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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraki (US 20220413784 A1) in view of Noda (US 7050186)
Regarding claim 2, (New) Shiraki teaches an inspection system configured to receive an inspection job for executing print processing for forming an image on a recording material to generate a printed material and inspection processing for performing inspection by comparing image data generated on a basis of the printed material with a reference image, the inspection system comprising: a controller having one or more processors which execute instructions stored in one or more memories (fig. 2), the controller being configured to: cause the inspection system to store the reference image in a storage device on a basis of execution of the inspection job being executed (p0019:an image read by the image reader is formed before final printing by the image former in order to create a reference image and s109 in fig. 8a), and
Shiraki does not teach cause the inspection system to delete the reference image from the storage device on a basis of a reception of an instruction to cancel the inspection job before completion of the execution of the inspection job.
Noda teaches cause the inspection system to delete the reference image from the storage device on a basis of a reception of an instruction to cancel the inspection job before completion of the execution of the inspection job (col. 13, lines 20:30: the specific process is executed to delete or invalidate the print data stored to the receiving buffer 1611 or drawing buffer 1613, in accordance with the job number of the print job to which the cancel instruction is issued).
Shiraki and Noda are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. 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 Shiraki with the teaching of Noda for purpose of provide a system capable of canceling the print job in the printer.
Regarding claim 5, (New) Shiraki teaches the inspection system according to Claim 2, further comprising: a printing apparatus configured to execute the print processing; a reading apparatus configured to read the printed material and generate the image data; and an inspection apparatus configured to execute the inspection processing (fig. 2).
Claims 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraki in view of Noda as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sekine (US 20190310809).
Regarding claim 3, (New) Shiraki in view of Noda does not teach the inspection system according to Claim 2, wherein the inspection job includes a setting for deleting the reference image from the storage device according to the instruction to cancel the inspection job, and wherein, on the basis of the reception of the instruction to cancel the inspection job before the completion of the execution of the inspection job, the controller causes the inspection system to delete the reference image from the storage device.
Sekine teaches wherein the inspection job includes a setting for deleting the reference image from the storage device according to the instruction to cancel the inspection job, and wherein, on the basis of the reception of the instruction to cancel the inspection job before the completion of the execution of the inspection job, the controller causes the inspection system to delete the reference image from the storage device (p0048:the job control processing unit 201 deletes information about the selected print job from the job list (i.e., the RAM 102) so that printing of the selected print job will not be executed. In this process, the job control processing unit 201 also deletes print data of the print job (Fact that canceled print job data got deleted, system must be setup this way).
Shiraki in view of Noda and Sekine are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. 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 Shiraki in view of Noda with the teaching of Sekine for purpose of the printing apparatus automatically cancels the new print job after a lapse of another designated time unless the interruption factor is eliminated. If the interruption factor is eliminated before a lapse of another designated time, the printing apparatus automatically executes printing of the new print job (p0004).
Regarding claim 4, (New) Shiraki in view of Noda and Sekine teaches the inspection system according to Claim 2, further comprising an operation interface (I/F) configured to receive a user operation, wherein, on the basis of the reception of the instruction to cancel the inspection job before the completion of the execution of the inspection job, the controller causes the inspection system to receive an instruction to delete the reference image from the storage device via the operation I/F and, on a basis of a reception of the instruction to delete the reference image from the storage device, causes the inspection system to delete the reference image from the storage device (Sekine: fig. 9 and 10).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 3 has been incorporated herein.
Claims 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraki in view of Noda as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Manabe (US 20220201150).
Regarding claim 6, (New) Shiraki in view of Noda does not teach the inspection system according to Claim 2, wherein, in a case where the controller does not cause the inspection system to store the reference image in the storage device on the basis of the execution of the inspection job and causes the inspection system to use the reference image stored in advance, the controller does not cause the inspection system to delete the reference image from the storage device even in a case where the instruction to cancel the inspection job has been received before the completion of the execution of the inspection job.
Manabe teaches wherein, in a case where the controller does not cause the inspection system to store the reference image in the storage device on the basis of the execution of the inspection job and causes the inspection system to use the reference image stored in advance (claim 8: reference image registered in advance for each sheet to be inspected), the controller does not cause the inspection system to delete the reference image from the storage device even in a case where the instruction to cancel the inspection job has been received before the completion of the execution of the inspection job (fig. 12: s1201-s1203).
Shiraki in view of Noda and Manabe are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. 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 Shiraki in view of Noda with the teaching of Manabe for purpose of printing is continued even when a defect is detected and processing is performed by the post-processing apparatus in units of books (p0006).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Merouan, Abderrahim can be reached on (571) 270-5254. 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.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights