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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the abbreviation “RIP” in claim 13 needs to spell out since "RIP" presents many phrases. Such as, raster image processor, Routing Information Protocol and Research in Progress. Appropriate correction is required. For prior art considerations, examiner treats " RIP " as raster image processor. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 former” in claim 1, “a reader” in claim 1 and “an operator” in claim 10.
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.
“an image former” in claim 1 is read as item 23 shown in Fig.1 and paragraph 14, “a reader” in claim 1 is read as the item 25 and paragraph 26 and “an operator” in claim 10 is read as the item 80 and paragraph 38. 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
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.
Claims 1, 3, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwano’262 (US 2021/0398262), and further in view of Oki’922 (US 2005/0286922) and TATSUO’588 (JP 2014093588).
With respect to claim 1, Iwano’2623 teaches an image inspection apparatus [regarding to the system shown in Fig.1], comprising:
a hardware processor (Fig.2, item 201) that adds a reference pattern for alignment to image data [as shown in Fig.10, the scanned image of a printout includes the marks 1002 (paragraph 138). The marks1002 is considered as a reference pattern for alignment to image data since the marks 1002 shown in Fig. 10 define where the image data is being printed];
an image former (Fig.2, item 210) that forms, on a recording medium, an image based on the image data to which the reference pattern has been added [as shown in Fig.10, the scanned image of a printout includes the marks 1002. The printout with the marks 1002 is considered being generated by the printer engine (Fig.2, item 210)];
a reader that reads the image formed on the recording medium to generate a read image (paragraph 100),
Iwano’262 does not teach wherein the hardware processor generates, during image inspection, the reference pattern in a shape identifiable by the hardware processor regardless of a resolution of an inspection image, and executes comparison inspection between the inspection image based on the read image and a reference image.
Oki’922 teaches the position cross-shaped mark images are being printed on a paper to perform alignment (paragraph 74 and Fig.3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Iwano’262 according to the teaching of Oki’922 to print position cross-shaped mark images on a paper to perform alignment operation because this will allow the printing alignment to be performed more effectively.
The combination of Iwano’262 and Oki’922 does not teach wherein the hardware processor generates, during image inspection, the reference pattern in a shape identifiable by the hardware processor regardless of a resolution of an inspection image, and executes comparison inspection between the inspection image based on the read image and a reference image.
TATSUO’588 teaches aligning positions of the punch holes by superimposing two images associated with the punch holes regardless of resolution of both of the images (Fig.3 and pages 5 and 6)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Iwano’262 and Oki’922 according to the teaching of TATSUO’588 to superimpose a reference image having the position cross-shaped mark images and the scanned image of the printout having the position cross-shaped mark images to generate a superimposed image and then to inspect if the position cross-shaped mark images in both of the reference image and the scanned image of the printout are matched before performing any alignment processing (wherein the hardware processor generates, during image inspection, the reference pattern in a shape identifiable by the hardware processor regardless of a resolution of an inspection image, and executes comparison inspection between the inspection image based on the read image and a reference image) because this will allow the alignment for a print job to be performed more effectively.
With respect to claim 3, which further limits claim 1, Iwano’262 teaches wherein: the image former is capable of forming the image on the recording medium by using a plurality of colors [As shown in Fig.5A and Fig.5B, the designed printer to print a job is a color printer. Therefore, the color printer is considered having plurality of colors to perform printing], and
the image former forms an image corresponding to the reference pattern with one color of the plurality of colors [as shown in Fig.10, the scanned image of a printout has the marks 1002. Therefore, the marks 1002 is considered being printed with at least one color of the plurality of colors].
With respect to claim 12, which further limits claim 1, Iwano’262 teaches wherein the reference image is generated when the reader reads the image formed on the recording medium (paragraph 60).
With respect to claim 14, it is a claim regarding to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing thereon a computer program. Claim 14 claim how the image inspection apparatus of claim 1 to execute to perform inspection. Claim 14 is obvious in view of Iwano’262, Oki’922 and TATSUO’588 because the claimed combination operates at the same manner as described in the rejected claim 1. In addition, the reference discloses a process, the process would be implemented by a processor that requires a non-transitory computer readable medium, e.g., a RAM, to function, thus, the medium is inherently present
With respect to claim 15, it is a method claim that claims how the image inspection apparatus of claim 1 to perform inspection. Claim 1 is obvious in view of Iwano’262, Oki’922 and TATSUO’588 because the claimed combination operates at the same manner as described in the rejected claim 1. In addition, the reference has disclosed an image inspection apparatus to perform inspection, the process (method) to perform inspection is inherent disclosed to be performed by a processor in image inspection apparatus when image inspection apparatus performs the operation to perform inspection.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwano’262 (US 2021/0398262), Oki’922 (US 2005/0286922) and TATSUO’588 (JP2014093588) and further in view of Osuki’601 (US 2017/0180601).
With respect to claim 2, which further limits claim 1, the combination of Iwano’262, Oki’922 and TATSUO’588 does not teach wherein: the hardware processor is capable of executing processing of converting a resolution of data of an image, and the hardware processor executes, during the image inspection, the comparison inspection by using the inspection image having the resolution lower than a resolution of the read image.
Osuki’601 teaches wherein: the hardware processor is capable of executing processing of converting a resolution of data of an image (paragraph 37 and Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Iwano’262, Oki’922 and TATSUO’588 according to the teaching of Osuki’601 to include an image resolution conversion function in an MFP because this will allow the image to be provided with desired resolution more effectively.
The combination of Iwano’262, Oki’922, TATSUO’588 and Osuki’601 does not teach hardware processor executes, during the image inspection, the comparison inspection by using the inspection image having the resolution lower than a resolution of the read image.
Since Iwano’262 has suggested that the inspection is being performed by comparing the reference image and the image to be inspected (paragraph 118), Oki’922 teaches the position cross-shaped mark images are being printed on a paper to perform alignment (paragraph 74 and Fig.3), TATSUO’588 teaches aligning positions of the punch holes by superimposing two images associated with the punch holes regardless of resolution of both of the images (Fig.3 and pages 5 and 6) and Osuki’601 teaches wherein: the hardware processor is capable of executing processing of converting a resolution of data of an image (paragraph 37 and Fig. 5), therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize to superimpose a reference image having the position cross-shaped mark images and the scanned image of the printout having the position cross-shaped mark images to generate a superimposed image and then to convert the generated superimposed image to a desired resolution which is either lower than the scanned image of the printout having the position cross-shaped mark images, or higher than the scanned image of the printout having the position cross-shaped mark images or equal to the scanned image of the printout having the position cross-shaped mark images (hardware processor executes, during the image inspection, the comparison inspection by using the inspection image having the resolution lower than a resolution of the read image.) because this will allow the superimposed image to be provided for inspection fore effectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Iwano’262, Oki’922, TATSUO’588 and Osuki’601 to superimpose a reference image having the position cross-shaped mark images and the scanned image of the printout having the position cross-shaped mark images to generate a superimposed image and then to convert the generated superimposed image to a desired resolution which is either lower than the scanned image of the printout having the position cross-shaped mark images, or higher than the scanned image of the printout having the position cross-shaped mark images or equal to the scanned image of the printout having the position cross-shaped mark images (hardware processor executes, during the image inspection, the comparison inspection by using the inspection image having the resolution lower than a resolution of the read image.) because this will allow the superimposed image to be provided for inspection fore effectively.
Claims 4, 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwano’262 (US 2021/0398262), Oki’922 (US 2005/0286922) and TATSUO’588 (JP2014093588) and further in view of Kikumoto’070 (US 2016/0086070).
With respect to claim 4, which further limits claim 1, the combination of Iwano’262, Oki’922, TATSUO’588 does not teach wherein: the reference pattern is a pattern based on a trim mark, the trim mark being a marker for a cutting position of the recording medium and including a parallel portion parallel to a cutting line of the recording medium, and the hardware processor generates the reference pattern such that the parallel portion extends to a side opposite to a non-cutting portion of the recording medium.
Kikumoto’070 teaches wherein: the reference pattern is a pattern based on a trim mark, the trim mark being a marker for a cutting position of the recording medium and including a parallel portion parallel to a cutting line of the recording medium (paragraph 26 and Fig.15), and
the hardware processor generates the reference pattern such that the parallel portion extends to a side opposite to a non-cutting portion of the recording medium (Fig. 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Iwano’262, Oki’922 and TATSUO’588 according to the teaching of Kikumoto’070 to utilize the register mark to define how the paper should be cut because this will allow the printed regions in a printout to be cutout more effectively.
With respect to claim 5, which further limits claim 4, the combination of Iwano’262, Oki’922 and TATSUO’588 does not teach wherein a range in which the reference pattern is extended is within a printable area for the image former.
Kikumoto’070 teach wherein a range in which the reference pattern is extended is within a printable area for the image former.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Iwano’262, Oki’922 and TATSUO’588 according to the teaching of Kikumoto’070 to utilize the register mark to define how the paper should be cut because this will allow the printed regions in a printout to be cutout more effectively.
With respect to claim 7, which further limits claim 4, the combination of Iwano’262, Oki’922 and TATSUO’588 does not teach wherein: a plurality of the trim marks includes four corner marks and two center marks, the four corner marks being formed in positions corresponding to four corners of the recording medium, respectively, the two center marks being disposed so as to hold the non-cutting portion of the recording medium therebetween in a center of the recording medium in a width direction of the recording medium, and the hardware processor extends a parallel portion of each of the four corner marks and the parallel portion of each of the two center marks.
Kikumoto’070 teaches wherein: a plurality of the trim marks includes four corner marks and two center marks, the four corner marks being formed in positions corresponding to four corners of the recording medium, respectively, the two center marks being disposed so as to hold the non-cutting portion of the recording medium therebetween in a center of the recording medium in a width direction of the recording medium (Fig. 15), and
the hardware processor extends a parallel portion of each of the four corner marks and the parallel portion of each of the two center marks (Fig. 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Iwano’262, Oki’922 and TATSUO’588 according to the teaching of Kikumoto’070 to utilize the register mark to define how the paper should be cut because this will allow the printed regions in a printout to be cutout more effectively.
With respect to claim 8, which further limits claim 1, the combination of Iwano’262, Oki’922 and TATSUO’588 does not teach further comprising an operator that is operable by a user, wherein in a case where the user selects the reference pattern via the operator, the hardware processor adds the reference pattern to the image data.
Kikumoto’070 teaches an operator that is operable by a user, wherein in a case where the user selects the reference pattern via the operator, the hardware processor adds the reference pattern to the image data (Fig.15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Iwano’262, Oki’922 and TATSUO’588 according to the teaching of Kikumoto’070 to utilize the register mark to define how the paper should be cut because this will allow the printed regions in a printout to be cutout more effectively.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwano’262 (US 2021/0398262), Oki’922 (US 2005/0286922) and TATSUO’588 (JP2014093588 ) and further in view of TOMOSHI’259 (JP 2006027259).
With respect to claim 9, which further limits claim 1, the combination of Iwano’262, Oki’922 and TATSUO’588 does not teach wherein the hardware processor configures the reference pattern used during the image inspection to be larger than the reference pattern used other than during the image inspection.
TOMOSHI’259 teaches wherein the hardware processor configures the reference pattern used during the image inspection to be larger than the reference pattern used other than during the image inspection [as shown in Fig.8(c), the size of the registration mark is being defined according to the user’s input. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define the size of the registration mark used during the image inspection to be larger than the registration mark used other than during the image inspection since it is just a user’s preference and this will allow the inspection to be perform more effectively].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Iwano’262, Oki’922 and TATSUO’588 according to the teaching of TOMOSHI’259 to allow a user to defined the size of the registration marks to be printed with a job because this will allow the print job to be inspected more effectively.
With respect to claim 10, which further limits claim 1, the combination of Iwano’262, Oki’922 and TATSUO’588 does not teach an operator that is operable by a user, wherein a position and a size of the reference pattern are set based on numerical values inputted by the user via the operator.
TOMOSHI’259 teaches an operator that is operable by a user, wherein a position and a size of the reference pattern are set based on numerical values inputted by the user via the operator (Fig.8(c)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Iwano’262, Oki’922 and TATSUO’588 according to the teaching of TOMOSHI’259 to allow a user to defined the size of the registration marks to be printed with a job because this will allow the print job to be inspected more effectively.
With respect to claim 11, which further limits claim 10, the combination of Iwano’262, Oki’922 and TATSUO’588 does not teach wherein for the position and the size of the reference pattern, values corresponding to a shape identifiable by the hardware processor are set as default values for the operator regardless of the resolution of the inspection image during the image inspection.
TOMOSHI’259 teaches wherein for the position and the size of the reference pattern, values corresponding to a shape identifiable by the hardware processor are set as default values for the operator regardless of the resolution of the inspection image during the image inspection (Fig.8(c)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Iwano’262, Oki’922 and TATSUO’588 according to the teaching of TOMOSHI’259 to allow a user to defined the size of the registration marks to be printed with a job because this will allow the print job to be inspected more effectively.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwano’262 (US 2021/0398262), Oki’922 (US 2005/0286922) and TATSUO’588 (JP2014093588) and further in view of Umeda’327 (US 2012/0321327).
With respect to claim 13, which further limits claim 1, the combination of Iwano’262, Oki’922 and TATSUO’588 does not teach wherein the reference image is an image based on image data that has been subjected to RIP processing.
Umeda’327 teaches wherein the reference image is an image based on image data that has been subjected to RIP processing (paragraph 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Iwano’262, Oki’922 and TATSUO’588 according to the teaching of TOMOSHI’259 to provide the reference image generated by the RIP accelerator for inspection because this will allow the print job to be inspected more effectively.
Claim objection
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1 because the prior art of record does not teach “wherein: the hardware processor extends, in a case where the comparison inspection is executed by configuring the resolution of the inspection image in a first direction to be one-N-th the resolution of the read image, a number of pixels in the parallel portion in the first direction to N or more, N being a positive real number of 1 or more, and the hardware processor extends, in a case where the comparison inspection is executed by configuring the resolution of the inspection image in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction to be one-M-th a resolution of the read image, a number of pixels in the parallel portion in the second direction to M or more, M being a positive real number of 1 or more.” Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUO LONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am - 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tieu, Benny 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.
/HUO LONG CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights