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.
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) are:
Image forming unit -monochromatic printer including CMYK, intermediate transfer member, a transfer unit, a fixing device, a cleaner, two paper feeding cassettes, and a feeding mechanism, Specification paragraph [0026]
Reading unit - CIS or a line scan camera, Specification paragraph [0032]
in claims 1-20.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 13-14 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. Reasons for allowance will be provided in the event the application becomes in condition for allowance.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goda et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0303844) in view of Yasukaga (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0113916).
Regarding claim 1, Goda et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0303844) discloses:
An inspection system comprising:
an image-forming unit configured to form an image on a sheet (paragraphs [0029]-[0030], [0033], the printing system prints an image on a recording medium);
a reading unit configured to read the image formed on the sheet (paragraphs [0051]-[0052], the sheet is read by the cameras of the verification apparatus); and
a controller configured to:
obtain reference image data for image inspection (see Abstract, Figures 5-7, paragraphs [0063]-0070], a reference image is obtained),
execute the image inspection on a result of reading the image by the reading unit, based on the obtained reference image data (paragraphs [0051]-[0052], [0088]-[0089], the image read by the verification apparatus is displayed), and
control a display to display a preview screen related to the image inspection, the preview screen, in a case where the image includes a mark indicating a trimming position of the sheet (Figures 12A-12D, paragraphs [0003], [0107], [0111]-[0113], the displayed image shows the read image and the half-cut areas/lines), including:
a main image that includes the mark (Figures 12A-12D, paragraph [0107], [0111]-[0113], the shown image include a mark for the half-cut line), and
an additional image that is added to the main image and indicates a second region outward of a first region corresponding to the sheet subjected to trimming (Figures 12A-12D, paragraph [0107], [0111]-[0113], the image additionally includes areas that are outside of the cut lines shown)
Even assuming arguendo that Goda et al. does not explicitly disclose:
displaying the preview screen, in a case where the image includes a mark indicating a trimming position of the sheet including:
a main image that includes the mark;
an additional image that is added to the main image and indicates a second region outward of a first region corresponding to the sheet subjected to trimming
Yasukaga (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2022/0113916) discloses:
displaying the preview screen, in a case where the image includes a mark indicating a trimming position of the sheet (Figures 7, 9, paragraphs [0077], [0116], the preview image includes the cutting line) including:
a main image that includes the mark (Figures 7, 9, paragraphs [0077], [0116], the preview image includes the cutting line)
an additional image that is added to the main image and indicates a second region outward of a first region corresponding to the sheet subjected to trimming (Figures 7, 9, paragraphs [0077], [0116], as shown in Figure 9, the main part of the image is separated from a second region)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Yasukaga with the system of Goda such that the system would have been configured to have the preview image include a mark indicating a trimming position and an additional image that is added to the main image that indicates a second region outward of a first region corresponding to the sheet subjected to trimming as described in Yasukaga. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system “to easily perform adjustment by recognizing whether the cutting position overlaps the image or not and which type of cutting overlaps the image” (paragraph [0117] of the Yasukaga reference).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Goda and Yasukaga disclose the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
Goda et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the second region is a region that excludes the mark (Figure 12B, paragraphs [0088]-[0091], the second region exists outside of region 401)
Yasukaga additionally discloses:
wherein the second region is a region that excludes the mark (Figure 9, the regions outside the g12/g16 region are set with a predetermined width in a periphery of the first region)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Yasukaga with the system of Goda such that the system would have been configured to have the second region be a region that excludes the mark as described in Yasukaga. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system “to easily perform adjustment by recognizing whether the cutting position overlaps the image or not and which type of cutting overlaps the image” (paragraph [0117] of the Yasukaga reference).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Goda and Yasukaga disclose the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
Goda et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the second region is a region outward of the mark (Figure 12B, paragraphs [0088]-[0091], the second region exists outside of region 401)
Yasukaga additionally discloses:
wherein the second region is a region outward of the mark (Figure 9, the regions outside the g12/g16 region are set with a predetermined width in a periphery of the first region)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Yasukaga with the system of Goda such that the system would have been configured to have the second region be a region outward of the mark as described in Yasukaga. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system “to easily perform adjustment by recognizing whether the cutting position overlaps the image or not and which type of cutting overlaps the image” (paragraph [0117] of the Yasukaga reference).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Goda and Yasukaga disclose the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
Goda additionally discloses:
wherein at least a portion of the mark is inspected in the image inspection (Figures 12A-12D, paragraphs [0003], [0107], [0111]-[0113], the displayed image shows the read image and the half-cut areas/lines),
Yasukaga additionally discloses:
wherein at least a portion of the mark is inspected in the image inspection (Figures 7, 9, paragraphs [0077], [0116], the preview image includes the cutting line)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Yasukaga with the system of Goda such that the system would have been configured to have at least a portion of the mark is inspected in the image inspection as described in Yasukaga. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system “to easily perform adjustment by recognizing whether the cutting position overlaps the image or not and which type of cutting overlaps the image” (paragraph [0117] of the Yasukaga reference).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Goda and Yasukaga disclose the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
Goda additionally discloses:
wherein the second region is a region outward of a spare region that is set with a predetermined width in a periphery of the first region (Figure 12B, paragraphs [0088]-[0091], the second region exists outside of region 401)
Yasukaga additionally discloses:
wherein the second region is a region outward of a spare region that is set with a predetermined width in a periphery of the first region (Figure 9, the regions outside the g12/g16 region are set with a predetermined width in a periphery of the first region)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Yasukaga with the system of Goda such that the system would have been configured to have the second region be a region outward of a spare region that is set with a predetermined width in a periphery of the first region as described in Yasukaga. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system “to easily perform adjustment by recognizing whether the cutting position overlaps the image or not and which type of cutting overlaps the image” (paragraph [0117] of the Yasukaga reference).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Goda and Yasukaga disclose the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
Goda additionally discloses:
wherein the additional image indicates the second region with hatching, on the preview screen (see Figures 12B/12D, hatching around images)
Yasukaga additionally discloses:
wherein the additional image indicates the second region with hatching, on the preview screen (Figure 9, as shown, the second region is demarcated with hatching on the preview)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Yasukaga with the system of Goda such that the system would have been configured to have the additional image indicate the second region with hatching, on the preview screen as described in Yasukaga. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system “to easily perform adjustment by recognizing whether the cutting position overlaps the image or not and which type of cutting overlaps the image” (paragraph [0117] of the Yasukaga reference).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Goda and Yasukaga disclose the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
Goda additionally discloses:
wherein the preview screen further includes an indication indicating a position of the mark (Figures 12A-12D, paragraph [0107], [0111]-[0113], the shown image include a mark for the half-cut line)
Yasukaga additionally discloses:
wherein the preview screen further includes an indication indicating a position of the mark (Figures 7, 9, paragraphs [0077], [0116], the preview image includes the cutting line)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Yasukaga with the system of Goda such that the system would have been configured to have the preview screen further includes an indication indicating a position of the mark as described in Yasukaga. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system “to easily perform adjustment by recognizing whether the cutting position overlaps the image or not and which type of cutting overlaps the image” (paragraph [0117] of the Yasukaga reference).
Regarding claim 16, Goda additionally discloses:
wherein, in a case where it is determined that the image is positioned outward of the first region, the second region is a region that excludes the image (Figure 12D, paragraph [0090], as shown, the preprint image does not fall within the preprint area and a mismatch occurs causing the second region to exclude the image)
Regarding claim 19, Goda additionally discloses:
wherein the reading unit is configured to read the image on the sheet while conveying the sheet (paragraphs [0051]-[0052], the sheets are read as they are being conveyed)
Regarding claim 20, Goda additionally discloses:
wherein the reading unit is configured to read another sheet on which a reference image is formed to generate the reference image data (paragraph [0064], the reference image may be read out from an external apparatus), and
the controller is configured to obtain the reference image data generated by the reading unit (Figure 5, paragraphs [0063]-[0064], the obtained reference image data is used as the reference image)
Claims 2, 6, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goda et al. in view of Yasukaga, in further view of Imai (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0073967).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Goda et al. and Yasukaga discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
Goda and Yasukaga disclose the second region as previously noted – see the rejection of claim 1, for example.
The combination of Goda and Yasukaga does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the second region is not inspected in the image inspection.
Imai (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0073967) discloses:
Creating a non-inspection region (see for example Figure 8, paragraphs [0079]-[0081], a region that does not get inspected can be specified)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Imai with the combination of Goda and Yasukaga such that the system would have been modified to cause the second region to be a non-inspection region as described in Imai. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of avoiding the problem of “productivity [being] reduced” in cases with a “large number of inspection targets” (paragraph [0004] of the Imai reference) by reducing the amount of material inspected.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Goda, Yasukaga, and Imai discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 5).
The combination of Goda and Yasukaga does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a region of the mark other than the portion is not inspected in the image inspection.
Imai (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0073967) discloses:
Creating a non-inspection region (see for example Figure 8, paragraphs [0079]-[0081], a region that does not get inspected can be specified)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Imai with the combination of Goda and Yasukaga such that the system would have been modified to cause the region of the mark other than the portion to be a non-inspection region as described in Imai. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of avoiding the problem of “productivity [being] reduced” in cases with a “large number of inspection targets” (paragraph [0004] of the Imai reference) by reducing the amount of material inspected.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Goda et al. and Yasukaga discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
The combination of Goda et al. and Yasukaga does not explicitly disclose:
wherein, in a case where the image does not include a mark indicating a trimming position of the sheet, the controller is configured to control the display to display a preview screen that is related to the image inspection and does not include the additional image.
Imai discloses:
wherein, in a case where the image does not include a mark indicating a trimming position of the sheet, the controller is configured to control the display to display a preview screen that is related to the image inspection and does not include the additional image (see, for example, Figures 13-14 which display an inspection preview screen without a trimming position)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Imai with the combination of Goda and Yasukaga such that the system would have been modified to include a case where the image does not include a mark indicating a trimming position of the sheet and control the display to display a preview screen that is related to the image inspection and does not include the additional image as described in Imai. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of avoiding the problem of “productivity [being] reduced” in cases with a “large number of inspection targets” (paragraph [0004] of the Imai reference) by reducing the amount of material inspected.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Goda et al. and Yasukaga discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
The combination of Goda et al. and Yasukaga does not explicitly disclose:
wherein, in a case where the mark is not detected in the image, the controller is configured to control the display to display a preview screen that is related to the image inspection and does not include the additional image.
Imai discloses:
wherein, in a case where the mark is not detected in the image, the controller is configured to control the display to display a preview screen that is related to the image inspection and does not include the additional image (see, for example, Figures 13-14 which display an inspection preview screen without a trimming position)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Imai with the combination of Goda and Yasukaga such that the system would have been modified to include a case where the mark is not detected in the image and to control the display to display a preview screen that is related to the image inspection and does not include the additional image as described in Imai. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of avoiding the problem of “productivity [being] reduced” in cases with a “large number of inspection targets” (paragraph [0004] of the Imai reference) by reducing the amount of material inspected.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Goda and Yasukaga discloses the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
As previously noted, Goda discloses:
the controller is configured to control the display to display the preview screen that includes the additional image (Figures 12A-12D, paragraph [0107], [0111]-[0113], the image additionally includes areas that are outside of the cut lines shown)
As previously noted, Yasukaga discloses:
the controller is configured to control the display to display the preview screen that includes the additional image (Figures 7, 9, paragraphs [0077], [0116], as shown in Figure 9, the main part of the image is separated from a second region)
The combination of Goda and Yasukaga does not explicitly disclose:
a case where user setting for excluding the second region from the image inspection is accepted
Imai discloses:
a case where user setting for excluding the second region from the image inspection is accepted (see for example Figure 8, paragraphs [0079]-[0081], a region that does not get inspected can be specified)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Imai with the combination of Goda and Yasukaga such that the system would have been modified to include a case where user setting for excluding the second region from the image inspection is accepted as described in Imai and have the preview screen include the additional image. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of avoiding the problem of “productivity [being] reduced” in cases with a “large number of inspection targets” (paragraph [0004] of the Imai reference) by reducing the amount of material inspected.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goda in view of Yasukaga, in further view of Chiba (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0196766).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Goda and Yasukaga disclose the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
The combination of Goda and Yasukaga do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the preview screen further includes an object for accepting user input that instructs starting to form the image on the sheet
Chiba (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2019/0196766) discloses:
wherein the preview screen further includes an object for accepting user input that instructs starting to form the image on the sheet (Figure 24, paragraphs [0080]-[0082], the user can choose to instruct printing from the preview screen)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Chiba with the combination of Goda and Yasukaga such that the system would have been configured to have the preview screen further include an object for accepting user input that instructs starting to form the image on the sheet as described in Chiba. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of furthering the goal of “enabl[ing] a user to find at an early stage a situation in which a print job, if performed, produces an undesirable print output” (paragraph [0005] of the Chiba reference) while still enabling operational efficiency.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goda in view of Yasukaga, in further view of Kobashi (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0256677).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Goda and Yasukaga disclose the system of the parent claim (claim 1).
The combination of Goda and Yasukaga do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the preview screen further includes an object for a user to set an inspection level of the image inspection.
Kobashi (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0256677) discloses:
wherein the preview screen further includes an object for a user to set an inspection level of the image inspection (Figure 14, paragraphs [0151]-[0153], the preview screen allows for setting of level of inspection)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Kobashi with the combination of Goda and Yasukaga such that the preview screen further included an object for a user to set an inspection level of the image inspection as described in Kobashi. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “efficiently performing the setting work of an inspection region” (paragraph [0005] of the Kobashi reference).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30-5 PM.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/JOHN R WALLACE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights