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 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.
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(s) is/are: “an image forming unit” in claim 1, “the reading unit” in claim 16, “an image forming unit” in claim 19, “the reading unit” in claim 20.
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 as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“an image forming unit” in claim 1 is read as the item 203 show in Fig.3, “the reading unit” in claim 16 is read as the items 331 and 332 show in Fig.3, “an image forming unit” in claim 19 is read as the item 203 show in Fig.3, “the reading unit” in claim 20 is read as the items 331 and 332 show in Fig.3.
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 § 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, 2, 8, 11, 12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Isamikawa’474 (US 2019/0227474).
With respect to claim 1, Isamikawa’474 teaches a diagnostic apparatus (Fig.1) comprising:
one or more memory devices (Fig.3, items 83 and 84) that store a set of instructions; and
one or more processors (Fig.3, item 81) that execute the set of instructions to:
determine whether or not to execute sign diagnosis processing for detecting a sign of abnormality of an image forming unit when an image is formed on a recording medium by the image forming unit (Fig.5, steps S11, S12);
execute the sign diagnosis processing on a read image obtained by a reading unit reading the image formed by the image forming unit, in a case where it is determined that the sign diagnosis processing is to be executed (Fig.5, steps S13-S18); and
in a case where the sign of abnormality is detected, perform automatic repair of the image forming unit before the sign of abnormality becomes an abnormality of a predetermined level (paragraph 96).
With respect to claim 2, which further limits claim 1, Isamikawa’474 teaches wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to: extract, from the detected sign of abnormality, a feature amount for specifying whether the sign of abnormality has occurred in any part of the image forming unit [as shown in Fig.4A, Fig.4B and Fig.4C, the sign of abnormality could be occurred in any part of the image forming apparatus including the parts in the image forming unit (Fig.5, step S12)]; and
specify, based on the extracted feature amount, the part of the image forming unit where the sign of abnormality has occurred (Fig.5, step S13, S14, S15 and S16).
With respect to claim 8, which further limits claim 1, Isamikawa’474 teaches wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to, at each timing when the image formation performed by the image forming unit on the recording medium reaches a predetermined number of sheets, or at a timing when sign diagnosis processing that is being executed ends, determine that the sign diagnosis processing is to be executed [as shown in Fig.5, the test diagnosis process performed in the image forming apparatus is being performed according to the user’s input. Therefore, the test diagnosis process in Fig. 5 is considered being performed according to the user’s instruction after the previous test diagnosis process has been finished].
With respect to claim 11, which further limits claim 2, Isamikawa’474 teaches wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to determine whether or not to execute the sign diagnosis processing under a different determination condition for each specified parts (Fig.5).
With respect to claim 12, which further limits claim 8, Isamikawa’474 teaches wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to set, as an abnormality of the predetermined level, a level selected according to user input from a plurality of image abnormality levels [the type of the abnormality, the image abnormality type, the target part determination rule in Fig.5 for diagnosing the abnormality are considered being configured by a user in advance].
With respect to claim 14, which further limits claim 8, Isamikawa’474 teaches wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to perform diagnosis with images formed consecutively on a plurality of image recording media set as images that are diagnosis targets (Fig.5).
With respect to claim 15, which further limits claim 8, Isamikawa’474 teaches wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to, when an image is formed on a recording medium by the image forming unit, perform diagnosis of an abnormality of the image, regardless of a result of determination performed by the detennination unit (Fig.15).
With respect to claim 16, which further limits claim 8, Isamikawa’474 teaches comprising the reading unit that reads the recording medium on which the image is formed by the image forming unit (Fig.15, step S11).
With respect to claim 17, it is analyzed and rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1. The diagnostic apparatus in claim 1 is capable to perform the method as disclosed in claim 17.
With respect to claim 18, it is analyzed and rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1. The diagnostic apparatus in claim 1 is capable to perform the method as disclosed in claim 18.
With respect to claim 19, Isamikawa’474 teaches an image forming apparatus (Fig.1), comprising:
an image forming unit that forms an image on a recording medium (paragraph 84);
one or more memory devices (Fig.3, items 83 and 84) that store a set of instructions; and
one or more processors (Fig.3, item 81) that execute the set of instructions to:
determine whether or not to execute sign diagnosis processing for detecting a sign of abnormality of the image forming unit when an image is formed on a recording medium by the image forming unit (Fig.5, steps S11, S12);
execute the sign diagnosis processing on a read image obtained by a reading unit reading the image formed by the image forming unit, in a case where it is determined that the sign diagnosis processing is to be executed (Fig.5, steps S13-S18); and
in a case where the sign of abnormality is detected, perform automatic repair of the image forming unit before the sign of abnormality becomes an abnormality of a predetermined level (paragraph 96).
With respect to claim 20, which further limits claim 19, Isamikawa’474 teaches the reading unit that reads the recording medium on which the image is formed by the image forming unit (paragraph 84).
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.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isamikawa’474 (US 2019/0227474), and further in view of Koki’290 (JP 2007074290).
With respect to claim 3, which further limits claim 2, Isamikawa’474 does not teach wherein the feature amount includes size information and shape information of the sign of abnormality, and period information on a period at which the sign of abnormality occurs.
Koki’290 teaches wherein the feature amount includes size information and shape information of the sign of abnormality (abstract), and period information on a period at which the sign of abnormality occurs [Feature quantity extraction means for extracting a feature quantity related to at least the shape, size, density, contour state, defect occurrence direction, and periodicity for the defect in the output image analyzed by the image defect detection means (claim 1)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Isamikawa’474 according to the teaching of Koki’290 to extract the feature quantity related to at least the shape, size, density, contour state, defect occurrence direction, and periodicity for the defect in the output image analyzed by the image defect detection means because this will allow the defect to be diagnosed more effectively.
With respect to claim 13, which further limits claim 12, Isamikawa’474 does not teach wherein the plurality of image abnormality levels are classified according to at least one of a size and a contrast of an abnormality.
Koki’290 teaches wherein the plurality of image abnormality levels are classified according to at least one of a size and a contrast of an abnormality [Feature quantity extraction means for extracting a feature quantity related to at least the shape, size, density, contour state, defect occurrence direction, and periodicity for the defect in the output image analyzed by the image defect detection means (claim 1)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Isamikawa’474 according to the teaching of Koki’290 to extract the feature quantity related to at least the shape, size, density, contour state, defect occurrence direction, and periodicity for the defect in the output image analyzed by the image defect detection means because this will allow the defect to be diagnosed more effectively.
Claims4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isamikawa’474 (US 2019/0227474), Koki’290 (JP 2007074290) and further in view of
Suzuki’876 (US 2022/0291876).
With respect to claim 4, which further limits claim 3, Isamikawa’474 does not teach wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to predict a timing when the detected sign of abnormality will become an abnormality of the predetermined level based on the extracted feature amount.
Suzuki’876 teaches wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to predict a timing when the detected sign of abnormality will become an abnormality of the predetermined level based on the extracted feature amount [as shown in Fig.5, the abnormality prediction information including the timing which predicts when an abnormality will be occurred (paragraph 48)]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Isamikawa’474 according to the teaching of Suzuki’876 to predict the timing when an abnormality will be occurred because this will allow the abnormality in a printer to be fixed more effectively.
With respect to claim 5, which further limits claim 4, Isamikawa’474 does not teach wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to predict a timing when the detected sign of abnormality will become the abnormality of the predetermined level, based on the feature amount and the specified part.
Suzuki’876 teaches wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to predict a timing when the detected sign of abnormality will become the abnormality of the predetermined level, based on the feature amount and the specified part [as shown in Fig.5, the abnormality prediction information including the timing which predicts when an abnormality will be occurred (paragraph 48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize to predict the timing when an abnormality will be occurred according to a diagnostic algorithm correlated with an apparatus function of the image forming apparatus (the feature amount and a specified part)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Isamikawa’474 according to the teaching of Suzuki’876 to predict the timing when an abnormality will be occurred because this will allow the abnormality in a printer to be fixed more effectively.
Claims 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isamikawa’474 (US 2019/0227474), Koki’290 (JP 2007074290), Suzuki’876 (US 2022/0291876) and further in view of Zona’661 (US 2011/0158661).
With respect to claim 6, which further limits claim 5, the combination of Isamikawa’474 and Suzuki’876 does not teach wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to predict a number of sheets of image formation performed by the image forming unit on a recording medium, using the timing when the detected sign of abnormality will become the abnormality of the predetermined level.
Zona’661 teaches wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to predict a number of sheets of image formation performed by the image forming unit on a recording medium, when the detected sign of abnormality will become the abnormality of the predetermined level (Fig.6 and paragraph 44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Isamikawa’474 and Suzuki’876 according to the teaching of Zona’661 to predict the abnormality will be occurred according the number of sheet remaining to be printed because this will allow the abnormality in a printer to be fixed more effectively.
The combination of Isamikawa’474, Suzuki’876 and Zona’661
wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to predict a number of sheets of image formation performed by the image forming unit on a recording medium, using the timing when the detected sign of abnormality will become the abnormality of the predetermined level.
Since Suzuki’876 has suggested that the abnormality prediction information including the timing when an abnormality will be occurred (paragraph 48 and Fig.5) and Zona’661 teaches that predicting number of sheets remaining to be printed until failure, therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize to predict number of sheets remaining to be printed until failure, using the timing when the detected sign of abnormality will become the abnormality of the predetermined level (wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to predict a number of sheets of image formation performed by the image forming unit on a recording medium, using the timing when the detected sign of abnormality will become the abnormality of the predetermined level) because this will allow the abnormality in a printer to be determined and fixed more effectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Isamikawa’474, Suzuki’876 and Zona’661 to predict number of sheets remaining to be printed until failure, using the timing when the detected sign of abnormality will become the abnormality of the predetermined level (wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to predict a number of sheets of image formation performed by the image forming unit on a recording medium, using the timing when the detected sign of abnormality will become the abnormality of the predetermined level) because this will allow the abnormality in a printer to be determined and fixed more effectively.
With respect to claim 7, with further limits claim 6, the combination of Isamikawa’474 and Zona’661 does not teach wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to display, on a display unit, a sign diagnosis result together with the timing when the detected sign of abnormality will become an abnormality of the predetermined level.
Suzuki’876 teaches wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to display, on a display unit, a sign diagnosis result together with the timing when the detected sign of abnormality will become an abnormality of the predetermined level (Fig.5 and paragraph 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Isamikawa’474 and Zona’661 according to the teaching of Suzuki’876 to display the information regarding to the predicted abnormality this will allow the abnormality in a printer to be fixed more effectively.
With respect to claim 9, which further limits claim 8, the combination of Isamikawa’474 and Suzuki’876 does not teach wherein the predetermined number of sheets is set according to user input.
Zona’661 teaches wherein the predetermined number of sheets is set according to user input [the number of sheets remaining to be printed until failure is being predicted (paragraph 44 and Fig.6). Therefore, when a job is being input by a user, the number of sheets remaining to be printed until failure is considered being reduced]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Isamikawa’474 and Suzuki’876 according to the teaching of Zona’661 to predict the abnormality will be occurred according the number of sheet remaining to be printed because this will allow the abnormality in a printer to be fixed more effectively.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isamikawa’474 (US 2019/0227474).
With respect to claim 10, which further limits claim 8, Isamikawa’474 does not teach wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to perform determination to set the timing of executing the sign diagnosis processing to an earlier time, in a case where the previously-detected sign of abnormality is close to the predetermined level.
Since Isamikawa’474 suggested that the image forming performs the test diagnosis process according to the user’s input (paragraph 83), therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize to have a user to input instruction to enable the image forming performs the test diagnosis process earlier after the previous the test diagnosis process when the image forming apparatus is being determined to have abnormality contents (wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to perform determination to set the timing of executing the sign diagnosis processing to an earlier time, in a case where the previously-detected sign of abnormality is close to the predetermined level) because this will allow the abnormality in a printer to be detected and fixed more effectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Isamikawa’474 to have a user to input instruction to enable the image forming performs the test diagnosis process earlier after the previous the test diagnosis process when the image forming apparatus is being determined to have abnormality contents (wherein the one or more processors execute instructions in the one or more memory devices to perform determination to set the timing of executing the sign diagnosis processing to an earlier time, in a case where the previously-detected sign of abnormality is close to the predetermined level) because this will allow the abnormality in a printer to be detected and fixed more effectively
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pantin’339 (US 2018/0063339) and further in view of Isamikawa’474 (US 2019/0227474).
With respect to claim 21, Pantin’339 teaches a diagnostic apparatus [regarding to the system 1] comprising:
one or more memory devices (Fig.2, item 19 and 34) that store a set of instructions; and
one or more processors (Fig.2, item 11 and 31) that execute the set of instructions to:
set a number of sheets (Fig.5, item im3);
Pantin’339 does not teach each time image formation on a recording medium by an image forming unit reaches the set number of sheets, execute sign diagnosis processing for detecting a sign of abnormality of the image forming unit on a read image obtained by a reading unit reading an image forming by the image forming unit; and in a case where the sign of abnormality is detected, perform automatic repair of the image forming unit.
Isamikawa’474 teaches execute sign diagnosis processing for detecting a sign of abnormality of the image forming unit on a read image obtained by a reading unit reading an image forming by the image forming unit (Fig.5, steps S13-S18); and
in a case where the sign of abnormality is detected, perform automatic repair of the image forming unit (paragraph 96).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pantin’339 according to the teaching of Isamikawa’474 to perform the test diagnosis process in the image forming apparatus and to correct the error in the image forming apparatus when the allowable range of printing error has been exceed (each time image formation on a recording medium by an image forming unit reaches the set number of sheets, execute sign diagnosis processing for detecting a sign of abnormality of the image forming unit on a read image obtained by a reading unit reading an image forming by the image forming unit; and in a case where the sign of abnormality is detected, perform automatic repair of the image forming unit) because this will allow the abnormality in a printer to be detected and fixed more effectively.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUO LONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am - 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tieu, Benny 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. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUO LONG CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights