DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the reply filed December 10, 2025.
Claims 1, 3-14, and 16-20 are pending and have been examined.
No claims have been amended.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first detection device” “a data store” “a server” “a listener” and “a prediction system” in claim 1 and other similar claims.
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.
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 § 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(s) 1, 3-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connelly (US 2008/0198967) [cited by Applicant], in view of Crowley (US 2012/0086450), and further in view of Rim (US 2012/0222120).
Regarding claim 1, Connelly discloses:
a first detection device for obtaining detection data relating to an article in transit through the transit facility (see at least fig 2; paragraph 82, inspection system, items under inspection checked passenger bags at airport; paragraph 87, detect data related to bag; paragraphs 96 and 97, detecting contraband in bag);
a data store configured to store an association between each of a plurality of case identifiers and a corresponding plurality of items of case data each describing an article in transit (see at least fig 2; paragraph 114, database store indicia; paragraph 40, indicia associated with physical item, collecting data indicative of item content as plurality of items pass through inspection area); and
a server comprising: a plurality of application programming interfaces, APIs, configured to communicate between software applications of the server, the first detection device, and the data store (see at least fig 2; paragraphs 99 and 100, One or more of the main function units represented in FIG. 2 (belt controller 224, image analyzer 232, station controllers (242 and 272), system controller 250 and database 254) may share resources, running on the same general purpose processor, or even as subroutines of the same process communicating through other methods such, as shared memory or shared variables., network 243 allows image analyzer 232 to communicate to belt controller 224; paragraphs 110 and 115, various components communicating over a network);
a message bus configured to provide a communication path between the plurality of APIs (see at least fig 2, paragraphs 110 and 115); and
a listener coupled to the message bus and configured to obtain, from the message bus, messages sent between the APIs carrying a case identifier, and […] the stored association […] based on the case identifier and case data carried by said messages (see at least paragraphs 97-100, 114, 115, 118; paragraph 108; fig 2, station controller 242 receives outputs from the inspected bags from the image analyzer and belt controller, station controller provides indicia to system controller which stores the indicia and tracks the alarmed bags until final resolution; paragraph 143, record created by system controller to indicate alarmed bag was processed; multiple APIs (function units [belt controller 224, image analyzer 232, station controller 242 and 272, system controller 250, and database 254] which communicate with each other); ¶99, 100; obtaining messages sent between APIs ¶114, 115, station controller 242 reads indicia, station controller 242 provides indicia to system controller 250, system controller 250 stores indicia in database 254, station controller 242 passes data to image analyzer 232. Paragraphs 118, 97-100 also discuss communications between APIs and reading/obtaining messages sent between APIs); and
a prediction system configured to determine, based on […] data stored in the association […], a risk indicator for an article in transit (see at least paragraphs 96-98, image analyzer outputs indication including whether any suspicious regions were detected and if so, the output may indicate the bag is alarmed, image analyzer collects data to make this decision and uses data from a scan of the bag; paragraph 76, This process may be facilitated by associating some physical indicia (such as a barcode) with the automated bag data (image and decision). Using the indicia, an operator can, upon receiving any bag that was alarmed, immediately pull up the associated data)
However Connelly does not explicitly disclose, but Crowley discloses:
wherein determining the risk indicator for an article in transit comprises determining a likelihood of material of interest being present in the article, and wherein the prediction system is configured to output an alert to control inspection of an article in transit through the transit facility based on a determined risk indicator for that article (see at least paragraph 16, detecting contraband in an airport; paragraph 37, controller determines whether there is sufficiently high probability that the detected item is contraband and if so controller may raise an alarm that prompts security personnel to inspect the passenger if one or more detection data indicates contraband)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Connelly by adapting the teachings of Crowley to include raising an alarm when contraband is detected at a high probability. The combination allows improved contraband detection (Crowley paragraph 26 and 37).
However Connelly and Crowley do not explicitly disclose, but Rim discloses:
a listener […] modify the stored association to include updated data […]
[…]based on the updated data stored in the association that has been modified by the listener […] (see at least paragraph 74, message listener collects API messages, message listener assigns an identifier to the collected message, message listener forwards an action or message to the control manager and update manager; paragraph 76, the control manager operates based on the read information and stores objects from the message listener in a database; paragraph 119, update manager received malware list and patterns from the message listener and updates existing ones in the database)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Connelly and Crowley by adapting the teachings of Rim to include updating information associated with the read data by the listener. The combination allows periodically updating malware patterns and keeping the system up to date (Rim paragraph 62).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Connelly further discloses:
wherein the server is configured so that, in the event that the case data carried by one or more of said messages confirms the presence or absence of material of interest in a first article, the case data in the stored association is updated based on the one or more said messages (see at least paragraph 97, image analyzer outputs indication including whether any suspicious regions were detected and if so, the output may indicate the bag is alarmed)
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, and Connelly further discloses:
wherein the prediction system is configured to determine a risk indicator for a second article based on the updated association (see at least paragraph 97, image analyzer outputs indication including whether any suspicious regions were detected and if so, the output may indicate the bag is alarmed)
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Connelly further discloses:
wherein the prediction system is configured to change the manner in which it determines the risk indicator in response to case data obtained from said messages (see at least paragraph 80, changing level of security of bag; paragraph 146)
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Connelly further discloses:
wherein the server is configured to determine whether to trigger a security action for a given article based on said risk indicator for the given article (see at least paragraph 97)
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, and Connelly further discloses:
wherein the security action comprises at least one of: operating the first detection device to obtain further case data describing the given article; operating a second detection device to obtain further case data describing the given article; and controlling transit of the given article through the facility based on the risk indicator (see at least figs 5A, 5B, and 5C)
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Connelly further discloses:
wherein the server is configured to accumulate, in the case data associated with each case identifier, a plurality of items of data describing each article in transit and to determine a risk indicator for each article based on the accumulated case data (see at least paragraph 57, processes data representing the item to identify regions that have characteristics that could indicate contraband within the item under inspection, analysis station; paragraph 58, image of the item with suspicious regions highlighted, computer analysis of data and image data)
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Connelly further discloses:
wherein operation of the listener is transparent to the APIs (see at least fig 2, system controller interacts with the station controller and is not seen by the belt controller or the image analyzer)
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Connelly further discloses:
wherein data obtained from the first detection device comprises image data from a scan of the article, and optionally metadata for the image data (see at least fig 2, image analyzer)
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Connelly further discloses:
wherein a first of the software applications is configured to provide a human user interface associated with the transit of articles through the facility, and the APIs are configured to communicate between the first software application and the data store using the message bus (see at least fig 2, 246; paragraph 107, work area 240 includes display to provide info to bag handler about bags; station controller communicates with system controller which stores data in the database; paragraph 110 , station controller provides display with info about bags)
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated, and Connelly further discloses:
comprising a second software application configured to provide security data from a second detection device to the data store using the APIs (see at least fig 2, 244, 249; paragraph 79, barcode scanner provides level of security applied to the bag)
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Connelly further discloses:
wherein the listener comprises at least one API coupled to the message bus and configured to subscribe to all messages comprising a case identifier (see at least fig 2, system controller; paragraphs 97-100, 114, 115, 118, station controller provides indicia to system controller, indicate from alarmed bags and indicia from all bags)
Regarding claims 14 and 16-20, the scope of the instant claims does not differ substantially from that of claims 1 and 3-6. Accordingly, claims 14 and 16-19 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections of claims 1 and 3-6, respectively, and claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of claims under §103:
Applicant asserts the prior art does not disclose the listener is configured to modify the stored association to include updated data and the prediction system is configured to determine a risk indicator based on the updated data stored in the association that has been modified by the listener. Applicant states Connelly is directed to the use of images of baggage and image analysis to detect suspicious baggage and in contrast Rim’s message listener is directed to malware detection and updating malware lists. Applicant states Rim’s listener does not obtain case data relating to articles in transit, but rather detects malware. Applicant states the updated malware list and malware action pattern taught in Rim make no sense in the context of Connelly and does not disclose obtaining case data relating to articles in transit and to update a prediction system for determining a risk indicator for an article in transit. Applicant states Connelly’s prediction system relates to an image analyzer that detects suspicious regions in imaged baggage and updated malware lists and malware actions make no sense in the context of analyzing images of baggage. Applicant contends a person skilled in the art would not combine the art as indicated. Applicant states there is no indicated in Connelly that messages could be helpful in updating the image analyzer and no teaching in Rim other than using a message listener to detect malware and update malware lists and actions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Connelly discloses a station controller receives outputs from the image analyzer and provides indicia to the system controller. The system controller stores and tracks the indicia until final resolution (¶108). Connelly specifically discloses messages sent between controllers/systems (fig 2; ¶114, 115). Connelly also discloses the prediction system determining based on stored data a risk indicator for an article in transit (¶96-98). Rim was provided to disclose the modification of the stored association to include updated data and then using this updated data in some manner. Rim discloses a message listener collecting API messages and storing them in a database as well as updating existing items in the database (¶74, 76, 119). Connelly as well as Rim disclose a listener obtaining messages and storing obtained information in a database. Rim provides the additional benefit of a listener modifying the stored association to include updated data and then using this updated data in some manner. As seen in Connelly the prediction system (image analyzer) outputs an indication of suspicious detections based on the stored association data (¶76, 96-98). Also of note in Connelly is the contemplation of analyzing a bag at a new level with new results (¶80). Therefore the combination of references does disclose a listener is configured to modify the stored association to include updated data and the prediction system is configured to determine a risk indicator based on the updated data stored in the association that has been modified by the listener as seen in the rejections above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY L JORDAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday 9am-3pm.
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, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180. 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.
/KIMBERLY L JORDAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2194
/KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194