CTNF 18/671,302 CTNF 84222 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112 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. Claim limitations “a reception unit”, “an inspection unit”, “a setting unit, “a storage unit”, “composition processing unit”, “transmission unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-8 and 10-12 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “a reception unit”, “an inspection unit”, “a setting unit, “a storage unit” disclosed in Paragraph [0028] in applicant’s specification as printing apparatus 101. “composition processing unit”, “transmission unit” disclosed in Paragraph [0085] in applicant’s specification as the information processing apparatus. 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 § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto US2022/0012867 in view of Ohira et al. US2023/0401407 hereinafter referred to as Ohira and Devlieghere et al. US2022/0253654 hereinafter referred to as Devlieghere . As per Claim 1 , Tsukamoto teaches an inspection apparatus comprising: a reception unit configured to receive a read image acquired by reading, with a reading unit, (Tsukatmoto, Paragraph [0099], “The image inspection section 126 inspects a read image according to an instruction from the controller 122”) each of printed products which are sequentially conveyed and received from an image forming unit; (Tsukamoto, Paragraph [0073], “The ADF 300, which includes an ADF controller 301 which controls the ADF 300 according to a control signal from the image control CPU 101, automatically supplies the originals placed on an original tray (not shown) onto the contact glass of the scanner 200 sheet by sheet”) an inspection unit configured to inspect each of the printed products based on the read image and a preliminarily registered reference image; (Tsukamoto, Paragraph [0094], “On the other hand, in the proof mode, processing is performed so that the read image generated by reading the sheet first printed by the image forming device 1 subjected to calibration setup alteration, etc. is used as a proofing image (hereinafter called “reference image”). The time to generate a reference image in the proof mode is, for example, before production printing is started. Generally, the image printed on a sheet by the image forming device 1 in the proof mode is visually checked by the user to determine whether it is normal or not, and if it is normal, the read image from that sheet is used as a reference image. After that, a read image is inspected by comparison with the reference image. wherein the inspection unit inspects a printed product (Tsukamoto, Paragraph [0094]) Tsukamoto does not explicitly teach a setting unit configured to set an inspection region targeted for an inspection to be performed by the inspection unit; and a storage unit configured to store information about the inspection region for a first image which is repeatedly used, based on the inspection region set by the setting unit and the inspection region for the first image the information about which has been stored in the storage unit. Ohira teaches a setting unit configured to set an inspection region targeted for an inspection to be performed by the inspection unit; and a storage unit configured to store information about the inspection region for a first image which is repeatedly used, (Ohira, Paragraph [0019], “An information processing apparatus of the exemplary embodiment has a function of receiving, from a user, region setting for an inspection of the printing result of a job. In the region setting, the setting of an inspection target region to be inspected and an inspection exception region to be excepted from the inspection or both is received. Hereinafter, the inspection target region and the inspection exception region are collectively referred to as an inspection-related region”) based on the inspection region set by the setting unit and the inspection region for the first image the information about which has been stored in the storage unit. (Ohira, Paragraph [0019]) Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Ohira into Tsukamoto because by specifying a inspection region/area instead of the entire printed product will expedite the time needed to inspect the desirable areas of the printed product. Tsukamoto in view of Ohira does not explicitly teach in which a third image obtained by combining the first image and a second image with each other has been printed, Devlieghere teaches in which a third image obtained by combining the first image and a second image with each other has been printed, (Devlieghere, Paragraph [0050], “The printing of the first print job 110 may comprise Raster Image Processing, RIP, of the first image data and screening of the processed first image data for generating first print data, wherein the first image data is merged with image data for the at least one first control patch so that the first print data includes print data for printing the at least one first control patch 130”, control patch is the first image) Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Devlieghere into Tsukamoto in view of Ohira because by utilizing a control patch to be integrated into the print data to be printed will provide quality control and indication to correct the print system if needed. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the three references to obtain the invention in Claim 1. As per Claim 2 , Tsukamoto in view of Ohira and Devlieghere teaches the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inspection apparatus further comprises a display control unit configured to display a screen on a display unit, wherein the setting unit receives an instruction for an inspection region on the reference image displayed on the display unit by the display control unit, thereby performing setting of the inspection region, and wherein, with respect to a third image obtained by a first image which is repeatedly used between pages and a second image with each other, (Devlieghere, Paragraph [0050]), the display control unit displays an inspection region based on the information stored in the storage unit on an image equivalent to the first image included in the third image displayed on the display unit. (Ohira, Figure 2, Paragraph [0019]) The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. As per Claim 3 , Tsukamoto in view of Ohira and Devlieghere teaches the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the storage unit stores setting of an inspection region set from a user on the first image by the setting unit, as information about the inspection region for the first image which is repeatedly used. (Ohira, Figure 2, Paragraph [0019], “An information processing apparatus of the exemplary embodiment has a function of receiving, from a user, region setting for an inspection of the printing result of a job. In the region setting, the setting of an inspection target region to be inspected and an inspection exception region to be excepted from the inspection or both is received. Hereinafter, the inspection target region and the inspection exception region are collectively referred to as an inspection-related region”) The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. As per Claim 4 , Tsukamoto in view of Ohira and Devlieghere teaches the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first image which is repeatedly used is combined with all of the pages of a print job configured with one or a plurality of pages. (Tsukamoto, Figure 6, Figure 7, Paragraph [0073], [0094]) The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. As per Claim 5 , Tsukamoto in view of Ohira and Devlieghere teaches the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the storage unit stores information about the inspection region for the first image which is repeatedly used while associating the information with a specific identifier, and wherein, upon receiving a specific identifier, (Devlieghere, Paragraph [0050], [0056]) the inspection unit inspects a printed product in which the third image has been printed, based on the inspection region set by the setting unit and the inspection region for the first image associated with the specific identifier stored in the storage unit. (Ohira, Figure 2, Paragraph [0019]) The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. As per Claim 6 , Tsukamoto in view of Ohira and Devlieghere teaches the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inspection apparatus is configured to connect to an information processing apparatus in such a way as to be able to communicate with the information processing apparatus, wherein the information processing apparatus includes a composition processing unit configured to combine the first image and the second image with each other, and wherein, upon receiving the first image and an instruction for composition processing from a user, the information processing apparatus causes the composition processing unit to combine the first image and the second image with each other to generate the third image. (Devlieghere, Paragraph [0050], [0056]) The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. As per Claim 7 , Tsukamoto in view of Ohira and Devlieghere teaches the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first image which is repeatedly used is a master data image. (Devlieghere, Paragraph [0050], “The printing of the first print job 110 may comprise Raster Image Processing, RIP, of the first image data and screening of the processed first image data for generating first print data, wherein the first image data is merged with image data for the at least one first control patch so that the first print data includes print data for printing the at least one first control patch 130”, control patch is the first image) The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. As per Claim 8 , Tsukamoto in view of Ohira and Devlieghere teaches the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inspection apparatus is configured to connect to a printing apparatus in such a way as to be able to communicate with the printing apparatus, and wherein the printing apparatus includes at least the image forming unit and the reading unit. (Tsukamoto, Figure 4, 128, 129 and 126) The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. As per Claim 9 , Claim 9 claims control method for an inspection apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 1. As per Claim 10 , Claim 10 claims an inspection system including at least an information processing apparatus and an inspection apparatus, Tsukamoto in view of Ohira and Devlieghere wherein the inspection apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 1. Tsukamoto in view of Ohira and Devlieghere further teaches wherein the information processing apparatus comprises: a composition processing unit configured to, upon receiving, from a user, an instruction for composition processing for a first image which is repeatedly used between pages and a second image, combine the first image and the second image with each other to generate a third image; (Devlieghere, Paragraph [0050], [0056]) and a transmission unit configured to transmit the third image generated by the composition processing unit together with an identifier corresponding to the first image to the inspection apparatus, (Tsukamoto, Figure 4, 128, 129 and 126) As per Claim 11 , Tsukamoto in view of Ohira and Devlieghere teaches the inspection system according to claim 10, wherein the inspection apparatus further comprises a display control unit configured to display a screen on a display unit, wherein the setting unit performs setting of the inspection region on the reference image displayed on the display unit by the display control unit, (Tsukamoto, Figure 1 and 11) and wherein, upon receiving the third image together with the identifier, (Devlieghere, Paragraph [0050], [0056]) the display control unit displays an inspection region based on the information stored in the storage unit on an image equivalent to the first image included in the third image displayed on the display unit. (Ohira, Figure 2, Paragraph [0019]) The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 10 has been incorporated herein. As per Claim 12 , Tsukamoto in view of Ohira and Devlieghere teaches the inspection system according to claim 10, wherein, in the information processing apparatus, upon receiving an instruction for combining a first image which is repeatedly used between pages with a print job configured with one or a plurality of pages, the composition processing unit combines the first image with each page of the print job. (Devlieghere, Paragraph [0050], [0056] and Tsukamoto, Paragraph [0073]) The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 10 has been incorporated herein. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING HON whose telephone number is (571)270-5245. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 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, Emily Terrell can be reached on 571-270-3717. 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. /MING Y HON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/671,302 Page 2 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/671,302 Page 3 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/671,302 Page 4 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/671,302 Page 5 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/671,302 Page 6 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/671,302 Page 7 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/671,302 Page 8 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/671,302 Page 9 Art Unit: 2666 Application/Control Number: 18/671,302 Page 10 Art Unit: 2666
Prosecution Insights