatory messages and remedies when a user interacts with an unavailable option. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adopt this approach because providing an explanatory message, rather than simply preventing selection or graying out, gives the user maximum information about why the option is restricted and what action to take, improving the user experience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kobashi, AAPA, Kasahara & Hubbard to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding Claims 13-16: (drawn to a method)
The proposed combination of Kobashi, AAPA & Kasahara, explained in the rejection of apparatus claims 2-5, renders obvious the steps of the method of claims 13-16 because these steps occur in the operation of the proposed combination as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claims 2-5, are equally applicable to claims 13-16.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ueda (US 2021/0389712 A1), discloses an image forming system with settable abnormality detection levels based on feature parameters of the image forming system.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R MCLEAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6AM - 4PM, PST.
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.
/NEIL R MCLEAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681