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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 – 13 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 14 – 15 was added.
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 7, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding to Applicant's arguments against the 101 rejection of the pending claims on pages 8 – 12: Applicant’s arguments starting in p.10 directed to the general 101 analysis in view of Example 37 for a rearrangement or relocation of icons on a graphical user interface (GUI), from the 2019 guidance examples were considered, but are not persuasive. Firstly, at least because Example 37 is a “hypothetical example” as presented in MPEP 2106.04(a)(1) for recitations directed to a mental process.
On the other hand, arguments regarding Example 46 in p. 11 from Remarks were considered and upon the evaluation of the amended independent claims and its additional elements in combination or as a whole, the Examiner determined the withdrawal of the 35 USC § 101 rejection. Because the additional elements of a “camera”, “gate” and a “display” in combination with the step of “controlling the gate to open or close based on the determination result…” in claims 1 and 5 – 9 are not invoking the mere instruction to apply the functions to generic computer components that are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Rather, the claims are applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g. computer implementations and airport gate systems), such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Moreover, and although these additional individually-viewed elements are well-known and do not add significantly more or integrate the exception, together or when viewed in combination, these additional elements meaningfully limit the judicial exception of determining if item restrictions apply in items found in a passenger’s baggage and the passenger’s biometric data to automate a gate device (see MPEP 2106.05(e)). In other words, the combination of these additional elements and the steps in the claims were found to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the abstract idea for determining biometric data and comparisons between the restrictive items and passenger’s items to the practical application of automating a gate for enabling the entry of passengers and their baggage while monitoring them at an airport. Thus, these claims are eligible and do integrate the judicial exception into the practical application at Step 2A Prong 2.
As for Applicant arguments regarding other abstract ideas such as “fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people” as well as mathematical processes (see p.11 from Remarks), these arguments are considered moot. Because the Examiner did not consider these abstract idea groups in the 101 analysis withdrawn. Finally, for the same reasons stated above, the Examiner respectfully withdraws the 35 USC § 101 rejection for these pending claims.
Regarding to Applicant's arguments of rejection under 35 USC § 103 for the pending claims on pages 12 – 14: Applicant’s arguments regarding these amended limitation steps in claim(s) 1, 5 and 9 are not persuasive. Because the prior art combination of Luo, Brunetti and Choi reasonably teaches the claim limitations and each element contrary to Applicant’s unfounded/general allegations. Thus, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the Luo, Brunetti and Choi references. Also, Applicant is focusing on each prior art teaching, rather than focusing on the actual language claimed in each claim limitation and how their corresponding limitation steps are different from the prior art teachings. Thus, the prior art combination of Luo, Brunetti and Choi maintained herein, still reasonably satisfies and teaches the claimed limitations in light of the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim language. Please refer to the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 section for further details. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains 35 USC § 103 rejection for these pending claims.
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.
Claims 1 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (WO Pub No. 2019028852 A1) in view of Brunetti (U.S. Patent No. 6507278 B1) in further view of Choi (U.S. Pub No. 20100308108 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 9:
Luo teaches:
at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform processing comprising: (In ¶7, p.13; Fig. 14 (51 and 52): teaches “electronic device 50 includes one or more processors 51 and a memory 52”.)
acquiring, by the camera, a face image of a passenger traveling from a first country to a second country in an entry examination procedure in the second country; acquiring article information corresponding to a registered face image of the passenger by sending request data including the face image of the passenger, the article information obtained by baggage inspection in the first country; (In ¶11, p.7; Fig. 1; Fig. 2 (Step 11): teaches that the system via the use of “Raman detection technology” identify the security inspection item and obtains the “identity of the passenger or the visitor can be identified by techniques such as face recognition” via the “cloud server” wherein the “item identification information of the security inspection item, and location information of the security inspection item;” is obtained during “the security inspection work” (see ¶9 – 10, p.7) which is directed baggage inspection in the first country. Refer to ¶1, p. 8 wherein the “image of the security article can be collected by the camera, the location information of the security article can be obtained after analyzing the image, and the location information of the security article can be obtained by other methods”.)
acquiring, from a server, information on one or more restricted items and forbidden items designated by the second country; (In ¶4, p.8; Fig. 2 (Step 11): teaches that the system’s “cloud server may invoke a preset comparison algorithm to compare the item identification information and the location information of the security item with a pre-established substance database” that, during the “comparison process” the database is searched based on the “location information” and the “item identification information of the security item”, wherein the “item identification information (such as the item name) of the security item may be found in the dangerous goods directory corresponding to the location information” which is directed to acquiring information on restricted and forbidden items by the second country via a server.)
determining whether a baggage of the passenger includes a subject article including a forbidden article that is forbidden to be carried into the second country and a restricted article which is restricted to be carried into the second country based on the article information and the acquired information from the server; (In ¶3, p.7; Fig. 2 (Steps 11 and 12); Fig. 6 (Steps 135 – 138); Table 1: teaches that “performing analysis to determine the danger level, the central control module sends the determination result to the detection terminal 10” and “the early warning module determines whether the detection object satisfies the preset processing condition, and returns the determination result to the central control module” Then, “the corresponding instruction is sent to the early warning module according to the returned result, so that the early warning module performs a corresponding security processing operation according to the instruction, wherein the early warning module is connected to all the security terminals 30” which is directed to the device from the second country. Also, in ¶4, p.8 the system utilizes a “comparison algorithm” to compare identification information and the location information of the security item to determine if the security item is “a dangerous item in the geographical location”, if it is the “dangerous item” the “the dangerous level of the security item and the commonly used disposal method” is obtained in order to easily handle (e.g. dispose or dispatch) the dangerous security item by the staff.)
Luo teaches the sending a “tracking instruction to the working group” at step 17 (directed to displaying operation instructions informing that the passenger needs to undergo for a procedure) to “track the security inspection item according to the potential movement trajectory of the security inspection item” and perform the “security inspection” which can include a special procedure such as “preset delay mechanism” (see ¶6, p.11; Fig. 9 (Step 18); Luo). However, Luo does not explicitly teach the abilities of having a camera, a gate, a display (e.g. interface) and controlling the display to display a specific guidance screen to inform the passenger of a subject article in their baggage and a corresponding procedure necessary for carrying it in a second country. However, Brunetti teaches:
a camera; (See Fig. 3 (28) and Figs. 5 and 15 (35): shows different cameras to monitor a passenger and their luggage.)
a gate; (See; Fig. 1 – 3 (18a – 18d and 30): shows different gates that can be controlled to be open or closed. Refer to C4; L10 – 13 and C12 – 13; L65 – 67 and L1 – 8 for general details and for the doors that can be commanded to be opened and closed, refer to C3 – 4; L64 – 67 and L1 – 8.)
a display; (See Fig. 1 (34, 38, 50 and 52); Fig. 3 (34); Fig. 4 (52); Figs. 5 – 7: shows different CCTV monitors that can display different type of information for the passengers (see C7; L21 – 51).)
controlling the display to display a guidance screen which informs the passenger of a procedure necessary for carrying the subject article into the second country when the baggage of the passenger includes the subject article determining whether to allow the passenger possessing the baggage based on a result of the determining whether the baggage of the passenger includes the subject article: and (In C8; L26 – 38; Fig. 1 (34, 38, 50 and 52); Fig. 3 (34); Fig. 4 (52); Figs. 5 – 7: teaches that the system include multiple displays near their “portals 50” and their “monitors 34” (see Fig. 1) which further have a “display 38” that is “provided to people approaching the entrance” wherein “Display 38 is used with a specialized computer (not shown) designed to show static or dynamic graphics which display information about prohibited items such as bombs and guns which cannot be brought into the secure area, etc.” including a display that is “sufficiently large that a great deal of information is readily displayed” which is directed to an example of informing the necessary procedure for the carrying subject article entering to a second country with the purpose of letting travelers “know what items are prohibited in the secure area” as well as any determinations to whether allow the passenger enter based on a result related to passenger’s baggage and their subject article.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Luo to provide the abilities of having a camera, a gate, a display (e.g. interface) and controlling the display to display a specific guidance screen to inform the passenger of a subject article in their baggage and a corresponding procedure necessary for carrying it in a second country, as taught by Brunetti in order to “facilitate auditing by an airport, for example, of those people using a concourse.” (C3; L17 – 19; Brunetti) and allow “information to be readily presented in many different languages so travelers of many nationalities are able to know what items are prohibited in the secure area” (C8; L34 – 38; Brunetti).
At least Brunetti teaches controlling features via a “control unit” to allow “security personnel to selectively open and close passenger flow lanes, monitor video from all the lanes, record video, and transmit video to remote sites” (see C4; L10 – 13 and C12 – 13; L65 – 67 and L1 – 8; Brunetti) and doors can be commanded to be opened and closed (see C3 – 4; L64 – 67 and L1 – 8; Brunetti). However, neither Luo or Brunetti teaches the ability of controlling the gate to open or close specifically based on a determination result for whether allowing the passenger possessing the baggage to go through or pass. Thus, Choi teaches:
controlling the gate to open or close based on a determination result of the determining whether to allow the passenger possessing the baggage. (In ¶0046; Figs. 3 - 4 and 6 (140, 110 and 120); Fig. 9B (S114 – S115); Fig. 10B (S217 – S218); Fig. 11 (S306 – S307): teaches that after “departure management portion 140” checks the information of the corresponding passenger, the system “controls the opening and closing of the exit gate 110 and the entrance gate 120”. For example, “if there is a problem in any of the checking processes regarding the forgery of the electronic passport 40, the check-in of the person 45, the identity of the person 45, and the result of a departure examination of the person 45, the departure management portion 140 controls the entrance gate 120 to be opened.” Also, “the departure management portion 140 further checks the carry-on of prohibited items on the plane and then controls the opening and closing of the exit gate 110.” Refer to ¶0096, ¶0106 and ¶0117 for more details.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Luo and Brunetti to provide the ability of controlling the gate to open or close specifically based on a determination result for whether allowing the passenger possessing the baggage to go through or pass, as taught by Choi in order to automate “arrival and departure procedures in an airport, by which the forgery of a passport, the identity of a passport bearer, the arrival or departure permission according to a result of arrival and departure examinations, and the carry-on of prohibited items on the plane are automatically checked” (¶0003; Choi) and facilitate “identifying a passport bearer, prevents illegal activities in an airport such as switching of a passport or boarding pass, enables passing an arrival or departure area entry procedure without a boarding pass, and reduces examination personnel and required time for the arrival or departure area entry procedure.”(¶0009; Choi).
Regarding claims 2, 6 and 10:
The combination of Luo, Brunetti and Choi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 5 and 9, respectively.
Luo further teaches:
wherein the article information includes a classification according to regulations applied to the second country. (In ¶6, p.10; see Table 1 – discloses categories A, B and C: teaches that the system method may be “specifically determined according to the identification information of the security inspection item, and after the security inspection item is identified, different processing methods are adopted for different security inspection items, for example, how should the flammable and explosive security inspection item be handled, and how should the weapon be carried?” which is directed to classifications based on regulations applied per article.)
Regarding claims 3, 7 and 11:
The combination of Luo, Brunetti and Choi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 5 and 9, respectively.
This claim set is represented by claim 3
Luo further teaches:
wherein the processing comprises: providing the article information to a device operated by a staff in the entry examination procedure. (In ¶4 – 5, p.8: teaches that the staff operating the system can search for “article identification” and the location information from the security item, including “the dangerous level of the security item and the commonly used disposal method and the like may also be obtained through the pre-established substance database” which “makes it easy for the staff to handle the dangerous security items.” Also, refer to ¶5, p. 7 wherein the “security terminal 30” may be a “a smart terminal device carried by the security personnel for receiving processing instructions”.)
Regarding claims 4, 8 and 12:
The combination of Luo, Brunetti and Choi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 5 and 9, respectively.
This claim set is represented by claim 4
Luo further teaches:
wherein the processing comprises: providing the article information to a device that performs the entry examination procedure. (In ¶1, p.7; Fig. 1: teaches that the system’s “detecting terminal 10” (directed to the terminal device) can detect “the current location information of the security object in addition to the biometric information of the detection object” which is sent to the “cloud server 20” (directed to the device) as a “detection result” to be further reviewed for “safety inspection work”. The “terminal device such as a security X-ray machine, a metal detector, and a security door, and the security inspection work is completed under the cooperation of a person” which occurs at the entrance or entry when performing “security check on the baggage of the passenger or the visitor” which is directed to the entry examination procedure.)
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Luo, Brunetti and Choi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Luo teaches a “delay mechanism” that can be used to “temporarily close” the “security check port” to “obtain time for dispatching other security personnel” while the security object is held and properly disposed directed to having a quarantine site as claimed (see ¶3 – 7, p.11; Luo). Luo does not explicitly teach the ability of having a specific guidance screen that further includes location indications (e.g. directions) for the procedure that is to be performed. However, Brunetti further teaches:
wherein the guidance screen further includes information indicating a location where the procedure is to be performed, the location including a quarantine site and a custom inspection site. (In C9; L20 – 30; Figs.3, 5 – 7; Figs. 1 and 4 (52): teaches that the system also includes in “front of each portal 50”, a “display 52 which includes, for example, direction arrows” that provides “an indication, a lighted green arrow, for example, directing the person to the end of the conveyor (the solid line arrow in FIG. 5) to retrieve their items”. However, “if the person fails the screen, a lighted green arrow directs them to secondary portal 50” which removes the person from “normal flow path of people passing through the system so they can be further scrutinized while not unduly delaying anyone else” which is directed to indicating a location where the procedure is to be performed in a different area such as a quarantine site and a custom inspection, which do not hold any patentable weight and is considered descriptive matter.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Luo to provide the ability of having a specific guidance screen that further includes location indications for the procedure that is to be performed, as taught by Brunetti in order to route “passengers through the various levels of screening to efficiently move people requiring further screening out of the way of passengers who can move on to their gate” (C3; L47 – 50; Brunetti) and “facilitate quicker movement of people through the portals, even though a number of them will fail the magnetometer Screen and have to be further scrutinized before being allowed to pass into the concourse” (C9; L4 – 8; Brunetti).
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Luo, Brunetti and Choi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Luo further teaches:
wherein the subject article is permitted to be carried in the first country. (In ¶4 – 5, p. 8: teaches that the system can “determine whether the security article is a dangerous article” based on the combination of “the article identification information and the location information of the security article”. For example, “200 ml bottled water can be taken on the train at the railway station security check” (e.g. directed to the first location or country), but it “is taken at the airport security check. It is considered a dangerous security item and is not allowed to be taken on board.”)
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of Luo, Brunetti and Choi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Luo teaches a “delay mechanism” that can be used to “temporarily close” the “security check port” to “obtain time for dispatching other security personnel” while the security object is held and properly disposed (see ¶3 – 7, p.11; Luo). However, Luo does not explicitly teach the ability of including a procedure in a custom inspection site. However, Brunetti further teaches:
wherein the procedure includes a procedure in a quarantine site and a procedure in a custom inspection site. (In C9; L20 – 30; Figs.3, 5 – 7; Figs. 1 and 4 (52): teaches that the system also includes in “front of each portal 50”, a “display 52 which includes, for example, direction arrows” that provides “an indication, a lighted green arrow, for example, directing the person to the end of the conveyor (the solid line arrow in FIG. 5) to retrieve their items”. However, “if the person fails the screen, a lighted green arrow directs them to secondary portal 50” which removes the person from “normal flow path of people passing through the system so they can be further scrutinized while not unduly delaying anyone else” which is directed to indicating a location where the procedure is to be performed in a different area such as a custom inspection, which do not hold any patentable weight and is considered descriptive matter.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Luo to provide the ability of including a procedure in a custom inspection site as taught by Brunetti in order to route “passengers through the various levels of screening to efficiently move people requiring further screening out of the way of passengers who can move on to their gate” (C3; L47 – 50; Brunetti) and “facilitate quicker movement of people through the portals, even though a number of them will fail the magnetometer Screen and have to be further scrutinized before being allowed to pass into the concourse” (C9; L4 – 8; Brunetti).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gudmundson (U.S. Patent No. 8494210 B2) is pertinent because it “relates generally to security systems and, more particularly, to a user interface providing image enhancement capabilities for use in screening luggage, mail parcels or cargo containers to identify certain objects located therein or for screening persons to identify certain objects located thereon and to a method and system for implementing such a user interface.”
Agrawal (U.S. Pub No. 20080204232 A1) is pertinent because it “relates generally to a system and method for allowing a traveler to designate important items to be taken during traveling, and for verifying that those items are properly packed or unpacked by verifying bag contents against one or more travel lists.”
Roberts (U.S. Pub No. 20070115123 A1) is pertinent because it is “a system for associating baggage with a passenger comprises a biometric reader that captures a biometric measure from a passenger, a boarding document comprising a machine-readable boarding identifier, and a baggage tag comprising a machine-readable baggage identifier. An association processor associates the machine-readable boarding identifier and the machine-readable baggage identifier and the biometric measure.”
Roberts - b (U.S. Patent No. 7193515 B1) is pertinent because it “relates generally to baggage screening. More particularly the present invention is a system and method for centralized screening of images and other data relating to bags and packages passing through security screen checkpoints, and the methods for training and quality control relating thereto. In addition, other applications of this system and method are envisioned in the field of security and screening application such as entrance guard stations and vehicle inspection at checkpoints.”
Moon-Ho Song (U.S. Pub No. 20090034790 A1) is pertinent because it “generally relate to methods and systems for providing remote access to baggage scanned images and passenger security information on a global level.”
Sakaguchi (U.S. Patent No. 11200630 B2) is pertinent because the “present invention intends to provide an information processing apparatus, an information processing method, and a storage medium that can recognize in more detail the status of a user scheduled for boarding.”
Sakaguchi – b (U.S. Patent No. 10963716 B2) is pertinent because “the present invention is to provide an information processing apparatus, an information processing method, and a storage medium that can improve accuracy in comparison of biometrics information.”
Fankhauser (U.S. Patent No. 10403061 B2) is pertinent because it “relates to an apparatus for authenticating a security article and a method for authenticating a security article. More particularly, the present invention relates to any one of determining whether a security article is genuine, determining whether a user of a security article is authorized, and/or identifying such a user. The present invention also relates to border or checkpoint control.”
Yepez (U.S. Pub No. 20130027187 A1) is pertinent because it is a “security kiosk includes an identification device, communications circuitry, a security scanner for examining a traveler and items accompanying the traveler, and a processor for obtaining identification information from the traveler using the identification device, for connecting to a host computer system using the communications circuitry, for determining whether the traveler has previously checked in from the host computer system, for checking in the traveler when the traveler has not previously checked in, for reading a check-in document when the traveler has previously checked in, and for operating the security scanner.”
Barnes (U.S. Pub No. 20020198731 A1) is pertinent because it is “pertains to the field of air travel transportation and in particular the field of processing passengers through customs and immigration services of a destination country. It also concerns the automatic acquisition and processing of data concerning the passengers.”
Audo (U.S. Pub No. 20170004384 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to computers and computer software, and in particular to systems, methods, and computer program products for tracking baggage being transported by a carrier.”
Spitzer (U.S. Patent No. 11443576 B2) is pertinent because it “relates to a system and a method for controlling baggage according to the preamble of the independent patent claims.”
Ziegler (U.S. Pub No. 20160075449 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to a baggage handling system for an airport”.
Chen (U.S. Patent No. 10810437 B2) is pertinent because it “relates to a field of security check of objects, and more particularly to a security check system and method for identifying an object of interest among multiple objects.”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ivonnemary Rivera Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-6158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/IVONNEMARY RIVERA GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626