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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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: “image forming unit,” “image scanning unit,” and “image diagnosis unit,” in claim 7.
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.
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:
image forming unit – Paragraphs 17-19
image scanning unit – paragraph 20
image diagnosis unit – paragraph 9
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 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 § 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1,2, and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogushi (US 2020/0016907).
Regarding Claim 1, Ogushi teaches an image diagnosis system (Paragraph 5) configured to:
scan paper before an image for image diagnosis is formed by an image forming apparatus (Paragraph 53, wherein the paper is scanned before the image is formed);
scan the paper after the image is formed by the image forming apparatus (Paragraph 53 and 54, wherein after a chart is printed the image is read); and
perform the image diagnosis by classifying at least one of a fault due to the paper, a fault due to the scanning, or a fault due to the image formation from the other fault, based on a scan image of the paper before the image is formed and a scan image of the paper after the image is formed (Paragraph 69, wherein abnormalities can be detected).
Regarding Claim 2, Ogushi further teaches wherein the image diagnosis is performed by classifying the fault due to the paper or the fault due to the scanning from the fault due to the image formation, based on the scan image of the paper before the image is formed and the scan image of the paper after the image is formed (Paragraphs 27, 69, and 75, wherein misalignment along with abnormalities and other issues can be detected and determined how to handle them).
Regarding Claim 5, Ogushi further teaches wherein a plurality of sheets of paper before the image is formed are scanned in order, and the plurality of sheets of paper after the image is formed are scanned in a state in which the order is recognizable (Paragraphs 72-77, wherein there can be multiple formations across multiple sheets. Each sheet has a pattern, paragraph 66), and
the image diagnosis is performed by classifying the fault due to the paper, the fault due to the scanning, and the fault due to the image formation (Paragraph 69, wherein abnormalities can be detected).
Regarding Claim 6, Ogushi further teaches wherein identification information for distinguishing one paper from other paper among the plurality of sheets of paper is added to the plurality of sheets of paper before the image is formed (Paragraph 66, Each sheet has a pattern), and
the plurality of sheets of paper after the image is formed are scanned in a state in which the order is recognizable by using the identification information (Paragraphs 72-77, wherein there can be multiple formations across multiple sheets. Each sheet has a pattern, paragraph 66).
Regarding Claim 7, Ogushi teaches an image diagnosis system (Paragraph 5) comprising:
an image forming unit that forms an image for image diagnosis on paper (Paragraph 24, wherein there is an image forming operator);
an image scanning unit that scans the paper before the image is formed by the image forming unit (Paragraph 53, wherein the paper is scanned before the image is formed) and the paper after the image is formed by the image forming unit (Paragraph 53 and 54, wherein after a chart is printed the image is read); and
an image diagnosis unit that performs the image diagnosis by classifying a fault due to the paper, based on a scan image of the paper before the image is formed and a scan image of the paper after the image is formed, which are scanned by the image scanning unit (Paragraph 69, wherein abnormalities can be detected).
Regarding Claim 8, Ogushi teaches an image diagnosis system (Paragraph 5) comprising:
one or a plurality of processors (Paragraph 32, wherein there is a controller) configured to:
acquire a first scan image obtained by scanning paper before an image is formed by an image forming apparatus (Paragraph 53, wherein the paper is scanned before the image is formed);
acquire a second scan image obtained by scanning the paper after the image is formed by the image forming apparatus (Paragraph 53 and 54, wherein after a chart is printed the image is read); and
perform image diagnosis by classifying a fault due to the paper, based on the first scan image and the second scan image (Paragraph 69, wherein abnormalities can be detected).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogushi (US 2020/0016907) in view of Hongo (US 2020/0236225).
Regarding Claim 3, Ogushi does not teach wherein by performing diagnosis using a scan image of the paper obtained by changing a scanning direction of the paper, the image diagnosis is performed by further classifying the fault due to the paper and the fault due to the scanning.
Hongo does teach wherein by performing diagnosis using a scan image of the paper obtained by changing a scanning direction of the paper, the image diagnosis is performed by further classifying the fault due to the paper and the fault due to the scanning (Paragraph 84, wherein the sheet can be rotated to determine the abnormality).
Ogushi and Hongo are combinable because they both deal with detecting abnormalities as it relates to printing.
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 Ogushi with the teachings of Hongo for the purpose of determining the abnormality on the basis of the direction of the read defect (Hongo: Paragraph 4).
Regarding Claim 4, Hongo further teaches wherein identification information for distinguishing the paper from other paper is added to the paper (Paragraph 54, wherein the test chart can be printed to identify the medium), and
the image diagnosis is performed by recognizing the scanning direction by using the identification information (Paragraph 84, wherein the orientation is used to detect the abnormality).
Ogushi and Hongo are combinable because they both deal with detecting abnormalities as it relates to printing.
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 Ogushi with the teachings of Hongo for the purpose of determining the abnormality on the basis of the direction of the read defect (Hongo: Paragraph 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited prior art of A-C, E, G, and H all relate to detecting abnormalities in printing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS PACHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-3433. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4.
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, George Eng can be reached at 571-272-7495. 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.
/NICHOLAS PACHOL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights