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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 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. Applicant did not provide any argument with respect to the prior art of US 20210374926 to Plant relied on for rejection of claim 1. Therefore the rejection of claim 1 in view of US 20210374926 to Plant has been maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20210374926 to Plant.
Regarding claim 1, Plant discloses an inspection apparatus comprising (see Fig. 1; paragraph 54; scanned image is inspected with reference image using label printing and checking system (inspection apparatus)):
one or more memory devices that store instructions; and one or more processors that execute the instructions to (paragraph 54; computer executing software; paragraph 56; memory):
obtain target data from a scanner reading an inspection target printed material (paragraph 54; scanned image (target data) of printed label (inspection target printed material) from scanner);
set a sequential number inspection setting which includes a starting number, a repeat number indicating how many times sequential numbers are repeated, and an offset indicating an increase or decrease in a numerical value of a next different sequential number (paragraph 64, 99; “label format” (setting) is defined; sequence numbers set based on “label format” have start value, “number of times the sequence is iterated” (indicating how many times sequential numbers are repeated), “increment” (an offset indicating an increase) for next different sequential number since incrementing the previous sequential number will yield a different next sequential number), for an inspecting number formed on the inspection target printed material (paragraph 54,137-144; inspecting the sequence number region by extracting text in the sequence number region and comparing with reference e-image; sequence number is printed (formed) on label (inspection target printed material));
generate reference data in accordance with the starting number, the repeat number, and the offset set in the sequential number inspection setting (paragraph 23, 25, 99; reference image (e-image) is generated based on label format specification which includes the sequence number format such start value, increment, number of iteration); and
detect a defect in the inspection target printed material by comparing the obtained target data and the generated reference data (paragraph 109, 136-144, 157; key-points such as numbers in the scanned image (target) of printed label is compared with corresponding key points in the reference image to determine if defect exists based on difference exceeding threshold).
Regarding claim 16, Plant discloses a control method for an inspection apparatus comprising (see Fig. 1; paragraph 54; scanned image is inspected with reference image using label printing and checking system (inspection apparatus)):
obtaining target data from a scanner reading an inspection target printed material (paragraph 54; scanned image (target data) of printed label (inspection target printed material) from scanner);
setting a sequential number inspection setting, which includes a starting number, a repeat number indicating how many times sequential numbers are repeated, and an offset indicating an increase or decrease in a numerical value of a next different sequential number (paragraph 64, 99; “label format” (setting) is defined; sequence numbers set based on “label specific data” have start value, “number of times the sequence is iterated” (indicating how many times sequential numbers are repeated), “increment” (an offset indicating an increase) for next different sequential number since incrementing the previous sequential number will yield a different next sequential number), for an inspecting number formed on the inspection target printed material (paragraph 54,137-144; inspecting the sequence number region by extracting text in the sequence number region and comparing with reference e-image; sequence number is printed (formed) on label (inspection target printed material));
generating reference data in accordance with the starting number, the repeat number, and the offset set in the sequential number inspection setting (paragraph 23, 25, 99; reference image (e-image) is generated based on label format specification (sequential number inspection setting) which includes the sequence number format such start value, increment, number of iteration); and
detecting a defect in the inspection target printed material by comparing the obtained target data and the generated reference data (paragraph 109, 136-144, 157; key-points such as numbers in the scanned image (target) of printed label is compared with corresponding key points in the reference image to determine if defect exists based on difference exceeding threshold).
Regarding claim 17, see rejection of claim 1. Further Plant discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program executable by a computer to execute a control method (paragraph 42-43; software stored on “digital media storage device” and executed by computer for performing the method).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210374926 to Plant in view of US 20210256677 to Kobashi.
Regarding claim 2, Plant does not disclose the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the one or more processors execute the instructions to display a settings screen on a display unit of the inspection apparatus or an external apparatus, and
a predetermined region in an image of the inspection target printed material is settable via the setting screen as an inspection region.
Kobashi discloses the inspection apparatus (paragraph 26; inspection apparatus 108), wherein:
the one or more processors execute the instructions (paragraph 63; CPU 226 executes program) to display a settings screen on a display unit of the inspection apparatus or an external apparatus (paragraph 70-71; setting screen 401 displayed on display unit 245 of inspection apparatus), and
a predetermined region in an image of the inspection target printed material is settable via the setting screen as an inspection region (paragraph 71-73; user can set elliptic/rectangular inspection region on preview image of captured inspection target printed data via button 406 (settable) on setting screen 401).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Plant as taught by Kobashi to provide setting of inspection region.
The motivation to combine the references is to allow user to set arbitrary shape for inspection region via simple drag operation on the preview image on setting screen (paragraph 71, 73).
Regarding claim 10, Kobashi discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 2, wherein setting content set for the inspection region of the predetermined region is applicable to other regions via the settings screen (paragraph 73, 84; content in set region 407 is applicable at other regions 407 as shown in Fig. 4 on setting screen 401).
Claim(s) 3-8, 11, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210374926 to Plant in view of US 20210256677 to Kobashi further in view of US 20240106935 to Muraishi.
Regarding claim 3, Plant in view of Kobashi does not disclose the inspection apparatus according to claim 2, wherein data defined by a predetermined rule included in the inspection region corresponds to numerical values of the sequential numbers increasing or decreasing across a plurality of sections in the inspection target printed material
Muraishi discloses, wherein data defined by a predetermined rule included in the inspection region corresponds to numerical values of the sequential numbers increasing or decreasing across a plurality of sections in the inspection target printed material (paragraph 29, 67; data defined in inspection areas based on “sequential-number rules” for numerical values including offset (increasing or decreasing); paragraph 70-71; in Fig. 7a the numerical values increase across plurality of areas 702, 703, 704 in a printed sheet 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Plant as taught by Muraishi to provide rules for setting inspection sequential numbers.
The motivation to combine the references is to provide predetermined rule for setting up the start number, repeat number, and offset and wherein the reference data such as collation data can be generated without having to create a data file by using the rules (paragraph 67, 80).
Regarding claim 4, Muraishi discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 3, wherein: the sequential number inspection setting includes an ascending order or descending order, and a number of digits of each sequential number (paragraph 67; setting item 653 indicates increasing or decreasing (ascending or descending) of sequential number; setting item 656 for setting number of digits for sequential number) and
the ascending order or descending order, the starting number, the offset, and the number of digits are settable via the setting screen as inspection settings for the numerical values of the sequential numbers (paragraph 58, 67; setting item 653 (ascending order or descending), setting item 654 (starting number), setting item 655 (offset), setting item 656 (num digits) are settable on setting screen 600 as setting for sequential number), and
the one or more processors generate the reference data, including the numerical values of a plurality of the sequential numbers that increase or decrease across a plurality of sections in the inspection target printed material according to setting content set via the settings screen (paragraph 85, 91, 98; in s1002 collation values (reference) are generated based on the set settings in Fig. 6b such that they increase in plurality of sections 912 to 914 in printed sheet 1).
Regarding claim 5, Muraishi discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 4, wherein:
the sequential number inspection setting further includes an interval that indicates how many pages repeat a same sequential number before incrementing or decrementing to the next different sequential number (paragraph 67, 72, 76; setting item 657 is interval setting that indicates how many pages have same sequential number before increasing/decreasing the sequential number by offset to next sequential number that is different; see fig. 7c number 726 “004” that is different than “001”), and
the inspection settings include the interval, which is also settable via the setting screen (paragraph 58, 67; inspection setting screen 600 includes setting item 657 (interval) settable).
Regarding claim 6, Muraishi discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 5, wherein: the repeat number indicates how many sets of pages repeat the sequential numbers, and the inspection settings include the repeat number, which is also settable via the setting screen (paragraph 67, 79; setting item 658 is repeat number that indicates number of times sequential numbers are repeated as shown in Fig. 7e when repeat number is “3”; 3 sets of pages 730, 740, 750 are repeated; user can set setting item 658 on screen 600).
Regarding claim 7, Plant discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 6, the sequential number inspection setting (paragraph 99; “label specific data” (setting) is define). However Plant does not disclose wherein the inspection setting further includes a blank inspection that sets whether or not to exclude the inspection region that is blank from being an inspection target, and the inspection settings includes the blank inspection, which is also settable via the setting screen.
Kobashi discloses wherein the inspection setting (paragraph 71; inspection setting screen 401) further includes a blank inspection that sets whether or not to exclude the inspection region that is blank from being an inspection target, and the inspection settings includes the blank inspection, which is also settable via the setting screen (paragraph 95, 102; setting 802 allows user to exclude white page region (blank) region from inspection target on setting screen 801; if user does not select box 802 white page is inspected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Plant as taught by Kobashi to exclude blank pages from inspection.
The motivation to combine the references is to prevent unnecessary inspection of blank pages by excluding white pages as target for inspection via user setting on screen (paragraph 94-96).
Regarding claim 8, Muraishi discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 4, wherein, for the number of digits that is settable via the settings screen, a portion of digits of numerical values formed in the inspection region is settable (paragraph 67; “3” can be set to number of digits setting item on screen such that even if inspection numerical value has 5 digits only 3 digits in inspection area are inspected).
Regarding claim 11, Muraishi discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 2, wherein an orientation of a character in a region set as the inspection region is settable via the settings screen (paragraph 61, 65; setting 636 sets the orientation in the character area 607 in setting screen 600; user sets inspection region by selecting character area 607).
Regarding claim 14, Muraishi discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 2, wherein data defined by a predetermined rule included in the inspection region corresponds to numerical values derived using a predetermined function (paragraph 67, 91; sequential number rules define the data in inspection area such as numerical values derived by adding offset (predetermined function)).
Regarding claim 15, Muraishi discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 2, wherein data defined by a predetermined rule included in the inspection region corresponds to date information indicating at least one of date or time (paragraph 67, 91; sequential number rules define the data in inspection area such as numerical values; paragraph 29; sequential number can be date). Further Plant disclose wherein data defined by a predetermined rule corresponds to both date and time (paragraph 99; sequence number include “date-times”).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210374926 to Plant in view of JP 2017096835 to Mizuno.
Regarding claim 12, Plant does not disclose the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the inspection apparatus is connectable to an image forming apparatus that outputs the inspection target printed material, and
the one or more processors execute instructions to:
output a defect inspection result to the image forming apparatus; and stop printing from being performed in a state where the image forming apparatus receives the defect inspection result that indicates detection of a defect.
Mizuno discloses wherein:
the inspection apparatus is connectable to an image forming apparatus that outputs the inspection target printed material (paragraph 19, 26; see Fig. 2 image inspection device 140 connected to printer 110 that outputs target print material), and
the one or more processors (paragraph 19; control unit 202) execute instructions to:
output a defect inspection result to the image forming apparatus; and stop printing from being performed in a state where the image forming apparatus receives the defect inspection result that indicates detection of a defect (Paragraph 29; inspection unit 214 outputs inspection result to the printer control unit 202 and printer stops printing if there is abnormality/defect).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Plant as taught by Mizuno to provide print stoppage when there is defect.
The motivation to combine the references is to stop printing so that further defect on the next printed pages is avoided.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210374926 to Plant in view of JP 2017096835 to Mizuno further in view of US 20240106935 to Muraishi.
Regarding claim 13, Plant does not disclose the inspection apparatus is further connectable to a finisher that executes post-processing on the inspection target printed material, and
the one or more processors execute the instructions to:
output the defect inspection result to the finisher; and cause the finisher to divide and output normal printed materials and printed materials with a defect.
Muraishi discloses, wherein:
the inspection apparatus is further connectable to a finisher that executes post-processing on the inspection target printed material (paragraph 30-31; inspection apparatus connected to finisher which executes post-processing on printed matter that is target), and
the one or more processors execute the instructions to:
output the defect inspection result to the finisher; and cause the finisher to divide and output normal printed materials and printed materials with a defect (paragraph 30, 48; inspection result information is output to finisher; based on this information the finisher discharge defect printed matter to different tray and non-defect printed matter to regular tray (divide)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Plant as taught by Muraishi to provide finisher device that processes the inspected print output.
The motivation to combine the references is to provide discharging of inspected print output to different trays based on the inspection result such that the user can differentiate which output is defective versus which are normal output based on which trays they are discharged to (paragraph 30, 48).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210374926 to Plant in view of US 20240106935 to Muraishi.
Regarding claim 18, Plant does not disclose the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sequential number inspection setting further includes an interval indicating a number of pages on which a same sequential number is maintained before a next different sequential number is generated, and wherein the one or more processors generate the reference data such that the same sequential number is repeated for pages corresponding to the interval, the next different sequential number is generated by changing the numerical value by the offset, and a
sequence of sequential numbers generated using the interval and the offset is repeated a number of times corresponding to the repeat number.
Muraishi discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sequential number inspection setting further includes an interval indicating a number of pages on which a same sequential number is maintained before a next different sequential number is generated (paragraph 67, 72, 76; setting item 657 is interval setting that indicates how many pages have same sequential number before increasing/decreasing the sequential number by offset to next sequential number that is different; see fig. 7c number 726 “004” that is different than “001”), and wherein the one or more processors generate the reference data such that the same sequential number is repeated for pages corresponding to the interval, the next different sequential number is generated by changing the numerical value by the offset (see Fig. 7c wherein generated collation data (reference number) in which “001” is repeated for two pages followed by incrementing by offset “3” to next page “004”), and a sequence of sequential numbers generated using the interval and the offset is repeated a number of times corresponding to the repeat number (paragraph 77-79; Fig 7e shows the generated sequence having interval “1” and offset “3” and repeated “3” times for 1st to third copy; if interval was “2” it will be same as Fig. 7c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Plant as taught by Muraishi to provide generation of sequential numbers using interval setting.
The motivation to combine the references is to provide options for user to select as inspection setting that results in sequential numbers that increment every page or that increment every n pages set by the interval such that the same number is printed on the n pages before incrementing and allow the reference data to reflect this same number values (paragraph 67, 72, 76).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENIYAM MENBERU whose telephone number is (571) 272-7465. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00am-6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 270-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the customer service office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600. The group receptionist number for TC 2600 is (571) 272-2600.
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.
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).
Patent Examiner
Beniyam Menberu
/BENIYAM MENBERU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
10/08/2026
Prosecution Insights