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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
All Information Disclosure Statements filed on or before 11/12/2025 have been considered by examiner.
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 limitations are: “an image forming device that forms an image…” and “a storage that stores a reference image…” in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The drawings, particularly element 330, have been used as to provide the necessary corresponding structure for the image forming device, and “The storage device 390 may be, for example, a storage means such as a RAM, a solid state drive (SSD), or a hard disk drive (HDD). When the document image is reprinted, the controller 310 uses the reference image stored in the storage device 390.” (paragraph 0043), has been identified as the corresponding structure for the storage.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9, 13, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takeshi (US 20240135528 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Takeshi teaches an image inspection apparatus (“According to embodiments of the present disclosure, there is provided an inspection apparatus operable to inspect an image printed on paper” paragraph 0008) comprising:
an image forming device that forms an image on a recording medium based on image data (see figure 2 and “Image data and document data created by a software application, such as printer driver (not illustrated) on a client PC or a print server on a network, are transmitted to the image forming apparatus 100 as page description language (PDL) data via a network (e.g., a local area network). In the image forming apparatus 100, the controller 21 receives the transmitted PDL data. The controller 21 is connected to the printer unit 206 and, upon receiving PDL data from the client PC or the print server, converts that PDL data into print data that can be processed by the printer unit 206 and outputs that print data to the printer unit 206.” Paragraph 0029);
a storage that stores a reference image to be used for inspection of the image formed on the recording medium (“The CPU 515 also stores the received reference image and the inspection control information in the memory unit 504.” Paragraph 0046); and
a hardware processor (see figure 5 element 515), wherein the hardware processor performs the inspection based on the reference image (see figure 6), and performs determination of whether or not the reference image based on the image to be inspected is stored in the storage after the image forming device starts an image forming process (see figure 6 and “The inspection apparatus 200 receives a printed product printed and discharged by the image forming apparatus 100 and inspects the contents of the printed product.” Paragraph 0026).
With respect to claim 2, Takeshi teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor determines whether or not the reference image is stored in the storage before inspecting the image (see figure 6, note the check is done before the image inspection steps of S606, S607, S608, S609, S610, and S611).
With respect to claim 6, Takeshi teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor performs the determination at a timing at which the image forming device completes formation of the image on the recording medium (see figure 6 and “The inspection apparatus 200 receives a printed product printed and discharged by the image forming apparatus 100 and inspects the contents of the printed product.” Paragraph 0026).
With respect to claim 7, Takeshi teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor further generates another reference image to be used for inspection of the image formed on the recording medium based on the image data (see figure 6 steps S602, S603, S604, S605, and S606).
With respect to claim 9, Takeshi teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor controls the inspection on the basis of a result of the determination of whether or not the reference image based on the image to be inspected is stored in the storage (see figure 6 S612 loop).
With respect to claim 13, Takeshi teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the hardware processor suspends the inspection when determining that the reference image is not stored in the storage (see figure 6’s additional preprocessing steps and the S612 loop).
With respect to claim 15, Takeshi teaches an image inspection method comprising: forming an image on a recording medium based on image data (see figure 2 and “Image data and document data created by a software application, such as printer driver (not illustrated) on a client PC or a print server on a network, are transmitted to the image forming apparatus 100 as page description language (PDL) data via a network (e.g., a local area network). In the image forming apparatus 100, the controller 21 receives the transmitted PDL data. The controller 21 is connected to the printer unit 206 and, upon receiving PDL data from the client PC or the print server, converts that PDL data into print data that can be processed by the printer unit 206 and outputs that print data to the printer unit 206.” Paragraph 0029);
storing a reference image to be used for inspection of the image formed on the recording medium in a storage (“The CPU 515 also stores the received reference image and the inspection control information in the memory unit 504.” Paragraph 0046);
inspecting the image formed on the recording medium based on the reference image (see figure 6); and determining whether or not the reference image based on the image to be inspected is stored in the storage after a process of forming the image is started (see figure 6 and “The inspection apparatus 200 receives a printed product printed and discharged by the image forming apparatus 100 and inspects the contents of the printed product.” Paragraph 0026).
With respect to claim 16, Takeshi teaches a non-transitory recording medium storing a computer readable image inspection program for causing a computer to execute processing (“Embodiments of the present disclosure can also be realized by a computer of a system or apparatus that reads out and executes computer executable instructions (e.g., one or more programs) recorded on a storage medium (which may also be referred to more fully as a ‘non-transitory computer-readable storage medium’) to perform the functions of one or more of the above-described embodiments…” paragraph 0091) comprising:
forming an image on a recording medium based on image data (see figure 2 and “Image data and document data created by a software application, such as printer driver (not illustrated) on a client PC or a print server on a network, are transmitted to the image forming apparatus 100 as page description language (PDL) data via a network (e.g., a local area network). In the image forming apparatus 100, the controller 21 receives the transmitted PDL data. The controller 21 is connected to the printer unit 206 and, upon receiving PDL data from the client PC or the print server, converts that PDL data into print data that can be processed by the printer unit 206 and outputs that print data to the printer unit 206.” Paragraph 0029);
storing a reference image to be used for inspection of the image formed on the recording
medium in a storage (“The CPU 515 also stores the received reference image and the inspection control information in the memory unit 504.” Paragraph 0046);
inspecting the image formed on the recording medium based on the reference image (see figure 6); and determining whether or not the reference image based on the image to be inspected is stored in the storage after a process of forming the image is started (see figure 6 and “The inspection apparatus 200 receives a printed product printed and discharged by the image forming apparatus 100 and inspects the contents of the printed product.” Paragraph 0026).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wada (US 20230350612 A1)
With respect to claim 3, Takeshi teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 1, and that the hardware processor determines whether or not the reference images are stored in the storage (see figure 6), but does not explicitly teach any of the further limitations. Wada teaches wherein that the hardware processor performs the inspection for each of pages of the recording medium on which the image is formed by the image forming device (see figure 4) and that a reference image is acquired for each page (see figure 4).
Wada is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Wada is directed towards print inspection (“According to embodiments of the present disclosure, an image processing apparatus includes a setting unit configured to set an inspection resolution for inspecting a printed image for each page, and an inspection unit configured to inspect the printed image by comparing reference image data serving as a reference for inspection with printed image data acquired by reading the printed image based on the set inspection resolution.” Paragraph 0007). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found to obvious to combine the teachings of Takeshi and Wada by incorporating Wada’s page inspection loop into the printed page inspection process of Takeshi, with the expectation that doing so would lead to reduced inspection time (“Embodiments of the present disclosure are directed to reducing an inspection time while inspection is performed with a required inspection accuracy by making it possible to set a different inspection resolution for each page.” Paragraph 0006).
Claims 4-5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Masahiro (US 11947853 B2).
With respect to claim 4, Takeshi teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 1, but does not teach the further limitations. Masahiro teaches wherein the hardware processor performs the determination at a timing at which the image forming device starts formation of the image on the recording medium (see figure 5, S505 occurs during the beginning of the print process).
Masahiro is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Masahiro is directed towards an image formation (printing) system (“The present invention relates to a print system, a printing apparatus, a method of controlling the printing apparatus, and a storage medium.” Col 1 lines 10-12). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Takeshi and Masahiro by incorporating Masahiro’s reference loop placement within the printing scheme of Takeshi, with the expectation that doing so would lead to the combined system’s ability to avoid inspection failure due to the absence of a reference image (“A feature of the present invention is to provide a technique of enabling prevention of an inspection failure caused by executing a print job and giving an inspection instruction before a corresponding reference image is registered in an inspection apparatus.” Col 1 limes 61-65).
With respect to claim 5, The image inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor performs the determination during formation of the image on the recording medium by the image forming device (see figure 5, S505 occurs during the beginning of the print process).
Masahiro is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Masahiro is directed towards an image formation (printing) system (“The present invention relates to a print system, a printing apparatus, a method of controlling the printing apparatus, and a storage medium.” Col 1 lines 10-12). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Takeshi and Masahiro by incorporating Masahiro’s reference loop placement within the printing scheme of Takeshi, with the expectation that doing so would lead to the combined system’s ability to avoid inspection failure due to the absence of a reference image (“A feature of the present invention is to provide a technique of enabling prevention of an inspection failure caused by executing a print job and giving an inspection instruction before a corresponding reference image is registered in an inspection apparatus.” Col 1 limes 61-65).
With respect to claim 12, Takeshi teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 9, but does not teach the further limitations. Masahiro teaches wherein the hardware processor causes the image forming device to perform formation of the image again when determining that the reference image is not stored in the storage (see figure 4).
Masahiro is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Masahiro is directed towards an image formation (printing) system (“The present invention relates to a print system, a printing apparatus, a method of controlling the printing apparatus, and a storage medium.” Col 1 lines 10-12). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Takeshi and Masahiro by incorporating Masahiro’s reference loop placement within the printing scheme of Takeshi, with the expectation that doing so would lead to the combined system’s ability to avoid inspection failure due to the absence of a reference image (“A feature of the present invention is to provide a technique of enabling prevention of an inspection failure caused by executing a print job and giving an inspection instruction before a corresponding reference image is registered in an inspection apparatus.” Col 1 limes 61-65).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kaneko (US 8848244 B2).
With respect to claim 8, Takeshi teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 7, but does not teach any further limitations. Kaneko teaches wherein the hardware processor performs, in parallel, a reference image generation process including generating the reference image (see figure 3 element 143), and an inspection process including forming the image on the recording medium by the image forming device and inspecting a read image generated by reading the recording medium on which the image has been formed (see figure 3 elements 145 and 146).
Kaneko is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kaneko is directed towards a printed image inspection apparatus (“The present invention relates to an image inspection method, an image inspection apparatus, and a recording medium storing an image inspection control program, and more particularly to a method and an apparatus of inspecting a printed image.” Col 1 lines 18-22). A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Takeshi and Kaneko by utilizing the parallel reference image generation scheme of Kaneko inside the print-inspection pipe line of Takeshi, with the expectation that doing so would lead to a simpler inspection process configuration with better accuracy (“To solve the above-described problem and other problems, an object of an embodiment of the present invention is to provide an inspection apparatus capable of obtaining an inspection result based on comparison between a printed image printed by preprint printing and a master image, with a simple configuration and improved accuracy.” Col 2 lines 24-29).
Claims 10, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Iwano (US 20210398262 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Takeshi teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 9, however does not teach any further limitations. Iwano teaches wherein the hardware processor stops the inspection when determining that the reference image is not stored in the storage (“In step S802, the workflow control program 304 determines whether the inspection is set to ON or OFF in the print setting of the selected print job. As a result of the determination, in a case where the inspection is set to ON (YES in step S802), the processing proceeds to step S804. On the other hand, in a case where the inspection is set to OFF (NO in step S802), the processing proceeds to step S803.” paragraph 0078 and “In step S804, the UI control program 307 enables the UI for executing the reference image registration” paragraph 0080 and “In step S805, the workflow control program 304 determines whether the reference image of the selected print job is already registered. The workflow control program 304 refers to the database 600 illustrated in FIG. 6 and determines whether the reference image registration status 603 corresponding to the reference image identifier 502 associated with the print job is registered…, in a case where it is determined that the reference image is not registered (NO in step S805), the processing proceeds to step S807.” Paragraph 0081 and “In step S807, the UI control program 307 disables the UI for executing printing and inspection.” Paragraph 0083).
Iwano is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Iwano is directed towards print quality inspection (“The present disclosure relates to a technique for inspecting print quality of a printed product.” Paragraph 0001). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Takeshi and Iwano by utilizing Iwano’s print process restricting procedure by utilizing Iwano’s UI based reference image checking loop in place of Takeshi’s generative methodology, with the expectation that doing so would enable the combined system’s ability to avoid printing a product which cannot to inspected properly (“Embodiments of the present disclosure are directed to an inspection system capable of preventing a printed product from being output in a state where inspection cannot be correctly executed because a reference image corresponding to the printed product is not registered.” Paragraph 0006).
With respect to claim 11, Takeshi teaches the image inspection apparatus according to claim 9, however does not explicitly teach the further limitations. Iwano teaches wherein the hardware processor stops formation of the image by the image forming device when determining that the reference image is not stored in the storage (“In step S802, the workflow control program 304 determines whether the inspection is set to ON or OFF in the print setting of the selected print job. As a result of the determination, in a case where the inspection is set to ON (YES in step S802), the processing proceeds to step S804. On the other hand, in a case where the inspection is set to OFF (NO in step S802), the processing proceeds to step S803.” paragraph 0078 and “In step S804, the UI control program 307 enables the UI for executing the reference image registration” paragraph 0080 and “In step S805, the workflow control program 304 determines whether the reference image of the selected print job is already registered. The workflow control program 304 refers to the database 600 illustrated in FIG. 6 and determines whether the reference image registration status 603 corresponding to the reference image identifier 502 associated with the print job is registered…, in a case where it is determined that the reference image is not registered (NO in step S805), the processing proceeds to step S807.” Paragraph 0081 and “In step S807, the UI control program 307 disables the UI for executing printing and inspection.” Paragraph 0083).
Iwano is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Iwano is directed towards print quality inspection (“The present disclosure relates to a technique for inspecting print quality of a printed product.” Paragraph 0001). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Takeshi and Iwano by utilizing Iwano’s print process restricting procedure by utilizing Iwano’s UI based reference image checking loop in place of Takeshi’s generative methodology, with the expectation that doing so would enable the combined system’s ability to avoid printing a product which cannot to inspected properly (“Embodiments of the present disclosure are directed to an inspection system capable of preventing a printed product from being output in a state where inspection cannot be correctly executed because a reference image corresponding to the printed product is not registered.” Paragraph 0006).
With respect to claim 14, Takeshi and Iwano teach the image inspection apparatus according to claim 10. Iwano further teaches wherein the hardware processor gives a notification indicating that the inspection is stopped when determining that the reference image is not stored in the storage (see figure 20 Display Warning).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nakano (US 20200104987 A1)- directed towards an image forming apparatus and an inspection program
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 4:00pm.
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, Andrew W Bee can be reached at (571)270-5183. 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.
/REBECCA COLETTE WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/ANDREW W BEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights