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 .
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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4: “the object being instructed: of claim 4 does not appear to be proper English. What action the object is being instructed to do is missing from the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama US 2024/0357043 in view of Ochiai US 2022/0318976.
Regarding claims 1, 15, 16: Nakayama teaches an inspection apparatus (paragraph 0041, image forming apparatus 40 includes the inspection device 41 and operation terminal 30, also see paragraph 0112) that operates or is configured to inspect print material (output material, paragraph 0004), the inspection apparatus comprising: one or more controllers (control unit 61, paragraph 0033, 0034) including one or more processors (CPU 11, paragraph 0030) in communication with one or more memories (storage unit 62, paragraph 0032, 0033), the one or more controllers configured or operating to:
obtain a scanned image generated by reading the printed material (paragraph 0042, scans output material);
set an inspection level (predetermine inspection level can be set by an operator via the operation terminal 30, paragraph 0053) for determining whether the printed material passes or fails in a primary inspection (good product, defective product, paragraph 0050);
and display a screen showing an inspection result of the primary inspection on a display (fig. 7, fig. 8, 83 inspection result),
wherein the screen includes the inspection result (fig. 7, fig. 8, 83 inspection result),
of the primary inspection for the printed material at the set inspection level (fig. 7, fig. 8, 81 inspection level), an object (fig. 7, fig. 8, 84, paragraph 0060, enlarged image of the scanned image) that is associated with the inspection result and indicates a target (fig. 7, fig. 8, 85 good product, 86 defective product, paragraph 0061 buttons for receiving, from the user, the input of the determination result; also see paragraph 0043) for inputting a result of a secondary inspection (paragraph 0043, output material determined to be good product by the user….output material is determined to be defective product by the user), and a pass level (fig. 7, inspection level at 2 is a pass level as the inspection result is good product as indicated by 83 of fig. 7) at which an inspection result of the printed material is that the printed material passes the primary inspection (inspection result: good product, fig. 7).
Nakayama does not teach compare the scanned image with a reference image and inspect the printed material based on the set inspection level;
Ochiai teaches compare the scanned image with a reference image and inspect the printed material (paragraph 0038 an image indicating the difference…between the correct image stored in advance and the inspection image obtained by reading the printed material is generated) based on the set inspection level (fig. 9A); to determine a print material pass or fail an inspection. (presence/absence of a print defect is inspected, paragraph 0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nakayama to include: compare the scanned image with a reference image and inspect the printed material based on the set inspection level to determine whether a print material pass or fail an inspection.
The reason of doing so is because comparing scanned image with corrected image is an efficient, reliable, and cost effective way of finding how close the printed material is to what a user desired.
Regarding claim 16: see above rejection on claims 1, 15, Nakayama further teaches an inspection system comprising: a printing apparatus (image forming apparatus, 40, paragraph 0027) that operates or is configured to perform printing based on a job; and an inspection apparatus (inspection device 41, paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 2: Nakayama teaches the inspection apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the target for inputting the result of the secondary inspection is printed material for which the inspection result of the printed material at the set inspection level is that the printed material has failed the primary inspection (fig. 8, 83 inspection result: defective product).
Regarding claim 3: Nakayama teaches the inspection apparatus according to claim 2,
wherein the object (fig. 8, 84, paragraph 0060, the enlarged image display unit 84 is a region in which an enlarged image of the scanned image) is displayed in association with the inspection result of the printed material that failed the primary inspection at the set inspection level (fig. 8, 83, defective product).
Regarding claim 4: Nakayama teaches the inspection apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein in a case where the screen is displayed, the one or more controllers cause the display to display a screen for inputting a result of the secondary inspection due to the object being instructed (fig, 7, fig. 8, 85, 86, good product, defective product; note: see claim objection, “object being instructed” is being interpreted as the object that is being instructed to be display at area 84 of fig. 7 and fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6: Nakayama teaches the inspection apparatus according to claim 1,
Nakayama does not teach wherein in the primary inspection of the printed material, in a case where the inspection result of the printed material at the set inspection level is that the printed material has failed the primary inspection, the one or more controllers further operate to repeatedly execute the primary inspection of the printed material while changing the inspection level until the inspection result of the printed material is that the printed material passes the primary inspection, and the inspection level at which the inspection result of the printed material is that the printed material passes the primary inspection is set as the pass level.
Ochiai teaches: wherein in the primary inspection of the printed material, in a case where the inspection result of the printed material at the set inspection level is that the printed material has failed the primary inspection (paragraph 48, detection threshold values in accordance with any inspection value, paragraph 0041, detection threshold value is explained by using fig. 4A to fig. 4F; note: note: paragraph 0042-0046, detection threshold range set at different values), the one or more controllers further operate to repeatedly execute the primary inspection of the printed material (paragraph 0042-0047, fig. 4A-fig. 4F are difference image obtained by comparing the correct image with inspection image; note, fig. 4A to fig.4F each are set with a different threshold values and obviously to a person with ordinary skill in the art, inspection needed to be repeatedly executed from using different inspection level/threshold from 4A to 4F) while changing the inspection level until the inspection result of the printed material is that the printed material passes the primary inspection (paragraph 0044, contrast threshold value=60 is a pass level; anything smaller than 60 failed the inspection)), and the inspection level at which the inspection result of the printed material is that the printed material passes the primary inspection is set as the pass level (fig. 4C, paragraph 0044 no print defect is detected)..
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nakayama to include: wherein in the primary inspection of the printed material, in a case where the inspection result of the printed material at the set inspection level is that the printed material has failed the primary inspection, the one or more controllers further operate to repeatedly execute the primary inspection of the printed material while changing the inspection level until the inspection result of the printed material is that the printed material passes the primary inspection, and the inspection level at which the inspection result of the printed material is that the printed material passes the primary inspection is set as the pass level.
Note: as seen in fig. fig. 7 of Nakayama, 81 showing inspection level 2 and the result is set as good product. In Ochiai, all the inspection level failed except the inspection level of fig. 4C pass. Therefore, only the inspection level in 4C of Ochiai will show up in fig. 7 of Nakayama and the system will set it as good product (pass) in 83 of fig. 7. Therefore, the inspection level of 4C of Ochiai in the system of Nakayama will be set as the pass level.
The reason of doing so would have allow the system of Nakayama to correctly displaying whether the image is good product or defective production at a certain inspection level.
Regarding claim 7: Nakayama teaches the inspection apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the secondary inspection is a visual inspection of the printed material performed by an operator (paragraph 61 receiving from the user, the input of the determination result of good product or defective product), or the one or more controllers further operate to perform the secondary inspection such that: (i) the printed material is displayed on the display for visual inspection of the printed material (paragraph 0060, an enlarged image of the scanned image of the page selected in the page information display unit 82) and (ii) the one or more controllers further operate to receive an input as to whether the displayed printed material passed the secondary inspection or not (fig. 7, fig. 8, 85, 86, good product, defective product).
Regarding claim 14: Nakayama teaches the inspection apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein in a case of outputting a log of the inspection result of the inspected printed material (fig. 13, S13, store scan results and inspection results for all pages in storage region), the one or more controllers further operate to move the inspection result of the printed material that failed the primary inspection at the set inspection level (paragraph 0073, inspection result of good production….inspection result of defective product), to the beginning or end of the log.
Note: since all log (record) has a beginning, middle and the end, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have move the inspection result of defective product to the beginning, the middle or the end of the log. A person with ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the known options of giving the user control over selection where to store the inspection result.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama US 2024/0357043 in view of Ochiai US 2022/0318976 and Ito US 20210141577.
Regarding claim 5: Nakayama teaches the inspection apparatus according to claim 1,
Nakayama does not clearly teach wherein in the setting of the inspection level, the one or more controllers further operate to set an inspection region and an inspection item to be targets of the primary inspection, and are able to set the inspection level for each of the inspection items.
Ito teaches wherein in the setting of the inspection level (abstract, varying in inspection level), the one or more controllers further operate to set an inspection region (plurality of inspection region, abstract) and an inspection item (item 0605, paragraph 0004) to be targets of the primary inspection, and are able to set the inspection level for each of the inspection items (inspection criterion standard, paragraph 0064, also see fig. 6C, standard is an inspection level).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nakayama to include: wherein in the setting of the inspection level, the one or more controllers further operate to set an inspection region and an inspection item to be targets of the primary inspection, and are able to set the inspection level for each of the inspection items.
The reason of doing so would have made it easy for the user to check whether an inspection is performed by applying an inspection criterion desired by a user to a user desired region of user desired print data (Ito, paragraph 0004); it can also more accurately determine the print out is of high quality that is desired by the user.
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama US 2024/0357043 in view of Ochiai US 2022/0318976 and Wei US 20200356318.
Regarding claim 8: Nakayama teaches the inspection apparatus according to claim 1,
Nakayama does not teach wherein when displaying the screen, the one or more controllers further operate to cause the display to display a screen in which an inspection result of the printed material has been updated based on the result of the secondary inspection.
Wei teaches: the display to display a screen in which an inspection result of the printed material has been updated (S105, fig. 19, highlight area determined to being NG based on the automatically changed determining level note: highlight area determined being NG is updated inspection result based on changed determining level) based on the result of the secondary inspection (fig. 16 is secondary inspection OK mode, which is by selecting 8b of fig. 4, note 8b implies the secondary inspection is OK, see paragraph 0043, selector 8b is pressed, a mode for objects determined to be abnormal in primary inspection but determined to be normal in secondary inspection)..
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nakayama to include: wherein when displaying the screen, the one or more controllers further operate to cause the display to display a screen in which an inspection result of the printed material has been updated based on the result of the secondary inspection.
The reason of doing so would have allowed the user to understand the updated result so that the user would know whether the final product is desired by the user to prevent reprinting and to increase customer satisfaction.
Regarding claim 9: Wei further teaches:wherein the inspection result is updated by collectively updating all inspection items for which the printed material was determined as having failed the primary inspection at the set inspection level and for which the printed material was determined as passing at the pass level in the primary inspection. (fig. 19, highlight area determined to be NG, note: obviously the non-highlighted area implies OK, also see fig. 6).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama US 2024/0357043 in view of Ochiai US 2022/0318976 and Kim Us 2022/0351361.
Regarding claim 10: Nakayama does not teach: wherein in a case where the printed material determined as passing at the pass level is determined as passing in the secondary inspection, the one or more controllers further operate to enable setting of an inspection level in the secondary inspection based on the pass level.
Kim teaches the secondary inspection can be done by a machine (paragraph 0031, the error detection verification device 2 of which manipulation and determination by the person is required in the related art to be not operated by the person…secondary inspect) instead of a person by learning from a user (paragraph 0036, the original error detection verification device 2 acquires a determination result of a person who sees the defect candidate image image….the error detection verification device 2 performs processing of determining an original product based on the input determination result (good or defect)) using operator input and correct answers (t paragraph 0046 the automatic determination unit 15 prepares, as a large quantity of correct answers) note: the correct answers of the user inputs includes good and defects according to users inspection result.
Ochiai teaches for a machine to determining good or defect, it has to rely on set inspection level (paragraph 42-48, fig. 4A-4F, fig. 9B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nakayama to include: using a machine/computer which uses inspection level to determine a good and defect product.
The reason of doing so is to reduce the work load of the user and generate consistent result.
It would have been further obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to used user input of good or defect (i.e., where the printed material determined as passing at the pass level is determined as passing in the secondary inspection) and the controller further operate to enable the setting of an inspection level in the second inspection by the machine based on user input of correct answers to the pass level (the inspection level of the first inspection which indicates good)
The reason of doing is to allow the system to learn what inspection level to set for the secondary inspection that best matches user’s point of view.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama US 2024/0357043 in view of Ochiai US 2022/0318976 and Betsuyaku US 2022/0083291.
Regarding claim 11: Nakayama does not teach wherein the one or more controllers further operate to instruct recovery printing or re-printing of an image of the printed material determined as failing through the secondary inspection and re-inspection of the image of the printed material printed through the re-printing.
Betsuyaku teaches: wherein the one or more controllers further operate to instruct recovery printing or re-printing of an image of the printed material determined as failing through the inspection and re-inspection of the image of the printed material printed through the re-printing. (paragraph 0028, print material that has failed the inspection is reprinted…If the printed material obtained by performing reprinting fails the inspection, reprinting can be performed again.
Since the secondary inspection can be considered as an inspection to determine print material pass or fail, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the to have modified Nakayama to include: wherein the one or more controllers further operate to instruct recovery printing or re-printing of an image of the printed material determined as failing through the secondary inspection and re-inspection of the image of the printed material printed through the re-printing.
The reason of doing so would have ensured the print product has high quality as desired by the user and to ensure customer satisfactory.
Regarding claim 12: Nakayama teaches the inspection apparatus according to claim 11,
wherein the one or more controllers further operate to set the inspection level in the re-inspection. (paragraph 0044, management server 10 sets the inspection level; note: obviously this will include setting the inspection level for the reinspection after modified by Betsuyaku).
Regarding claim 13: Nakayama teaches the inspection apparatus according to claim 12,
wherein the set inspection level in the re-inspection is one of: a same inspection level as the level used in the primary inspection, a same inspection level as the level used in the secondary inspection, or any inspection level that is set manually (predetermine inspection level can be set by an operator, paragraph 0053).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KING Y POON whose telephone number is (571)270-0728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Alexander Beck can be reached at 571-272-3750. 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.
/KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights