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 .
Claims 1 – 11 are pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1101/2024 and 11/10/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Applicant has provided an explanation of relevance of cited document(s) JP-2019-132966A on page 1 of the specification.
Applicants have not provided an explanation of relevance of cited document(s) discussed below.
Hiroki (JP 2013251611) teaches an image processing apparatus 101 that discriminates by printing processing whether an image to be printed on a recording medium is a color image. If discriminating the image in the affirmative, the apparatus 101 adjusts the timing of performing printing image data generation processing, reference image processing, printing processing, scan image acquisition processing, and quality determination processing so as to perform the printing processing, scan image acquisition processing, and quality determination processing after performing the printing image data generation processing and reference image processing.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1 – 9 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “An image inspection apparatus comprising a hardware processor that, generates a reference image to be used for inspection of an image formed on a recording medium; inspects the image formed on the recording medium based on the reference image; and receives designation of a generation timing of generating the reference image”.
The claim limitation of “generates a reference image to be used for inspection of an image formed on a recording medium”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human activity or mind but for the recitation of generic computer component. That is, other than reciting “hardware processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically performed in human activity or mind. For example, but for the “hardware processor”, “generate” in the content of this claim encompass the user to draw an image into a paper/sheet.
Similarly, the limitation of “inspects the image formed on the recording medium based on the reference image”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human activity or mind but for the recitation of generic computer component. That is, other than reciting “hardware processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically performed in human activity or mind. For example, but for the “hardware processor”, “inspect” in the content of this claim encompass the user to analyze/inspect the drawn image.
Similarly, the limitation of “receives designation of a generation timing of generating the reference image”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human activity or mind but for the recitation of generic computer component. That is, other than reciting “hardware processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically performed in human activity or mind. For example, but for the “hardware processor”, “receives” in the content of this claim encompass the user to correct the inspected/analyzed drawn image to redraw the image.
If a claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a hardware processor to perform the generating, inspecting and receiving steps.
The hardware processor in first step is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a hardware processor to perform generating, inspecting and receiving steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
With respect to claim 11, the claim defines a computer-readable recording medium embodying functional descriptive material (i.e., instructions). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable recording medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. In ¶0005 and ¶0126 of the Filed Applicant’s Specification says that the computer-readable recording medium can be nonvolatile, but this is only given as an example, and therefore the specification doesn’t preclude transitory computer-readable recording medium.
The claims, as defined in the specification, cover both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. A claim drawn to such a computer-readable recording medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Therefore, the examiner suggests amending the claims to recite a "Non-transitory computer-readable recording medium" in order to overcome the rejection.
The examiner directs Applicant's attention to the OFFICIAL GAZETTE of the U.S Patent and Trademark Office, 1351 OG 212.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 - 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka (U.S PreGrant Publication No. 2023/0122294 A1, hereinafter ‘Tanaka’).
With respect to claim 1, Tanaka teaches an image inspection apparatus (e.g., an inspection apparatus, abstract, ¶0012) comprising a hardware processor (e.g., at least a processor, ¶0012) that, generates a reference image to be used for inspection of an image formed on a recording medium (e.g., generate a reference image to be used for inspection of an image printed on a sheet, ¶0012 - ¶0013, ¶0042); inspects the image formed on the recording medium based on the reference image (e.g., inspect the image printed on the sheet based on the reference image, ¶0042, ¶0061, ¶0075, ¶0084); and receives designation of a generation timing of generating the reference image (e.g., via inspection method setting, update or register image by inspection method setting section 404, Fig. 4A, ¶0057, ¶0084).
With respect to claim 2, Tanaka teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a controller that controls generation of the reference image on the basis of the generation timing (e.g., controls generation of the reference image based on the inspection method setting section 404, abstract, ¶0012 - ¶0013, ¶0101).
With respect to claim 3, Tanaka teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an image former (e.g., a printer engine 210, Fig. 2B) that forms the image on the recording medium based on a document image (e.g., configured to print image on an image, ¶0042), wherein the generation timing includes a first timing before image formation by the image former and a second timing different from the first timing (e.g., Fig. 4 – item 404 – RIP inspection).
With respect to claim 4, Tanaka teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the second timing includes a timing during image formation by the image former (e.g., Fig. 4 – item 404 – Scan Inspection).
With respect to claim 5, Tanaka teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising: a controller that performs control so that the document image is transmitted to the hardware processor and the image former on the basis of the reception of designation of the second timing (e.g., print job (reference image) is transmitted to the inspection apparatus and the printer can recover printing (print again) if the scanning inspection is set and recovery mode is set, ¶0042, ¶0059 - ¶0062).
With respect to claim 6, Tanaka teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the controller causes the hardware processor and the image former to perform, in parallel, the generation of the reference image and formation of the image on the recording medium (e.g., while scanning other pages, the printer is already printing, Fig. 8, ¶0054, ¶0061, ¶0087 with ¶0102).
With respect to claim 7, Tanaka teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising a controller that controls generation of the reference image according to the generation timing, wherein, when receiving designation of the second timing and performing inspection on a sheet on which an image has been formed based on the document image of an x-th page among 1 to n pages, the controller determines, prior to inspection of the x-th page, whether or not generation of the reference image for the x-th page is completed (e.g., Under examiner approach for scan inspection; if an error occurs in a page (e.g., any page from a print job) that is NG (anomaly), then print again from said page that is NG for recovery, ¶0060 - ¶0061, ¶0071, ¶0090, ¶0102 and ¶0109).
With respect to claim 8, Tanaka teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising a controller that controls generation of the reference image according to the generation timing, wherein, when receiving designation of the second timing and performing inspection on a sheet on which an image has been formed based on the document image of an x-th page among 1 to n pages, the controller determines, prior to inspection of the x-th page, whether or not the reference image for the x-th page has already been generated and storing the reference image into a storage has been completed (e.g., Under examiner approach for scan inspection; if an error occurs in the page (e.g., any page from the print job) that is NG (anomaly), then page is temporary held and printed again from said held page that is NG for recover; this process is collectively performed for all pages and inspection is performed page by page, ¶0057 - ¶0061, ¶0071 - ¶0072, ¶0090 - ¶0092, ¶0102 and ¶0109, Fig. 8).
With respect to claim 9, Tanaka teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising a controller that controls generation of the reference image according to the generation timing (Fig. 4A - inspection method setting section 404 – RIP inspection), wherein, when receiving designation of the first timing, the controller determines, prior to image formation by the image former, whether or not a registered reference image to be used for inspection has been designated (e.g., refer to ¶0013 with ¶0061 for more details, Fig. 4A – Fig 4C).
With respect to claim 10, this is a method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1. Therefore, this is rejected for the same reasons as apparatus claim 1.
With respect to claim 11, Tanaka notes that the invention may be realized through the execution by a CPU (Fig. 1 - CPU 226, ¶0026) of instruction codes (e.g., a program, ¶0046) stored in a computer-readable recording medium (e.g., stored in a storage unit 228, ¶0046). The further limitations are met by the teachings as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nakano (U.S Patent No. 11,455,717 B2)1
Tsukamoto (U.S PG Publication No. 2021/0118115 A1)2
1This reference teaches an inspection device including an image reader that generates a scan image, an inspector that inspects an inspection target image formed on a storage medium, by comparing a scan image with a reference image, a storage that stores the reference image, and a hardware processor that stores into the storage the reference image generated as the scan image by reading with the image reader an image formed on a recording medium by the image former on a basis of a second print job for generating the reference image, determines whether the reference image stored in the storage satisfies a predetermined condition when a data amount of the reference image stored in the storage becomes equal to or larger than a predetermined amount, and deletes the reference image determined to satisfy the predetermined condition from the storage.
2This reference teaches an image inspection device that inspects an inspection image obtained by reading a sheet. The image inspection device includes a hardware processor that: performs inspection by comparing the inspection image with a reference image that is obtained by reading the original image that is printed on the sheet; determines whether a possibility of abnormality exists in the reference image based on a difference between the reference image and the inspection image; displays a difference portion between the reference image and the inspection image when determining that the possibility of abnormality exists in the reference image; receives a selection of a normality or an abnormality for each of the reference image and the inspection image; and replaces the reference image with the inspection image when the abnormality is selected for the reference image and the normality is selected for the inspection image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN M GUILLERMETY whose telephone number is (571)270-3481. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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 Q TIEU can be reached at 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 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.
/JUAN M GUILLERMETY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights