CTNF 18/829,045 CTNF 90203 DETAILED ACTION 1. This office action is in response to U.S. Patent Application No.: 18/829,045 filed on 9/9/2024 with effective filing date 9/20/2023. Claims 1-16 are pending. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 2. 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. 07-30-06 3. 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: a reference image acquisition unit configured to acquire, a read image acquisition unit configured to acquire, a correction unit configured to correct, an inspection unit configured to inspect etc. in claim 1-12. 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 07-20-aia AIA 4. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 5. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA 6. Claim (s) 1-2, 5-6, 9, 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko US 2018/0268534 A1 in view of Esumi et al. US 2020/0234422 A1 . Per claims 1, 13 & 15, Kaneko discloses an image processing apparatus comprising: a reference image acquisition unit configured to acquire a reference image as a reference of inspection of a printed product (para: 59, e.g. the print inspection apparatus 200 includes, for example, a scan unit 251, a scanned-image acquisition unit 253, a reference image acquisition unit 255, a difference image generation unit 257, an edge region extraction unit 259) ; a read image acquisition unit configured to acquire a read image obtained by reading the printed product (para: 59 & fig. 4, e.g. the print inspection apparatus 200 includes, for example, a scan unit 251, a scanned-image acquisition unit 253, a reference image acquisition unit 255, a difference image generation unit 257, an edge region extraction unit 259) . Kaneko fails to explicitly disclose the remaining claim limitations. Esumi et al. however in the same field of endeavor teaches a correction unit configured to correct a color of a first region using a first correction condition and correct a color of a second region using a second correction condition in the reference image and the read image (para: 34-37, & 61, e.g. an extraction step of extracting a feature of each of the first alignment region and the second alignment region set in the region setting step; a correction step of correcting the reference image on a basis of the amounts of positional deviation detected in the detection step); and an inspection unit configured to inspect the printed product based on the color of the first region corrected using the first correction condition and the color of the second region corrected using the second correction condition (para: 61 & 67, e.g. The image forming device 10 is configured to include an endlessly looped intermediate transfer belt 11 and image forming units 12 for respective colors of C (cyan), M (magenta), Y (yellow), and K (black) arranged along this intermediate transfer belt 11, and toner images of respective colors of CMYK are superimposed on the intermediate transfer belt 11 by the image forming units 12 to form a full-color toner image) . Therefore, in view of disclosures by Esumi et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Kaneko, and Esumi et al. in order to accurately detect the amount of positional deviation is improved by the image inspection device. Per claim 2, Kaneko further teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the correction unit corrects, using the first correction condition, the color of the first region where a pixel value is smaller than a threshold, and corrects, using the second correction condition, the color of the second region where a pixel value is not smaller than the threshold (para: 78-79, e.g. the threshold correction unit 265 corrects the one or more inspection thresholds stored in the inspection threshold storage 263 to apply the corrected inspection thresholds to the pixels defining the proximity region or the pixels defining the edge region. Specifically, an inspection threshold to be applied to one pixel defining the edge region is corrected based on the density difference between the one pixel defining the edge region and each one of influencing pixels set in the proximity region, and the distance between the one pixel defining the edge region and each one of the influencing pixels set in the proximity region) . Per claim 5, Kaneko further teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the correction unit corrects the color of the first region using the first correction condition, and corrects the color of the second region using the second correction condition different in correction degree from the first correction condition (para: 84-85, e.g. the threshold correction unit 265 identifies one or more influencing pixels in the edge region 401 with respect to the pixel 411 defining the proximity region 402. For example, the threshold correction unit 265 identifies a pixel 414 in the edge region 401 existing at a position opposite to a position of the pixel 411 defining the proximity region 402 via the pixel 412 as the influencing pixel, in which the pixel 414, existing opposite to the pixel 411, is one of the pixels existing adjacently to the pixel 412) . Per claim 6, Kaneko further teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the correction unit corrects the color of the first region using the first correction condition including the correction degree higher than the correction degree of the second correction condition (para: 84-85, e.g. the threshold correction unit 265 identifies a pixel 415 in the edge region 401 existing at another position opposite to the position of the pixel 411 defining the proximity region 402 via the pixel 413 as the influencing pixel, in which the pixel 415, existing opposite to the pixel 411, is one of the pixels existing adjacently to the pixel 413) . Per claim 9, Kaneko further teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the correction unit corrects pixel values of pixels in the first region and the second region based on a correction table for correcting tones in the first region and the second region (para: 28-29, e.g. a toner image is formed on each of the photoconductor drums 103Y, 103M, 103C, 103K by performing an image forming process including a charging process, an exposure process, a development process, a transfer process, and a cleaning process) . Per claim 11, Kaneko further teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a region decision unit configured to decide the first region based on a pixel value of a pixel of at least one of the reference image and the read image, wherein the inspection unit inspects the printed product based on the color corrected using the first correction condition in the decided first region (para: 78-79, e.g. the threshold correction unit 265 corrects the one or more inspection thresholds stored in the inspection threshold storage 263 to apply the corrected inspection thresholds to the pixels defining the proximity region or the pixels defining the edge region. Specifically, an inspection threshold to be applied to one pixel defining the edge region is corrected based on the density difference between the one pixel defining the edge region and each one of influencing pixels set in the proximity region, and the distance between the one pixel defining the edge region and each one of the influencing pixels set in the proximity region) . Per claims 12, 14 & 16 , Kaneko discloses an image processing apparatus comprising: a reference image acquisition unit configured to acquire a reference image as a reference of inspection of a printed product (para: 59, e.g. the print inspection apparatus 200 includes, for example, a scan unit 251, a scanned-image acquisition unit 253, a reference image acquisition unit 255, a difference image generation unit 257, an edge region extraction unit 259) ; a read image acquisition unit configured to acquire a read image obtained by reading the printed product (para: 59 & fig. 4, e.g. the print inspection apparatus 200 includes, for example, a scan unit 251, a scanned-image acquisition unit 253, a reference image acquisition unit 255, a difference image generation unit 257, an edge region extraction unit 259) . Kaneko fails to explicitly disclose the remaining claim limitations. Esumi et al. however in the same field of endeavor teaches a correction unit configured to correct colors of the reference image and the read image using a first correction condition and a second correction condition (para: 34-37, & 61, e.g. an extraction step of extracting a feature of each of the first alignment region and the second alignment region set in the region setting step; a correction step of correcting the reference image on a basis of the amounts of positional deviation detected in the detection step) ; and an inspection unit configured to inspect the printed product based on the colors of the reference image and the read image corrected using the first correction condition and the colors of the reference image and the read image corrected using the second correction condition (para: 61 & 67, e.g. The image forming device 10 is configured to include an endlessly looped intermediate transfer belt 11 and image forming units 12 for respective colors of C (cyan), M (magenta), Y (yellow), and K (black) arranged along this intermediate transfer belt 11, and toner images of respective colors of CMYK are superimposed on the intermediate transfer belt 11 by the image forming units 12 to form a full-color toner image) . Therefore, in view of disclosures by Esumi et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Kaneko, and Esumi et al. in order to accurately detect the amount of positional deviation is improved by the image inspection device . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 7. Claim s 3-4, 7-8 & 10 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 07-96 AIA 8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kojima et al. US 2012/012139 A1, e.g. an inspection apparatus includes an obtaining unit configured to receive a target image obtained by scanning a printed surface of a printed material and receive a reference image obtained from print data of the printed surface; an analysis unit configured to analyze the reference image to obtain flatness levels indicating degrees of variation in pixel values; and a control unit configured to determine inspection thresholds for different types of image areas in the reference image based on the flatness levels, 9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRFAN HABIB whose telephone number is (571)270-7325. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Th 9AM-7PM. 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, Jay Patel can be reached at 5712722988. 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. /Irfan Habib/ Examiner, Art Unit 2485 Application/Control Number: 18/829,045 Page 2 Art Unit: 2485 Application/Control Number: 18/829,045 Page 3 Art Unit: 2485 Application/Control Number: 18/829,045 Page 4 Art Unit: 2485 Application/Control Number: 18/829,045 Page 5 Art Unit: 2485 Application/Control Number: 18/829,045 Page 6 Art Unit: 2485
Prosecution Insights