DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or 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 .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this amended application.
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.
4. Claims 1-10, 12-13, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai, US Pub 2020/0072759 in view of Ikuta, US Pub 2020/0096925.
As to claim 1[independent], Kawai teaches an image inspection apparatus comprising circuitry configured to [fig. 2, elements 200, 11; 0030, 0035, 0042 Kawai teaches that the inspection apparatus 200]:
acquire a first image and a second image [figs. 2-3, 15-18; 0037, 0058 Kawai teaches that the image inspection apparatus 200 acquires by reading images of first & second sides of printed sheet, and the first image of first side is generated at a first time at conveyance unit, while the second image of second side is generated at a later or second time at conveyance unit],
the first image being generated by reading, at a first timing, an image formed on a first side of a print medium [figs. 2-3, 15-18; 0037, 0058 Kawai teaches that the image inspection apparatus 200 acquires by reading images of first & second sides of printed sheet, and the first image of first side is generated at a first time at conveyance unit, while the second image of second side is generated at a later or second time at conveyance unit],
the second image being generated by reading, at a second timing later than the first timing, an image formed on a second side of the print medium reversed along a conveyance direction of the print medium [figs. 2-3, 15-18; 0037, 0058 Kawai teaches that the image inspection apparatus 200 acquires by reading images of first & second sides of printed sheet, and the first image of first side is generated at a first time at conveyance unit, while the second image of second side is generated at a later or second time at conveyance unit];
Kawai doesn’t teach receive, for a first inspection area within which the first image is to be inspected, input information defining a first inspection exclusion area including predetermined processing performed on the print medium; and
set, based on the received input information defining the first inspection exclusion area and received for the first inspection area, a second inspection exclusion area to be excluded from inspection of the second image.
Ikuta teaches receive, for a first inspection area within which the first image is to be inspected, input information defining a first inspection exclusion area including predetermined processing performed on the print medium [figs. 9-12, fig.13, steps 210, 250; 0080-0092, 0101-0104, 0105, 0112 Ikuta teaches that on display device (e.g., figs. 9-10 & paras., 0080-0092) the user at least sets or enters the exclusion areas information or settings related to a first & second inspection areas related to the exclusion areas (e.g., figs. 11-12) for the first & second sides of the first & second images and executing the predetermined process i.e. to apply image inspection to the printed image on the printed sheet, other than the image inspection excluded areas (e.g., figs. 11-12, elements EDA, FDA, BDA, and IPDA) of each page having first and second sides (e.g., figs. 11-12) according to inspection settings inputted by the user as shown in fig. 9-10]; and
set, based on the received input information defining the first inspection exclusion area and received for the first inspection area, a second inspection exclusion area to be excluded from inspection of the second image [figs. 9-12, fig.13, steps 210, 250; 0080-0092, 0101-0104, 0105, 0112 Ikuta teaches that on display device (e.g., figs. 9-10 & paras., 0080-0092) the user at least sets or enters the exclusion areas information or settings related to a first & second inspection areas related to the exclusion areas (e.g., figs. 11-12) for the first & second sides of the first & second images and executing the predetermined process i.e. to apply image inspection to the printed image on the printed sheet, other than the image inspection excluded areas (e.g., figs. 11-12, elements EDA, FDA, BDA, and IPDA) of each page having first and second sides (e.g., figs. 11-12) according to inspection settings inputted by the user as shown in fig. 9-10].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ikuta teaching to set information on display related to inspection of printed sheet having images on both side of the sheet for print jobs stored in plural servers to modify Kawai’s teaching to inspect the image read by an imager and sets the settings for the inspection related to an edge portion of the sheet as an image inspection excluded area that is excluded from targets for inspection of the image and further out the inspected results on display. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to have inspection apparatus with display which lets the user visually check if there is the problem with the actual printed material produced by proof printing, thus, suppressing the occurrence of false detection in image inspection.
As to claim 2 [dependent from claim 1], Ikuta teaches wherein the input information defining the first inspection exclusion area includes a width of the first inspection exclusion area including the predetermined processing performed on the print medium and a plurality of coordinates indicating the width [figs. 9-10; 0080-0092, 0101-0104, 0105, 0112 Ikuta teaches that on display device (e.g., figs. 9-10), the user at least sets or enters the exclusion areas information such as width information indicating multiple coordinates related to a first & second inspection areas related to the exclusion areas (e.g., figs. 11-12) for the first & second sides of the first & second images].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ikuta teaching to set information on display related to inspection of printed sheet having images on both side of the sheet for print jobs stored in plural servers to modify Kawai’s teaching to inspect the image read by an imager and sets the settings for the inspection related to an edge portion of the sheet as an image inspection excluded area that is excluded from targets for inspection of the image and further out the inspected results on display. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to have inspection apparatus with display which lets the user visually check if there is the problem with the actual printed material produced by proof printing, thus, suppressing the occurrence of false detection in image inspection.
As to claim 3 [dependent from claim 1], Ikuta teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to set the second inspection exclusion area based on the input information defining the first inspection exclusion area and received for the first inspection area and length information indicating a length of the print medium along the conveyance direction [figs. 9-10; 0080-0092, 0101-0104, 0105, 0112 Ikuta teaches that on display device (e.g., figs. 9-10), the user at least sets or enters the exclusion areas information such as width & length information indicating multiple coordinates related to a first & second inspection areas related to the exclusion areas (e.g., figs. 11-12) for the first & second sides of the first & second images].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ikuta teaching to set information on display related to inspection of printed sheet having images on both side of the sheet for print jobs stored in plural servers to modify Kawai’s teaching to inspect the image read by an imager and sets the settings for the inspection related to an edge portion of the sheet as an image inspection excluded area that is excluded from targets for inspection of the image and further out the inspected results on display. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to have inspection apparatus with display which lets the user visually check if there is the problem with the actual printed material produced by proof printing, thus, suppressing the occurrence of false detection in image inspection.
As to claim 4 [dependent from claim 1], Ikuta teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to, in response to an operation of collectively setting the second inspection exclusion area, set the second inspection exclusion area to one of the print medium and a predetermined entire job forming the print medium [figs. 9-13; pages 7-12 Ikuta teaches that on display device (e.g., figs. 9-10), the user at least sets or enters the exclusion areas information related to a first & second inspection areas related to the exclusion areas (e.g., figs. 11-12) for the first & second sides of the first & second images].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ikuta teaching to set information on display related to inspection of printed sheet having images on both side of the sheet for print jobs stored in plural servers to modify Kawai’s teaching to inspect the image read by an imager and sets the settings for the inspection related to an edge portion of the sheet as an image inspection excluded area that is excluded from targets for inspection of the image and further out the inspected results on display. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to have inspection apparatus with display which lets the user visually check if there is the problem with the actual printed material produced by proof printing, thus, suppressing the occurrence of false detection in image inspection.
As to claim 5 [dependent from claim 1], Kawai teaches wherein the predetermined processing includes at least one of perforation, hole formation, corner rounding, or embossing formed on the print medium [0004, 0030-0032 Kawai teaches that the printer 100 performed predetermined processing embossing formed on the sheet].
As to claim 6 [dependent from claim 1], Kawai teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to inspect the first image and the second image [figs. 2-3, 15-18; 0037, 0058 Kawai teaches that the image inspection apparatus 200 acquires by reading images of first & second sides of printed sheet, and the first image of first side is generated at a first time at conveyance unit, while the second image of second side is generated at a later or second time at conveyance unit].
As to claim 7 [dependent from claim 1], Kawai teaches an image inspection system comprising [fig. 1; 0030]:
an image forming apparatus [fig. 1, element 100; 0030]; and
the image inspection apparatus according to claim 1 [fig. 1, element 200; 0030],
the image forming apparatus including [fig. 1, element 100; 0030]:
an image forming engine to form an image on the print medium based on input image data [0004, 0030-0032 Kawai teaches that inkjethead 101 of the printer 100 performed predetermined processing that is forming image on the sheet];
image forming device circuitry configured to perform control to perform the predetermined processing on the print medium [0004, 0030-0032 Kawai teaches that inkjethead 101 of the printer 100 performed predetermined processing that is forming image on the sheet]; and
Kawai doesn’t teach an operation device to accept, for the first inspection area within which the first image formed on the first side is to be inspected, an input of the input information defining the first inspection exclusion area including the predetermined processing performed on the print medium, and
the image forming device circuitry being configured to transmit the accepted input information to the image inspection apparatus.
Ikuta teaches an operation device to accept, for the first inspection area within which the first image formed on the first side is to be inspected, an input of the input information defining the first inspection exclusion area including the predetermined processing performed on the print medium [figs. 9-12, fig.13, steps 210, 250; 0080-0092, 0101-0104, 0105, 0112 Ikuta teaches that on display device (e.g., figs. 9-10 & paras., 0080-0092) the user at least sets or enters the exclusion areas information or settings related to a first & second inspection areas related to the exclusion areas (e.g., figs. 11-12) for the first & second sides of the first & second images and executing the predetermined process i.e. to apply image inspection to the printed image on the printed sheet, other than the image inspection excluded areas (e.g., figs. 11-12, elements EDA, FDA, BDA, and IPDA) of each page having first and second sides (e.g., figs. 11-12) according to inspection settings inputted by the user as shown in fig. 9-10], and
the image forming device circuitry being configured to transmit the accepted input information to the image inspection apparatus [fig. 1; 0046, 0051, 0064 Ikuta teaches that the printer 20 transmits the printed sheet and the user set or entered exclusion areas information related to the first & second inspection areas to the inspection device 30].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ikuta teaching to set information on display related to inspection of printed sheet having images on both side of the sheet for print jobs stored in plural servers to modify Kawai’s teaching to inspect the image read by an imager and sets the settings for the inspection related to an edge portion of the sheet as an image inspection excluded area that is excluded from targets for inspection of the image and further out the inspected results on display. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to have inspection apparatus with display which lets the user visually check if there is the problem with the actual printed material produced by proof printing, thus, suppressing the occurrence of false detection in image inspection.
As to claim 8 [dependent from claim 7], Ikuta teaches wherein the image forming device circuitry of the image forming apparatus is configured to:
receive inspection screen data representing a result of inspection relating to at least one of the first image or the second image inspected by the image inspection apparatus [0080-0092, 0101-0104, 0105, 0112 Ikuta teaches that the inspection results related to both sides of the sheet is displayed]; and
display the received inspection screen data on a display [0080-0092, 0101-0104, 0105, 0112 Ikuta teaches that the inspection results related to both sides of the sheet is displayed].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ikuta teaching to set information on display related to inspection of printed sheet having images on both side of the sheet for print jobs stored in plural servers to modify Kawai’s teaching to inspect the image read by an imager and sets the settings for the inspection related to an edge portion of the sheet as an image inspection excluded area that is excluded from targets for inspection of the image and further out the inspected results on display. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to have inspection apparatus with display which lets the user visually check if there is the problem with the actual printed material produced by proof printing, thus, suppressing the occurrence of false detection in image inspection.
As to claims 9-10 [independent], However, the independent claims 9-10 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the independent claim 1 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the independent claims 9-10 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the independent claim 1.
As to claim 12 [dependent from claim 1], Kawai teaches comprising a single reading device disposed to face one side of the print medium, the single reading device comprising a mirror, a lens, and a pixel array [0087],
wherein the single reading device is configured to
read the first side of the print medium at the first timing to generate the first image [figs. 2-3, 15-18; 0037, 0058 Kawai teaches that the image inspection apparatus 200 acquires by reading images of first & second sides of printed sheet, and the first image of first side is generated at a first time at conveyance unit, while the second image of second side is generated at a later or second time at conveyance unit], and
read the second side of the print medium at the second timing to generate the second image after the print medium has been reversed along the conveyance direction [figs. 2-3, 15-18; 0037, 0058 Kawai teaches that the image inspection apparatus 200 acquires by reading images of first & second sides of printed sheet, and the first image of first side is generated at a first time at conveyance unit, while the second image of second side is generated at a later or second time at conveyance unit].
As to claim 13 [dependent from claim 1], Ikuta teaches wherein the input information defining the first inspection exclusion area includes a horizontal width and a vertical width of the first inspection exclusion area, and a horizontal position and a vertical position of the first inspection exclusion area on the first side of the print medium [figs. 9-10; 0080-0092, 0101-0104, 0105, 0112 Ikuta teaches that on display device (e.g., figs. 9-10), the user at least sets or enters the exclusion areas information such as width & length information indicating multiple coordinates related to a first & second inspection areas related to the exclusion areas (e.g., figs. 11-12) for the first & second sides of the first & second images].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ikuta teaching to set information on display related to inspection of printed sheet having images on both side of the sheet for print jobs stored in plural servers to modify Kawai’s teaching to inspect the image read by an imager and sets the settings for the inspection related to an edge portion of the sheet as an image inspection excluded area that is excluded from targets for inspection of the image and further out the inspected results on display. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to have inspection apparatus with display which lets the user visually check if there is the problem with the actual printed material produced by proof printing, thus, suppressing the occurrence of false detection in image inspection.
As to claim 17 [dependent from claim 1], Ikuta teaches a memory storing an inspection exclusion area management database [fig. 2, element 51 & fig. 13, step 220; 0052, 0103 Ikuta teaches that the memory stores information of the first & second exclusion areas],
wherein the circuitry is configured to store the set second inspection exclusion area as a new entry in the inspection exclusion area management database [fig. 2, element 51 & fig. 13, step 220; 0052, 0103 Ikuta teaches that the memory stores information of the first & second exclusion areas].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ikuta teaching to set information on display related to inspection of printed sheet having images on both side of the sheet for print jobs stored in plural servers to modify Kawai’s teaching to inspect the image read by an imager and sets the settings for the inspection related to an edge portion of the sheet as an image inspection excluded area that is excluded from targets for inspection of the image and further out the inspected results on display. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to have inspection apparatus with display which lets the user visually check if there is the problem with the actual printed material produced by proof printing, thus, suppressing the occurrence of false detection in image inspection.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 11, 14-16, 18-20 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
6. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The dependent claim 11 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein, in a case where the predetermined processing is positioned asymmetrically with respect to a bisector of the print medium in the conveyance direction, the circuitry is configured to set the second inspection exclusion area at a position in the conveyance direction that differs from a corresponding position of the first inspection exclusion area in the conveyance direction”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 14 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “a memory storing an inspection exclusion area management database, wherein the circuitry is configured to read, from the inspection exclusion area management database, a non-detection horizontal width, a non-detection vertical width, a non- detection horizontal position, and a non-detection vertical position corresponding to the first inspection exclusion area using one of (i) an identifier of the print medium and (ii) a size of the print medium combined with a processing type, as a search key”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 15 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the predetermined processing is positioned asymmetrically with respect to a bisector of the print medium in the conveyance direction”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 16 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the predetermined processing includes a perforation formed along the conveyance direction, and the circuitry is configured to set a position of the second inspection exclusion area along the conveyance direction equal to a position of the first inspection exclusion area along the conveyance direction”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 18 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the circuitry is configured to generate inspection screen data and transmit the inspection screen data to an image forming apparatus, and the inspection screen data includes a thumbnail image of at least one of the first image or the second image, and an object indicating a location of an abnormality detected in the at least one of the first image or the second image, the object being displayed on the thumbnail image”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 19 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the circuitry is configured to set the second inspection exclusion area at a position on the second side of the print medium corresponding to a 180-degree flip of the first inspection exclusion area about a bisector of the print medium along the conveyance direction”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 20 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the print medium has a long side parallel to the conveyance direction, and the predetermined processing comprises two holes formed on the long side, the two holes being positioned asymmetrically with respect to a bisector of the print medium in the conveyance direction”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
However, on pages 10-11 of the REMARKS/ARGUMENTS, applicant argued that the applied arts Kawai (US Pub 2020/0072759) & Ikuta (US Pub 2020/0096925) failed to disclose or suggest the claim limitations of claims 1, 9-10 recited “receive, for a first inspection area within which the first image is to be inspected, input information defining a first inspection exclusion area including predetermined processing performed on the print medium; and set, based on the received input information defining the first inspection exclusion area and received for the first inspection area, a second inspection exclusion area to be excluded from inspection of the second image” either alone nor in combination. Applicant further on pages 10-11, explained that applied prior arts do not teach above claimed limitations, provided reasons that how and why applied arts are not suggesting the above claim limitations. Particularly the applied prior art Ikuta (US Pub 2020/0096925) suggested an inspection-area setting screen that allows the user to configure several categories of image inspection exclusion areas. Through a target-face selector, the user can choose "front surface," "back surface," or "designated page" as the target surface and then enter exclusion-area values for the selected target.
In response to the applicant’s argument, examiner would respectfully disagree with the applicant’s argument, because first of all the examiner is not bound to import specification definition or information on to the claimed invention. The examiner view or review the specification to understand the claimed invention and are bound to give broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to the claim(s) in view of the specification and over the applied prior arts. The claim limitations recited “receive, for a first inspection area within which the first image is to be inspected, input information defining a first inspection exclusion area including predetermined processing performed on the print medium”, interpreted by Examiner that the circuitry receives (by the user on the display screen) information for excluding first inspection area including predetermined processing performed on the sheet. The claimed limitation “predetermined process” doesn’t describe or explained that what is the predetermined processing, and how it performed on the sheet.
However, the applied Prior art Ikuta reasonably suggesting at least in figs. 9-12, fig.13, steps 210, 250 & paras., 0080-0092, 0101-0104, 0105, 0112 that on display device (e.g., figs. 9-10 & paras., 0080-0092) the user at least sets or enters the exclusion areas information or settings related to a first & second inspection areas related to the exclusion areas (e.g., figs. 11-12) for the first & second sides of the first & second images and executing the predetermined process i.e. to apply image inspection to the printed image on the printed sheet, other than the image inspection excluded areas (e.g., figs. 11-12, elements EDA, FDA, BDA, and IPDA) of each page having first and second sides (e.g., figs. 11-12) according to inspection settings inputted by the user as shown in fig. 9-10.
The claim limitations recited “set, based on the received input information defining the first inspection exclusion area and received for the first inspection area, a second inspection exclusion area to be excluded from inspection of the second image”, interpreted by Examiner that the circuitry receives (by the user on the display screen) information for excluding second inspection area from the second image.
However, the applied Prior art Ikuta reasonably suggesting at least in figs. 9-12, fig.13, steps 210, 250 & paras., 0080-0092, 0101-0104, 0105, 0112 that on display device (e.g., figs. 9-10 & paras., 0080-0092) the user at least sets or enters the exclusion areas information or settings related to a first & second inspection areas related to the exclusion areas (e.g., figs. 11-12) for the first & second sides of the first & second images and executing the predetermined process i.e. to apply image inspection to the printed image on the printed sheet, other than the image inspection excluded areas (e.g., figs. 11-12, elements EDA, FDA, BDA, and IPDA) of each page having first and second sides (e.g., figs. 11-12) according to inspection settings inputted by the user as shown in fig. 9-10.
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARIS SABAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday/Friday from 9:00AM to 5:30PM EST.
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. The Examiner’s personal fax number is (571)270-4917.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HARIS SABAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights