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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 6-7, should read “and receives an execution instruction to execute inspection before generation of the reference image [[by]] is completed.”.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 is: “image former” and “controller” in claims 4-7.
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 (see paragraph 0023) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “receives an execution instruction to execute inspection before generation of the reference image by is completed.”, which is indefinite. It is unclear whether the “execution instruction to execute inspection” is meant to refer to the previously recited “executes inspection…” step, and if so, how an inspection can be based on a reference image that is not yet complete. The claim language suggests a logical inconsistency between the generation of the reference image and execution of the inspection. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of the claim. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted to mean receiving any execution instruction to perform any inspection before the generation of the reference image is complete.
Claims 8 and 9 contain limitations found analogues to that of claim 1. Therefore, claims 8 and 9 are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 2-7 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murakami et al. (JP 2004020356 A), (hereinafter Murakami).
Regarding claim 1, Murakami teaches an image inspection apparatus comprising a hardware processor (Murakami, pg. 5, lines 6-18, “FIG. 1 is a conceptual diagram showing an example in which a printed matter inspection apparatus according to the present invention is applied to an offset rotary printing press. The printed matter inspection apparatus 10 mainly has an offset rotary printing press 12 and an inspection system 20. A roll paper 14 as a typical example of the printed matter of the present invention is set in the offset rotary printing press 12… The inspection system 20 has a main body 22, a sensor unit 28, and a display device 30.”, pg. 6, lines 4-9, “The main body 22 includes a control unit 23, a reference image data creation circuit 24, a reference image memory 25, and a comparison inspection circuit 26. The control unit 23 is connected to the reference image data creation circuit 24, the reference image memory 25, and the comparison inspection circuit 26, and is used to control these.”) that,
generates a reference image to be used for inspection of an image formed on a recording medium; executes inspection of the image formed on the recording medium based on the reference image (Murakami, pg. 4, lines 7-28, “In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the print content of a continuously conveyed printed matter, for example, a pattern on a roll paper is inspected. Preferably, the pattern is detected by a sensor and obtained as electronic information (image data) of the pattern. The configuration of the sensor and the method of acquiring image data by the 10 sensor are arbitrary. The first reference image data is created from the image data of the printed matter at a certain point during the conveyance, and the second reference image data is created from the image data of the printed matter at another point during the conveyance. These are used to inspect the printed matter being transported. Preferably, the creation of the second reference image data is started when the state of the inspection using the first reference image data becomes unstable (for example, when the error frequency increases). After that, the created second reference image data is replaced 20 with the first reference image data, and the comparative inspection is preferably performed using the second reference image data. Preferably, a comparative inspection using both the first reference image data and the second reference image data is performed while replacing the first reference image data with the second reference image data. In this case, the replacement of the first reference image data with the second reference image data is performed without interrupting the inspection.”, pg. 6, lines 24-28, “The comparison inspection circuit 26 is connected to the reference image memory 25. The comparative inspection circuit 26 performs comparative inspection of the image data D using the reference image data S stored in the reference image memory 25. The comparison inspection circuit 26 compares the first reference image data S1 and the second reference image data S2 with the image data D.”, The system performs inspection for patterns formed on printed matter by first acquiring an image of the pattern and generating a first reference image for inspection comparison. When the inspection becomes unstable, a second reference image is generated and the system executes inspection using the second reference image as a replacement for the first reference image.); and
receives an execution instruction to execute inspection before generation of the reference image by is completed (Murakami, pg. 7, lines 15-21, “Next, when the state of the inspection based on the first reference image data S1 becomes unstable during conveyance (when the error frequency is high, but there is no difference in the pattern as seen by a human), the sensor The acquisition of the image data D2 of the printed matter at that time by the unit 28 is started. The start of acquisition of the image data D2 is preferably controlled by the control unit 23. For example, it is preferable to provide an update button (not shown) in the control unit 23 and start the operation by pressing the update button, but it may be automatic.”, pgs. 7 and 8, lines 33-34 and 1-14, respectively, “The image data D2 transmitted to the comparison and inspection circuit 26 is compared and inspected using the first reference image data S1 stored in the bank 2. That is, while the second reference image data S2 is being created from the image data D2, the image data D2 is compared and inspected with the first reference image data S1. Therefore, the inspection is not interrupted during the creation of the reference image data. The created second reference image data S2 is transmitted to the reference image memory 25 and stored in the bank 1. After the creation of the second reference image data S2, the comparison inspection circuit 26 compares and inspects the image data D of the printed material being transported using both the first reference image data S1 and the second reference image data S2. Thereby, the reference image data can be averaged and inspected. It is preferable to perform the inspection for a certain period of time using both 10 the image data S1 and the second reference image data S2. However, after performing the comparison inspection using only the first reference image data S1, the comparison inspection is continuously performed using only the second reference image data S2 is also good.”, When the state of inspection becomes unstable, the system receives update instruction, such as an update button or automatically, to begin the generation of the second reference image. During this generation, inspection is executed using the first reference image. Thus, the execution of inspection (using the first reference image) occurs before the generation of the second reference image is completed to perform continuous inspection.).
Regarding claim 2, Murakami teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor receives the execution instruction to execute inspection before or during the generation of the reference image (Murakami, pgs. 7 and 8, lines 33-34 and 1-3, respectively, “The image data D2 transmitted to the comparison and inspection circuit 26 is compared and inspected using the first reference image data S1 stored in the bank 2. That is, while the second reference image data S2 is being created from the image data D2, the image data D2 is compared and inspected with the first reference image data S1. Therefore, the inspection is not interrupted during the creation of the reference image data.”, The system receives the update instruction to begin the generation the second reference image. During this generation, the system executes inspection using the first reference image.).
Regarding claim 3, Murakami teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor further receives, after the generation of the reference image, an execution instruction to execute inspection based on the reference image (Murakami, pg. 4, lines 13-22, “The first reference image data is created from the image data of the printed matter at a certain point during the conveyance, and the second reference image data is created from the image data of the printed matter at another point during the conveyance. These are used to inspect the printed matter being transported. Preferably, the creation of the second reference image data is started when the state of the inspection using the first reference image data becomes unstable (for example, when the error frequency increases). After that, the created second reference image data is replaced 20 with the first reference image data, and the comparative inspection is preferably performed using the second reference image data.”).
Claim 8 corresponds to claim 1, reciting an image inspection method to perform the steps according to claim 1. Murakami teaches an image inspection method to perform the steps according to claim 1 (Murakami, paragraphs 0033-0039). As indicated in the analysis of claim 1, Murakami teaches all the limitations according to claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 9 corresponds to claim 1, additionally reciting a computer-readable recording medium storing an image inspection program for causing a computer to execute the functions according to claim 1. Murakami teaches the addition of a computer-readable recording medium storing an image inspection program for causing a computer to execute the functions according to claim 1 (Murakami, pg. 6, lines 4-9, “The main body 22 includes a control unit 23, a reference image data creation circuit 24, a reference image memory 25, and a comparison inspection circuit 26. The control unit 23 is connected to the reference image data creation circuit 24, the reference image memory 25, and the comparison inspection circuit 26, and is used to control these.”). As indicated in the analysis of claim 1, Murakami teaches all the limitations according to claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
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.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (JP 2004020356 A) in view of Muraishi (US 20230377130 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Murakami teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an image former that forms an image on the recording medium; and a controller that performs control so as to transmit the image to the hardware processor (Murakami, pg. 6, lines 7-19, “The control unit 23 is connected to the reference image data creation circuit 24, the reference image memory 25, and the comparison inspection circuit 26, and is used to control these. The reference image data creation circuit 24 is connected to the sensor unit 28. The image data D of the printed material being conveyed obtained by the sensor unit 28 is transmitted to the reference image data creation circuit 24. The reference image data creation circuit 24 creates image data (reference image data S) to be a reference for comparison.”, pg. 7, lines 15-25, “The image data D2 is transmitted to the reference image data creation circuit 24 and the comparison inspection circuit 26. The reference image data creation circuit 24 creates the second reference image data S2 from the image data D2.”).
Murakami does not teach an image former that forms an image on the recording medium based on a document image; and a controller that performs control so as to transmit the document image to the hardware processor and the image former on the basis of the reception of the execution instruction.
However, Muraishi teaches an image former that forms an image on the recording medium based on a document image; and a controller that performs control so as to transmit the document image to the hardware processor and the image former on the basis of the reception of the execution instruction (Muraishi, pg. 2, paragraphs 0030-0032, “The information processing apparatus 140 performs raster image processor (RIP) processing of print data and document data, and generates a bitmap image for printing with the image forming apparatus 100. The information processing apparatus 140 performs control relating to printing with the image forming apparatus 100 and manages the print job. The information processing apparatus 140 includes a control unit 240 and a UI unit 246. The control unit 240 includes a CPU 241, a RAM 242, a ROM 243, a network I/F unit 244, and an image processing unit 245… The image processing unit 245 performs the RIP processing for converting the print data and the document data transmitted from the client PC 130, into bitmap image data based on a use application of the RIP processing and print setting. More specifically, in a case of the RIP processing for reference image registration, for example, the image processing unit 245 converts resolution of 600 dpi into 300 dpi to generate an image.”, see Fig. 8, region 803, for example of document image).
Murakami teaches a roll paper inspection system which forms images of printed patterns on roll papers and transmits this image data to an image creation circuit and control circuit for reference image generation and comparison to perform continuous inspection (Murakami, pg. 6, lines 7-19 and pg. 7, lines 15-25). Murakami does not teach forming printed pattern images based on document images. Muraishi teaches document image inspection which forms RIP images based on print and document data and transmits these images to an image former and processor for inspection (see above). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the inspection system of Murakami to include the image former for document image inspection as taught by Muraishi (Muraishi, pg. 2, paragraphs 0030-0032, see Fig. 8, region 803). The motivation for doing so would have been to enable continuous inspection of document pages in a print job, thereby improving the robustness of the inspection process. The combination of Murakami in view of Muraishi would result in an inspection system that transmits captured document images to both the image former for image generation and hardware processor for inspection comparison. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Murakami with Muraishi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Murakami in view of Muraishi teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 4, 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 (Muraishi, pg. 2, paragraph 0032, lines 8-16, “In a case of the RIP processing for print data, the image processing unit 245 generates an image of 600 dpi without reducing the resolution. In the RIP processing for the reference image registration, the RIP-processed image data is transferred to the inspection apparatus 150 via the network 160, and is used as an inspection reference image. In the RIP processing for the print data in inspection, the RIP-processed image data is transferred to the image forming apparatus 100 via the network 160, and is subjected to print processing.”, pg. 4, paragraph 0058, lines 10-13, “In a case where "registration and printing" is selected, the operation in the case where "only registration" is selected and the operation in the case where "only printing" is selected are successively performed.”, see Fig. 3, inspection operation setting section 304, During RIP image processing the image data is transferred to both the image former for printing and to the inspection apparatus to be used during reference image generation. The image former is configured to form images based on user selected print jobs. This includes settings for simultaneous “registration and print”, where formation of images and registration of reference images (including updating reference images) are performed in parallel.).
Regarding claim 6, Murakami in view of Muraishi teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the controller causes the image former to form the image on the recording medium after the generation of the reference image (Muraishi, pg. 4, paragraph 0058, lines 1-9, “The user registers the reference image and/or selects a combination of print operation of the regular print job in an inspection operation setting section 304. In a case where "only registration" is selected, the inspection apparatus 150 performs only registration of the reference image and inspection setting thereof. In a case where "only printing" is selected, printing by the image forming apparatus 100 and inspection by the inspection apparatus 150 are performed using the previously registered reference image.”, The image former is configured to form images based on user selected print jobs. This includes “print only” where formation of the printed image is performed using previously stored references.)
Regarding claim 7, Murakami teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising: an image former that forms an image on the recording medium; and a controller that performs control (Murakami, pg. 6, lines 7-19, “The control unit 23 is connected to the reference image data creation circuit 24, the reference image memory 25, and the comparison inspection circuit 26, and is used to control these. The reference image data creation circuit 24 is connected to the sensor unit 28. The image data D of the printed material being conveyed obtained by the sensor unit 28 is transmitted to the reference image data creation circuit 24. The reference image data creation circuit 24 creates image data (reference image data S) to be a reference for comparison.”, pg. 7, lines 15-25, “The image data D2 is transmitted to the reference image data creation circuit 24 and the comparison inspection circuit 26. The reference image data creation circuit 24 creates the second reference image data S2 from the image data D2.”).
Murakami does not teach an image former that forms an image on the recording medium based on a document image; and a controller that performs control so as to transmit the document image to the image former on the basis of the reception of the execution instruction after the generation of the reference image.
However, Muraishi teaches an image former that forms an image on the recording medium based on a document image; and a controller that performs control so as to transmit the document image to the image former on the basis of the reception of the execution instruction after the generation of the reference image. (Muraishi, pg. 2, paragraphs 0030-0032, “The information processing apparatus 140 performs raster image processor (RIP) processing of print data and document data, and generates a bitmap image for printing with the image forming apparatus 100. The information processing apparatus 140 performs control relating to printing with the image forming apparatus 100 and manages the print job. The information processing apparatus 140 includes a control unit 240 and a UI unit 246. The control unit 240 includes a CPU 241, a RAM 242, a ROM 243, a network I/F unit 244, and an image processing unit 245… The image processing unit 245 performs the RIP processing for converting the print data and the document data transmitted from the client PC 130, into bitmap image data based on a use application of the RIP processing and print setting. More specifically, in a case of the RIP processing for reference image registration, for example, the image processing unit 245 converts resolution of 600 dpi into 300 dpi to generate an image.”, pg. 4, paragraph 0058, lines 1-9, “The user registers the reference image and/or selects a combination of print operation of the regular print job in an inspection operation setting section 304. In a case where "only registration" is selected, the inspection apparatus 150 performs only registration of the reference image and inspection setting thereof. In a case where "only printing" is selected, printing by the image forming apparatus 100 and inspection by the inspection apparatus 150 are performed using the previously registered reference image.”, see Fig. 8, region 803, for example of document image).
Murakami teaches a roll paper inspection system which forms images of printed patterns on roll papers and transmits this image data to an image creation circuit and control circuit for reference image generation and comparison to perform continuous inspection (Murakami, pg. 6, lines 7-19 and pg. 7, lines 15-25). Murakami does not teach forming printed pattern images based on document images. Muraishi teaches document image inspection which forms RIP images based on print and document data and transmits these images to an image former and processor for inspection (see above). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the inspection system of Murakami to include the image former for document image inspection as taught by Muraishi (Muraishi, pg. 2, paragraphs 0030-0032, see Fig. 8, region 803). The motivation for doing so would have been to enable continuous inspection of document pages in a print job, thereby improving the robustness of the inspection process. The combination of Murakami in view of Muraishi would result in an inspection system that transmits captured document images to both the image former for image generation and hardware processor for inspection, where the image former is configured to form images based on user selected print jobs, such as “print only” using previously stored reference images. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Murakami with Muraishi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR LEVI HANSEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 (ET).
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CONNOR L HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights