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.
Claim 1 recites limitations “image former that forms an image”, “image reader that generates a read image” that have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it they use a generic placeholders “former”, “reader” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over D1.1
With regard to claim 1, D1 teach a sheet conveyer having a cylindrical shape that conveys a sheet (see fig. 1, ¶ 24: cylindrical conveyor drum); an image former that forms an image on the sheet conveyed by the sheet conveyer (see fig. 1, ¶¶ 27-29: printer to eject ink to the recording medium); an image reader that generates a read image of a printed product which is the sheet on which the image has been formed by the image former (see fig. 1, ¶ 37: image reader); and a hardware processor (see fig. 4: processor), wherein the hardware processor inspects for presence or absence of a defect in the printed product based on the read image (see fig. 8, ¶¶ 55, 68: defect detection), and the hardware processor causes the printed product being inspected to rotate on an outer peripheral portion of the sheet conveyer without ejecting the printed product being inspected from the apparatus during start to end of inspection of the printed product (see fig. 1: sheet rotates on the outer peripheral portion while the inspection is carried out before being discharged to a tray). Note that D1 teaches capturing an image of the printed sheet to perform defect inspection, which may be completed before the sheet is discharged to the tray 31 and therefore anticipates the claim limitation of not being ejected during start and end of the inspection. Alternatively, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to wait till the inspection is completed to determine whether the sheet is defective before ejecting the sheet. The motivation would have been to sort sheet into appropriate trays, such as a defective tray or normal tray. D1 teaches in ¶ 104 that the sheet may be discharged to different paper discharge trays.
With regard to claim 2, D1 teach the hardware processor performs control to eject the printed product determined as a quality product to a quality product sheet ejector (see fig. 1) but fails to explicitly teach to eject the printed product determined as a defective product to a defective product sheet ejector. However, D1 suggests in ¶ 104 that the sheet may be discharged to different paper discharge trays. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to sort the defective sheet to a different tray and the motivation would have been to separate quality product from defective products.
With regard to claim 3, D1 fails to explicitly teach in a case where the printed product determined as a defective product is a printed product that needs to be printed in a predetermined order, the hardware processor performs control to eject, to the defective product sheet ejector, a printed product rotating on the outer peripheral portion of the sheet conveyer at a time when the printed product is determined as a defective product. However, D1 suggests in ¶ 104 that the sheet may be discharged to different paper discharge trays. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to sort the defective sheet to a different tray and the motivation would have been to separate quality product from defective products.
With regard to claim 4, D1 teach after completion of ejection, to the defective product sheet ejector, of the printed product rotating on the outer peripheral portion of the sheet conveyer at the time when the printed product is determined as a defective product, the hardware processor performs control to resume reprinting of an image of the printed product determined as a defective product and printing of an image subsequent to the image of the printed product determined as a defective product (see fig. 1, ¶¶ 79-81: after determining that a defect is present, printing is resumed with correction).
With regard to claim 7, see discussion of claim 1.
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 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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 and further in view of D2.2
With regard to claim 5, D1 fails to explicitly teach a reverser that reverses a front and back of the sheet conveyed by the sheet conveyer, wherein when double-sided printing is instructed for a printed product determined as a quality product, the hardware processor conveys the printed product to the reverser to reverse the front and back and causes the image former to form an image, however D2 teaches the missing feature (see ¶¶ 32, 40: reversing the paper from front to back for double sided printing). One skilled in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to incorporate known teachings of performing reversing operation to print on both sides of the sheet as taught by D2 into the configuration of D1 yielding predictable results. The motivation for reversing would have been to print on both sides of the sheet and reduce the number of sheets needed for printing.
With regard to claim 6, D1 and D2 fail to explicitly teach when double-sided printing is instructed for a printed product determined as a quality product and the printed product is the printed product determined as a defective product, the hardware processor performs control to eject the printed product to the defective product sheet ejector without conveying the printed product to the reverser. However, it is clear that D1 teaches defect inspection after printing is performed on a side of a sheet. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to discard the sheet upon determination of a defect without performing further processing, yielding predictable results. The motivation for discarding a defective sheet without reversing and printing on the other side would have been to save ink.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH YENTRAPATI whose telephone number is (571)270-7982. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached on (571) 272-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AVINASH YENTRAPATI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
1 US Publication No. 2020/0391516.
2 US Publication No. 2018/0157446.