DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s remarks received on 05/20/2026 with respect to the amended independent claims have been acknowledged and are moot in view of a new ground of rejection necessitated by the corresponding amendment. Currently claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected; and claim 2 is canceled.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
41066.. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai (US Pub: 2022/0318976) and in further view of Yokozawa et al (US 20160243866) and Fukudome et al (US Pub: 2018/0173125).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently amended) Ochiai teaches: An image forming apparatus comprising: an image forming device that forms an image on a sheet using toner based on image data [p0023, p0028]; a storage device that stores, for each type of sheet, a reference threshold indicating a number of toner fixing defects corresponding to an acceptable level of image quality [p0052]; a determiner that retrieves, from the storage device, the reference threshold corresponding to the identified type of the sheet [p0036]; and a decider that decides the quality of the image formed on the sheet, wherein the decider: compares a first image indicated by the image data with a second image that is actually formed on the sheet and read by the reading device [p0025, p0037-p0039, p0069]; calculates, in a case where a bug that does not exist in the first image exists in the second image, a number of bugs [p0038-p0039].
Ochiai does not specify identifying sheet type or determine quality by bug counts. In the same field of endeavor, Yokozawa teaches: a reading device that reads, from the sheet, information related to the sheet; an identifier that identifies a type of the sheet, on a basis of the information related to the sheet [p0102].
And Fukudome teaches: determines that quality of the image is low in a case where the calculated number of the bugs is larger than the reference threshold; and determines that quality of the image is high in a case where the calculated number of the bugs is equal to or smaller than the reference threshold [p0390-p0394]. Therefore, given Ochiai’s teaching on inspecting a printed job using sheet dependent threshold and comparing a correct image with a scanned printed image, Yokozawa’s identifying sheet type read from a sheet, and Fukudome’s evaluating toner fixing quality by counting spot bugs, it would have been obvious for a skilled in the art to combine the teaching of all to apply Fukudome’s bug count evaluation with Ochiai’s inspection threshold for automating print quality determination.
Regarding claim 3 (Currently amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Yokozawa et al further teaches: The image forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the information related to the sheet includes a value indicating surface roughness of the sheet, and the identifier identifies the type of the sheet, on a basis of the value indicating the surface roughness of the sheet [p0009].
Regarding claim 4 (Currently amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 3 has been incorporated herein. Yokozawa et al further teaches: The image forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the identifier identifies the type of the sheet, on a basis of standard deviation of the value indicating the surface roughness of the sheet [p0103-p0105 (The luminance distribution values from diffuse reflection indicates surface roughness.)].
Regarding claim 6 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 3 has been incorporated herein. Yokozawa et al further teaches: The image forming apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the identifier identifies the type of the sheet, by deciding whether the value indicating the surface roughness of the sheet is smaller than a threshold for surface roughness of a specific sheet [p0105].
Regarding claim 7 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 6 has been incorporated herein. Yokozawa et al in view of Ochiai further teaches: The image forming apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the threshold for the surface roughness includes a first surface threshold, and a second surface threshold larger than the first surface threshold, the identifier decides whether the value indicating the surface roughness of the sheet is smaller than the first surface threshold, the identifier identifies the sheet as a first sheet, when the value indicating the surface roughness of the sheet is smaller than the first surface threshold, the identifier decides whether the value indicating the surface roughness of the sheet is smaller than the second surface threshold, when the value indicating the surface roughness of the sheet is not smaller than the first surface threshold, the identifier identifies the sheet as a second sheet, different from the first sheet, when the value indicating the surface roughness of the sheet is smaller than the second surface threshold, and the identifier identifies the sheet as a third sheet, different from the first sheet and the second sheet, when the value indicating the surface roughness of the sheet is not smaller than the second surface threshold [Yokozawa: p0120, p0121; Ochiai: p0052]. Yokozawa uses two thresholds (Th1 and Th2) on measured peak value of luminance histogram to separate sheet into multiple types, and uses threshold values stored for comparisons whereas Ochiai emphasizes that quality thresholds being adapted by sheet type and use proper sheet type to avoid false defect detection, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of the two to apply threshold classification scheme to roughness for sheet classification for improving output quality.
51066.. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai (US Pub: 2022/0318976), Yokozawa et al (US 20160243866), and Fukudome et al (US Pub: 2018/0173125); and in further view of Grohmann et al (Comparison of roving-window and search-window techniques for characterising landscape morphometry, 2009).
Regarding claim 5 (original), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 4 has been incorporated herein. Ochiai in view of Yokozawa et al and Fukudome et al does not specify dividing patch into tiles. In the same field of endeavor, Grohmann et al teaches: The image forming apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the identifier calculates the standard deviation, by clipping out the information related to the sheet in a form of a patch of a predetermined size, and dividing the patch into equal to or larger than a predetermined number of tiles [page 1: p03, p04]. Grohmann et al prescribes a way of calculating standard deviation by breaking a region into uniform subregions, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to apply Grohmann et al’s partitioned uniform subregions to calculate standard deviation for computation efficiency.
Conclusion
6. There is a new ground of rejection necessitated by the corresponding amendment presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP 706.07(a).
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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 on 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 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.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
