DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Objection
2. Claims 10-12 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 1-3 respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f)
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – 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.
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.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an image forming unit, an inspection apparatus, storage units, a first storage unit, a second storage unit, a display unit in claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 10-14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayukawa (US Pub: 2020/0233618) and in further view of Okabe et al (US Pub: 2004/0257613).
Regarding claim 1, Ayukawa teaches: An inspection system that includes an image forming apparatus including an image forming unit configured to form an image on a recording sheet based on a print job [p0022], an information processing apparatus configured to transmit the print job to the image forming apparatus [p0042], and an inspection apparatus configured to execute an inspection on the image based on an inspection job [p0032], the inspection system comprising: one or a plurality of storage units configured to store the print job and the inspection job [p0051]; and a controller configured to delete a first print job from the storage units when a delete instruction is received for the first print job stored in the storage units, wherein, based on the delete instruction being received for the first print job, the controller executes control to delete one or a plurality of inspection jobs associated with the first print job from the storage units [p0033].
Ayukawa does not delete inspection job based on deletion of a print job. In the same field of endeavor, Okabe et al teaches: delete a first print job from the storage units when a delete instruction is received for the first print job stored in the storage units, wherein, based on the delete instruction being received for the first print job, the controller executes control to delete one or a plurality of inspection jobs associated with the first print job from the storage units [p0037 (When a print job is instructed to be deleted, other associated files are deleted as well.)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the two to delete corresponding inspection job upon deletion of an associated print job for space reservation.
Claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1.
7. Claims 2, 4, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayukawa (US Pub: 2020/0233618) and Okabe et al (US Pub: 2004/0257613); and in further view of Iwano (US Pub: 2021/0398262).
Regarding claim 2, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Ayukawa in view of Okabe et al further teaches: The inspection system according to claim 1, wherein, when a print job for registering a reference image is to be created, the controller assigns an identification number to the print job for registering the reference image [Ayukawa: p0033; Okabe: p0031], wherein the storage units include a first storage unit configured to store the print job and a second storage unit configured to store the inspection job, wherein the first storage unit stores the print job in association with the assigned identification number [Ayukawa: p0019, p0033, p0044; Okabe: p0031].
Ayukawa in view of Okabe et al would have made it obvious to associate an inspection job with a correct/scanned image by same ID. In the same field of endeavor, Iwano teaches: wherein the second storage unit stores the inspection job for executing an inspection on the image by using the reference image created by the print job for registering the reference image, in association with the identification number assigned to the print job for registering the reference image [p0058]. Iwano assigns same job ID of a print job to register a reference image for inspection. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to assign common ID of a print job to a reference image in order to register and associate the reference image to the print job for inspection.
Regarding claim 4, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein. Ayukawa in view of Okabe et al further teaches: The inspection system according to claim 2, wherein, based on the delete instruction being received for the first print job, the controller executes control to delete a print job having an identification number similar to an identification number assigned to the first print job and an inspection job having an identification number similar to the identification number assigned to the first print job from the storage units [Ayukawa: p0033; Okabe: p0037].
Claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 2.
Claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 4. Notice since both print job and its inspection job have a common ID, deleting a job based on an ID would have deleted the print job and/or its inspection job.
8. Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayukawa (US Pub: 2020/0233618) and Okabe et al (US Pub: 2004/0257613), and Iwano (US Pub: 2021/0398262); and in further view of Morales et al (US Pub: 2024/0035984).
Regarding claim 3, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein. Ayukawa in view of Okabe et al and Iwano does not specify continuous inspection. In the same field of endeavor, Morales et al teaches: The inspection system according to claim 2, wherein, in a case where a second inspection job for executing a new inspection is created based on a first inspection job by which an inspection has already been executed, the second storage unit stores the second inspection job in association with an identification number assigned to the first inspection job [p0097]. Therefore, given Morales’ continuous inspection process associated with a job, Ayukawa in view of Okabe’s multiple storage units, and Iwano assigning common ID to a job and associated inspection job/reference image, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to assign a common ID to multiple stored inspection jobs associated with the same print job for consistency on data management.
Claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 3.
9. Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayukawa (US Pub: 2020/0233618) and Okabe et al (US Pub: 2004/0257613); and in further view of Sharma (US Pub: 2021/0240666).
Regarding claim 5, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Ayukawa in view of Okabe et al is lack of prescription on displaying instructions. For solving the same problem, Sharma teaches: The inspection system according to claim 1, further comprising a display controller configured to display a screen on a display unit, wherein the display controller displays a screen for receiving a delete instruction for one or a plurality of jobs associated with the first print job stored in the storage unit, and wherein, in a case where the delete instruction is received for the one or the plurality of associated jobs via the screen, the controller executes control to delete a job for which the delete instruction is received from the storage units [abstract]. Therefore, given Sharma’s prescription on performing deletion according to displayed instruction, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to perform deletion based on displayed instruction.
Regarding claim 6, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 5 has been incorporated herein. Ayukawa further teaches: The inspection system according to claim 5, wherein the one or the plurality of jobs includes the print job and the inspection job [p0033].
Regarding claim 7, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 5 has been incorporated herein. Okabe et al further teaches: The inspection system according to claim 5, wherein a job for which the delete instruction is not received among the one or the plurality of jobs is not deleted from the storage unit [p0037 (When time is not reached, a job is not deleted, neither are files or folder with a common ID.)].
Regarding claim 8, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Ayukawa in view of Okabe et al is lack of prescription on displaying instructions. For solving the same problem, Sharma teaches: The inspection system according to claim 1, further comprising a display unit configured to display a screen, wherein the delete instruction for the first print job is received by selecting from a job list of print jobs including the first print job displayed on the display unit [abstract]. Therefore, given Sharma’s prescription on performing deletion according to displayed list, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to perform deletion based on displayed list per design choice.
Regarding claim 9, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 8 has been incorporated herein. Sharma further teaches: The inspection system according to claim 8, wherein, in the job list, a job whose associated job has been deleted is displayed to be distinguishable from other jobs [fig. 5A].
10. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayukawa (US Pub: 2020/0233618); and in further view of Okabe et al (US Pub: 2004/0257613) and Hayashi (US Pub: 2021/0240404).
Claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1. Ayukawa in view of Okabe et al does not specify a NIC receiving a deletion execution information from an information processing apparatus. In the same field of endeavor, Hayashi teaches: a network interface card (NIC) configured to receive information [fig. 1: 20] indicating that deletion of a first print job is executed by the information processing apparatus and an identification number of the first print job, wherein the first controller deletes an inspection job having an identification number similar to the received identification number [p0107, p0108, p0112, p0113 (The information processing apparatus/PC sends deletion instruction and setting/file name/ID.)]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to delete a job based on deletion indication and job ID received from a PC for proper operation.
Contact
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, 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.
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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights