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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/02/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 (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 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)(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, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kensuke Usui et al (US 20220305828 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Usui et al discloses a support apparatus that supports maintenance of a printing apparatus (¶ [50] printing control device), the support apparatus comprising:
at least one processor and at least a memory coupled to the at least one processor and having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor (¶ [51]), causes the processor to act as:
a printing execution unit configured to cause the printing apparatus to execute printing of a test pattern (¶ [46]; ¶ [16]);
a specifying unit configured to specify, based on the test pattern being printed, content of maintenance required for the printing apparatus (¶ [19] and ¶ [53]); and
a notification unit configured to notify based on the content being specified (¶ [59] notifying respective units to undergo maintenance based on previous determination; ¶ [67-68]).
Regarding claim 9, Usui et al discloses a method for a support apparatus that supports maintenance of a printing apparatus (see rejection of claim 1), the method comprising:
causing the printing apparatus to execute printing of a test pattern (see rejection of claim 1);
specifying, based on the test pattern being printed, content of maintenance required for the printing apparatus (see rejection of claim 1); and
notifying based on the content being specified (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Usui et al discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores one or more programs including instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of a support apparatus that supports maintenance of a printing apparatus, cause the support apparatus to perform a control method (¶ [50-51]), the control method comprising:
causing the printing apparatus to execute printing of a test pattern (see rejection of claim 1);
specifying, based on the test pattern being printed, content of maintenance required for the printing apparatus (see rejection of claim 1); and
notifying based on the content being specified (see rejection 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 (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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usui et al in view of Koji Adachi et al (JP 2007116670 A).
Regarding claim 2, Usui et al discloses the support apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Usui et al fails to explicitly disclose the at least one processor further acting as an image capturing unit configured to capture an image of a printed material output by the printing apparatus; a registration unit configured to register an image to be formed on the printed material as a correct image; and a comparison unit configured to compare the image of the printed material captured by the image capturing unit with the correct image, wherein the printing execution unit executes the printing of the test pattern based on a comparison result by the comparison unit.
Adachi et al, in the same field of endeavor of determining image quality of a printer by printing a test chart (¶ [3]), teaches an image capturing unit configured to capture an image of a printed material output by the printing apparatus (¶ [¶ [35]); a registration unit configured to register an image to be formed on the printed material as a correct image (¶ [11] reference images preliminarily registered); and a comparison unit configured to compare the image of the printed material captured by the image capturing unit with the correct image (¶ [11]), wherein the printing execution unit executes the printing of the test pattern based on a comparison result by the comparison unit (¶ [13] difference defect image pattern).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the support apparatus as disclosed by Usui et al comprising a printing execution unit, a specifying unit, and a notification unit to utilize the teachings of Adachi et al which teaches processor further acting as an image capturing unit configured to capture an image of a printed material output by the printing apparatus; a registration unit configured to register an image to be formed on the printed material as a correct image; and a comparison unit configured to compare the image of the printed material captured by the image capturing unit with the correct image, wherein the printing execution unit executes the printing of the test pattern based on a comparison result by the comparison unit to provide a failure inspection system that reduces the burden on users including service personnel and can specify a failure location with high accuracy.
Regarding claim 3, Usui et al discloses the support apparatus according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2), the at least one processor further acting as:
an adjustment unit configured to adjust a printing mode of the printing apparatus (¶ [59]) based on the comparison result by the comparison unit (see rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, Usui et al discloses the support apparatus according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2), the at least one processor further acting as:
a cleaning unit configured to clean a component of the printing apparatus (¶ [59]) based on the comparison result by the comparison unit (see rejection of claim 2).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usui et al in view of Adachi et al as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Masahito Yamamoto (JP 2004151885 A).
Regarding claim 5, Usui et al discloses the support apparatus according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2).
Usui et al fails to explicitly disclose the at least one processor further acting as a conversion unit configured to convert the content being specified into a code, wherein the notification unit outputs, as a notification, the code being converted to a predetermined external apparatus.
Yamamoto, in the same field of endeavor of maintaining print image quality of an image forming apparatus and notifying a maintenance entity based on quality results (¶ [1]), teaches at least one processor further acting as a conversion unit configured to convert the content being specified into a code, wherein the notification unit outputs, as a notification, the code being converted to a predetermined external apparatus (¶ [9-11]; ¶ [103] encoding maintenance instructions based on image quality results and transmitting to external device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the support apparatus as disclosed by Usui et al comprising a printing execution unit, a specifying unit, and a notification unit to utilize the teachings of Yamamoto which teaches at least one processor further acting as a conversion unit configured to convert the content being specified into a code, wherein the notification unit outputs, as a notification, the code being converted to a predetermined external apparatus to expand image quality diagnosis and repair from remote locations thereby broadening the reach of the maintenance techniques to devices not directly connected to the maintenance system.
Regarding claim 6, Usui et al discloses the support apparatus according to claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5), wherein the conversion unit generates the code based on the comparison result by the comparison unit (see rejection of claim 5 wherein the encoded information is maintenance information in accordance with the comparison of the test print pattern and stored image quality data).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usui et al in view of Masahito Yamamoto (JP 2004151885 A).
Regarding claim 7, Usui et al discloses the support apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Usui et al fails to explicitly disclose the at least one processor further acting as a counting unit configured to count a number of operations performed by the printing apparatus, wherein the printing execution unit causes the printing of the test pattern to be executed based on a counter value by the counting unit.
Yamamoto discloses a counting unit configured to count a number of operations performed by the printing apparatus (¶ [20]), wherein the printing execution unit causes the printing of the test pattern to be executed based on a counter value by the counting unit (¶ [20] and ¶ [51-52]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the support apparatus as disclosed by Usui et al comprising a printing execution unit, a specifying unit, and a notification unit to utilize the teachings of Yamamoto which teaches a counting unit configured to count a number of operations performed by the printing apparatus, wherein the printing execution unit causes the printing of the test pattern to be executed based on a counter value by the counting unit to ensure maintenance is performed periodically and avoid wasteful processing.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usui et al in view of Yamamoto as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Naoshi Fukumuro (JP 2019200306 A).
Regarding claim 8, Usui et al discloses the support apparatus according to claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7).
Usui et al fails to explicitly disclose the at least one processor further acting as a setting unit configured to set priority of the printing of the test pattern in execution of the printing by the printing apparatus, wherein, in a case where the counter value reaches a threshold value during the execution of the printing by the printing apparatus, the printing execution unit determines, based on the set priority, whether to execute the printing of the test pattern.
Fukumuro, in the same field of endeavor of performing image diagnosis and detecting image defect utilizing printed test patterns (lines 14-25), a setting unit configured to set priority of the printing of the test pattern in execution of the printing by the printing apparatus, wherein, in a case where the counter value reaches a threshold value during the execution of the printing by the printing apparatus, the printing execution unit determines, based on the set priority, whether to execute the printing of the test pattern (lines [449-458] and lines [790-793]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the support apparatus as disclosed by Usui et al comprising a printing execution unit, a specifying unit, and a notification unit to utilize the teachings of Fukumuro which teaches a setting unit configured to set priority of the printing of the test pattern in execution of the printing by the printing apparatus, wherein, in a case where the counter value reaches a threshold value during the execution of the printing by the printing apparatus, the printing execution unit determines, based on the set priority, whether to execute the printing of the test pattern to ensure diagnostic processing is performed as desired wherein printing will not be interrupted.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMARES Q WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMARES Q WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
March 6, 2026