952083DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or 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 .
2. Claims 1-21 are pending in this application.
Priority
3. Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on application JP 2023-198929 filed on 11/24/2023 under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d).
Drawings
4. The drawing has been filed on 11/19/2024 are acceptable for examination purpose.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement filed on 11/19/2024 is in compliance with the provision of the 37 CFR 1.97 and therefore has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. 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 1-21 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “an image former that forms an image on a recording medium based on a job; and a hardware processor that acquires a read image obtained by reading the image formed on the recording medium, wherein the hardware processor: inspects the read image, receives an interruption job, and interrupts inspection and image formation of the job being executed when the interruption job is received during execution of the job”.
The claim limitation of “wherein the hardware processor: inspects the read image, receives an interruption job, and interrupts inspection and image formation of the job being executed when the interruption job is received during execution of the job”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component. That is, other than reciting “by a hardware processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a hardware processor” language, “acquiring” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually acquires a read image obtained by reading the image formed on the recording medium. Similarly, the limitations of “interrupting” to obtain interruption job during execution of the job being executed. as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component. For example, but for the “by a hardware processor” language, “acquiring & interrupting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking that the image inspection system reads image formed on a sheet and interrupt the read image when acquires interrupt job during execution of the job. If a claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” 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 doesn’t recite any additional element – using a hardware processor to perform acquiring & interrupting steps. The hardware processor in last steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic control unit performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the claimed steps do 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 any 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 claimed steps of using a hardware processor to perform acquiring & interrupting 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.
8. the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because:
Claim 21 limitation recites “a computer-readable recording medium” embodying functional descriptive material (i.e., a program). Moreover, the scope of the presently claimed invention encompasses products not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention. For example, the computer-readable recording of claim 21 could be a signal incorporating a data structure within a carrier wave, at least because Applicants specification does not limit the computer-readable recording medium to strictly hardware. See Applicant’s specification at, for example, [fig. 2, element 51 or 201 or 202 or 203; paras., 0026, 0031].
The Examiner suggests amending the claims to recite “a non- transitory computer-readable recording medium . . .”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 10, 12, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Azuma, US Pub 2023/0308548.
As to claim 1[independent], Azuma teaches an image inspection system comprising [fig. 1; 0021]:
an image former that forms an image on a recording medium based on a job [fig. 12, steps 1201, 1204; 0130, 0132 Azuma teaches that the printer 0101 executes printing based on the main print job received in step 1201]; and
a hardware processor that acquires a read image obtained by reading the image formed on the recording medium [fig. 12, steps 1201, 1204-1205; 0043, 0130, 0132 Azuma teaches that the printer 0101 executes printing based on the main print job received in step 1201, then the printer 0101 transmits scanned image obtained by scanning a printed matter obtained by printing the main print job, to the inspection apparatus 0108 and in response, the inspection apparatus 0108 executes inspection processing on the transmitted scanned image], wherein
the hardware processor [fig. 2, element 0201; 0029]:
inspects the read image [0005, 0043, 0130, 0132 Azuma teaches that the printer 0101 is scanning a printed matter obtained by printing the main print job, to the inspection apparatus 0108 that executes inspection processing on the transmitted scanned image],
receives an interruption job [fig. 12, steps 1201, 1204-1205; 0043, 0130 Azuma teaches that the processor 0201 of the printer 0101 receives the interruption job correspond to normal & a reference image registration job], and
interrupts inspection and image formation of the job being executed when the interruption job is received during execution of the job [fig. 12, steps 1201, 1204-1205; 0043, 0130-0133 Azuma teaches that the processor 0201 of the printer 0101 receives the interruption job correspond to normal & a reference image registration job interrupts the inspection and image formation of the main print job, until the at least one of the interrupted reference image registration job is registered during the print job execution process including the inspection as well. When the interrupted reference image registration job is registered, then the inspection and image formation of the main print job is resumed and started for forming & inspecting images of the main print job].
As to claim 10 [dependent from claim 1], Azuma teaches a sheet ejector including a plurality of trays, wherein the hardware processor switches a tray for ejection between the job and the interruption job [0024, 0036, 0044-0047, 0076].
As to claim 12 [dependent from claim 1], Azuma teaches wherein the hardware processor executes a process of distinguishing between a printed material of the job and a printed material of the interruption job [fig. 12, steps 1201, 1204-1205; 0043, 0130-0133 Azuma teaches that the processor 0201 of the printer 0101 receives the interruption job correspond to normal & a reference image registration job interrupts the inspection and image formation of the main print job, until the at least one of the interrupted reference image registration job is registered during the print job execution process including the inspection as well. When the interrupted reference image registration job is registered, then the inspection and image formation of the main print job is resumed and started for forming & inspecting images of the main print job].
As to claim 19 [independent], However, the independent claim 19 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the independent claim 1 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the independent claim 19 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the independent claim 1.
As to claim 20 [independent], However, the independent claim 20 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the independent claim 1 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the independent claim 20 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the independent claim 1.
As to claim 21 [independent], However, the independent claim 21 essentially claimed same subject matter as claimed in the independent claim 1 for/and/with other claim limitations, and are therefore the independent claim 21 would be rejected based on same rationale as applied to the independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azuma, US Pub 2023/0308548 in view of Fujita, US Pub 2022/0164150.
As to claim 11 [dependent from claim 1], Azuma doesn’t teach a sheet ejector, wherein the hardware processor executes a process of prohibiting a printed material of the job being interrupted from being taken out from the sheet ejector.
Fujita teaches a sheet ejector [fig. 3, element 346],
wherein the hardware processor executes a process of prohibiting a printed material of the job being interrupted from being taken out from the sheet ejector [fig. 14, steps 1405, 1407; 0075-0076 Fujita teaches that the printed sheet of the print job is determined to be defected and being interrupted for image processing and discharge the sheet to the escape tray 346].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Fujita teaching to executes a process of prohibiting a printed material of the job being interrupted from being taken out from the sheet ejector to modify Azuma’s teaching to determine whether verifies a printed sheet that is printed according to a job in a case where a print instruction of another job that is different from the former job is received, a controller controls to switch the instruction of the latter job to another job operation in the print control apparatus in the case where the determination unit determines that the verifies the printed sheet. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been benefitted to the user to provide a technique in which occurrence of an error in a verification result of a printed sheet is reduced even if an unexpected job occurs.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 2-9, 13, 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101(abstract idea), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
14. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The dependent claim 2 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein in a case where a read image inspection of the recording medium on which the image is formed before interruption of the image formation of the job being executed is being performed when the hardware processor receives the interruption job, the hardware processor interrupts the inspection and the image formation of the job at least after the read image inspection is completed”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 3 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein in a case where the interruption job does not include a read image inspection of the recording medium, the hardware processor performs a control so as not to inspect the recording medium on which the image is formed in the interruption job”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 4 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the hardware processor controls the image former so as to form an image by inserting a page for the image formation of the interruption job between pages before and after interruption of the image formation of the job”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 5 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the hardware processor: sets a page for which the image formation of the job is interrupted, and executes the interruption job after executing the inspection and the image formation of the job up to the page for which the image formation of the job is interrupted”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 6 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein in a case where the interruption job includes a read image inspection of the recording medium, the hardware processor switches a reference image used for the inspection from an image related to the inspection of the job to an image related to an inspection of the interruption job”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 7 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the hardware processor performs a control so as to display a job up to interruption of the image formation of the job and a job after restart separately in a job list on a display”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claims 8-9 are allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the hardware processor performs a control so as to create a report up to interruption of the image formation of the job and a report after restart of the job., wherein the hardware processor performs a control so as to create the report up to the interruption and the report after the restart together”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 13 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the hardware processor controls the image former so as to perform printing on an interrupted page and a restarted page of the job in a margin of each recording media”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claims 17-18 are allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein the hardware processor outputs a confirmation command for causing a user to confirm an interrupted page and a restarted page in a printed material of the job., wherein the hardware processor terminates the inspection based on information on a user's confirmation result in the confirmation command”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 3 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein in a case where the interruption job does not include a read image inspection of the recording medium, the hardware processor performs a control so as not to inspect the recording medium on which the image is formed in the interruption job”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 3 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein in a case where the interruption job does not include a read image inspection of the recording medium, the hardware processor performs a control so as not to inspect the recording medium on which the image is formed in the interruption job”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 3 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein in a case where the interruption job does not include a read image inspection of the recording medium, the hardware processor performs a control so as not to inspect the recording medium on which the image is formed in the interruption job”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 3 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein in a case where the interruption job does not include a read image inspection of the recording medium, the hardware processor performs a control so as not to inspect the recording medium on which the image is formed in the interruption job”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 3 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein in a case where the interruption job does not include a read image inspection of the recording medium, the hardware processor performs a control so as not to inspect the recording medium on which the image is formed in the interruption job”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
The dependent claim 3 is allowable over the prior arts of record (or cited or listed above) since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly anticipate or disclose or suggest the claim limitations recited “wherein in a case where the interruption job does not include a read image inspection of the recording medium, the hardware processor performs a control so as not to inspect the recording medium on which the image is formed in the interruption job”, in combination with all other limitations as claimed.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARIS SABAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday/Friday from 9:00AM to 5:30PM EST.
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. The Examiner’s personal fax number is (571)270-4917.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HARIS SABAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights