DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 01/23/2026. Claims 1, 10, and 11 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-15 are pending and have been addressed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
3. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
4. Under Step 1 of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, claim 1 recites a machine (i.e., consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), claim 10 recites a process (i.e., a series of acts or steps), claim 11 recites a manufacture, (i.e., an article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means.) Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
5. Under Step 2A – Prong One of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
6. Claims 1, 10, and 11 recite:
“a target person passing through a predetermined region”, “generate…a transmission image”, “generate an estimation model…based on training data being transmission images of a previously specified object…the estimation model being configured to estimate whether the previously specified object is captured in the transmission image”, “determine…based on the generated transmission image whether the target person carries a previously specified object;”, “decide, based on a result of the determination, an inspection route where the target person proceeds from among a plurality of the previously-determined inspection routes;” and “execute guidance processing of guiding the target person to the decided inspection route.”, “wherein the plurality of the previously-determined inspection routes include a self-inspection route for performing inspection, when it is decided to guide the target person to the self-inspection route, transmit a result of the determination about whether the target person carries the previously-specified object, the result of the determination having used to decide the inspection route, and cause…to decide a content of an inspection to be performed thereby, based on the result of the determination”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations above recite the abstract idea of security screening of a person and directing the person towards a designated inspection route encompasses commercial interactions, (i.e., legal obligations, business relations), managing personal behavior or interactions between people, (i.e., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and mental processes (i.e., observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions), which is subject matter that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas.
Applicant’s Specification emphasizes [0015] First, by using Fig. 1, an outline of a processing system according to the present example embodiment is described. The processing system according to the present example embodiment is used in a scene requiring a belongings inspection such as an airport, a building, and an event site. [0016] A belongings inspection according to the present example embodiment is divided into a plurality of inspection routes. A plurality of inspection routes are different from each other in a manner, a content, and the like in inspection. A plurality of inspection routes may be divided, for example, into an inspection route where detailed inspection is performed and an inspection route where simple inspection is performed, or may be divided into other inspection routes. Note that, in an example in Fig. 1, division is made into two inspection routes, but division may be made into three or more inspection routes.
Consistent with the disclosure, the limitations cover concepts for initially screening a target person and making subsequent decision(s) for guiding the target person along an inspection route for secondary screening which may be reasonably characterized as subject matter that involve commercial interactions and/or managing personal behavior or interactions between people. Also, the claim recites mental processes because the “decide” and “execute” limitations cover acts that may be performed in the human mind or without pen and paper. For example, the limitations are a series of mental tasks or decisions for managing flow of persons in a security area normally performed by screening agents. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
7. Under Step 2A – Prong Two of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of: “a processing system”, “at least one sensor panel”, “a radar”, “at least one transmission antenna and at least one reception antenna are arranged”, “at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions;”, “irradiate…with an electromagnetic wave via the sensor panel”, “at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to:”, “based on a signal of the received electromagnetic wave”, “by machine learning”, “by a self-inspection apparatus”, “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the one or more instructions to:”, “the self-inspection apparatus”, “a non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to” – see claims 1, 10, 11, are all recited at a high-level of generality in light of the specification. Since the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing any of the particulars, the additional elements recited may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used in their ordinary capacity to perform the judicial exception. Here, the additional elements merely add the words “apply it” with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (f).
The other additional element of: “receive a reflection wave of the irradiated electromagnetic wave;” adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., data gathering, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g)
8. Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
9. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: “a processing system”, “at least one sensor panel”, “a radar”, “at least one transmission antenna and at least one reception antenna are arranged”, “at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions;”, “at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to:”, “based on a signal of the received electromagnetic wave”, “by machine learning”, “by a self-inspection apparatus”, “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the one or more instructions to:”, “the self-inspection apparatus”, “a non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to” – see claims 1, 10, 11 at best amount to no more than mere instructions in which to apply the judicial exception and do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
The other additional element of: “receive a reflection wave of the irradiated electromagnetic wave;” was considered insignificant extra solution activity and must be re-evaluated under Step 2B to determine whether the elements are well-understood, routine, and/or conventional. The Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs, Alice, Ultramerical court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that “receiving or transmitting data over a network” is/are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a generic manner. Thus, the claim is ineligible under Step 2B.
10. Claims 2-9 and 12-15 are dependent claims:
Claim 2 recites “wherein the plurality of inspection routes include a first inspection route for performing, with attendance of an inspector, inspection for belongings and a body, and a second inspection route for performing, without attendance of an inspector, inspection for at least either of belongings and a body, and the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: decide, when it is determined that the target person carries the specified object, the first inspection route as the inspection route where the target person proceeds, and decide, when it is determined that the target person does not carry the specified object, the second inspection route as the inspection route where the target person proceeds.” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 3 recites “wherein the plurality of inspection routes include a first inspection route for performing, with attendance of an inspector, inspection for belongings and a body, a second inspection route for performing, without attendance of an inspector, inspection for belongings and a body, and a third inspection route for performing, without attendance of an inspector, inspection for belongings, and the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: decide, when it is determined that the target person carries the specified object, the first inspection route as the inspection route where the target person proceeds, and decide, when it is determined that the target person does not carry the specified object, the second inspection route or the third inspection route as the inspection route where the target person proceeds.” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 4 recites “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to receive an electromagnetic wave from the target person being subjected to inspection in the second inspection route, and perform, based on a signal of the received electromagnetic wave, inspection of whether the specified object is present in a portion, where an object is detected in determination based on the determination unit, in a body of the target person” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed and describes processes ordinarily executed by a scanner. It is important to note that use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Claim 5 recites “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: acquire customer identification information of the target person; store customer information relating to each of the target persons in association with each of a plurality of pieces of the customer identification information, and decide, based on a result of the determination and the customer information of the target person, the inspection route where the target person proceeds.” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 6 recites “wherein the customer information includes at least one of a matter of whether a qualification for receiving favorable treatment in inspection is granted, a past inspection result, nationality, a travel history, a criminal history, a performance history of a predetermined action, a matter of whether registration has been made in a whitelist, and a matter of whether registration has been made in a blacklist, and the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to decide the inspection route where the target person proceeds, based on at least either of a matter of whether the customer information satisfies a preferential inspection criterion in which favorable treatment in inspection can be received and a matter of whether the customer information satisfies a non- preferential inspection criterion in which favorable treatment in inspection is prohibited to receive.” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 7 recites “wherein the past inspection result indicates whether it has been detected that the specified object is carried in a past inspection, and the preferential inspection criterion includes at least either of a matter that a number of detections of carrying of the specified object in past inspections is equal to or less than a first threshold and a matter that a ratio of a number of detections of carrying of the specified object to a number of past inspections is equal to or less than a second threshold.” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 8 recites “wherein the past inspection result indicates whether it has been detected that the specified object is carried in a past inspection, and the non-preferential inspection criterion includes at least either of a matter that a number of detections of carrying of the specified object in past inspections is equal to or more than a third threshold and a matter that a ratio of a number of detections of carrying of the specified object to a number of past inspections is equal to or more than a fourth threshold.” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 9 recites “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: generate, based on a signal of the received electromagnetic wave, a transmission image, and decides, based on whether a degree of similarity between a shape of an object captured in the transmission image and a shape of the specified object exceeds a threshold, whether an object captured in the transmission image is determined as the specified object, and modify, based on the customer information, the threshold with respect to the each target person.” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 12 recites “execute the one or more instructions to transmit, to the self-inspection apparatus, the result of the determination indicating a portion of a body where the previously-specified object is detected; and cause the self-inspection apparatus to determine the portion of the body where the previously-specified object was detected as a target portion to be inspected.” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 13 recites “wherein guiding the target person includes opening at least one gate associated with the decided inspection route” is recited at a high-level and merely adds the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f). For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. Claim 14 recites “wherein guiding the target person includes illuminating one or more lamps associated with the decided inspection route.” is recited at a high-level and merely adds the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f). For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception Claim 15 recites “wherein guiding the target person includes displaying a notification indicating the decided inspection route” is recited at a high-level and merely adds the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f). For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. Accordingly, when the limitations above are viewed individually and in combination with the judicial exception, the limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
13. Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obata (US 2020/0393594 A1) in view of Perticone (US 2018/0336672 A1) in further view of Hastings (US 2020/0320814 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 10, and 11, Obata discloses
a processing system, a processing method, a non-transitory storage medium (¶ 0003, 0031-0032: discloses a system for detecting a person who possesses a dangerous article such as a handgun or an explosive in a facility such as an airport, a station, a shopping mall, etc.), comprising:
at least one sensor panel configured by a radar (¶ 0034: discloses radar 12) in which at least one transmission antenna and at least one reception antenna are arranged (¶ 0044: discloses the transmit-and-receive antenna 26 includes one or more transmit antennas and one or more receive antennas);
at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions (¶ 0044, 0046: discloses a main memory 36. The main memory stores programs and data read from storage devices or stores various data generated during screening.); and
at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions (¶ 0046: discloses CPU 22 executes the program that has been read from storage device and developed in the main memory.) to:
irradiate a target person passing through a predetermined region with an electromagnetic wave via the sensor panel (¶ 0003, 0033-0034, 0049, 0052: discloses the radar 12 irradiates an electromagnetic wave to the recognized person. The radar performs scanning of a target person by irradiating the electromagnetic wave to at least two points of the target person.), and
receive a reflection wave of the irradiated electromagnetic wave (¶ 0003, 0030, 0033, 0035, 0049, 0055: discloses the processor obtains a first and second reflection intensity.);
generate, based on a signal of the received reflection wave, a transmission image (Fig. 19A, ¶ 0159: discloses an image of a target person. The image generation circuit 136 generates the first/second images based on the signals received.)
The Obata reference does not explicitly disclose the following limitations. In the same field of endeavor, the Perticone reference is related to an image processing system the includes a machine learning framework to automatically analyze images. The images may be obtained via screening device at a security checkpoint (¶ 0021) and teaches:
generate an estimation model by machine learning based on training data (¶ 0022-0023: discloses the trained machine learning algorithm generates one or more models based on the training data set.), the training data being transmission images of a previously-specified object (¶ 0024, 0027: discloses the training data set includes multiple images obtained using a screening machine or device. The training items may include a shoe or other specified object.),
the estimation model being configured to estimate whether the previously-specified object is captured in a transmission image (¶ 0072-0073: discloses the image processing system 100 executes on or more machine-learned models generated by training the machine learning algorithm using the training data set to analyze the input image and identify presence of a specified object.);
determine, based on the generated transmission image and the estimation model, whether the target person carries a previously-specified object (¶ 0021-0023, 0072-0073: discloses the systems and methods may be used to process images produced during scans of a passenger to identify items concealed by the passenger on his or her body. Using the generated model to analyze the image received and automatically determine if the image includes a specified object.);
As can be seen from the cited passages of Perticone, the findings teach using machine learning techniques to analyze images for specified objects were known in the state of the art and previously performed in the industry at security checkpoints to help make automated decisions on whether a specific item is present or includes a threat.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Obata’s system and inspection methods to include the steps for generate an estimation model by machine learning based on training data, the training data being transmission images of a previously-specified object, the estimation model being configured to estimate whether the previously-specified object is captured in a transmission image; determine, based on the generated transmission image and the estimation model, whether the target person carries a previously-specified object, as disclosed by Perticone to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Perticone, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide advantages for increased efficiency in image processing and to speed up the security scanning process at a facility, as expressly suggested by Perticone, [¶ 0077]
The combination of Obata and Perticone references do not explicitly disclose the following limitations. In the same field of endeavor, the Hastings reference is directed toward systems and methods relating to security screening (abstract) and teaches:
decide, based on a result of the determination, an inspection route where the target person proceeds from among a plurality of the previously-determined inspection routes (¶ 0054, 0090: discloses the system is configured to direct the user to a selected one of a plurality of different egress paths according to a result of the scan of the user.); and execute guidance processing of guiding the target person to the decided inspection route (Fig. 4G, ¶ 0054, 0077, 0092), wherein the plurality of the previously-determined inspection routes include a self-inspection route for performing inspection by a self-inspection apparatus (¶ 0092, 0099, 0107: discloses one or more of the egress paths 462 are shared among several automated systems 400. The system is unstaffed and fully automated to allow self-screening capable of scanning users without agents.), and
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the one or more instructions to: when it is decided to guide the target person to the self-inspection route (¶ 0092, 0107: discloses the system automatically directs users to secondary screening.), transmit a result of the determination about whether the target person carries the previously-specified object to the self-inspection apparatus (¶ 0068, 0094: discloses the screening system 400 is also configured to communicate a result of screening the user to a secondary screening system.), the result of the determination having used to decide the inspection route (¶ 0068, 0077-0078, 0094: discloses the system 400 identifies a specific area of the user as triggering an alarm and communicates that specific area information to the secondary screening system.), and
cause the self-inspection apparatus to decide a content of an inspection to be performed thereby, based on the result of the determination. (¶ 0096: discloses responsive to detecting an anomaly at an initial screening system, the system uses a second screening system to again examine the anomalous item.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Obata and Perticone, to include the steps for decide, based on a result of the determination, an inspection route where the target person proceeds from among a plurality of the previously-determined inspection routes, and execute guidance processing of guiding the target person to the decided inspection route, wherein the plurality of the previously-determined inspection routes include a self-inspection route for performing inspection by a self-inspection apparatus, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the one or more instructions to: when it is decided to guide the target person to the self-inspection route, transmit a result of the determination about whether the target person carries the previously-specified object to the self-inspection apparatus, the result of the determination having used to decide the inspection route, and cause the self-inspection apparatus to decide a content of an inspection to be performed thereby, based on the result of the determination as disclosed by Hastings to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Hastings, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide advantages during the screening process for helping to control passenger flow and minimize labor needed to staff security checkpoints as expressly suggested by Hastings [¶ 0026]
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Obata, Perticone, and Hastings discloses the processing system according to claim 1,
wherein the plurality of inspection routes include a first inspection route for performing, with attendance of an inspector, inspection for belongings and a body (¶ 0068: Hastings discloses the system transmits scanning results to a secondary area, such as a screening area with agents using pat-down or hand-held wands.), and a second inspection route for performing, without attendance of an inspector, inspection for at least either of belongings and a body (¶ 0054, 0090, 0092, 0099: Hastings discloses the system may be unstaffed and fully automated to allow self-screening capable of scanning users without any agents. The one or more egress paths 462 are shared among several automated systems 400 in order to further reduce labor that might be needed to attend to those multiple systems 400), and
the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: decide, when it is determined that the target person carries the specified object, the first inspection route as the inspection route where the target person proceeds (¶ 0054, 0092: Hastings discloses upon failure to clear all alarms, the system directs the user along a dedicated path for resolution.), and
decide, when it is determined that the target person does not carry the specified object, the second inspection route as the inspection route where the target person proceeds. (¶ 0054, 0090, 0092: Hastings discloses the system provides instructional guidance to direct the user along a specific one of the plurality of egress paths, i.e., not towards the secondary screening, based on positive outcome of the automated screening system.)
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Obata, Perticone, and Hastings discloses the processing system according to claim 1,
wherein the plurality of inspection routes include
a first inspection route for performing, with attendance of an inspector, inspection for belongings and a body (¶ 0068, 0099: Hastings discloses the screening system transmits scanning results from the system to a secondary screening area, such as a screening area with agents using pat-down or hand-held wands. The system identifies a specific area of the user as triggering the alarm and communicates that specific area information to the secondary screening system so that an agent can resolve the issue.),
a second inspection route for performing, without attendance of an inspector, inspection for belongings and a body (¶ 0068, 0092: Hasting discloses one or more egress paths 462 are shared among several automated systems in order to reduce labor that might be needed to attend those multiple systems.), and
a third inspection route for performing, without attendance of an inspector, inspection for belongings (¶ 0034, 0099-0100, 0103, 0107: discloses the system can operate in an unstaffed configuration whereby users are able to perform unattended self-screening. The system communicates with and intelligently directs users to wait or proceed to available chambers to ensure efficient routing withing the system. The system includes multiple different tiers of secondary screenings and the system directs users to proceed to a designated one of the different secondary screenings.), and
the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: decide, when it is determined that the target person carries the specified object, the first inspection route as the inspection route where the target person proceeds (¶ 0054, 0092: Hastings discloses upon failure to clear all alarms, the system directs the user along a dedicated path for resolution.), and
decide, when it is determined that the target person does not carry the specified object, the second inspection route. (¶ 0054, 0090, 0092: Hastings discloses the system provides instructional guidance to direct the user along a specific one of the plurality of egress paths, i.e., not towards the secondary screening, based on positive outcome of the automated screening system.)
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Obata, Perticone, and Hastings discloses the processing system according to claim 2,
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to receive an electromagnetic wave from the target person being subjected to inspection in the second inspection route (¶ 0068: Hastings discloses a secondary screening area with agents using hand held millimeter wave scanners/wands. The wands are used to conduct secondary screening under the direction and advice of the system.), and
perform, based on a signal of the received electromagnetic wave, inspection of whether the specified object is present in a portion (¶ 0068: Hastings discloses conducting secondary screening under direction and advice of the system to direct focus to areas of the user that alarmed in the system.),
where an object is detected in determination based on the determination unit, in a body of the target person. (¶ 0033, 0068: Hastings discloses the system identifies a specific area of the user such as the upper torso and communicates that specific area information to the secondary screening.)
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Obata, Perticone, and Hastings discloses the processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
acquire customer identification information of the target person (¶ 0059-0060: Hastings discloses the screening system is configured to establish user identity. The user provides user identification, such as a passport, driver’s license, or similar to establish the user’s identity. The screening system detects the user and performs facial analysis. The screening system identifies a country of origin of the user based on information available on a presented passport.);
store customer information relating to each of the target persons in association with each of a plurality of pieces of the customer identification information (¶ 0067: Hastings discloses the screening system is configured to use a database to update the user’s identify information), and
decide, based on a result of the determination and the customer information of the target person, the inspection route where the target person proceeds. (¶ 0106: Hastings discloses the system relays the detection results, i.e., determined by scanning systems based on user identity, scanning results, etc. The system automatically directs users to an appropriate area of secondary screening.)
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Obata, Perticone, and Hastings discloses the processing system according to claim 5,
wherein the customer information includes at least one of a matter of whether a qualification for receiving favorable treatment in inspection is granted, a past inspection result, nationality (¶ 0059-0060: Hastings discloses the screening system identifies a country of origin of the user based on information available on a presented passport.), a travel history, a criminal history, a performance history of a predetermined action, a matter of whether registration has been made in a whitelist, and a matter of whether registration has been made in a blacklist, and
the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to
decide the inspection route where the target person proceeds (¶ 0049-0052: Hastings discloses the system provides a custom-tailored screening experience capable of varying procedures for each passenger or user, thereby maximizing the effectiveness and ease of the security process.),
based on at least either of a matter of whether the customer information satisfies a preferential inspection criterion in which favorable treatment in inspection can be received and a matter of whether the customer information satisfies a non-preferential inspection criterion in which favorable treatment in inspection is prohibited to receive. (¶ 0049-0052: Hastings discloses the system includes variations in the scanning procedures for the user, such as how to instruct the user and what the user is to expect in the scanning procedure for the user based on pre-existing info. The system provides a high-risk user with different instructions than a low risk user. In view of a user’s risk score, the system may allow one user to pass while holding another user.)
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Obata, Perticone, and Hastings (Original): The processing system according to claim 6,
wherein the past inspection result indicates whether it has been detected that the specified object is carried in a past inspection (¶ 0049-0052, 0064, 0068, 0078, 0106: Hastings discloses a central data repository includes a result from screen a user which identifies a specific area of the user as triggering an alarm. The system includes variations in the scanning procedures for the user, such as how to instruct the user and what the user is to expect in the scanning procedure for the user based on pre-existing info. The system provides a high-risk user with different instructions than a low risk user.), and the preferential inspection criterion includes at least either of a matter that a number of detections of carrying of the specified object in past inspections is equal to or less than a first threshold and a matter that a ratio of a number of detections of carrying of the specified object to a number of past inspections is equal to or less than a second threshold.(¶ 0051, 0064: Hastings discloses the system is calibrated to scan a user to a particular threshold customized to the user’s security risk and other identity factors. For example, known security risk information, known past crimes, body morphology are examples of relevant scanning information that can dynamically change an aspect of the scan including instructions and scanning thresholds).
With respect to claim 8. (Original): The processing system according to claim 6,
wherein the past inspection result indicates whether it has been detected that the specified object is carried in a past inspection (¶ 0064, 0068, 0078, 0106: Hastings discloses a central data repository includes a result from screen a user which identifies a specific area of the user as triggering an alarm. the system includes variations in the scanning procedures for the user, such as how to instruct the user and what the user is to expect in the scanning procedure for the user based on pre-existing info. The system provides a high-risk user with different instructions than a low risk user.), and
the non-preferential inspection criterion includes at least either of a matter that a number of detections of carrying of the specified object in past inspections is equal to or more than a third threshold and a matter that a ratio of a number of detections of carrying of the specified object to a number of past inspections is equal to or more than a fourth threshold. (¶ 0051, 0064: Hastings discloses the system is calibrated to scan a user to a particular threshold customized to the user’s security risk and other identity factors. For example, known security risk information, known past crimes, body morphology are examples of relevant scanning information that can dynamically change an aspect of the scan including instructions and scanning thresholds)
With respect to claim 9, Obata discloses the processing system according to claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to:
generate, based on a signal of the received electromagnetic wave, a transmission image (Fig. 19A, ¶ 0159: Obata discloses an image of a target person. The image generation circuit 136 generates the first/second images based on the signals received.), and
decides, based on whether a degree of similarity between a shape of an object captured in the transmission image and a shape of the specified object exceeds a threshold, whether an object captured in the transmission image is determined as the specified object (¶ 0072: Obata discloses the CPU can determine the degree of danger relating to the possibility that the target person possesses the dangerous article based on a difference in a distribution shape of the reflection intensity of electromagnetic wave.), and
The Obata reference does not explicitly disclose the following limitations.
However, Hastings discloses:
modify, based on the customer information, the threshold with respect to the each target person. (¶ 0065-0066: discloses based on a user risk score the system adjusts the application and combination of scanning technology to be used for scanning the user.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system and methods of Obata, to include the step for modify, based on the customer information, the threshold with respect to the each target person, as disclosed by Hastings in order to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Hastings, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide advantages including a faster scanning experience that is transparent to the user, as expressly suggested by Hastings [¶ 0066]
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Obata, Perticone, and Hastings discloses the processing system according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to transmit, to the self-inspection apparatus (¶ 0068: Hastings discloses the screening system is also configured to communicate a result of screening the user to a secondary screening system.), the result of the determination indicating a portion of a body where the previously-specified object is detected (¶ 0068: Hastings discloses the system identifies a specific area of the user such as the upper left torso and communicates that specific area information to the secondary screening system.); and
cause the self-inspection apparatus to determine the portion of the body where the previously-specified object was detected as a target portion to be inspected. (¶ 0068, 0096: Hastings discloses a secondary screening system is usable to conduct secondary screening under the direction and advice of the system as communicated and to direct focus to areas of the user that alarmed the primary scanner in the system.)
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Obata, Perticone, and Hastings discloses the processing system according to claim 1,
wherein guiding the target person includes opening at least one gate associated with the decided inspection route. (¶ 0026, 0033, 0054: Hastings discloses the automated gate can guide users to a specific path or paths to allow further or secondary screening and/or self-resolution. Although only two doors are shown other example embodiments user different number of doors to direct the user 204 through a selected on of a plurality of doors.)
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Obata, Perticone, and Hastings discloses the processing system according to claim 1,
wherein guiding the target person includes illuminating one or more lamps associated with the decided inspection route. (¶ 0062: Hastings discloses the system may use illuminated floor/wall arrows to provide helpful guidance for a user.)
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Obata, Perticone, and Hastings discloses the processing system according to claim 1,
wherein guiding the target person includes displaying a notification indicating the decided inspection route. (¶ 0062: Hastings discloses the system may use directional instructions displayed on user interface or other indicator to provide helpful guidance for a user.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “The Office Action rejects Claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The Office Action contends that the claims recite the abstract idea of directing a target person towards a designated inspection route, which encompasses managing personal behavior or interactions between people and mental processes. The Office Action further contends that the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection for at least the reasons set forth below.”
“Claim 1 now recites "at least one sensor panel configured by a radar in which at least one transmission antenna and at least one reception antenna are arranged." This recitation is supported by paragraph [0025] of the originally filed specification, which discloses that "the electromagnetic wave reception unit 11 may be a sensor panel configured by a radar in which a plurality of transmission antennas and a plurality of reception antennas are arranged." The sensor panel configured by a radar with transmission and reception antennas constitutes a specific physical apparatus that is integral to the claimed invention, not a generic computing component. This particular machine cannot be characterized as merely applying an abstract idea to a generic computer.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the Examiner asserts that the instant invention does not describe any new computing device or communication network/infrastructure and “fails to provide any technical details for the tangible components, but instead predominately describes the system and methods in purely functional terms.” The specification [i.e., ¶ 0025, Fig. 1] simply describes the components in terms of performing generic computing functions and, accordingly, ”are not directed to a solution to a “technological problem” as was the case in Diamond v Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). Nor do the claims attempt to solve a ‘challenge particular to the Internet.’ DDR Holdings, LLC v Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 – 57 (Fed. Cir. 2014); cf. Intellectual Ventures I, 792 f.3d at 1371 (because the patent claims at issue did not “address problems unique to the Internet,…DDR has no applicability.”) Such vague, functional descriptions of computing components “at least one sensor panel configured by a radar in which at least one transmission antenna and at least one reception antenna are arranged” are insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See MPEP 2106.05(b)
Instead, the claims, as noted, are simply directed to the abstract idea of security screening. As a result, returning to the second step of the analysis, the Examiner asserts that the claims fail to recite any element that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of security screening into a patent eligible application of that idea. “It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Claim 1 now recites that the processor is configured to "irradiate a target person passing through a predetermined region with an electromagnetic wave via the sensor panel, and receive a reflection wave of the irradiated electromagnetic wave." This recitation is supported by paragraph [0024] of the originally filed specification, which discloses that "the electromagnetic wave reception unit 11 irradiates the target person 206 passing through an electromagnetic wave irradiation region with an electromagnetic wave (e.g., a microwave, a milliwave, a terahertz wave, or the like) having a wavelength of equal to or more than 30 micrometers and equal to or less than one meter, and receives a reflection wave." These operations describe what the sensor panel is technically doing, namely irradiating electromagnetic waves toward a physical target person and receiving reflection waves that bounce back from the target person. These physical sensing operations cannot be performed by human mental activity or with pen and paper.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, these limitations were addressed under Prong Two of the analysis. It is important for applicant to note these limitations were not previously considered mental processes. The additional element of “a sensor panel” is being used in its ordinary capacity to “irradiate the target person passing through an electromagnetic wave irradiation region with an electromagnetic wave.” The specification [¶ 0024] describes the operations performed by the sensor panel in a generic manner. There are no technical improvements discussed from the specification in regards to the operations being performed by the sensor panel. The claimed invention invokes the sensor panel merely as a tool to execute the abstract idea. See MPEP 106.05(f) Next, the additional element of “receives a reflection wave” merely adds pre-solution activity to the claimed invention. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(g) What is claimed is simply a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea of security screening. For these reasons, the rejection under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Claim 1 now recites that the processor is configured to "generate, based on a signal of the received reflection wave, a transmission image." This recitation is supported by paragraph [0028] of the originally filed specification, which discloses that "the determination unit 12 may generate a transmission image, for example, based on a signal of a reflection wave received by the electromagnetic wave reception unit 11." The generation of a transmission image from electromagnetic wave signals constitutes technical signal processing that transforms raw sensor data into a usable image format. This is not mere data gathering, but rather a specific technical processing operation that produces a transformed output.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the specificity of the presently recited techniques does not render the claimed invention patent eligible. The Applicant’s reply and the claims do not specifically explain how the transmission image is generated. The claim limitations do not provide any technical details related to image formatting as argued nor is there a specific showing of what is inventive about the generated transmission image or about the technology used to generated and process it. As evidenced by the Specification [i.e., ¶ 0028] rather than citing a specific way to solve a specific problem as in DDR, the asserted claims cite merely a manner for generating a transmission image using generic computer technology. For these reasons, the rejections are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Claim 1 now recites that the processor is configured to "generate an estimation model by machine learning based on training data, the training data being transmission images of a previously-specified object, the estimation model being configured to estimate whether the previously-specified object is captured in a transmission image." Claim 1 further recites that the processor is configured to "determine, based on the generated transmission image and the estimation model, whether the target person carries a previously-specified object."
“These recitations are supported by paragraph [0029] of the originally filed specification, which discloses that "an estimation model in which, for example, a transmission image (training data) of a previously-specified prohibited object is prepared and a prohibited object captured in a transmission image is estimated by machine learning based on the training data may be generated. Then, the determination unit 12 may determine, based on the generated transmission image and the estimation model, whether a previously-specified prohibited object is captured in the transmission image."
“The claim recites two distinct machine learning operations: first, generating an estimation model through machine learning using transmission images as training data; and second, applying the generated estimation model to determine whether the previously- specified object is present in the transmission image. These machine learning operations constitute specific technical processing that is fundamentally different from human mental activity. A human cannot mentally generate a machine learning estimation model or apply such a model to analyze transmission images.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the recited machine learning techniques to not render the claimed invention patent eligible by the fact (using existing machine learning technology) they perform a task previously undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficiency than could previously be achieved. The courts have previously held, in the context of computer assisted methods, that such claims are not made patent eligible under 101 simply because they speed up human activity. See, e.g., Content Extraction,
776 F.3d at 1347; DealerTrack, 674 F.3d at 1333 In the instant case, the machine learning technology cited and described from the Specification [i.e., ¶ 0029] and claims is generic as the disclosure demonstrates. The requirements that the machine learning model is generated using training data and applied to determine whether the previously-specified object is present in the transmission image merely aid in performing the security screening tasks, however, the claims do not represent a technological improvement. The claims do not delineate steps through which the machine learning technology achieves an improvement. At best, the estimation model is recited as apply it or mere instructions to implement an abstract on a computer. For these reasons, the rejection under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Claim 1 further recites that the processor is configured to "cause the self-inspection apparatus to decide a content of an inspection to be performed thereby, based on the result of the determination." This recitation establishes a technical integration between the preliminary determination system and the downstream self-inspection apparatus. The self-inspection apparatus receives the determination result and uses that result to decide the content of its inspection. Paragraph [0144] of the specification discloses that "object detection criterion for the body inspection is determined in a plurality of stages, and thereby the self-inspection apparatus 103 can decide an inspection criterion according to a result of a preliminary belongings inspection based on the processing system 10." This technical integration between multiple apparatus components demonstrates a practical application that controls physical inspection equipment based on the preliminary determination.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the specificity of the presently recited techniques does not render the claimed invention patent eligible. Here, the Applicant purports a technical integration between multiple apparatus components which is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 ("use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions" is not an inventive concept); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed.Cir.2012) Same is the case here, the claimed invention’s use of computers, [i.e., preliminary determination system, downstream self-inspection apparatus], or the transfer of results between computers is merely what computers do and does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea. The Office Action characterizes the claims as reciting mental processes that can be performed in the human mind with or without pen and paper. However, the operations recited in Claim 1 cannot be performed mentally. Receiving reflection waves of irradiated electromagnetic waves requires physical sensor apparatus. Generating a transmission image from reflection wave signals requires electronic signal processing. Generating an estimation model by machine learning requires computational processing that is beyond human mental capability. Determining object presence based on a transmission image and a machine learning estimation model requires applying a trained computational model to image data. None of these operations can be performed by human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Step 2A Prong One of the analysis. The response does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. The reply fails to address the identified limitations from the previous rejection that were determined to recite an abstract idea. It is important for Applicant to note that claims can recite a mental process even though they are being performed by a computer or by use of generic machine learning technology. The claimed methods are not rendered patent eligible by the fact that (using existing machine learning technology) they perform a task previously undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficiency than could be previously achieved. At best, the features being relied upon here do not preclude the identified claims under Prong One of the analysis from falling within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. At best, the cited limitations aid in performing the necessary data gathering/processing to carry out the judicial exception. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Under Step 2A Prong 2, even assuming arguendo that the claims recite an abstract idea, the additional elements integrate any such abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites specific physical components including "at least one sensor panel configured by a radar in which at least one transmission antenna and at least one reception antenna are arranged." The claim recites specific technical operations including irradiating electromagnetic waves, receiving reflection waves, generating transmission images from reflection wave signals, generating machine learning estimation models, and causing the self-inspection apparatus to decide inspection content based on the determination result. These elements are not recited at a high level of generality. Rather, they define a specific technical implementation involving a radar- based sensor panel, electromagnetic wave signal processing, machine learning model generation and application, and integrated control of a self-inspection apparatus. This specific technical implementation improves the technical field of security inspection by providing an integrated system that performs preliminary electromagnetic wave-based screening, applies machine learning to detect specified objects, and controls downstream inspection apparatus based on the preliminary determination.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Step 2A Prong Two of the two-part analysis. The Specification [i.e., Fig. 1, 0025] and previous remarks make clear the recited additional elements are generic computing components or machinery being used to aid with carrying out the abstract idea. As to the asserted technical operations, these features generally link the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use but do not add anything meaningful to the claimed invention. There are no technical improvements to be realized, rather the claims use generic scanning and machine learning technology to implement the abstract idea. The asserted improvements are within the abstract idea being performed, not the generic computing equipment being used to implement the abstract idea. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Under Step 2B, the ordered combination of elements recited in Claim 1 provides significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The combination of a radar-based sensor panel with transmission and reception antennas, electromagnetic wave irradiation and reflection wave reception, transmission image generation from reflection wave signals, machine learning estimation model generation, machine learning-based determination, route decision, and self- inspection apparatus content control represents a specific, unconventional system configuration. The Office Action has not provided evidence that this specific ordered combination is well- understood, routine, or conventional in the art.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the claimed invention remains ineligible under Step 2B. the Examiner asserts that the instant invention does not describe any new computing device or system configuration and “fails to provide any technical details for the tangible components, but instead predominately describes the system and methods in purely functional terms.”
As can be seen, the specification [Fig. 1] simply describes the components in terms of performing generic computing functions and, accordingly, ”are not directed to a solution to a “technological problem” as was the case in Diamond v Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). Nor do the claims attempt to solve a ‘challenge particular to the Internet.’ DDR Holdings, LLC v Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 – 57 (Fed. Cir. 2014); cf. Intellectual Ventures I, 792 f.3d at 1371 (because the patent claims at issue did not “address problems unique to the Internet,…DDR has no applicability.”) (Page 10 TLI Communications, LLC v AV Automotive, LLC) Such vague, functional descriptions of a system configuration are insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Instead, the claims, as noted, are simply directed to the abstract idea of security screening As a result, returning to the second step of the analysis, the Examiner asserts that the claims fail to recite any element that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of security screening into a patent eligible application of that idea. “It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 1 is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Independent Claims 10 and 11 recite corresponding features and are patent eligible for at least the same reasons. Dependent Claims 2-9 and 12-15 depend from Claim 1 and are patent eligible for at least the same reasons as well as for the additional features recited therein. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, claims 10 and 11 recite limitations substantially similar to claim 1, therefore these limitations are being held rejected under the same grounds. The rejection also presents findings for each of the dependent claims 2-9 and 12-15, explaining why the additional limitations recited by these claims do not impart subject matter eligibility. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626