DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on March 26, 2024 has been entered and made of record. Currently, claims 1-12 and 14 are pending and claim 13 was canceled.
The substitute specification filed March 26, 2024 has been entered and made of record.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “module” (scanning module; output module) has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 12 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: a computer that is programmed to perform claim functions (page 9 lines 1-6); the electromagnetic scanning unit performs the functions of the so-called scanning module ( page 3 lines 9-16); monitor as an output module (page 6 lines 20-21).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see M.P.E.P. § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claims 1-11 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they are all method claims.
Claim 14 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is an article of manufacture claim.
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 1-12 and 14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the presence of partial sections” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Likewise, claim 2-11 and 14 depend on claim 2 and thus are rejected for the same reasons as well.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “the inspection strip” in line 3 lacks clarity as to whether it is referred to the first two-dimension inspection strip or the second two-dimension inspection strip. Likewise, claim 3 depends on claim 2 and thus is rejected for the same reasons as well.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation “a combination” in line 3 lacks clarity as to what it is referred to. the first two-dimension inspection strip or the second two-dimension inspection strip.
Claim 12 recites similar claim limitation called for in the counterpart claim 1 and thus is rejected for the same reasons as well.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because.
Regarding claim 14 as a representative claim, it is noted that this claim is directed to “a computer program product” and does not recite “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”. Thus. Claim does not fall within at least one of the four statutory categories set forth in 35 U.S.C. §101. A claim that recites no more than software, logic, or data structure (i.e., an abstraction) does not fall within an statutory category set forth in §101. See MPEP 2106.03. Significantly, “[a]bstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment.” See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). The examiner suggests an amendment to the claim to recite “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” in order to meet 35 U.S.C. 101 requirements. Any amendment to claim and/or specification should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure.
Claims 1, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1 as a presentative claim, the 101 analysis is presented below.
Step 1: It is noted that claim 1 recites a method which is a process. Thus, claim 1 is directed to one of statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Limitations “evaluating the first two-dimensional inspection strip…alarm object”, “outputting an inspection…first inspection strip”, “evaluating the second two-dimensional inspection strip…alarm object”, and “outputting an inspection…second inspection strip” are interpreted as mental steps that can be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, these limitations also fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: It is noted that claim does include additional elements (i.e., “scanning a first two-dimensional inspection strip…luggage” and “scanning at least a second two-dimensional inspection strip…luggage”. These elements are nothing more than data gathering and thus insignificantly pre-solution activity. These elements do not amount to an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: It is noted that claim does include any additional elements as pointed out in Step 2A Prong 2 above. These additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Also, the additional element, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites an apparatus and claim 14 recites a manufacture so each of these claims falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. It is noted that each of these claims recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 1. Thus, the advanced statements as applied to claim 1 above are incorporated herein. It is also noted that claim 12 does not recites any addition elements that would make it statutory. Claim 14 recites additional element “computer”. The additional element “computer” is recited at a high level of generality such that it amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer. The claims do not point to a specific improvement in computer itself. The additional element, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 12 and 14 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-12 and 14 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(a) as being anticipated by Simanovsky et al. (WO 2014/003782 A1, art of record IDS filed on 9/14/2023 and referred as Simanovsky hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1 as a representative claim, Simanovsky teaches a method for detecting alarm objects (AO) in items of luggage (L) in a detection device, comprising:
scanning a first two-dimensional inspection strip (IS1) of a first part of the item of luggage (L) (see, i.e., paras. [0020] (scanner), [0021] – [0022] (computed tomography CT system; object 102 comprises a baggage; identifying a potential threat containing objects inside baggage; 2D images, wherein one of the 2D views is referred to the so-called 2D inspection strip), [0002] ( CT system is used to provide 2D views of objects to viewer, wherein one of the 2D views is referred to the so-called 2D inspection strip), and [0028] (2D images)),
evaluating the first two-dimensional inspection strip (IS1) for the presence of partial sections (PS) of alarm objects (AO) (see, i.e., paras. [0021] – [0022] (computed tomography CT system; object 102 comprises a baggage; identifying a potential threat containing objects inside baggage), [0029] (determining an orientation of the object 102 relative to a direction of the object 102 traveled during the examination via the support article 112), [0038] (examining images representing the interior of the baggage for potential threat item); also see fig. 6),
outputting an inspection result (IR) based on the evaluation of the first inspection strip (IS1) (see, i.e., fig. 1 (output of orientation component 126); , paras. [0030] (threat determiner 128; confirming the presence of an occlusion region, wherein the occlusion region comprises potential threat items as described in para. [0001]), [0031] (threat determiner 128 outputs information indicative of potential threat item) and [0033]); also see fig. 6),
scanning at least a second two-dimensional inspection strip (IS2, IS3) of a second part of the item of luggage (L) (see fig. 6 and paras. [0064] (second image representative of the object)),
evaluating the second two-dimensional inspection strip (IS2) for the presence of partial sections (PS) of alarm objects (AO) (see paras. [0064] - [0067] (identifying occlusion region from second image representative of the object)), and
outputting an inspection result (IR) based on the evaluation of the second inspection strip (IS2) (see para. [0067] (occlusion region is identified)).
Regarding claim 2, Simanovsky further teaches wherein, in addition to the presence of partial sections (PS) of alarm objects (AO), their relative position in relation to lateral margins (LM) of the inspection strip (IS 1, IS2, IS3) is recorded during the evaluation (see paras. [0054] and [0056] – [0057] (defining the boundary (margin), use it as feature extraction parameters in the feature extraction for segmenting the potential occlusion region; these parameters are dynamically adjusted/modified; thus, position of the occlusion region in relation to the boundary is inherently recorded so it could be adjusted/modified)).
Regarding claim 4, Simanovsky further teaches wherein optical marking (OM) of the present partial section (PS) of the alarm object (AO) (see paras. [0054] and [0056] – [0057] (defining the boundary; this interpretation is consistent with the instant specification that defines that OM is a boundary (figure 3 and page 11 lines 2-6)) and/or the present complete alarm object (AO) is carried out for the output of the inspection result (IR) (see para. [0050] (thread item is identified)).
Regarding claim 5, Simanovsky further teaches wherein in the case of an alarm object (AO) which extends over at least two inspection sections (IS 1, IS2) (see para. [0064] (potential occlusion is included in both first and second images)), the optical marking (OM) is generated as the smallest possible boundary, in particular with a specified geometric shape (see para. [0063] (pixels outside the region of interest are discarded, thus the boundary of the region of interest is smaller)).
Regarding claim 6, Simanovsky further teaches wherein the inspection strips (IS 1, IS2) overlap with each other, in particular along a scanning direction (SD) (see para. [0064] (potential occlusion is included in both first and second images; first and second images are top-down views; top-down view and side view)).
Regarding claim 7, Simanovsky further teaches wherein the scanned inspection strips (ISl, IS2) have identical or substantially identical inspection widths (IW) (see para. [0051] (both first and second images are the same image; both first and second images represent the same object)).
Regarding claim 8, Simanovsky further teaches wherein an inspection width (IW) is variable for at least one inspection strip (IS 1, IS2) which is to be scanned (see paras. [0051] (both first and second images are different images and thus different width is included inherently) and [0064] (both first and second images are different; each of the first and second images represents different view; top-down view and side view; thus different width is inherently included)).
Regarding claim 9, Simanovsky further teaches the output of the inspection result (IR) takes place continuously after each evaluation of an individual inspection strip (IS1, IS2) (see paras. [0033] – [0034] ) (result is presented to user so reexamination is activated by user).
Regarding claim 11, Simanovsky further teaches wherein the inspection strips (IS 1) are directly or substantially directly adjacent to each other (see paras. [0051], [0062, and [0064] (first and second image represent the same object in different views such as top-down view and side view)).
Regarding claim 12, it is noted that this claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 1 and thus the advanced statements as applied to claim 1 above are incorporated hereinafter. Simanovsky further teaches an evaluation device (see paras. [0007] and [0009] (an apparatus for occlusion detection to identify a potential occlusion region); figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 14, the advanced statements as applied to claim 1 above are incorporated hereinafter. Simanovsky further teaches a computer program product comprising commands which, when the program is run by a computer, cause it to carry out the steps of a method having the features of claim 1 (see paras. [0009] (medium; instructions; processing unit) and [0033] (computer)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simanovsky.
The advanced statements with regard to Simanovsky as applied to claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-12 and 14 are incorporated hereinafter.
Regarding claim 10, Simanovsky does not specifically teaches claim limitations “wherein the evaluation of the inspection strips (ISl, IS2) is carried out by means of a neural network (NN), in particular for all inspection strips (IS1, IS2) with an identical neural network (NN)”.
However, such claim limitations are well known in the art (Official Notice).
The motion for doing so is to speed up and improve detection accuracy.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate such claim limitations in combination with Simanovsky for that reasons.
Claim 3 lacks clarity as pointed out above and thus its scope could not be determined what it covers in order to compare with prior art. Thus, claim is not rejected on the merit at this time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. ( U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2014/0185923 A1) teaches an inspection method and apparatus for detecting suspicious objects in the luggage (figures 1 and 3) employing neural network (para. [0077]).
Peschmann ( U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2005/0058242 A1) teaches an inspection method and apparatus for detecting suspicious objects in the luggage (figures 1 and para. [0039]) employing neural network (para. [0024; fig. 10).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY M DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 3:00PM.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at 571-272-3382. 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.
DMD
2/2026
/DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662