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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 7-9 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokumaru (US 20140168709). Ohkawa (US 20240104716) IMOTO et al. (JP2005041122) in view of Weiss (US 20040201211)
Regarding claim 1, Imoto teaches an inspection apparatus comprising:
one or more controllers including one or more processors and one or more memories, the one or more controllers configured to cause the inspection apparatus to:
print an inspection image on a pre-printed sheet on which information of a specific color is printed in advance (p0003: a reference image, which is the original information, is printed on pre-printed paper with the form already printed on it, and the resulting printout is imaged to capture the inspection image); scan the pre-printed sheet on which the inspection image is printed (p0003: resulting printout is imaged to capture the inspection image); remove the specific color included in a scanned image that is scanned; and inspect, based on a reference image, the scanned image obtained after the specific color is removed (p0003:comparing the image with the preprinted portion of this inspection image masked).
Imoto does not teach pre-printed sheet is specific color printed.
Weiss teaches pre-printed sheet is specific color printed (p0007: one or more standard first color bars pre-printed on the sheet).
Imoto and Weiss are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Imoto with the teaching of Weiss for purpose provides a quick check to ensure that the color being output by a marking engine on specially prepared proofing material is within acceptable calibration limits (p0006).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1, therefore it is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, The structural elements of apparatus claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 9. Thus, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Imoto teaches the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the reference image is an image corresponding to an image printed on the pre-printed sheet which does not include the information of the specific color (p0003: a reference image, which is the original information, is printed on pre-printed paper with the form already printed on it).
Regarding claim 16, The structural elements of apparatus claim 8 perform all of the steps of method claim 16. Thus, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 7, Imoto teaches the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more controllers cause the inspection apparatus to inspect, based on a result of comparison between the reference image and the image obtained after the specific color is removed, whether a defect is present or absent in the image obtained after the specific color is removed (p0003:comparing the image with the preprinted portion of this inspection image masked).
Claims 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imoto and Weiss as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Urano et al. (US 20130343632).
Regarding claim 2, Imoto in view of Weiss does not teach the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the reference image is generated from the inspection image.
Urano teaches wherein the reference image is generated from the inspection image (claim 6: a reference image generated by the inspection image and reference image generating means).
Imoto in view of Weiss and Urano are combinable because they both deal with inpspection apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Imoto with the teaching of Weiss for purpose of Defects can be detected correctly (abstract).
Regarding claim 10, The structural elements of apparatus claim 2 perform all of the steps of method claim 10. Thus, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 3-4 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imoto and Weiss as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leon (US 20130343632).
Regarding claim 3, Imoto and Weiss does not teach the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the specific color is set via a user interface.
Leon teaches wherein the specific color is set via a user interface (col.10, lines 40-50:identifiers can also be preprinted anywhere on the postage label to provide enhanced security for the generated indicia. Each identifier can include one or more elements for the purpose of verifying the authenticity of the postage label created. Each element can have one or more colors: there has to be user interface to preprint label).
Imoto in view of Weiss and Leon are combinable because they both deal with inspection apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Imoto in view of Weiss with the teaching of Leon for purpose of improve detection of unauthorized labels.
Regarding claim 11, The structural elements of apparatus claim 3 perform all of the steps of method claim 11. Thus, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Imoto in view of Weiss and Leon teaches the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the specific color includes a plurality of colors that are set via a user interface (Leon: col.10, lines 40-50: Each element can have one or more colors: there has to be user interface to preprint label).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 3 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 12, The structural elements of apparatus claim 4 perform all of the steps of method claim 12. Thus, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imoto and Weiss as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leon (US 20130343632) and Fong et al. (US 5987231).
Regarding claim 5, Imoto in view of Weiss and Leno teaches wherein the specific color is set via a user interface from the image displayed on the display unit (col.10, lines 40-50) but failed to teach cause a display unit to display the scanned image that is obtained when the pre-printed sheet is scanned.
Fong teaches a display unit to display the scanned image that is obtained when the pre-printed sheet is scanned (background section: a displayed scanned image of the preprinted form on the computer display).
Imoto in view of Weiss and Leon and Fong are combinable because they both deal with inspection apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Imoto in view of Weiss and Leon with the teaching of Fong for purpose of provide a simple method for easily providing display of virtually any form on a computer display.
Regarding claim 13, The structural elements of apparatus claim 5 perform all of the steps of method claim 13. Thus, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imoto and Weiss as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maniam et al. (US 7525685).
Regarding claim 6, Imoto and Weiss does not teach the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, the one or more controllers further configured to cause the inspection apparatus to: obtain a color of the scanned image that is obtained when the pre-printed sheet is scanned, wherein the specific color is the color obtained.
Maniam teaches obtain a color of the scanned image that is obtained when the pre-printed sheet is scanned, wherein the specific color is the color obtained (claim 42: scanning the printed color chart to obtain scanned color chart values).
Imoto in view of Weiss and Maniam are combinable because they both deal with inspection apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Imoto in view of Weiss with the teaching of Maniam for purpose of provides a preview image of an image to be printed allowing a user to experience "what you see" on the monitor is "what you get" from the color printer.
Regarding claim 14, The structural elements of apparatus claim 6 perform all of the steps of method claim 14. Thus, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Merouan, Abderrahim can be reached on (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.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights