DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
1. 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 § 102
2. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) 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.
3. Claims 1, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kimura (US Pub: 2012/0163852) (Applicant disclosed reference).
Regarding claim 1, Kimura teaches: An information processing system comprising: a processor configured to: accept a setting of whether or not to detect a specific type of abnormality in a printed material output from a printing apparatus and a setting of a process in a case where the specific type of abnormality is detected in the printed material on an identical screen [p0004, p0026, fig. 3].
Regarding claim 5, Kimura further teaches: The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: accept a setting of a threshold value in a case of detecting an abnormality on the identical screen together [p0026, p0028].
Claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Kimura’s further teaching on: A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute [p0077].
Claim 9 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
5. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US Pub: 2012/0163852) (Applicant disclosed reference) and in further view of Kitajima (US Pub: 2013/0016382).
Regarding claim 2, Kimura further teaches: The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the specific type of abnormality includes a color density fluctuation and a misalignment of printing [p0004]. Kimura does not specify a misalignment. In the same field of endeavor, Kitajima teaches an abnormality including a misalignment of printing [fig. 5A, p0066-p0069]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the two to include a misalignment as an abnormality detection for improved functionality.
Regarding claim 3, the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 2 has been incorporated herein. Kimura in view of Kitajima further teach: The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the setting of the process in a case where the specific type of abnormality is detected includes whether or not to correct a color density [Kimura: p0035-p0037, p0042] and whether or not to correct the misalignment of printing [Kitajima: p0067-p0074].
6. Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US Pub: 2012/0163852) (Applicant disclosed reference) and in further view of Watanabe et al (US Pub: 2024/0022677) (Applicant disclosed reference).
Regarding claim 4, Kimura does not disclose a setting that includes executing or stopping printing. In the same field of endeavor, Watanabe et al teaches: The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein a setting of a process in a case where an abnormality is detected includes executing any one of continuing printing by the printing apparatus or stopping the printing by the printing apparatus and waiting for an instruction input from a user [fig. 16]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of all to set either continuing printing or stopping printing upon detection of abnormality per design choice.
Regarding claim 6, Kimura does not present a slider for setting threshold. In the same field of endeavor, Watanabe et al teaches: The information processing system according to claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to: display a slider for setting the threshold value on the identical screen [p0121-p0124]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kimura’s display to incorporate Watanabe et al’s threshold setting slider to improve user experience.
7. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US Pub: 2012/0163852) (Applicant disclosed reference) and in further view of Kamata (US Pub: 2022/0350549) (Applicant disclosed reference).
Regarding claim 7, Kimura further teaches: The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: record, for each printing job for the printing apparatus, the setting of whether or not to detect the specific type of abnormality and the setting of the process in a case where the specific type of abnormality is detected in the printed material in association with each other [p0031]. For a redundant teaching in the same field of endeavor, Kamata also stores abnormality detection selection and its setting in [p0081, p0082, p0089]. Therefore the combined teaching of the two would have made the claimed limitation obvious to a skilled in the art for simplifying future setting.
Contact
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Benny Tieu 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.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights