Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 6-11, 15-16, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (US 20210067648) in view of Hunnekens (EP 3 498 482 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Yamashita teaches an inspecting system comprising: an image forming apparatus configured to generate a printed material by forming an image on a sheet (fig.3: 130 printer unit); and an inspecting apparatus configured to generate a scanned image by scanning the printed material and inspect the printed material based on the scanned image (fig. 2: 200 inspection device) and a correct image registered in advance (p0042:image data received from the main unit 120 as a reference),
wherein the inspecting apparatus includes a controller configured to instruct, in response to determining the printed material to be a defective sheet in the inspection performed on the printed material (p0042: the inspection controller 201 compares the image data read by the reader 210 and 220 and image data received from the main unit 120 as a reference, and determines that the image quality is normal if the images on the sheet satisfies predetermined quality criteria and that the image quality is abnormal if the images on the sheet fail to satisfy the predetermined quality criteria),
the image forming apparatus to perform first recovery printing for reprinting starting from the image printed on the defective sheet (p0048: Subsequently, the controller CPU 146 restarts printing by the main apparatus 100 from the first page of the fifth copy, which is the next-in-sequence page to be outputted), wherein the controller inspects a subsequent sheet following the sheet determined to be a defective sheet through the inspection performed on the printed material (fig. 5, 6), and
Yamashita does not teach wherein, in a case where a result of the inspection performed on the subsequent sheet satisfies a predetermined condition, the controller issues an instruction to perform second recovery printing different from the first recovery printing.
Hunnekens teaches wherein, in a case where a result of the inspection performed on the subsequent sheet satisfies a predetermined condition, the controller issues an instruction to perform second recovery printing different from the first recovery printing (p0016: When the controller determines that the number of discarded sheets equal or exceeds the threshold number, the controller instructs an actuator to raise the print head).
Yamashita and Hunnekens are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Yamashita with the teaching of Hunnekens for purpose of reduction of waste paper.
Regarding claim 2, Yamashita in view of Hunnekens teaches the inspecting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined condition is a first condition that a proportion of a plurality of the subsequent sheets that have been determined to be defective as the result of inspection performed on the plurality of the subsequent sheets is greater than or equal to a predetermined proportion (Hunnekens: p0037: The second condition is that the ratio between the counts D and N is larger than 0.2 (or any other suitably selected threshold value).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 6, Yamashita teaches the inspecting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in response to the controller determining that the printed material is the defective sheet through the inspection performed on the printed material, the controller transmits information for temporarily stopping printing to the image forming apparatus (p0006: the image forming apparatus pauses until the operator).
Regarding claim 7, Yamashita teaches the inspecting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the image forming apparatus includes a plurality of sheet discharging trays, wherein the inspecting apparatus further includes a transmitting interface configured to transmit, to the image forming apparatus, information for switching a sheet discharge destination for the printed material based on the result of the inspection performed on the printed material (fig. 3: sheet discharge tray, purge tray), and wherein the transmitting interface transmits information for discharging the defective sheet and the subsequent sheet to a sheet discharging tray different from a sheet discharging tray for a deliverable (fig. 3 and fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Yamashita teaches the inspecting apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the transmitting interface transmits, based on the result of the inspection performed on the subsequent sheet, the information for not switching the sheet discharge destination for the printed material and for discharging the printed material to the sheet discharging tray different from the sheet discharging tray for the deliverable (fig. 9: purge tray).
Regarding claim 9, Yamashita teaches the inspecting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the predetermined condition is not satisfied, the controller instructs the image forming apparatus to perform the first recovery printing (p0048: Subsequently, the controller CPU 146 restarts printing by the main apparatus 100 from the first page of the fifth copy, which is the next-in-sequence page to be outputted).
Regarding claim 10, Yamashita teaches the inspecting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first recovery printing is a printing method for performing control so that recovery printing with a normal printing method of the image forming apparatus is performed (p0048).
Regarding claim 11, Yamashita in view of Hunnekens teaches the inspecting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second recovery printing is a printing method for performing control so that image formation by the image forming apparatus and inspecting of the printed material by the inspecting apparatus are performed on every specified number of sheets starting from an image printed on the defective sheet (Hunnekens:p0037: It will be understood that the counter N counts the total number of sheets that have been fed to the sensor 62, whereas the counter D counts only the defective sheets that have been discarded).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 1, claim 15 recites the limitations included in claim 1, therefore claim 1 is rejected for the same reason as claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, claim 2 recites the limitations included in claim 16, therefore claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as claim 2.
Regarding claim 20, claim 6 recites the limitations included in claim 20, therefore claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as claim 6.
Regarding claim 21, claim 7 recites the limitations included in claim 21, therefore claim 21 is rejected for the same reason as claim 7.
Claim 4-5 and 14, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita in view of Hunnekens as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haik et al. (US 20190335041).
Regarding claim 4, Yamashita in view of Hunnekens does not teach the inspecting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined condition is a third condition that, as the result of the inspection performed on the subsequent sheet, it is determined that a similar predetermined printing defect occurs for a predetermined number of times or more on the defective sheet and the subsequent sheet.
Haik teaches wherein the predetermined condition is a third condition that, as the result of the inspection performed on the subsequent sheet, it is determined that a similar predetermined printing defect occurs for a predetermined number of times or more on the defective sheet and the subsequent sheet (p0022: if contaminated with print agent, or in some way defective, result in periodic defects (i.e. in a defect which recurs with a particular periodicity) in a printed images).
Yamashita in view of Hunnekens and Haik are combinable because they both deal with printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings Yamashita in view of Hunnekens with the teaching of Haik in order to identify potential or actual defects (p0002).
Regarding claim 5, Yamashita in view of Hunnekens and Haik teaches the inspecting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined condition is a fourth condition that, as the result of the inspection performed on the subsequent sheet, it is determined that a periodic printing defect occurs on the defective sheet and the subsequent sheet (Haik:p0022).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 4 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 14, Yamashita in view of Hunnekens and Haik teaches the inspecting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller issues an instruction to stop image formation by the image forming apparatus (p0006: the image forming apparatus pauses until the operator) in a case where occurrence of a periodic printing defect in the defective sheet and the subsequent sheet is determined as the result of the inspection performed on the subsequent sheet (Haik:p0022).
The rational of the rejection applied to claim 4 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 18, claim 4 recites the limitations included in claim 18, therefore claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, claim 5 recites the limitations included in claim 19, therefore claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as claim 5.
Claims 3, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okamoto et al. (JP2019098525).
Regarding claim 13, Yamashita does not teach the inspecting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller issues an instruction to stop image formation by the image forming apparatus in a case where a defect is determined for a predetermined number of times or more during the second recovery printing.
Okamoto teaches wherein the controller issues an instruction to stop image formation by the image forming apparatus in a case where a defect is determined for a predetermined number of times or more during the second recovery printing (p0092: when the determination of the abnormality of the paper introduced in the two-sheet stacking unit 55 occurs continuously for a predetermined number of times).
Yamashita and Okamoto are combinable because they both deal with management servers with a printing apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Yamashita with the teaching of Okamoto for purpose of reduction of waste paper during the occurrence of an image failure (abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Yamashita in view of Okamoto teaches the inspecting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined condition is a second condition that the defective sheet and the subsequent sheet are consecutively determined to be defective for a predetermined number of times or more as the result of the inspection performed on the subsequent sheet (p0092: if the control unit 100 detects an abnormality in the paper
introduced into the double-layer section 55 a predetermined number of times consecutively, it stops the image forming process by the image forming section 11).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 13 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 17, claim 3 recites the limitations included in claim 17, therefore claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record, namely Yamashita (US 20210067648), does not disclose, teach or suggest, the claim limitation, as recited in dependent claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Merouan, Abderrahim can be reached on (571) 270-5254. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights