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 .
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: “an inspection unit configured to inspect” in claim 1 limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the processor.
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.
!!! CLAIMS 1-20 ARE EACH REJECTED TWICE UNDER DIFFERENT SET OF PRIOR ART !!!!
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-12, 16, 18-20, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015230688 to Kikukawa in view of JP 2022170678 to Kamata further in view of Matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 1, Kikukawa discloses an inspection apparatus capable of connecting to each of a first image forming apparatus and a second image forming apparatus having a higher printing accuracy than the first image forming apparatus (paragraph 14, 24; inspection device connectable to image forming device 10; paragraph 49, 53; inspection device can be connected to printer 610 (first image forming apparatus) which has defect rate 8% vs connected to printer 606 (second image forming apparatus) which has level defect rate of 0.3% vs; therefore printer 606 is higher accuracy), the inspection apparatus comprising:
a reading sensor configured to read an image formed on a sheet by an image forming apparatus (paragraph 35; image reading unit 554 (sensor) reads image formed on sheet by the printer 120 of image forming device 10);
an inspection unit configured to inspect an inspection item in the image read by the reading sensor (paragraph 35; comparison and determination unit 553 (inspection unit) compares read image with reference data; paragraph 32; inspection items include color misalignment, density defects);
a display configured to display an inspection level that corresponds to an inspection standard used to determine an inspection result for the inspection item such that the inspection level is selectable from among a plurality of inspection levels (paragraph 6, 47-48; display displays inspection setting screen that includes setting for selecting inspection level ranging from 1 to 10 that is used to determine inspection result for the inspection items such as color misalignment, density defects having different standards such as strict lenient); and
obtain information indicating a selection result of selecting the inspection level (paragraph 35, 39; inspection control unit 551 obtains “setting of the inspection level threshold value” information associated with selected level); and
determine the inspection standard based on the information (paragraph 35; comparison and determination unit 553 compares the image read with reference data and determines inspection standard based on the “inspection level threshold value”).
However Kikukawa does not disclose
a controller configured to:
display a first plurality of inspection levels;
display a second plurality of inspection levels, an upper limit for the second plurality of inspection levels being higher than an upper limit for the first plurality of inspection levels.
Kamata discloses a controller configured to (paragraph 29; CPU 201):
display a first plurality of inspection levels (paragraph 55; in Fig. 8b only inspection levels “1” to “2” are displayed as selectable as first inspection levels);
display a second plurality of inspection levels, an upper limit for the second plurality of inspection levels being higher than an upper limit for the first plurality of inspection levels (paragraph 55; in Fig. 8a all inspection levels “1” to “3” are displayed as selectable as second plurality of levels wherein upper limit is “3” is higher than upper limit “2” in first plurality of levels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Kikukawa as taught by Kamata to display different inspection levels having different upper limits.
The motivation to combine the references is to prevent incorrect selection of inspection levels that are not allowable based on the setup of the printer by graying out un-selectable levels(paragraph 53).
Kikukawa discloses connection of first and second image forming apparatus of different inspection accuracies (paragraph 49, 53; inspection device can be connected to printer 610 (first image forming apparatus) which has defect rate 8% vs connected to printer 606 (second image forming apparatus) which has level defect rate of 0.3% vs; therefore printer 606 is higher accuracy). However Kikukawa in view of Kamata does not disclose to display a first plurality of inspection levels or display a second plurality of inspection levels having different upper limit based on connection of first image forming apparatus or second image forming apparatus.
It would have been an obvious design choice to display different plurality of inspection levels depending on which image forming apparatus that is connected, the purpose of doing so is to display allowable inspection levels based on which one of the image forming apparatus that is connected such that a first image forming apparatus can be setup for higher upper limit to provide user with more selectable levels and a second image forming apparatus can be setup for lower upper limit for inspection level to simplify the selection of inspection levels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to display selectable inspection levels having different upper limits based on which one of the image forming apparatus connected to provide user with more choice for selection of inspection level or simplified selection of inspection levels.
Regarding claim 2, Kikukawa discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inspection unit is configured to obtain a reference image to be compared with the image read by the reading sensor (paragraph 35; storage obtains reference data controller 100 to be compared with image read by image reading unit 554), and the printing accuracy affects a difference between the image read by the reading sensor and the reference image (paragraph 39-40, paragraph 49, 53; defective rate shown in 611-615 reflect rate of defective output when threshold is greater than threshold at the specific level; for accurate image forming apparatus 606, its defective rate is 0.02% at level 5 while for less accurate image forming apparatus 610 the defect rate is 1% which means for accurate printer almost every output passes (difference less than threshold) while for less accurate image forming apparatus 610 it has more defective output at 1% rate meaning more times the difference is greater than threshold).
Regarding claim 3, Kikukawa discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inspection unit is configured to obtain a reference image to be compared with the image read by the reading sensor (paragraph 35; storage obtains reference data from controller 100 to be compared with image read by image reading unit 554).
Further Kamata disclose the inspection item is misalignment between the reference image and the image read by the reading sensor (paragraph 28, 187; misalignment inspection by comparing reference to inspection image).
Regarding claim 6, Kamata disclose the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inspection item is a streak appearing in the image read by the reading sensor (paragraph 27-28; inspecting streaks in image data from reading ).
Regarding claim 8, Kamata discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the display is configured to display the plurality of inspection levels such that an inspection level higher than the upper limit for the first plurality of inspection levels cannot be selected (paragraph 55; in Fig. 8b only levels “1” to “2” are displayed as selectable while level “3” which is higher than limit “2” is grayed out), in a case where the first image forming apparatus is connected (paragraph 9, 13; first image forming apparatus 30 connected to inspection device 50).
Regarding claim 9, Kamata discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 8,
wherein the display is configured to gray out an inspection level higher than the upper limit for the first plurality of inspection levels, in a case where the first image forming apparatus is connected (paragraph 55; inspection level higher than upper limit “2” for first levels of “1” to “2” is grayed out such as level “3”; paragraph 9, 13; first image forming apparatus 30 connected to inspection device 50).
Regarding claim 10, Kamata discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the display is configured to display a message prompting the inspection level for the inspection item to be changed upon an inspection level higher than the upper limit for the first plurality of inspection levels being selected (paragraph 51, 192; Fig. 6b shows combination that is not “recommended” associated with “NG” for inspection level higher than “2” (upper limit) when reduction level is “2” (second row); when user selects inspection level that are not recommended such as higher than “2” (upper limit) for first plurality of levels such as “1” to “2”, message is displayed prompting to change the inspection level), in a case where the first image forming apparatus is connected (paragraph 9, 13; first image forming apparatus 30 connected to inspection device 50).
Regarding claim 11, Kikukawa discloses a method for controlling an inspection apparatus capable of connecting to each of a first image forming apparatus and a second image forming apparatus having a higher printing accuracy than the first image forming apparatus (paragraph 14, 24; inspection device connectable to image forming device 10; paragraph 49, 53; inspection device can be connected to printer 610 (first image forming apparatus) which has defect rate 8% vs connected to printer 606 (second image forming apparatus) which has level defect rate of 0.3% vs; therefore printer 606 is higher accuracy), the inspection apparatus reading an image formed on a sheet by the first image forming apparatus or the second image forming apparatus (paragraph 35; image reading unit 554 (sensor) reads image formed on sheet by the printer 120 of image forming device 10 which can be first or second image forming apparatus) and inspecting an inspection item in the image that has been read (paragraph 35; comparison and determination unit 553 (inspection unit) compares read image with reference data; paragraph 32; inspection items include color misalignment, density defects), the method comprising:
displaying a screen for selecting an inspection level that corresponds to an inspection standard used to determine an inspection result for the inspection item (paragraph 6, 47-48; display displays inspection setting screen that includes setting for selecting inspection level ranging from 1 to 10 that is used to determine inspection result for the inspection items such as color misalignment, density defects having different standards such as strict lenient);
obtaining information indicating a selection result of selecting the inspection level (paragraph 35, 39; inspection control unit 551 obtains “setting of the inspection level threshold value” information associated with selected level); and
determining the inspection standard based on the information (paragraph 35; comparison and determination unit 553 compares the image read with reference data and determines inspection standard based on the “inspection level threshold value”).
However Kikukawa does not disclose the screen displaying a first plurality of inspection levels to be selectable and displaying a second plurality of inspection levels to be selectable, and an upper limit for the second plurality of inspection levels being higher than an upper limit for the first plurality of inspection levels.
Kamata discloses the screen displaying a first plurality of inspection levels to be selectable (paragraph 55; in Fig. 8b only inspection levels “1” to “2” are displayed as selectable as first inspection levels) and displaying a second plurality of inspection levels to be selectable and an upper limit for the second plurality of inspection levels being higher than an upper limit for the first plurality of inspection levels (paragraph 55; in Fig. 8a all inspection levels “1” to “3” are displayed as selectable as second plurality of levels wherein upper limit is “3” is higher than upper limit “2” in first plurality of levels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Kikukawa as taught by Kamata to display different inspection levels having different upper limits.
The motivation to combine the references is to prevent incorrect selection of inspection levels that are not allowable based on the setup of the printer by graying out un-selectable levels (paragraph 53).
Kikukawa discloses connection of first and second image forming apparatus of different inspection accuracies (paragraph 49, 53; inspection device can be connected to printer 610 (first image forming apparatus) which has defect rate 8% vs connected to printer 606 (second image forming apparatus) which has level defect rate of 0.3% vs; therefore printer 606 is higher accuracy). However Kikukawa in view of Kamata does not disclose to display a first plurality of inspection levels or display a second plurality of inspection levels having different upper limit based on connection of first image forming apparatus or second image forming apparatus.
It would have been an obvious design choice to display different plurality of inspection levels depending on which image forming apparatus that is connected, the purpose of doing so is to display allowable inspection levels based on which one of the image forming apparatus that is connected such that a first image forming apparatus can be setup for higher upper limit to provide user with more selectable levels and a second image forming apparatus can be setup for lower upper limit for inspection level to simplify the selection of inspection levels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to display selectable inspection levels having different upper limits based on which one of the image forming apparatus connected to provide user with more choice for selection of inspection level or simplified selection of inspection levels.
Regarding claim 12, Kikukawa discloses the method according to claim 11, further comprising: obtaining a reference image to be compared with the image read by the inspection apparatus (paragraph 35; storage obtains reference data controller 100 to be compared with image read by image reading unit 554), wherein the printing accuracy affects a difference between the image read by the inspection apparatus and the reference image (paragraph 39-40, paragraph 49, 53; defective rate shown in 611-615 reflect rate of defective output when threshold is greater than threshold at the specific level; for accurate image forming apparatus 606, its defective rate is 0.02% at level 5 while for less accurate image forming apparatus 610 the defect rate is 1% which means for accurate printer almost every output passes (difference less than threshold) while for less accurate image forming apparatus 610 it has more defective output at 1% rate meaning more times the difference is greater than threshold).
Regarding claim 16, Kamata discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein the inspection item is a streak appearing in the image read by the inspection apparatus (paragraph 27-28; inspecting streaks in image data from reading).
Regarding claim 18, Kamata discloses the method according to claim 11, further comprising: displaying a plurality of inspection levels in the screen such that an inspection level higher than the upper limit for the first plurality of inspection levels cannot be selected (paragraph 55; in Fig. 8b only levels “1” to “2” are displayed as selectable while level “3” which is higher than limit “2” is grayed out), in a case where the first image forming apparatus is connected (paragraph 9, 13; first image forming apparatus 30 connected to inspection device 50).
Regarding claim 19, Kamata discloses the method according to claim 11, further comprising:
graying out an inspection level higher than the upper limit for the first plurality of inspection levels among the plurality of inspection levels displayed in the screen, in a case where the first image forming apparatus is connected (paragraph 55; inspection level higher than upper limit “2” for first levels of “1” to “2” is grayed out such as level “3”; paragraph 9, 13; first image forming apparatus 30 connected to inspection device 50).
Regarding claim 20, Kamata discloses the method according to claim 11, further comprising: displaying a message prompting the inspection level for the inspection item to be changed upon an inspection level higher than the upper limit for the first plurality of inspection levels being selected (paragraph 51, 192; Fig. 6b shows combination that is not “recommended” associated with “NG” for inspection level higher than “2” (upper limit) when reduction level is “2” (second row); when user selects inspection level that are not recommended such as higher than “2” (upper limit) for first plurality of levels such as “1” to “2”, message is displayed prompting to change the inspection level), in a case where the first image forming apparatus is connected (paragraph 9, 13; first image forming apparatus 30 connected to inspection device 50).
Regarding claim 13, Kikukawa discloses the method according to claim 11, further comprising: obtaining a reference image to be compared with the image read by the inspection apparatus (paragraph 35; storage obtains reference data from controller 100 to be compared with image read by image reading unit 554). Further Kamata discloses wherein the inspection item is misalignment between the reference image and the image read by the inspection apparatus (paragraph 28, 187; misalignment inspection by comparing reference to inspection image).
Claim(s) 4, 7, 14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015230688 to Kikukawa in view of JP 2022170678 to Kamata further in view Matter of design choice further in view US 20210216261 to Kobashi.
Regarding claim 4, Kikukawa discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inspection unit is configured to obtain a reference image to be compared with the image read by the reading sensor (paragraph 35; storage obtains reference data from controller 100 to be compared with image read by image reading unit 554).
However Kikukawa does not disclose the inspection item is a color shift between the reference image and the image read by the reading sensor.
Kobashi discloses the inspection item is a color shift between the reference image and the image read by the reading sensor (paragraph 42, 73; inspection of color shifts in s522 between read image (capturing unit 313) and reference image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Kikukawa as taught by Kobashi to provide color shift inspection.
The motivation to combine the references is to provide inspection related to color image shifting when print job includes color images so that print jobs whose color shift occurs in inspection are discharged as fail (paragraph 50, 73).
Regarding claim 7, Kobashi discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inspection item is a black spot appearing in the image read by the reading sensor (paragraph 42, 73; inspection of black spot in s522 between read image (capturing unit 313) and reference image).
Regarding claim 14, Kikukawa discloses the method according to claim 11, further comprising: obtaining a reference image to be compared with the image read by the inspection apparatus (paragraph 35; storage obtains reference data from controller 100 to be compared with image read by image reading unit 554). Further Kobashi discloses wherein the inspection item is a color shift between the reference image and the image read by the inspection apparatus (paragraph 42, 73; inspection of color shifts in s522 between read image (capturing unit 313) by inspection device and reference image).
Regarding claim 17, Kobashi discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein the inspection item is a black spot appearing in the image read by the inspection apparatus (paragraph 42, 73; inspection of black spot in s522 between read image (capturing unit 313) (inspection device) and reference image).
Claim(s) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015230688 to Kikukawa in view of JP 2022170678 to Kamata further in view Matter of design choice further in view JP 2002344759 to Sho.
Regarding claim 5, Kikukawa does not disclose the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inspection item is a tint variation in the image read by the reading sensor.
Sho discloses wherein the inspection item is a tint variation in the image read by the reading sensor (PAGE 4, lines 21-28; page 10, lines 20-26; inspecting tint variation based on image read by chromaticity meter 34 (sensor) in s9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Kikukawa as taught by Sho to provide tint variation inspection.
The motivation to combine the references is to provide accurate adjustment to tint variation based on inspection of tint variation (page 4, lines 12-13, 24-28, 36).
Regarding claim 15, Sho discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein the inspection item is a tint variation in the image read by the inspection apparatus (PAGE 4, lines 21-28; page 10, lines 20-26; inspecting tint variation based on image read by chromaticity meter 34 (sensor) (inspection device) in s9).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 11-12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015230688 to Kikukawa in view of US 20210141577 to Ito further in view Matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 1, Kikukawa discloses an inspection apparatus capable of connecting to each of a first image forming apparatus and a second image forming apparatus having a higher printing accuracy than the first image forming apparatus (paragraph 14, 24; inspection device connectable to image forming device 10; paragraph 49, 53; inspection device can be connected to printer 610 (first image forming apparatus) which has defect rate 8% vs connected to printer 606 (second image forming apparatus) which has level defect rate of 0.3% vs; therefore printer 606 is higher accuracy), the inspection apparatus comprising:
a reading sensor configured to read an image formed on a sheet by an image forming apparatus (paragraph 35; image reading unit 554 (sensor) reads image formed on sheet by the printer 120 of image forming device 10);
an inspection unit configured to inspect an inspection item in the image read by the reading sensor (paragraph 35; comparison and determination unit 553 (inspection unit) compares read image with reference data; paragraph 32; inspection items include color misalignment, density defects);
a display configured to display an inspection level that corresponds to an inspection standard used to determine an inspection result for the inspection item such that the inspection level is selectable from among a plurality of inspection levels (paragraph 6, 47-48; display displays inspection setting screen that includes setting for selecting inspection level ranging from 1 to 10 that is used to determine inspection result for the inspection items such as color misalignment, density defects having different standards such as strict lenient); and
obtain information indicating a selection result of selecting the inspection level (paragraph 35, 39; inspection control unit 551 obtains “setting of the inspection level threshold value” information associated with selected level); and
determine the inspection standard based on the information (paragraph 35; comparison and determination unit 553 compares the image read with reference data and determines inspection standard based on the “inspection level threshold value”).
However Kikukawa does not disclose
a controller configured to:
display a first plurality of inspection levels;
display a second plurality of inspection levels, an upper limit for the second plurality of inspection levels being higher than an upper limit for the first plurality of inspection levels.
Ito discloses a controller configured to (paragraph 33, 34; CPU 226 controls display 245):
display a first plurality of inspection levels (paragraph 60, 62, 64; if in “important” area the inspection level is set to “6” then for “standard” area, only levels “1” to “5” are selectable as first plurality of levels);
display a second plurality of inspection levels, an upper limit for the second plurality of inspection levels being higher than an upper limit for the first plurality of inspection levels (paragraph 60, 62, 64; if in “important” area the inspection level is set to “7” then for “standard” area, only levels “1” to “6” are selectable as second plurality of levels wherein upper limit is “6” is higher than upper limit “5” in first plurality of levels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Kikukawa as taught by Ito to provide different inspection levels having different upper limits.
The motivation to combine the references is to display selectable inspection levels without including levels that are not appropriate for the print setting to therefore prevent incorrect level selection (paragraph 60, 62, 64).
Kikukawa discloses connection of first and second image forming apparatus of different inspection accuracies (paragraph 49, 53; inspection device can be connected to printer 610 (first image forming apparatus) which has defect rate 8% vs connected to printer 606 (second image forming apparatus) which has level defect rate of 0.3% vs; therefore printer 606 is higher accuracy). However Kikukawa in view of Ito does not disclose to display a first plurality of inspection levels or display a second plurality of inspection levels having different upper limit based on connection of first image forming apparatus or second image forming apparatus.
It would have been an obvious design choice to display different plurality of inspection levels depending on which image forming apparatus that is connected, the purpose of doing so is to display allowable inspection levels based on which one of the image forming apparatus that is connected such that a first image forming apparatus can be setup for higher upper limit to provide user with more selectable levels and a second image forming apparatus can be setup for lower upper limit for inspection level to simplify the selection of inspection levels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to display selectable inspection levels having different upper limits based on which one of the image forming apparatus connected to provide user with more choice for selection of inspection level or simplified selection of inspection levels.
Regarding claim 2, Kikukawa discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inspection unit is configured to obtain a reference image to be compared with the image read by the reading sensor (paragraph 35; storage obtains reference data controller 100 to be compared with image read by image reading unit 554), and the printing accuracy affects a difference between the image read by the reading sensor and the reference image (paragraph 39-40, paragraph 49, 53; defective rate shown in 611-615 reflect rate of defective output when threshold is greater than threshold at the specific level; for accurate image forming apparatus 606, its defective rate is 0.02% at level 5 while for less accurate image forming apparatus 610 the defect rate is 1% which means for accurate printer almost every output passes (difference less than threshold) while for less accurate image forming apparatus 610 it has more defective output at 1% rate meaning more times the difference is greater than threshold).
Regarding claim 8, Ito discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the display is configured to display the plurality of inspection levels such that an inspection level higher than the upper limit for the first plurality of inspection levels cannot be selected (paragraph 60, 62, 64; if in “important” area the inspection level is set to “6” then for “standard” area, only levels “1” to “5” are selectable as first plurality of levels; therefore higher than the upper limit of “5” for standard area inspection is not selectable), in a case where the first image forming apparatus is connected (paragraph 19-20; printing apparatus 101 connected as first image forming apparatus).
Regarding claim 11, Kikukawa discloses a method for controlling an inspection apparatus capable of connecting to each of a first image forming apparatus and a second image forming apparatus having a higher printing accuracy than the first image forming apparatus (paragraph 14, 24; inspection device connectable to image forming device 10; paragraph 49, 53; inspection device can be connected to printer 610 (first image forming apparatus) which has defect rate 8% vs connected to printer 606 (second image forming apparatus) which has level defect rate of 0.3% vs; therefore printer 606 is higher accuracy), the inspection apparatus reading an image formed on a sheet by the first image forming apparatus or the second image forming apparatus (paragraph 35; image reading unit 554 (sensor) reads image formed on sheet by the printer 120 of image forming device 10 which can be first or second image forming apparatus) and inspecting an inspection item in the image that has been read (paragraph 35; comparison and determination unit 553 (inspection unit) compares read image with reference data; paragraph 32; inspection items include color misalignment, density defects), the method comprising:
displaying a screen for selecting an inspection level that corresponds to an inspection standard used to determine an inspection result for the inspection item (paragraph 6, 47-48; display displays inspection setting screen that includes setting for selecting inspection level ranging from 1 to 10 that is used to determine inspection result for the inspection items such as color misalignment, density defects having different standards such as strict lenient);
obtaining information indicating a selection result of selecting the inspection level (paragraph 35, 39; inspection control unit 551 obtains “setting of the inspection level threshold value” information associated with selected level); and
determining the inspection standard based on the information (paragraph 35; comparison and determination unit 553 compares the image read with reference data and determines inspection standard based on the “inspection level threshold value”).
However Kikukawa does not disclose the screen displaying a first plurality of inspection levels to be selectable and displaying a second plurality of inspection levels to be selectable, and an upper limit for the second plurality of inspection levels being higher than an upper limit for the first plurality of inspection levels.
Ito discloses the screen displaying a first plurality of inspection levels to be selectable (paragraph 60, 62, 64; if in “important” area the inspection level is set to “6” then for “standard” area, only levels “1” to “5” are selectable as first plurality of levels) and displaying a second plurality of inspection levels to be selectable and an upper limit for the second plurality of inspection levels being higher than an upper limit for the first plurality of inspection levels (paragraph 60, 62, 64; if in “important” area the inspection level is set to “7” then for “standard” area, only levels “1” to “6” are selectable as second plurality of levels wherein upper limit is “6” is higher than upper limit “5” in first plurality of levels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Kikukawa as taught by Ito to provide different inspection levels having different upper limits.
The motivation to combine the references is to display selectable inspection levels without including levels that are not appropriate for the print setting to therefore prevent incorrect level selection (paragraph 60, 62, 64).
Kikukawa discloses connection of first and second image forming apparatus of different inspection accuracies (paragraph 49, 53; inspection device can be connected to printer 610 (first image forming apparatus) which has defect rate 8% vs connected to printer 606 (second image forming apparatus) which has level defect rate of 0.3% vs; therefore printer 606 is higher accuracy). However Kikukawa in view of Ito does not disclose to display a first plurality of inspection levels or display a second plurality of inspection levels having different upper limit based on connection of first image forming apparatus or second image forming apparatus.
It would have been an obvious design choice to display different plurality of inspection levels depending on which image forming apparatus that is connected, the purpose of doing so is to display allowable inspection levels based on which one of the image forming apparatus that is connected such that a first image forming apparatus can be setup for higher upper limit to provide user with more selectable levels and a second image forming apparatus can be setup for lower upper limit for inspection level to simplify the selection of inspection levels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to display selectable inspection levels having different upper limits based on which one of the image forming apparatus connected to provide user with more choice for selection of inspection level or simplified selection of inspection levels.
Regarding claim 12, Kikukawa discloses the method according to claim 11, further comprising: obtaining a reference image to be compared with the image read by the inspection apparatus (paragraph 35; storage obtains reference data controller 100 to be compared with image read by image reading unit 554), wherein the printing accuracy affects a difference between the image read by the inspection apparatus and the reference image (paragraph 39-40, paragraph 49, 53; defective rate shown in 611-615 reflect rate of defective output when threshold is greater than threshold at the specific level; for accurate image forming apparatus 606, its defective rate is 0.02% at level 5 while for less accurate image forming apparatus 610 the defect rate is 1% which means for accurate printer almost every output passes (difference less than threshold) while for less accurate image forming apparatus 610 it has more defective output at 1% rate meaning more times the difference is greater than threshold).
Regarding claim 18, Ito discloses the method according to claim 11, further comprising: displaying a plurality of inspection levels in the screen such that an inspection level higher than the upper limit for the first plurality of inspection levels cannot be selected (paragraph 60, 62, 64; if in “important” area the inspection level is set to “6” then for “standard” area, only levels “1” to “5” are selectable as first plurality of levels; therefore higher than the upper limit of “5” for standard area inspection is not selectable), in a case where the first image forming apparatus is connected (paragraph 19-20; printing apparatus 101 connected as first image forming apparatus).
Claim(s) 3, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015230688 to Kikukawa in view of US 20210141577 to Ito further in view Matter of design choice further in view JP 2007148027 to Itagaki.
Regarding claim 3, Kikukawa discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inspection unit is configured to obtain a reference image to be compared with the image read by the reading sensor (paragraph 35; storage obtains reference data from controller 100 to be compared with image read by image reading unit 554).
However Kikukawa does not disclose the inspection item is misalignment between the reference image and the image read by the reading sensor.
Itagaki discloses the inspection item is misalignment between the reference image and the image read by the reading sensor (paragraph 92, 166, 181, 182; inspection item includes misalignment between read image and reference data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Kikukawa as taught by Itagaki to provide misalignment inspection of printed image.
The motivation to combine the references is to provide inspection of misalignment of printed image positions to detect printed image deviation and provide different levels of misalignment inspection accuracy (paragraph 165-167).
Regarding claim 13, Kikukawa discloses the method according to claim 11, further comprising: obtaining a reference image to be compared with the image read by the inspection apparatus (paragraph 35; storage obtains reference data from controller 100 to be compared with image read by image reading unit 554). Further Itagaki discloses wherein the inspection item is misalignment between the reference image and the image read by the inspection apparatus (paragraph 92, 166, 181, 182; inspection item includes misalignment between read image by inspection device and reference data).
Claim(s) 4, 7, 14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015230688 to Kikukawa in view of US 20210141577 to Ito further in view Matter of design choice further in view US 20210216261 to Kobashi.
Regarding claim 4, Kikukawa discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inspection unit is configured to obtain a reference image to be compared with the image read by the reading sensor (paragraph 35; storage obtains reference data from controller 100 to be compared with image read by image reading unit 554).
However Kikukawa does not disclose the inspection item is a color shift between the reference image and the image read by the reading sensor.
Kobashi discloses the inspection item is a color shift between the reference image and the image read by the reading sensor (paragraph 42, 73; inspection of color shifts in s522 between read image (capturing unit 313) and reference image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Kikukawa as taught by Kobashi to provide color shift inspection.
The motivation to combine the references is to provide inspection related to color image shifting when print job includes color images so that print jobs whose color shift occurs in inspection are discharged as fail (paragraph 50, 73).
Regarding claim 7, Kobashi discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inspection item is a black spot appearing in the image read by the reading sensor (paragraph 42, 73; inspection of black spot in s522 between read image (capturing unit 313) and reference image).
Regarding claim 14, Kikukawa discloses the method according to claim 11, further comprising: obtaining a reference image to be compared with the image read by the inspection apparatus (paragraph 35; storage obtains reference data from controller 100 to be compared with image read by image reading unit 554). Further Kobashi discloses wherein the inspection item is a color shift between the reference image and the image read by the inspection apparatus (paragraph 42, 73; inspection of color shifts in s522 between read image (capturing unit 313) by inspection device and reference image).
Regarding claim 17, Kobashi discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein the inspection item is a black spot appearing in the image read by the inspection apparatus (paragraph 42, 73; inspection of black spot in s522 between read image (capturing unit 313) (inspection device) and reference image).
Claim(s) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015230688 to Kikukawa in view of US 20210141577 to Ito further in view Matter of design choice further in view JP 2002344759 to Sho.
Regarding claim 5, Kikukawa does not disclose the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inspection item is a tint variation in the image read by the reading sensor.
Sho discloses wherein the inspection item is a tint variation in the image read by the reading sensor (PAGE 4, lines 21-28; page 10, lines 20-26; inspecting tint variation based on image read by chromaticity meter 34 (sensor) in s9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Kikukawa as taught by Sho to provide tint variation inspection.
The motivation to combine the references is to provide accurate adjustment to tint variation based on inspection of tint variation (page 4, lines 12-13, 24-28, 36).
Regarding claim 15, Sho discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein the inspection item is a tint variation in the image read by the inspection apparatus (PAGE 4, lines 21-28; page 10, lines 20-26; inspecting tint variation based on image read by chromaticity meter 34 (sensor) (inspection device) in s9).
Claim(s) 6, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015230688 to Kikukawa in view of US 20210141577 to Ito further in view Matter of design choice further in view JP 2021180404 to Kikuta.
Regarding claim 6, Kikukawa does not disclose the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inspection item is a streak appearing in the image read by the reading sensor.
Kikuta discloses wherein the inspection item is a streak appearing in the image read by the reading sensor (paragraph 31, 35; inspecting difference data between image read (s704) and reference to see if streaks appear).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Kikukawa as taught by Kikuta to provide inspection of streaks in printed image.
The motivation to combine the references is to provide inspection of streaks in high-speed print mode so as to detect streaks when printing in this mode using filtering method (paragraph 56-58).
Regarding claim 16, Kikuta discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein the inspection item is a streak appearing in the image read by the inspection apparatus (paragraph 31, 35; inspecting difference data between image read (s704) and reference to see if streaks appear).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015230688 to Kikukawa in view of US 20210141577 to Ito further in view Matter of design choice further in view of JP 2022170678 to Kamata.
Regarding claim 9, Ito disclose the inspection apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the display is configured so that inspection level higher than the upper limit for the first plurality of inspection levels is not selectable, in a case where the first image forming apparatus is connected (paragraph 60, 62, 64; if in “important” area the inspection level is set to “6” then for “standard” area, only levels “1” to “5” are selectable as first plurality of levels; therefore higher than the upper limit of “5” for standard area inspection is not selectable; paragraph 19-20; printing apparatus 101 connected as first image forming apparatus).
However Kikukawa in view of Ito does not disclose wherein the display is configured to gray out an inspection level higher than the upper limit for the first plurality of inspection levels.
Kamata discloses wherein the display is configured to gray out an inspection level higher than the upper limit for the first plurality of inspection levels (paragraph 55; inspection level higher than upper limit “2” for first levels of “1” to “2” is grayed out such as level “3”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Kikukawa as taught by Kamata to display different inspection levels having different upper limits.
The motivation to combine the references is to prevent incorrect selection of inspection levels that are not allowable based on the setup of the printer by graying out un-selectable levels (paragraph 53).
Regarding claim 10, Kamata discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the display is configured to display a message prompting the inspection level for the inspection item to be changed upon an inspection level higher than the upper limit for the first plurality of inspection levels being selected (paragraph 51, 192; Fig. 6b shows combination that is not “recommended” associated with “NG” for inspection level higher than “2” (upper limit) when reduction level is “2” (second row); when user selects inspection level that are not recommended such as higher than “2” (upper limit) for first plurality of levels such as “1” to “2”, message is displayed prompting to change the inspection level), in a case where the first image forming apparatus is connected (paragraph 9, 13; first image forming apparatus 30 connected to inspection device 50).
Regarding claim 19, Ito discloses the method according to claim 11, further comprising: level higher than the upper limit for the first plurality of inspection levels among the plurality of inspection levels displayed in the screen is not selectable, in a case where the first image forming apparatus is connected (paragraph 60, 62, 64; if in “important” area the inspection level is set to “6” then for “standard” area, only levels “1” to “5” are selectable as first plurality of levels out of all available levels; therefore higher than the upper limit of “5” for standard area inspection is not selectable; paragraph 19-20; printing apparatus 101 connected as first image forming apparatus). Further Kamata discloses graying out an inspection level higher than the upper limit for the first plurality of inspection levels among the plurality of inspection levels (paragraph 55; inspection level higher than upper limit “2” for first levels of “1” to “2” is grayed out such as level “3”).
Regarding claim 20, Kamata discloses the method according to claim 11, further comprising: displaying a message prompting the inspection level for the inspection item to be changed upon an inspection level higher than the upper limit for the first plurality of inspection levels being selected (paragraph 51, 192; Fig. 6b shows combination that is not “recommended” associated with “NG” for inspection level higher than “2” (upper limit) when reduction level is “2” (second row); when user selects inspection level that are not recommended such as higher than “2” (upper limit) for first plurality of levels such as “1” to “2”, message is displayed prompting to change the inspection level), in a case where the first image forming apparatus is connected (paragraph 9, 13; first image forming apparatus 30 connected to inspection device 50).
Other Prior Art Cited
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220012867 to TSUKAMOTO.
US 20210256677 to Kobashi.
US 20220126601 to Mutsuno.
JP 2023030525 to KITAJIMA.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENIYAM MENBERU whose telephone number is (571) 272-7465. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00am-6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 270-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the customer service office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600. The group receptionist number for TC 2600 is (571) 272-2600.
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.
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.
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).
Patent Examiner
Beniyam Menberu
/BENIYAM MENBERU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
02/04/2026