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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention 1, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/10/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention 2 in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “206” has been used to designate both “configuration” and “scanner data/information”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The use of the terms Intel and NVIDIA in [0088], which are a trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 33 line 3, “…data associated the…” should read as “…data associated with the…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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) are:
“…recursive neural network configured to detect peaks in pixel-yield sequences…” in claim 50.
“…recursive neural network is configured to evaluate groups of pixel yields over time and classify yield peaks as crosstalk candidates…” in claim 51.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 37, 47, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “excess” in claim 37 is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term “excess” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degrees for said terms, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what metric is not considered excessive, as such, it is unclear as to how to identify when data degradation is indicated by detected noise
The limitation of claim 37 “…to detect excess noise indicative of data degradation” will be read as “to detect noise indicative of data degradation”.
The terms “too quickly,” “too slowly,” and “excessive” in claims 47 and 48, respectively, are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term terms “too quickly,” “too slowly,” and “excessive” are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degrees for said terms, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what metric is not considered too quick or slow in order to broadly understand what speeds are not acceptable for the vehicle mentioned in claims 47 and 48 (respectively). Additionally, there is no indication as to what can be considered excessive with regard to scan-line density (there is no explicitly indication of an amount of scan lines that is deemed to be not-excessive).
Claim 47 will be read: “The method of claim 20, wherein analyzing the scan images and associated data to determine quality of the scan comprises determining whether the vehicle moved by evaluating a total number of scan lines generated during the scan.”
Claim 48 will be read: “The method of claim 20, wherein analyzing the scan images and associated data to determine quality of the scan comprises determining whether the vehicle by detecting scan-line density indicative of oversampling and increased dose.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 20-38 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, for the reasons as follows:
In re to claim 20, the claim is directed to a method, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 20 recites: A method for inspecting cargo and vehicles, comprising: scanning a cargo container or a vehicle at a service post using an X-ray imaging system having a set of detectors;
importing scan images and data associated with the scan of the cargo or vehicle; and
analyzing said scan images and associated data to determine quality of the scan.
The limitations of “…scanning a cargo container or a vehicle at a service post using an X-ray imaging system having a set of detectors;
importing scan images and data associated with the scan of the cargo or vehicle…”
are understood as data gathering steps, and as such, are insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The collection of scan data and its importation are understood to only amount to well-known data procurement using an x-ray system and the collection of said data.
The limitations of claim 20, as drafted, are considered to fall under the category of “mental process,” and are thus abstract ideas.
For example, an individual tasked to look at captured x-ray image data may make the assertion that the quality of the images has degraded over time based on observed images having reduced quality as more X-ray images are provided to them.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Additionally, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element “…X-ray imaging system …” as well as “…detectors…”
The additional elements do not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or
other technology or technical field, the claimed steps are not performed using a particular machine, the
claimed steps do not effect a transformation, and the additional element does not apply the judicial
exception in any meaningful way beyond generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.04(d)). Therefore, the analysis under prong two of
step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Furthermore, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception.
An X-ray imaging system may be implemented by a generic X-ray machine that performs functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional. X-ray machines are an element which performs imaging of an object using the emission of X-ray radiation, which is routinely used within the art for non-destructive imaging. Thus, this element does not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with an X-ray machine.
Furthermore, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception.
A detector may be implemented by a generic X-ray machine that performs functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional. A detector device is a generic element which performs the capture of data based on some form of detection. In the case of X-ray machines, the detector detects the radiation that passes through an object. Thus, this element does not amount to more than implementing the abstract idea with an X-ray machine.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional X-ray machine implementation, and mere implementation of an X-ray machine does not add significantly more to the claims. Accordingly, the analysis under step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test does not result in a conclusion of eligibility (See flowchart in MPEP 2106).
Dependent claims
Claims 21-28 are dependent on claim 20 and disclose information in relation to the processing of imaged data for its analysis. They do not add significantly more than the abstract idea, nor integrate into a practical application.
Dependent claims 29-30 are dependent on claim 20 and relate to outputting of data to individual. This amounts to additional insignificant extra-solution activity and does not add significantly more than the abstract idea, nor integrate into a practical application.
Dependent claim 31 is dependent on claim 20 and discloses information in relation to the processing of imaged data for its analysis (via benchmarking the data and correlating it in some manner to the outputs of two or more algorithms). It does not add significantly more than the abstract idea, nor integrate into a practical application.
Dependent claims 39-52, and 54 are dependent on claim 20 integrate the system into a practical application by utilizing the particular data collected to determine the presence of specific errors within the detections.
Dependent claim 53 is dependent on claim 20 and discloses information in relation to the processing of imaged data for its analysis (via some form of determination that positive and negative rates are within a threshold). It does not add significantly more than the abstract idea, nor integrate into a practical application.
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 20-25, 27, 28-30, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (applicant provided US publication 20170242148 A1; hereinafter “Yu”) in view of Backes et al. (applicant provided US publication 20130268285 A1; hereinafter “Backes”).
In re to claim 20, Yu teaches wherein: a method for inspecting cargo and vehicles, comprising: scanning a cargo container or a vehicle at a service post using an X-ray imaging system having a set of detectors ([0094] discloses a system that obtains cargo images via X-ray imaging. It further indicates that the system may be applied to a tanker vehicle (as is further exemplified in Fig. 1). Additionally, per [0112] lines 1-4, imaging is performed using a 2D detector array (understood to be a set of detectors));
importing scan images and data associated with the scan of the cargo or vehicle (Fig. 4 shows that the system imports image data as well as additional data to a regional center (402)); and
Yu does not explicitly teach wherein: analyzing scan data and associated data to determine quality of the scan.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Backes teaches wherein: analyzing scan data and associated data ([0029] discloses the processing of a phantom image as well as the checking of IDs for the device and facility related to the phantom image being processed (being understood as associated data)) to determine quality of the scan ([0013] discloses the use of phantom image data (understood as scan image data)in a quality control data file. Additionally, [0029] lines 14-18 discloses evaluation of the phantom image quality in a pass/fail methodology (thus analyzing quality of the scan)).
Backes, like Yu, discloses an X-ray imaging system that is used to image an object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu to perform quality evaluations, as taught by Backes. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to better upkeep the system, such as by enabling service requests, like those suggested in Backes [0058].
In re to claim 21 [dependent on claim 20], Yu, in view of Backes teaches wherein: the analyzing comprises performing a series of checks using the data associated with the scan (Backes [0029] lines 5-18 discloses the performance of checking the ID of devices and facility ID. It is understood that the ID checks and the quality assessment of the phantom image constitute a series of checks using data associated with the scan) and the scan images (Yu [0124] discloses the evaluation of the plurality of scans by virtue of a rolling status of the scan images).
Backes, like Yu, discloses an X-ray imaging system that is used to image an object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu to perform a series of checks, as taught by Backes. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to link results of the systems operations to a particular machine, better enabling service request like those suggested in Backes [0058].
In re to claim 22 [dependent on claim 21], Yu, in view of Backes teaches wherein: comprising verifying integrity of the data associated with the scan and the scan images (Yu [0168] lines 1-3 discloses verification of information about the cargo container/vehicle, this information related to the cargo container/vehicle being understood as data associated with the scan and the scan images).
In re to claim 23 [dependent on claim 21], Yu, in view of Backes teaches wherein: comprising checking the data associated with the scan and the scan images (Yu [0124] discloses the evaluation of the plurality of scans by virtue of a rolling status of the scan images) to identify one or more problems with the X-ray imaging system (Backes [0058] discloses that quality control tests may identify a trend that indicates a coming operational failure. It is understood that an operational failure is a problem with the system).
The reasons for combination are the same as provided above.
In re to claim 24 [dependent on claim 21], Yu, in view of Backes teaches wherein: comprising validating processing of the data associated with the scan and the scan images (Yu [0168] lines 1-3 discloses validation of information about the cargo container/vehicle, this information related to the cargo container/vehicle being understood as data associated with the scan and the scan images).
In re to claim 25 [dependent on claim 21], Yu, in view of Backes teaches wherein: comprising checking the data associated with the scan and the scan images (Yu [0124] discloses the evaluation of the plurality of scans by virtue of a rolling status of the scan images) for quality of scanning process executed by the X-ray imaging system (Backes [0029] discloses the processing of a phantom image as well as the checking of IDs for the device and facility related to the phantom image being processed (being understood as associated data) while performing quality evaluations. Thus, disclosing the checking of data associated with the scan and the scan images for quality of the scanning process).
The reasons for combination are the same as provided above.
In re to claim 27 [dependent on claim 21], Yu, in view of Backes teaches wherein: further comprising analyzing a plurality of data associated with the scan and the scan images (Yu [0124] discloses the evaluation of the plurality of scans by virtue of a rolling status of the scan images) to detect data quality trends (Backes [0058] discloses that quality control tests may identify a trend that indicates a coming operational failure. It is understood that an operational failure is a problem with the system).
Backes, like Yu, discloses an X-ray imaging system that is used to image an object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu to look at trends, as taught by Backes. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to enable the avoidance of operational failure by scheduling service, as is a noted benefit in Backes [0058].
In re to claim 28 [dependent on claim 27], Yu, in view of Backes teaches wherein: comprising using the detected data quality trends to improve the method for inspecting (Backes [0058] discloses that quality control tests may identify a trend that indicates a coming operational failure. It is understood that an operational failure is a problem with the system. It is understood that identification of operational failure improves the method of inspecting by enabling said failure’s prevention (as suggested by [0058])).
The reasons for combination are the same as provided above.
In re to claim 29 [dependent on claim 27], Yu, in view of Backes teaches wherein: comprising providing the detected data quality trends to at least one inspection operator ([0058] discloses that the system may detect a trend suggesting operational failure and may further scheduler service. It is understood that the individual whom is scheduled to service the machine is an inspection operator), using a graphical user interface (Yu [0143] lines 6-13 discloses that the system may provide an analysist additional data and image data using a GUI).
Backes, like Yu, discloses an X-ray imaging system that is used to image an object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu to notify a person using obtained data, as taught by Backes. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to enable the avoidance of operational failure by scheduling service, as is a noted benefit in Backes [0058].
In re to claim 30 [dependent on claim 27], Yu, in view of Backes teaches wherein: comprising providing the detected data quality trends to at least one maintenance personnel ([0058] discloses that the system may detect a trend suggesting operational failure and may further scheduler service. It is understood that the individual whom is scheduled to service the machine is the maintenance personnel).
Backes, like Yu, discloses an X-ray imaging system that is used to image an object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu to look at trends, as taught by Backes. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to enable the avoidance of operational failure by scheduling service, as is a noted benefit in Backes [0058].
In re to claim 34 [dependent on claim 21], Yu, in view of Backes teaches wherein: further comprising automatically generating at least one report of results of the analyzing (Backes [0023] lines 1-8 discloses that the system may generate reports with respect to the quality control tests. As such, the results of the analyzing are used to generate said report (correspondent to the claims)).
Backes, like Yu, discloses an X-ray imaging system that is used to image an object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu, in view of Backes, to utilize to generate a report, as taught by Backes. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to enable a user to understand scan data in a centralized document, making it easier to process.
In re to claim 35 [dependent on claim 21], Yu, in view of Backes teaches wherein: the method is customized for the X-ray imaging system ([0094] discloses a system that obtains cargo images via X-ray imaging. See also Backes [0027] lines 19-25, which discloses the use of the quality control system for computed tomography).
The reasons for combination are the same as provided above.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, in view of Backes, in further view of Rothschild et al. (US patent 7995707 B2; hereinafter “Rothschild”).
In re to claim 26 [dependent on claim 21], Yu, in view of Backes does not explicitly teach wherein: comprising verifying the existence of interference with other imaging systems.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Rothschild teaches wherein: comprising verifying the existence of interference with other imaging systems (col. 3 lines 63-66 discloses the application of the system in reducing leakage of x-ray radiation between systems. Further, in col. 5 lines 2-11 discloses detection of signal leakage and subsequent subtraction in order to reduce cross-talk. Thus, disclosing verification of interference from other imaging systems (being the other sub-systems of the x-ray system)).
Rothschild, like Yu, discloses a system that performs X-ray imaging of an object in order to inspect said object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu, in view of Backes to look at trends, as taught by Rothschild. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been identify a particular issue that is not related to operational failure, allowing a user better insight on issues that have occurred with the system.
Claims 31, 33, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, in view of Backes, in further view of Falinie et al. (non-patent literature titled “Evaluation of a Dual Convolutional Neural Network Architecture for Object-wise Anomaly Detection in Cluttered X-ray Security Imagery”; hereinafter “Falinie”).
In re to claim 31 [dependent on claim 21], Yu, in view of Backes teaches wherein: inspecting of cargo and vehicle (Yu [0094] discloses a system that obtains cargo images via X-ray imaging).
Yu, in view of Backes does not explicitly teach wherein: comprising benchmarking quality of one or more algorithms used for inspecting, the benchmarking comprising correlating outputs of two or more of the algorithms used for the inspecting.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Falinie teaches wherein: comprising benchmarking quality of one or more algorithms used for inspecting, the benchmarking comprising correlating outputs of two or more of the algorithms used for the inspecting (section IV subsection B para 1 discloses evaluation of inspection model performance by virtue of mean average precision (mAP). Further, it is understood that this is a benchmarking operation for quality based on comparison of models to determine a benchmark (see section V subsection A para. 1, in which the models are compared to determine a new benchmark). Additionally, it is understood that the comparison of models is an action of correlation).
Falinie, like Yu, teaches a system that performs X-ray image inspection for objects in a non-destructive manner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu, in view of Backes, to perform benchmarking, as taught by Falinie. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to determine the best algorithm to utilize for object identification for inspection, as is performed in Falinie.
In re to claim 33 [dependent on claim 21], Yu, in view of Backes teaches wherein: inspecting of cargo and vehicle (Yu [0094] discloses a system that obtains cargo images via X-ray imaging).
Yu, in view of Backes does not explicitly teach wherein: further comprising benchmarking quality of one or more inspection algorithms used for inspecting , the benchmarking comprising analyzing a sample of data associated the one or more inspection algorithms and detecting changes in one or more parameters within the sample.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Falinie teaches wherein: further comprising benchmarking quality of one or more inspection algorithms used for inspecting (section IV subsection B para 1 discloses evaluation of inspection model performance by virtue of mean average precision (mAP). Further, it is understood that this is a benchmarking operation for quality based on comparison of models to determine a benchmark (see section V subsection A para. 1, in which the models are compared to determine a new benchmark), the benchmarking comprising analyzing a sample of data associated the one or more inspection algorithms and detecting changes in one or more parameters within the sample (Table I shows the evaluation results of object detections for inspection algorithms. It is understood that these results are a sample of data associated with the algorithms, with a detected change being understood as the mAP value. The mAP value reflects the change in average precision between object detections, as such, it is a detected change in a parameter (precision of detection) within the sample, correspondent to the claims).
Falinie, like Yu, teaches a system that performs X-ray image inspection for objects in a non-destructive manner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu to perform benchmarking, as taught by Falinie. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to determine the best algorithm to utilize for object identification for inspection, as is performed in Falinie.
In re to claim 53 [dependent on claim 20], Yu, in view of Backes teaches wherein: analysis of cargo scan images and associated data (Yu Fig. 4 shows that the system imports image data as well as additional data to a regional center (402))
Yu, in view of Backes does not explicitly teach wherein: to determine quality of the scan comprises evaluating true positive rate and true negative rate for one or more cargo classes to verify that inspection algorithms are operating within acceptance thresholds.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Falinie teaches wherein: to determine quality of the scan comprises evaluating true positive rate and true negative rate for one or more classes to verify that inspection algorithms are operating within acceptance thresholds (section IV subsection B discloses the evaluation of algorithms with respect to a ground truth based on thresholding (the thresholds applied per algorithm being understood as acceptance thresholds). Additionally, true positive values and false positive (understood as true negative) are evaluated per section IV subsection B para. 2).
Falinie, like Yu, teaches a system that performs X-ray image inspection for objects in a non-destructive manner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu, in view of Backes, to utilize to evaluate true positive and true negative rates, as taught by Falinie. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to allow for validation of the success of the system in order to provide a user confidence that the system is operating correctly.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, in view of Backes, in further view of Wang et al. (US publication 20180195977 A1; hereinafter “Wang”)
In re to claim 36 [dependent on claim 20], Yu, in view of Backes does not explicitly teach wherein: analyzing the scan images and associated data to determine quality of the scan comprises determining whether pixel yields for unobstructed regions fall within a predefined nominal range configured for the scanner type.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wang teaches wherein: analyzing the scan images and associated data to determine quality of the scan comprises determining whether pixel yields for unobstructed regions fall within a predefined nominal range configured for the scanner type ([0040] lines 8-11 discloses the use of a predefined formula to determine a range indicative of air with respect to pixel values as a result of an X-ray detection operation (understood as the pixel yield). Thus, it is understood that by the identification of air using a range (defined by a values of the defined threshold and values above said threshold) is a determination of pixel yields for unobstructed regions. Additionally, as this range is determined by the peak values caused by the X-ray machine, it is understood that the resultant range is configured for the scanner type).
Wang, like Yu, performs X-ray scanning in order to inspect an object to detect objects of interest.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu, in view of Backes, to determine pixel yields for unobstructed areas to be within a nominal range, as taught by Wang. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to enable the system to ignore data that may be irrelevant (as is a benefit mentioned in Wang [0040]).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, in view of Backes, in further view of Arodzero et al. (US publication 20150338545 A1; hereinafter “Arodzero”) and Dujmic (US publication 20170184737 A1; hereinafter “Dujmic”)
In re to claim 37 [dependent on claim 20], Yu, in view of Backes teaches wherein: analyzing the scan images (Yu [0124] discloses the evaluation of the plurality of scans by virtue of a rolling status of the scan images) and associated data to determine quality of the scan (Backes [0029] discloses the processing of a phantom image as well as the checking of IDs for the device and facility related to the phantom image being processed (being understood as associated data) while performing quality evaluations)
Yu, in view of Backes does not explicitly teach wherein: scanning is performed using consecutive scan lines.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Arodzero teaches wherein: scanning is performed using consecutive scan lines (Fig. 1 shows the use of scan-line based scanning to generate a full scan. Further, these scan lines are understood to be consecutive based on them being generated with respect to the one directional travel of the vehicle scanned (as shown in Fig. 1)).
Arodzero, like Yu, teaches a system that performs X-ray inspection of vehicles/cargo in order to detect objects of interest.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu, in view of Backes, perform scanning using consecutive scan lines, as taught by Arodzero. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to allow for a detector array that is comparatively thinner than the vehicle being scanned, as is shown in Arodzero Fig. 1.
Yu, in view of Backes does not explicitly teach wherein: analyzing comprises calculating a variance of pixel yields across a scan to detect excess noise indicative of data degradation.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Dujmic teaches wherein: analyzing comprises calculating a variance of pixel yields a scan ([0024] lines 15-40 discloses the evaluation of variance of yield detections for radiographic image measurements (understood as pixel yields)) to detect excess noise indicative of data degradation ([0024] lines 15-40 discloses the use of variance to detect error due to electronic noise for a detector (thus detecting data degradation by virtue of detecting noise, as it degrades the quality of detected data)).
Dujmic, like Yu, teaches a system that performs X-ray analysis of a scan object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu, in view of Backes and Arodzero, to utilize to evaluate noise, as taught by Dujamic. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to enable the detection of elements that impeded on detection, such as noise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32, 38-52, and 54 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to address the respective 101 and 112 (b) rejections, as well as rewriting them to be in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance for claim 32. The claimed features of claims 32 are not anticipated nor obvious in view of prior art of record.
Yu teaches a system that performs inspection of vehicles and cargo. Further, it does this inspection using X-ray imaging methodology. However, it does not perform a correlation operation using a convolution matrix.
Backes performs evaluation of image data and associated data to determine scan quality. However, it does not perform a correlation operation between algorithms that further is performed with respect to a convolution matrix.
Falinie teaches the evaluation of algorithms between different models that perform image recognition operations with respect to an X-ray imaging system. However, while it does perform an evaluation between algorithmic models, it does not perform correlations using a convolution matrix.
Additionally, the other known prior art or record do not address all the limitations of the independent claims without the use of impermissible hindsight bias. As such, claim 32’s limitations are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance for claim 38. The claimed features of claims 38 are not anticipated nor obvious in view of prior art of record.
Yu teaches a system that performs inspection of vehicles and cargo. Further, it does this inspection using X-ray imaging methodology. However, it does not perform utilize a threshold that is based on an expected gradient across a scan in relation to detectors for specifically high or low pixel yields.
Arodzero performs evaluation of vehicles/their cargo in order to perform material discrimination and cargo inspection. It further correlates data detections with respect to low and high pixel attenuation. There is also expected values based on the materials detected, such as ideal values for air. However, it does not utilize a threshold based on expected gradients across a scan.
Dujmic (US publication 20200051017 A1; hereinafter “Dennis”) teaches an image processing methodology in relation to vehicle inspection. However, while it does utilize gradients via gradient descent, it does not do so in order to generate a plurality of thresholds.
Additionally, the other known prior art or record do not address all the limitations of the independent claims without the use of impermissible hindsight bias. As such, claim 38’s limitations are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance for claim 39. The claimed features of claim 39 are not anticipated nor obvious in view of prior art of record.
Yu teaches a system that performs inspection of vehicles and cargo. Further, it does this inspection using X-ray imaging methodology. However, it does not identify clusters of neighboring pixels in order to determine abnormalities with detector groups.
Backes performs evaluation of image data and associated data to determine scan quality. However, it does not identify clusters of neighboring pixels in order to determine abnormalities with detector groups.
Chen et al. (US publication 20170017667 A1; hereinafter “Chen”) discloses a system for the inspection of vehicles that leverages x-ray analysis. It further considers the neighboring information of an area in order to determine aspects of information for said area. However, it does not identify clusters of neighboring pixels in order to determine abnormalities with detector groups.
Falinie teaches the evaluation of algorithms between different models that perform image recognition operations with respect to an X-ray imaging system. However, while it does perform an evaluation between algorithmic models, it does consider particular clusters of pixels for any abnormalities in order to identify detector issues.
Additionally, the other known prior art or record do not address all the limitations of the independent claims without the use of impermissible hindsight bias. As such, claim 39’s limitations are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance for claims 40. The claimed features of claim 40 are not anticipated nor obvious in view of prior art of record.
Yu teaches a system that performs inspection of vehicles and cargo. Further, it does this inspection using X-ray imaging methodology. However, it does identify missing linear accelerator pulses based on vertical scan lines with an average yield below a predefined minimum.
Backes performs evaluation of image data and associated data to determine scan quality. However, its consideration of image quality does not further evaluate the missing of pulses. Nor does it identify evaluate the pulses with respect to vertical lines in relation to a predefined minimum value.
Falinie teaches the evaluation of algorithms between different models that perform image recognition operations with respect to an X-ray imaging system. However, It also does not perform the evaluation of potentially missing linear accelerator pulses in the manner required by claim 40.
Additionally, the other known prior art or record do not address all the limitations of the independent claims without the use of impermissible hindsight bias. As such, claim 40’s limitations are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance for claims 41. The claimed features of claim 41 are not anticipated nor obvious in view of prior art of record.
Yu teaches a system that performs inspection of vehicles and cargo. Further, it does this inspection using X-ray imaging methodology. However, it does not evaluate for zero pixel yield in order to determine a drop in X-ray does or energy.
Backes performs evaluation of image data and associated data to determine scan quality. It further performs evaluation in order to determine if a system may require service. However, it does not evaluate for zero pixel yield in order to determine a drop in X-ray does or energy in the manner required by the claims.
Wang teaches the inspection of luggage using X-ray methodologies. It further discloses the consideration of air based on a range of values with respect to a threshold. However, this does not explicitly consider for drops in X-ray source dose or energy with respect to zero-yield.
Additionally, the other known prior art or record do not address all the limitations of the independent claims without the use of impermissible hindsight bias. As such, claim 41’s limitations are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance for claim 42. The claimed features of claim 42 are not anticipated nor obvious in view of prior art of record.
Yu teaches a system that performs inspection of vehicles and cargo. Further, it does this inspection using X-ray imaging methodology. It further performs this inspection with respect to a dual energy scan. However, it does not perform a material discrimination with respect to a pseudo-color map to further determine if there were errors in material discrimination.
Backes performs evaluation of image data and associated data to determine scan quality. However, it does not perform evaluations based on a pseudo-color map to further determine if there were errors in material discrimination.
Falinie teaches the evaluation of algorithms between different models that perform image recognition operations with respect to an X-ray imaging system. It further shows that the X-rays performed are colorized. However, while it also does not indicate that a pseudo-color map is utilized to determine if there were errors in material discrimination.
Morton et al. (US patent 10698128 B2; hereinafter “Morton”) discloses an inspection system that performs material discrimination using a color map. However, while noise is accounted for with respect to the color map, it does not indicate that the map is used to determine errors in material discrimination.
Holt et al. (US publication 20100310175 A1; hereinafter Holt) discloses a system to identify material. It further discloses the use of a pseudo-color map with respect to material discrimination. However, it does not explicitly teach that said map is used in relation to an evaluation process that further leverages said map to determine errors in discrimination.
Additionally, the other known prior art or record do not address all the limitations of the independent claims without the use of impermissible hindsight bias. As such, claim 42’s limitations are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance for claims 43 and 44. The claimed features of claims are not anticipated nor obvious in view of prior art of record.
Yu teaches a system that performs inspection of vehicles and cargo. Further, it does this inspection using X-ray imaging methodology. However, it does not perform evaluations with respect to the air values of the scan regions in order to detect errors/inconsistencies.
Backes performs evaluation of image data and associated data to determine scan quality. However, it does not perform evaluations with respect to the air values of the scan regions in order to detect errors/inconsistencies.
Wang teaches the inspection of luggage using X-ray methodologies. It further discloses the consideration of air based on a range of values with respect to a threshold. However, this is not used to determine errors or inconsistencies with respect to the scanning process.
Additionally, the other known prior art or record do not address all the limitations of the independent claims without the use of impermissible hindsight bias. As such, claims 43 and 44 are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance for claim 45. The claimed features of claim 45 are not anticipated nor obvious in view of prior art of record.
Yu teaches a system that performs inspection of vehicles and cargo. Further, it does this inspection using X-ray imaging methodology. However, there is no premature start or stop evaluation with respect to scan lines near image boundaries having yield patterns consistent with an object.
Backes performs evaluation of image data and associated data to determine scan quality. However, it also has no premature start or stop evaluation with respect to scan lines near image boundaries having yield patterns consistent with an object.
Falinie teaches the evaluation of algorithms between different models that perform image recognition operations with respect to an X-ray imaging system. However, there is no determination as to whether the scan was started or stopped prematurely by an evaluation of scan lines near image boundaries.
Additionally, the other known prior art or record do not address all the limitations of the independent claims without the use of impermissible hindsight bias. As such, claim 45’s limitations are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance for claim 46. The claimed features of claim 46 are not anticipated nor obvious in view of prior art of record.
Yu teaches a system that performs inspection of vehicles and cargo. Further, it does this inspection using X-ray imaging methodology. However, no evaluation is made as to whether multiple vehicles pass the scanner. Nor is there an indication of a subsequent warning with respect to the number of vehicles scanned.
Morton performs evaluation of image data, and further may do so with respect to a plurality of vehicles passing by the scanner. However, it does not explicitly provide a form of warning in relation to the number of vehicles or containers detected.
Additionally, the other known prior art or record do not address all the limitations of the independent claims without the use of impermissible hindsight bias. As such, claim 46’s limitations are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance for claims 47-49. The claimed features of claims 47-49 are not anticipated nor obvious in view of prior art of record.
Yu teaches a system that performs inspection of vehicles and cargo. Further, it does this inspection using X-ray imaging methodology. However, it does not consider movement (or the lack there of) with respect to the number of scan lines generated during the scan.
Backes performs evaluation of image data and associated data to determine scan quality. However, it does not perform movement determinations (or the lack there of) with respect to the number of scan lines generated during the scan.
Bendahan et al. (applicant provided US patent 9310323 B2; hereinafter Bendahan) teaches the inspection of vehicles/cargo for threats. It further considers speeds of the vehicle with respect to the number of scanner pulses. However, this does not determine speed based on the number of scan lines, nor the nature of said scan lines (as to being identical or near-identical). Rather, it sets the number of pulses to be proportionate to the movement of the vehicle.
Additionally, the other known prior art or record do not address all the limitations of the independent claims without the use of impermissible hindsight bias. As such, claims 47- 49 are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance for claims 50 and 51. The claimed features of claims 50 and 51 are not anticipated nor obvious in view of prior art of record.
Yu teaches a system that performs inspection of vehicles and cargo. Further, it does this inspection using X-ray imaging methodology. However, it does not detect cross talk.
Backes performs evaluation of image data and associated data to determine scan quality. However, it does not perform an evaluation of cross-talk.
Rothschild a system that performs cross-talk determinations between systems via the consideration of signal subtraction. However, when performing this subtraction, it is not explicitly indicated that the peak values of pixel-yield sequences are being considered by a recursive neural network to indicate this cross-talk.
Additionally, the other known prior art or record do not address all the limitations of the independent claims without the use of impermissible hindsight bias. As such, claims 50-51 are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance for claim 52. The claimed features of claim 52 are not anticipated nor obvious in view of prior art of record.
Yu teaches a system that performs inspection of vehicles and cargo. Further, it does this inspection using X-ray imaging methodology. However, it does not generate a correlation matrix to evaluate the outputs of different algorithms for quality degradation based on deviations.
Backes performs evaluation of image data and associated data to determine scan quality. It further compares outputs of the algorithms. However, this does not include the generation of a correlation matrix to evaluate the outputs of different algorithms for quality degradation based on deviations.
Dujmic teaches the of pixel values for variances, and may also indicate the presence of noise, which degrades data. However, this is not indicative of a degradation of quality based on some deviation from a corresponding correlation matrix. Nor is there an explicitly generated correlation matrix.
Additionally, the other known prior art or record do not address all the limitations of the independent claims without the use of impermissible hindsight bias. As such, claim 52’s limitations are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance for claim 54. The claimed features of claim 54 are not anticipated nor obvious in view of prior art of record.
Yu teaches a system that performs inspection of vehicles and cargo. Further, it does this inspection using X-ray imaging methodology and historical data. However, it does not perform establishment of the plurality of required parameters described in claim 54. Nor does it perform a comparison with respect to said parameters.
Backes performs evaluation of image data and associated data to determine scan quality. However, it also does not perform a comparison with respect to nominal parameters set as a result of sampled historical data.
Dennis teaches consideration of historic distributions of feature data. However, it also does not perform a comparison with respect to nominal parameters set as a result of sampled historical data.
Additionally, the other known prior art or record do not address all the limitations of the independent claims without the use of impermissible hindsight bias. As such, claim 54’s limitations are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M COOMBER whose telephone number is (571)270-0950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/KEVIN M COOMBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
Prosecution Insights