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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2024 and 04/10/2026 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-9, 11-12, 14-22 have been examined.
Claims 10 and 13 have been cancelled.
Drawings
The examiner notes that drawings should not contain excessive text; however, reasonable text provided for clarity is permitted. Figures 1, 3-4, and 6-7 provides a diagram and a flow chart with labeled steps which correspond in the specification to brief text elements that would be appropriate for such figures. While the submitted figures do conform to MPEP § 507, interpretation of the figures could be improved by including the text corresponding to each step. The examiner encourages the applicant to consider adding appropriate text to the stages depicted in Figures 1, 3-4, and 6-7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9, 11-12, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claims 1-9, 12, and 22 recite a method/process, therefore claims 1-9, 12, and 22 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claims 11-12, 14-21 recite an apparatus/machine, therefore claims 11-12, 14-21 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recites mental processes and/or mathematical concepts (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim.11 an electronic device, comprising:
one or more processors; and a memory configured to store one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the one or more processors to at least:
acquire a location information of an inspection device, wherein the inspection device is movably provided in an inspection region, and the inspection region comprises a plurality of scanning channels;
detect whether an object to be inspected exists in the inspection region or not;
pre-determining an orientation of the object to be inspected relative to the inspection device based on the location information of the inspection device, in response to the object to be inspected existing in the inspection region,
move the inspection device in a first direction according to the pre-determined orientation, and
determine whether the object to be inspected exists in a second direction or not, wherein the second direction is the same as an extension direction of the scanning channel; and
move the inspection device in the second direction and inspect the object to be inspected, in response to the object to be inspected being detected in the second direction.
These limitations, as drafted, is a system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental process and/or mathematical concept. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as mathematical concepts. For example, " acquire a location information of an inspection device …" and " detect whether an object to be inspected...", and “pre-determining an orientation of the object to …” and “move the inspection device in a first direction …” and “determine whether the object to be inspected exists...” and “… move the inspection device in the second direction…” encompass subject matter that a human can reasonably perform in the human mind with or without paper and pencil. These limitations are directed to metal processes and methods of organizing human activity. Steps of “acquiring”, “detecting”, “and “pre-determining” are performances of data collection and mathematical comparison that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of a pen and paper. Here the device is just gathering data and making a logical determination such as orientation and/or direction based on that data.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application."
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the "additional limitations" while the bolded portions continue to represent the "abstract idea"):
Claim.11 an electronic device, comprising:
one or more processors; and a memory configured to store one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the one or more processors to at least:
acquire a location information of an inspection device, wherein the inspection device is movably provided in an inspection region, and the inspection region comprises a plurality of scanning channels;
detect whether an object to be inspected exists in the inspection region or not;
pre-determining an orientation of the object to be inspected relative to the inspection device based on the location information of the inspection device, in response to the object to be inspected existing in the inspection region,
move the inspection device in a first direction according to the pre-determined orientation, and
determine whether the object to be inspected exists in a second direction or not, wherein the second direction is the same as an extension direction of the scanning channel; and
move the inspection device in the second direction and inspect the object to be inspected, in response to the object to be inspected being detected in the second direction.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of "one or more processor…" and “a memory…” the components are merely generic components to perform a function using computer code and the “inspection device” and “scanning channels” function merely as a field of use. The generic components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a generic processor and memory) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The examiner submits that these limitations are merely applying the above-noted abstract idea by merely using a general controller to perform the process (MPEP §2106.05).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular process for safety performance evaluation, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B in the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 11 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of "one or more processor…" and “a memory…” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 1 and 12 recites analogous limitations to that of claim 11, and are therefore rejected by the same premise.
Dependent claims 2-9, 14-21 and 22 specify limitations that elaborate on the abstract idea of claims 1, 11 and 12, and thus are directed to an abstract idea nor do the claims recite additional limitations that integrate the claims into a practical application or amount to “significantly more” for similar reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 11-12, and 14-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 in this office action.
The reason for indicating allowable subject matter is based on the combination limitations of the independent claims. These limitations are interpreted by the examiner, with the assumption of rewritten or amended to corrected the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
The reason for indicating allowable subject matter over the prior art of record Chen (US20220099601A1).
Chen discloses the device has a radiation detection device main body connected with a radial source to perform scanning examination process on an object to-be-detected. The radiation detection device main body is formed with an inspection passage for the object to-be-detected. A bottom part of the radiation detection device main body is fixed with a moving wheel for moving the radiation detection device main body, where the moving wheel is rotated at 90 degrees to move the radiation detection device main body along vertical direction of the inspection passage.
Conclusion
Related References
The related art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
-US20250383471A1 by Zhu teaches a autonomous inspection system.
-US20180149769A1 by Jiang teaches a mobile scanning inspection device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARDUL D PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7758. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm (IFP).
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, KITO ROBINSON can be reached at (571)270-3921. 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.
/SHARDUL D PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights