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 Status
Claims 1-13 and 15-18 were pending for examination in the amendments filed for Application No. 17/712,783 filed August 12th, 2025. In the remarks and amendments received December 22nd, 2025, claims 1 and 10 are amended, claims 2 and 11 are cancelled, and no claims are added. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-10, 12-13 and 15-18 are currently pending for examination in the application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed December 22nd, 2025, have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 25th, 2025. Accordingly, the 112(a) rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 22nd, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 10 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references, facilitated by Applicant’s newly submitted amendments being used in the current rejection.
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, 3-4, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchese et al. (US-20190196044-A1) and further in view of Zhang et al. (US-20230063926-A1) and Mizutani et al. (US-20220171259-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Marchese teaches a mail screening apparatus comprising:
a casing (“a casing,” 100) having a base (“a base,” 102) and a top housing (“a top housing,” 104) mounted over the base (“a base,” 102) in a spaced-apart relationship (Fig. 1A), wherein the base (Fig. 1A, “a base,” 102) and the top housing (Fig. 1A, “a top housing,” 104) define a mail inspection bay therebetween forming an inspection zone (Fig. 1A, “mail inspection bay,” 108);
a light generating assembly (“a light generating assembly,” 23) coupled with the top housing (“a top housing,” 104) and configured to generate an inspection light beam (“an inspection light beam,” 24) (Fig. 2);
a first image sensor (Fig. 3, “image capture device,” 58) coupled with the top housing (Fig. 3, “a top housing,” 104) configured to receive and detect the inspection light beam (Fig. 3, “light inspection beam,” 24) and configured to capture a first image of contents inside a mail item (Para [0025], “The THz inspection aspect is used to obtain an image of the contents inside the envelope”) being processed within the mail inspection bay during a scanning process (“The inspection counter 110 can support a piece of mail to be screened at either one of the primary and secondary inspection zones 42 and 50,” Para [0027]);
a processing unit (Fig. 3, “processing unit,” 68) configured to perform a processing (“edge enhancement”) of the first image in order to identify a security threat (Para [0045]);
a display (Fig. 1, “display,” 64) coupled with the casing (Fig. 1, “a casing,” 100) or with the top housing (Fig. 1, “a top housing,” 104) and communicatively coupled with the processing unit (Fig. 2, “processing unit,” 68) to receive and display the first image (Fig. 1A, 64).
Marchese fails to teach the following limitations as further claimed.
However, Zhang teaches a second image sensor (Zhang, “each of the imaging devices 110 is installed in a surveillance scene, such as a conveyor belt in a package distribution center,” Para [0081]) coupled with the top housing (Marchese, Fig. 1A, “a top housing,” 104) and configured to capture a second image of an outside view of the mail item indicating how the mail item was handled and scanned within the mail inspection bay during the scanning process (Zhang, “The imaging device 110 is configured to capture a video stream at real-time, and send the captured video stream or video frames to rough handling recognition application,” Para [0081]),
and Mizutani teaches wherein the first image sensor (Mizutani, “terahertz wave or the millimeter wave captured using the first light,” Para [0042]) and the second image sensor (Mizutani, “second light is visible light,” Para [0042]) are configured to transmit respective ones of the first image of the contents inside the mail item (“concealed object,” Para [0021]) and the second image of the outside view of the mail item (Mizutani, “concealed object,” Para [0021]) to a security management system for side-by-side and concurrent display (Mizutani, “or side by side) on a monitor (display unit)”) of the first image of the contents inside the mail item and the second image of the outside view of the mail item (Mizutani, “the terahertz wave or the millimeter wave captured using the first light 10 and the image captured using the visible light may be displayed in a superimposed state (or side by side) on a monitor (display unit),” Para [0042]).
Zhang is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of package surveillance systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhang into Marchese for the benefit of improved surveillance of the packages. When incorporating a second image sensor into Marchese, it is apparent that it will capture screening of the mail item and will at least be indirectly coupled with the top housing because any mounting point on the apparatus of Marchese will result in a coupling with the top housing (either directly or indirectly by coupling to the base which is mechanically coupled to the top housing).
Mizutani is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radiographic and visible light imaging systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Mizutani into Marchese for the benefit of better identification or recognition of which package or piece of mail has the prohibited material inside of it.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Marchese in view of the combination teaches the mail screening apparatus of claim 1, wherein an optical frequency of the inspection light beam corresponds to a wavelength between 700 µm and 1075 µm (Para [0011]).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated herein. Marchese in view of the combination teaches the mail screening apparatus of claim 3, wherein the first image sensor has sensitivity ranging between 700 µm and 1075 µm (Para [0038]).
Claims 10 and 12-13 are system claims that correspond to apparatus claims 1 and 3-4. Implementation of the system claims would necessitate the apparatus claims. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1 and 3-4 fully applies to claims 10 and 12-13.
Claims 5-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchese et al. (US-20190196044-A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US-20230063926-A1) and Mizutani et al. (US-20220171259-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10, and further in view of Leizerovich et al. (US-10366586-B1).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Marchese in view of Zhang and Mizutani teach the mail screening apparatus of claim 1, but fail to teach the following limitations as further claimed.
Leizerovich is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention. As evidenced, Leizerovich teaches a system for detecting threats wherein the motivation of remotely storing images for later use would have prompted a predictable variation of Marchese by applying Leizerovich’s known principal of coupling a screening device (Leizerovich, Fig. 1 exhibits cameras 101-104 which screen for threats) with a video processing device (Leizerovich, Fig. 1 shows video processor 110 is connected to a separate memory 114 for storing images as disclosed at Column 12, Lines 12-18) and configuring cameras to transmit images of the threat to the video processing device (Leizerovich, Fig. 1 teaches that video data is transferred from a camera (or cameras) to a communication interface 108 to a video processor 110 for memory 114). When applying this known technique to Marchese in view of Zhang and Mizutani, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to connect the cameras 101-104 to a video processing apparatus 106 and transmit images from the cameras 101-104 of the screening apparatus to memory 114 for storage.
In view of the motivations such as remotely storing images for later use one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Marchese in view of Zhang and Mizutani.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated herein. Marchese in view of Zhang and Mizutani teach the mail screening apparatus of claim 5, but fail to teach the following limitations as further claimed. However, Leizerovich teaches the mail screening apparatus of claim 5, wherein the video processing device (Leizerovich, “video processor,” 110) is configured to send a notification to a security gateway (Leizerovich, “local alerting mechanism,” 112) in response to identifying the security threat (Leizerovich, Column 12, Lines 19-28).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Leizerovich into Marchese in view of Zhang and Mizutani for the benefit of prioritizing the safety of people and personnel that are near the mail screening apparatus.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated herein. Marchese in view of Zhang and Mizutani teach the mail screening apparatus of claim 5, but fail to teach the following limitations as further claimed. However, Leizerovich teaches wherein the video processing device (Leizerovich, “video processor,” 110) is configured to send a notification to an external system (Leizerovich, Column 12, Line 30, “remote alerting device”) communicatively coupled with the mail screening apparatus (Leizerovich, Column 12, Lines 19-20, “the video processing device 106 is collocated with a local alerting mechanism 112”), in response to the mail screening apparatus identifying the security threat (Leizerovich, Column 12, Lines 22-24, ”the local alerting mechanism 112 is intended to quickly alert the person under surveillance”), and wherein the external system is configured to trigger a security response action (Leizerovich, Column 15, Lines 65-66, “the alert message may cause the mobile application to activate an audible alarm”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marchese in view of Zhang and Mizutani for the benefit of prioritizing the safety of people and personnel that are near the mail screening apparatus by alerting them of potential threats.
Claim 15 comprises limitations that are completely covered by claims 6 and 10. Therefore, the rejection of claims 6 and 10 applies to claim 15.
Claim 16 is a system claim that corresponds to apparatus claim 7. Implementation of the system claim would necessitate the apparatus claim. Therefore, the rejection of claim 7 fully applies to claim 16.
Claim 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchese et al. (US-20190196044-A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US-20230063926-A1) and Mizutani et al. (US-20220171259-A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hastings (US-20220292295-A1).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Marchese in view of Zhang and Mizutani teach the mail screening apparatus of claim 1, but fail to teach the following limitations as further claimed.
However, Hastings teaches the mail screening apparatus of claim 1, wherein the display (Hastings, “secondary inspection display configuration,” 1100A) is configured to render one or more alert buttons (Hastings, Para [0065], “GUI object image type selection buttons”) that users of the mail screening apparatus can press in response to detecting a potential security threat (Hastings, Figures 11A-11C).
Hastings is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radiographic security systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Hastings into Marchese in view of Zhang and Mizutani for the benefit of streamlining the threat detection process by providing a quick action to identify a threat or contraband item.
Claim 17 is a system claim that corresponds to apparatus claim 8. Implementation of the system claim would necessitate the apparatus claim. Therefore, the rejection of claim 8 fully applies to claim 17.
Claim 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchese et al. (US-20190196044-A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US-20230063926-A1) and Mizutani et al. (US-20220171259-A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hastings (US-20220292295-A1), Cai et al. (CN-110749934-A), and Kraeling et al. (US-20190149715-A1).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. Marchese in view of Zhang and Mizutani and further in view of Hastings teach the mail screening apparatus of claim 8. In addition, Hastings teaches wherein the one or more alert buttons (Hastings, “GUI object image type selection buttons,” Fig. 11A, 1102-1 – 1102-6) correspond security threats comprising: weapons (Hastings, “firearm object image type selection button,” Fig. 11A, 1102-5), explosives (Hastings, “IED object image type selection button,” Fig. 11A, 1102-1), suspect material (Hastings, “liquid gel characteristic selection button,” Fig. 11A, 1102-2). However, the combination fails to disclose wherein the buttons also correspond to radiation, powder, and liquids.
However, Cai discloses the known technique of screening for and flagging powder (Cai, “select “Ignore” for powdered or other contraband that cannot be cleared,” Para [0099]) and liquids (Cai, “the prohibited items include… liquids,” Para [0069]). When applying this known technique to Marchese in view of Zhang and Mizutani, and further in view of Hastings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include additional buttons for powders and liquids (similar to buttons 1102-1 – 1102-6, but dedicated for powders and liquids) to achieve the predictable result of correctly flagging and classifying additional security threats.
Similarly, Kraeling discloses the known technique of detecting radiation (Kraeling, “At least one sensing first circuit… can sense or detect one or more of electromagnetic radiation, ionizing radiation,” Para [0015]). When applying this known technique to Marchese in view of Zhang and Mizutani, and further in view of Hastings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include additional buttons for radiation (similar to buttons 1102-1 – 1102-6, but dedicated to radiation) to achieve the predictable result of correctly flagging and classifying additional security threats.
Cai is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radiographic security systems.
Kraeling is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of harmful object detection.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is a system claim that corresponds to apparatus claim 9. Implementation of the system claim would necessitate the apparatus claim. Therefore, the rejection of claim 9 fully applies to claim 18.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 RACHEL A OMETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2535. The examiner can normally be reached 6:45am-4:00pm ET Monday-Thursday, 6:45am-1:00pm ET every other Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/Rachel Anne Ometz/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 1/6/26
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668