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 .
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 1-3, 5-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata (US 2019/0347055 A1) in view of Mitsuru (JP H09156161).
With respect to Claim 1, Murata’055 shows a method comprising:
obtaining, by a first information processing apparatus (figure 1 PC 10), a first electronic document to be formed (paragraph [0030] receiving print instruction into bitmap image data and generates print data, figure 2 image 110);
obtaining, by said first information processing apparatus, at least one identifier, wherein each of said at least one identifier corresponds to a respective content to be formed as part of said first electronic document, wherein each of said at least one identifier has one or more associated locations that indicate where on said first electronic document said corresponding content is to be formed (paragraph [0040], figure 2 code images 100a, 100b, and 100c);
sending document information, by said first information processing apparatus, to at least one of an image forming apparatus (paragraph h[0041] and [0063] figure 4 S118 transmit print data including print command ) and [ ], wherein said document information comprises:
said first electronic document, for each of said at least one identifier, said one or more associated locations, and, for each of said at least one identifier, said corresponding content or said identifier (paragraphs [0041] and [0063] figure 4 S118 transmit print data including print command and coordinates/location of detected code images);
obtaining, by said image forming apparatus [ ], based on said document information, a second electronic document, wherein said second electronic document is generated by, for each of said at least one identifier, retrieving said corresponding content, and including into said first electronic document, said corresponding content in association with said one or more associated locations (paragraph [0063] and figures 4 S118 and 8, items 102a-102d);
forming, by said image forming apparatus, a physical document from said second electronic document (paragraph [0064]); [ ].
Murata’055 does not specifically show obtaining, by said second information processing apparatus, an image of said physical document; comparing, by said second information processing apparatus, said second electronic document and said image to detect whether a difference exist; and sending, by said second information processing apparatus, a comparison result to said image forming apparatus, wherein said comparison result includes, if a difference is detected, information for causing said image forming apparatus to interrupt an operation.
Mitsuru’161 shows obtaining, by said second information processing apparatus, an image of said physical document (abstract: read out a bar code printed on the surface of a label material); comparing, by said second information processing apparatus, said second electronic document and said image to detect whether a difference exist (abstract: bar code information read out is delivered to a CPU and checked for the difference); and sending, by said second information processing apparatus, a comparison result to said image forming apparatus, wherein said comparison result includes, if a difference is detected, information for causing said image forming apparatus to interrupt an operation (abstract and paragraphs [0013]-[0014]: when an error is detected in the bar code or the quality thereof is deteriorated, an output unit is operated to deliver an alarm and the operation of the bar code printer body is interrupted).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify Murata’055 to include obtaining, by said second information processing apparatus, an image of said physical document; comparing, by said second information processing apparatus, said second electronic document and said image to detect whether a difference exist; and sending, by said second information processing apparatus, a comparison result to said image forming apparatus, wherein said comparison result includes, if a difference is detected, information for causing said image forming apparatus to interrupt an operation method taught by Mitsuru’161. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve the system’s ability to be able to appropriately judge the quality of the printed barcode to avoid defective print (paragraphs [0009]-[0010]).
With respect to Claim 2, the combination Murata’055 and Mitsuru’161 shows the method according to claim 1, wherein said first information processing apparatus generates said second electronic document, and sends said second electronic document as said document information (paragraphs [0040]-[0041] and figures 8 and 9C).
With respect to Claim 3, the combination Murata’055 and Mitsuru’161 shows the method according to claim 1, wherein: said first information processing apparatus sends, as said document information, said first electronic document, said at least one identifier, and for each of said at least one identifier, said one or more associated locations, to at least one of said image forming apparatus and said second information processing apparatus (in Murata’055: figure 4 S118, paragraph [0040]-[0041] and figure 8); and said image forming apparatus (in Murata’055: paragraph [0031] printing) and said second information processing apparatus generate said second electronic document (in Mitsuru’161: abstract and paragraphs [0013]-[0014] printing barcode).
With respect to Claim 5, the combination Murata’055 and Mitsuru’161 shows the method according to claim 1, wherein said comparison result includes difference information that indicates one or more locations on said physical document where said difference is detected (in Mitsuru’161: paragraph [0022]-[0025] showing message to user with defective bar code).
With respect to Claim 6, the combination Murata’055 and Mitsuru’161 shows the method according to claim 5, wherein said image forming apparatus indicates on said physical document said one or more locations based on said difference information (in Mitsuru’161: paragraph [0022]-[0025] showing message to user with defective bar code).
With respect to Claim 7, the combination Murata’055 and Mitsuru’161 shows the method according to claim 5, wherein said comparison result causes said image forming apparatus to display, on a display unit, said second electronic document and to indicate said one or more locations on the displayed second electronic document based on said difference information (in Mitsuru’161: paragraph [0022]-[0025] showing message to user with defective bar code).
With respect to Claim 8, the combination Murata’055 and Mitsuru’161 shows the method according to claim 1, wherein said first information processing apparatus obtains said at least one identifier and said one or more associated locations, based on user input (in Murata’055: figure 4 S112, paragraph [0041]).
With respect to Claims 9-10, rejection analogous to those presented for claim 1, are applicable.
With respect to Claims 11-12, 14-15, rejection analogous to those presented for claim 1, are applicable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rajagopalan (US 2015/0064683 A1) shows in paragraph [0061] location identification module 218 is further configured to determine one or more location identifiers of one or more markings in the third electronic document. The one or more location identifiers of the one or more markings in the third electronic document are referred to as one or more second location identifiers hereinafter. In an embodiment, the one or more markings in the assessment sheets are indicative of one or more answers provided by the student (evaluatee). In an embodiment, the second location identifiers include the X-Y coordinates corresponding to the one or more markings in the third electronic document. The X-Y coordinates in the assessment sheets are calculated based on the pixel size and/or location of each of the pixel in the one or more markings. The location identification module 218 then stores the identified second location identifiers into the database 232.
Kobayashi et al. (US 2023/0102476 A1) shows in paragraph [0008] and figures 5-6 receive an electronic document generated while maintaining text information by an application program or an electronic document generated by reading an image with a document reading apparatus; perform type determination as to whether the received electronic document including a portion representing a text is generated by the application program or generated by the document reading apparatus; and determine based on a result of the type determination whether an optical character recognition process is performed on the electronic document.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRIANA CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3246. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6.
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, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/IRIANA CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights