DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
2. The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Action of 10/02/2025, Applicant, on 01/02/2026, amended Claims 1-4, 8 and 18-20, and canceled Claims 5, 9-14, 21, 22 and 24-27. Claims 6, 7, 15-17, 23 and 28-30 are as originally or previously presented.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 15-20, 23 and 28-30 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
3. Applicant’s amendments and arguments are acknowledged.
4. Nonstatutory Double Patenting rejection withdrawn in light of Applicant's filing of a Terminal Disclaimer.
5. Prior 35 USC §112 rejection of Claims withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendments.
6. The prior 35 USC §101 rejection of Claims maintained despite Applicant's amendments and arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 15-20, 23 and 28-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, although they are drawn to statutory categories of system (machine) or method (process), they are also directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
9. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 1 recites A resource allocation system deployable at a location associated with security scanning; the resource allocation system comprising: .. generate a prediction record .. comprising a prediction; .. store a service record for a service; .. comprising a plurality of service records; .. compare the prediction .. against service records ..; determine that performance of the service will not fall within a service benchmark; .. use the prediction record ..to generate a recommendation result .. containing adjustments to the resource allocation system so that an associated service will fall within the service benchmark, the adjustments including adjusting the level of scanning precision .. ; and the resource allocation system configured to implement a change to the service according to the recommendation result .. so that the service falls within the service benchmark to improve performance of services based on the recommendation result,
wherein the change to the service comprises .. to decrease scanning precision to decrease scanning time, responsive to the recommendation result, which is an abstract idea of Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), because comparing a prediction with service records to generate a recommended change to resources to ensure that a service meets a benchmark is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the mind, since it involves evaluation, judgement or observation; it is also an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), because implementing a change to the service to improve performance is a business strategy for mitigating risk and a marketing behavior.
Claim 18 recites A method of allocating resources associated with security scanning, comprising: .. installing a resource allocation system in a first location; scanning, .. having an adjustable level of scanning precision associated with a corresponding scanning time; adjusting the level of scanning precision .. associated with the corresponding scanning time .. ; generating a prediction .. ; the prediction comprising predicted timing data ..; storing a service record for a service .. comprising a plurality of service records ..; storing an event record comprising event timing data for an event .. comprising a plurality of event records ..; storing the prediction in a prediction record .. ; determining whether the predicted timing data is within a predetermined tolerance of the event timing data ..; generating a recommendation result .... using the prediction; generating a load balancing problem; and determining .. a solution to the load balancing problem; said solution including .. to decrease scanning precision to decrease scanning time, responsive to the recommendation result, which is also an abstract idea of Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), because generating predicted timing data, determining whether the predicted timing data is within a predetermined tolerance, using the prediction to generate a recommendation, generating a load balancing problem and finding a solution to the load balancing problem is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the mind, since it involves evaluation, judgement or observation; it is furthermore an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), because allocating resources to decrease scanning time is a business strategy for mitigating risk and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions).
At Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis for independent Claims 1 and 18, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because the Claims, including additional elements such as an X-ray machine security scanner; an equipment controller, a computer containing a processor, memory and non-transitory computer readable code stored in the memory; a prediction engine, a history module, a database, a comparison engine, a service improvement module, a load balancing engine, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The Claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B of the analysis, independent Claims 1 and 18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine use of computers (as evidenced by Figure 25 of the Drawings and paragraphs 38, 57, 161-169, 174-192 of the Specification in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
At Step 2A Prong One, dependent Claims 2-4, 6-8, 15-17, 19, 20, 23 and 28-30 incorporate (and therefore recite) the abstract ideas noted in independent Claims 1 and 18 from which they respectively depend, and may further recite extensions of that abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claim 2 does not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claim from which it depends. This dependent Claim therefore does not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2A Prong Two for the independent Claims, and is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 3, 4, 6-8, 15-17, 19, 20, 23, and 28-30 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because these Claims, including additional elements such as those listed above and a personnel sensor, an employee sensor, an equipment controller, a resource controller, a fast pass platform, a timing comparator, a prediction accuracy improvement logic, a confidence interval adjustment logic, an error range adjustment logic, a prediction accuracy improvement logic, a timing comparator, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f). These dependent Claims are therefore also directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B, dependent Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above with respect to the independent Claim from which it depends, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine use of computers (as evidenced by Figure 25 of the Drawings and paragraphs 38, 57, 161-169 of the Specification in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant Claim, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant Claim, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 3, 4, 6-8, 15-17, 19, 20, 23, and 28-30 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above with respect to independent Claims from which they depend and a personnel sensor, an employee sensor, a resource controller, a fast pass platform, a timing comparator, a prediction accuracy improvement logic, a confidence interval adjustment logic, an error range adjustment logic, a timing comparator, a prediction algorithm, a fast pass platform, a prediction accuracy improvement logic, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine use of computers (as evidenced by Figure 25 of the Drawings and paragraphs 38, 57, 161-169, 174-192 of the Specification in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant Claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant Claims, is also not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, Claims 1-4, 6-8, 15-20, 23 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573__ U.S. 2014.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered, but are found not persuasive with regard to the 35 USC 101 rejection.
11. Applicant argues (at pp. 8-9) that the amended claims “recite adjusting operation of an X-ray machine security scanner based on service records” and not an abstract idea at Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter analysis under 35 USC 101.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims when considered as a whole recite abstract ideas in the categories of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the amended claim language in light of the Specification at Step 2A Prong One of the analysis, as explained in detail at paragraph 9 above in this office action. The X-ray machine security scanner is deemed an additional element at Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis.
12. Applicant argues (at p. 9) that, at Step 2A Prong Two, “the combination of additional elements, inclusive of actively controlling an X-ray machine security scanner” integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception because “The claims recite storing records in memory that are used to implement changes made by an equipment controller to change scanning precision of the X-ray machine security scanner” and are therefore eligible.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims when considered as a whole, including the additional elements, generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use ( MPEP 2106.05(h)). Also, the additional elements are merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), and are therefore not indicative of integration into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two.
Furthermore, At Step 2B of the analysis, for the same reasons as at Step 2A Prong Two, the claim language, when considered as a whole including the additional elements, is not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”). The claims are therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
13. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARJIT S BAINS whose telephone number is (571) 270-0317. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Wu Rutao can be reached on (571)272-6045. 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.
/SARJIT S BAINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights