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 ** are amended. Claims ** are newly added. Claims ** are cancelled. Claims ** are pending.
Response to Remarks
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Because the rejection of claim 14 under 35 USC § 101 has not be addressed, the previous rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
In the response filed 06/22/2026, the Applicant has amended claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 15 to remove the phrase “in particular”. Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn. In light of the amendments to independent claim 1, new rejections has been made below under 35 USC § 103. Furthermore, it appears that limitations of claim 15 invoke 35 USC § 112(f). Accordingly, a new rejection has been made under § 112.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
In the REMARKS filed 06/22/2026, the Applicant argues the newly added features are not anticipated or made obvious by the previous reference of PESCHMANN et al. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. See the rejection below.
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.
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 located in claim 15 and is/are: “control unit”, “primary detection system”, “secondary detection system”, “transfer module”, and “adaptation module”.
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 § 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 “a computer program product” is merely an abstract idea.
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.
Claim 15 is 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 5 recites the phrase:
“…wherein the at least one detection parameter (DP) influences the statistical quality of the secondary detection method and is selected from one of the following based in part on the at least one alarm object parameter (AP) including the material of the alarm object: belt speed…operating parameters of at least one x-ray source…quantity of x-ray sources to be used…operating frequency…operating strength…”.
The claim is unclear because the unconventional grammar of using a “:” following “the material of the alarm object” phrase suggests that the material of the alarm object is required and at least one other parameter is to be selected from the group. However the claim recites “based in part on the at least one alarm object parameter”. Alternatively, the phrase could be interpreted to include the “material of the alarm object” among the other optional parameters. Thus, the scope of what the claim requires is unclear. For the purposes of rejection, the phrase will be interpreted in the latter, such that the “at least one alarm object” is one of the plurality of options and is not necessarily required.
Claim 15 recites the phrases: “control unit”, “primary detection system”, “secondary detection system”, “transfer module”, and “adaptation module”. Each of the phrases invokes 112(f) as set forth above under Claim Interpretation. However, the supporting disclosure fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. See MPEP 2181(III). Finally, each of the instant “units” and “modules” appear to be a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations. MPEP 2181(II)(B) explains that for computer-implemented 112(f) limitations, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function or else the claim is indefinite under 112(b). The specification is silent regarding respective algorithms for each of the computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations, and thus the claim is indefinite.
Claim 15 recites the phrase “wherein the transfer module and/or the adaptation module are configured to carry out a method with steps of claim 1” in the last lines. The claim fails to make clear what elements of apparatus claim 15 perform what respective steps of parent process claim 1. All steps or only some steps of claim 1? Which steps? Which “unit” or “module” performs what step? One of ordinary skill would not be apprised of the claim scope.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PESCHMANN (US 20060098773 A1).
Regarding claim 1, PESCHMANN discloses a method for detecting alarm objects in items of luggage by means of a primary detection system and a second detection system, comprising:
carrying out a primary detection method by means of the primary detection system to detect at least one alarm object (FIGURE 1 shows first stage 110 (CT unit) configured to carrying out a primary detection method; [0061]);
transferring at least one alarm object parameter (AP) to the secondary detection system in the event of an alarm object being detected in the primary detection method (first stage computer processing system 131 receives image data, analyzes data, generates object parameters (aka threat map including shape, size, location), and transmits parameters to S-I unit 115 including processing system 132; [0062, 0070]);
adapting at least one detection parameter (DP) of the secondary detection system on the basis of the alarm object parameter (S-I unit 115 interprets the threat map and image data, and moves probing beams into position best suited for sampling the threshold resolution information; [0063]);
carrying out a secondary detection method by means of the secondary detection system with adapted at least one detection parameter in order to check the alarm object detected in the primary detection method (S-I unit 115 samples determined best position for threats; [0063]); and
outputting an alarm signal in the event that the checking of the alarm object proves positive (based upon automatic threat resolution algorithm, S-I unit 115 provides data to an operation or automatically activates an alarm; [0063]).
PNG
media_image1.png
394
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of PESCHMANN
The instant embodiment of PESCHMANN does not explicitly disclose that “the at least one alarm object parameter (AP) including at least a material of the alarm object”. However, PESCHMANN further discloses in a separate embodiment using a dual energy imaging system to display an image where organic and metallic materials can be suppressed, displayed, or refined to “discriminate between similar materials or higher and lower relative atomic numbers, such as between a plastic comprised of more lower atomic number numbers like hydrogen and carbon and a plastic comprised of more lighter atomic number elements like oxygen and nitrogen; or between aluminum… and steel” ([0070]), with the benefit of material discrimination of concealed items and enhanced threat detection. In light of the teachings of PESCHMANN, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the alternate embodiments therein.
Regarding claim 2, PESCHMANN discloses wherein in the primary and secondary detection systems the items of luggage are scanned by means of EM radiation (CT and S-I units including generated x-ray data, x-ray diffraction and fluorescence spectra; [0061]).
Regarding claim 3, PESCHMANN discloses wherein different detection methods are used for the primary and second detection systems ([0061]).
Regarding claim 4, PESCHMANN discloses wherein the at least one alarm object parameter includes position, orientation, size, and geometry of the alarm object ([0062]).
Regarding claim 5, PESCHMANN discloses where the at least one detection parameter (DP) influences the statistical quality of the secondary detection method, and is selected from one of the following based in part on the at least one alarm object parameter (AP) including the material of the alarm object: including belt speed of a conveyor belt conveying the item of luggage, or wherein the second detection method operates the x-ray source at a different intensity (“[o]perationally, an item 340 located within container 110 is recognized in the source of the first stage scan using a detection algorithm or by operator analysis” (i.e. material analysis)… wherein “localization of identified items in a container is to generate control commands that can be used to position and focus the inspection region or inspection volume of the second stage scanning system on the identified item”; [0079]; first and second conveyors 121 and 122 are implied to operate at different speeds based on different processing time of scans [0138]; apertures are adjusted based on the alarm object location determined via the object parameter; [0086]; FIG 5).
Regarding claim 6, PESCHMANN discloses wherein, for statistical quality, the quantity of photons is influenced in the second detection method by being adapted to a quantity of photons required for the alarm object detected in the primary detection method (Compton-scattered photon energies are lower due to inelastic interactions and directly impact to quantity of photons detected at respective energy bins. Furthermore, algorithmic thresholds of density, and mass establish alarm detection events; [0071, 0083, 0127-0129]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, PESCHMANN discloses the at least detection parameter (DP) influences the detection and spatial resolution of the secondary detection method, including focusing, angle, and collimation ([0086]; FIG 5).
Regarding claim 9, PESCHMANN explains that when adapting the at least one detection parameter (DP) a lower limit and/or upper limit specific to the respective parameter is complied with (using an algorithm to evaluate regions of objects based upon a threshold level; [0022, 0127]).
Regarding claim 10, PESCHMANN discloses wherein for the secondary detection method, an energy resolving detection device is arranged in the secondary detection system to measure an energy spectrum (ES)(energy transmission spectrum is generated from the detection of diffracted dual energy beams. Alternatively transmission based-detection can generate a transmitted energy spectra of the ROI in the baggage; [0094-0100]).
Regarding claim 11, PESCHMANN discloses that when no alarm object is detected in the primary detection method further steps are omitted ([0020]).
Regarding claim 12, PESCHMANN discloses wherein the primary detection result of the primary detection method is taken into account when evaluating the secondary detection result of the secondary detection method (the threat detection map generated by the primary detection method is taken into account when evaluating the secondary detection result of the second detection method, to corroborate the position of the threat matches the secondary detection method; [0062, 0063, 0120, 0121]).
Regarding claim 13, PESCHMANN discloses wherein a position detection of the alarm object detected in the primary detection method is performed before the secondary detection method is carried out ([0062-0063, 0120-0121]).
Regarding claim 14, PESCHMANN discloses a computer program product comprising commands which when run by a computer cause it to carry out the steps of a method having the features of claim 1 (software, algorithms, etc.; [0067]).
Regarding claim 15, PESCHMANN discloses a detection device for detecting alarm objects in items of luggage, having a primary detection system for carrying out a primary detection method for detecting alarm objects and a second detection system for carrying out a secondary detection method for detecting alarm objects, further having a control unit with a transfer module for transferring at least one alarm object parameter (AP) to the secondary detection system in the event of an alarm object being detected in the primary detection method and an adaptation module for adapting at least one detecting parameter of the secondary detection system on the basis of the alarm object parameter (AP), wherein the transfer module and/or the adaption module are designed to carry out a method with steps of claim 1 ([0061-0063).
Conclusion
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 CASEY BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)270-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F // 7-3P EST.
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, UZMA ALAM can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
CASEY BRYANT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/CASEY BRYANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights