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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed is acknowledged, the references therein relating to the general background of applicant’s invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
1) Claim(s) 1-8 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. patent application publication 2023/0177672 by Nakamura.
2) Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches an inspection device configured to inspect image data generated by a reading device, comprising: a controller having one or more processors that execute instructions stored in one or more memories, the controller being configured to: register received image data as reference image data (paragraph 50; figure 4, item S401; reference image is registered); on the reference image data registered, set a first region for conducting a matching inspection (paragraph 54; figure 5A; inspection areas are selected, paragraph 52 discloses that image inspecting involves comparing [i.e. “matching”] to the reference data), and, upon receiving an instruction for a matching inspection, generate a second region having a same setting as the first region set (paragraph 62; selected inspection area can be selectively applied to more page surfaces); on image data generated by the reading device from a printed material with image formed, extract data from a region corresponding to the first region and from a region corresponding to the second region (paragraph 45; image data is read from top surface and bottom surface of a sheet consisting of formed images); and check whether the data extracted from the region corresponding to the first region matches the data extracted from the region corresponding to the second region (paragraph 52; each read image can be compared with the same reference data thereby determining a “match”).
3) Regarding claim 2, Nakamura teaches the inspection device according to Claim 1, wherein: the controller is configured to check whether the data extracted from the region corresponding to the first region and the data extracted from the region corresponding to the second region match data prepared in advance (paragraph 52; reference image is prepared in advance and is compared against multiple sheet images).
4) Regarding claim 3, Nakamura teaches the inspection device according to Claim 1, wherein: an inspection parameter is set for the first region, and the controller is configured to generate the second region having a same inspection parameter as the first region (paragraph 62; region selected can be applied to multiple pages giving said pages the same inspection parameters).
5) Regarding claim 4, Nakamura teaches the inspection device according to Claim 1, wherein: the second region is generated within a same page as a page where the first region is set (paragraph 62; can be applied to front and rear of a same sheet).
6) Regarding claim 5, Nakamura teaches the inspection device according to Claim 1, wherein: the second region is generated on a page different from a page where the first region is set (paragraph 62; can be applied to all pages).
7) Regarding claim 6, Nakamura teaches the inspection device according to Claim 1, wherein: the second region is generated on a different page of a same sheet as a page where the first region is set (paragraph 62; can be applied to front and rear of a same sheet).
8) Regarding claim 7, Nakamura teaches the inspection device according to Claim 1, further comprising: a display configured to display a screen, wherein a setting change to the second region is accepted on the display (figure 5A; all selections shown affect the second region, in particular selection 509).
9) Regarding claim 8, Nakamura teaches the inspection device according to Claim 1, further comprising: a display configured to display a screen, wherein the controller is configured to set the first region by accepting an operator's operation on a reference image displayed on the display (figure 5A; paragraph 56; first region is selected through the GUI).
10) Claims 11 and 12 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
11) Claim 13 taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, with the exception of: an inspection unit configured to inspect image data generated by a reading unit (figure 1, item 106; paragraph 27; an inspection unit).
12) Regarding claim 14, Nakamura teaches the inspection system according to Claim 13, further comprising: an image forming unit configured to form an image on paper; and a conveyance unit configured to convey the paper with the image formed by the image forming unit, wherein the reading unit is configured to read the image on the paper conveyed by the conveyance unit (paragraphs 44 and 45; images are formed, conveyed and then read by the inspection device).
13) Claims 15-19 are taught in the same manner as described in the rejections of claims 2, 3 and 6-8 above, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
14) Claim(s) 9, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent application publication 2023/0177672 by Nakamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication 2024/0380850 by Goto.
15) Regarding claim 9, Nakamura does not specifically teach the inspection device according to Claim 1, further comprising: a display configured to display a screen, wherein, upon receiving an instruction for a matching inspection, a front side and a back side of a read image are displayed side by side on the display.
Goto teaches the inspection device according to Claim 1, further comprising: a display configured to display a screen, wherein, upon receiving an instruction for a matching inspection, a front side and a back side of a read image are displayed side by side on the display (figure 11; paragraph 123; instruction for image inspection can be received while displaying front and back face as shown).
Nakamura and Goto are combinable because they are both from the printer image inspection field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine Nakamura with Goto to add display of front/back of a page. The motivation for doing so would have been to visually inform a user. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Nakamura with Goto to obtain the invention of claim 9.
16) Regarding claim 10, Goto (as combined with Nakamura in the rejection of claim 9 above) teaches the inspection device according to Claim 9 wherein: the controller is configured to generate the second region with a same setting as the first region in response to selection of the first region displayed on the display and then an operation on a certain object indicating an instruction for a matching inspection (figure 11; paragraph 123; instruction for image inspection can be received while displaying front and back face as shown).
17) Claim 20 is taught in the same manner as described in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN O DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2874. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571)270-5254. 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.
BENJAMIN O. DULANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/BENJAMIN O DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights