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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 5-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ikeda (US 20150241341).
Regrading claim 1, Ikeda teaches an inspection system comprising:
an inspection device that inspects baggage W1 transported by a belt conveyor 6, and
a camera 115, 18 or 15 that uses visible light to capture an image of the baggage approaching the inspection device upstream of the inspection device in a transport direction of the belt conveyor (figure 4), wherein the camera is located in an interior space of a housing 3 4 of the inspection device so that the housing functions as a shield (Note: that functional recitations of “that hides at least a part of the camera from a person who moves forward through an inspection lane along a transportation route of the belt conveyor” have not been given patentable weight because they are directed to the operation/function of the apparatus and do not structurally distinguish the apparatus over the prior art. The housing or shield would shield the camera when a person moves forward through an inspection line along a transportation route of the conveyor).
and wherein
the housing has an opening and the camera captures the image of the baggage located upstream of the housing in the transport direction through the opening (para 67, 70 or 113).
Regrading claim 5, Ikeda teaches a controller that controls a display to display an image captured by the camera and a result of inspection of the baggage performed by the inspection device simultaneously or by switching between them (para 8).
Regrading claim 6, Ikeda teaches the controller controls the display to display the image captured by the camera and the result of the inspection of the baggage by switching between them based on an attribute or a status of the baggage placed on the belt conveyor (para 8).
Regrading claim 7, Ikeda teaches a cover 5 that covers a predetermined area from an entrance of the inspection device and upstream in the transport direction, wherein the camera captures an image of an inside of the cover.
Regrading claim 8, Ikeda teaches the cover 5 has a non-transparent portion.
Regrading claim 9, Ikeda teaches an inner surface of the cover is covered with a material that generates less friction than the inner surface of the cover (figure 1).
Regrading claim 10, Ikeda teaches a controller that specifies a time when the baggage reaches a predetermined area where the baggage is captured by the camera based on a time when the baggage reaches an inspection area where the baggage is inspected by the inspection device, and associates an image captured by the camera at the specified time with a result of inspection of the baggage performed by the inspection device (para 89+).
Regrading claim 11, Ikeda teaches the controller specifies a time when the baggage reaches the predetermined area based on a time when a central area of the baggage reaches a reference position in the inspection area (para 89+).
Regrading claim 12, Ikeda teaches the inspection device uses light 16 that transmits through the baggage to capture an image of interior of the baggage, and the controller adjusts a transport time required for the baggage to be transported from the predetermined area to the inspection area based on a distance between the central area of the baggage shown in an image captured by the inspection device and the reference position in the image captured by the inspection device, and specifies a time when the baggage reaches the predetermined area based on the adjusted transport time (para 88-100).
Regrading claim 13, Ikeda teaches a controller that specifies a time when the baggage reaches an inspection area where the baggage is inspected by the inspection device based on a time when the baggage reaches a predetermined area where the baggage is captured by the camera, and associates a result of inspection of the baggage performed by the inspection device at the specified time with an image captured by the camera at the time when the baggage reaches the predetermined area (para 88-100).
Regrading claim 14, Ikeda teaches the camera repeatedly captures the predetermined area, the controller recognizes the baggage from each image captured by the camera, and when the controller recognizes the baggage from a central area of an image captured by the camera, the controller specifies a time when the image was captured by the camera as a time when the baggage reached the predetermined area (para 88-100).
Regrading claim 15, Ikeda teaches a sensor 15 that detects an object, wherein the controller specifies a time when the baggage reaches the predetermined area based on a time period during which the sensor detects the object (para 88-100).
Regrading claim 16, Ikeda teaches a mechanism that brings a part of the baggage attached to the baggage and that extends from a main body of the baggage closer to the main body of the baggage upstream of the predetermined area in the transport direction (figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2-4, the prior art fails to teach a transparent anti-reflective member that transmits visible light and reduces reflection of visible light, located upstream of the inspection device in the transport direction, wherein the camera captures an image of the baggage through the transparent anti-reflective member as claimed in claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that Ikeda fails to teach the housing has an opening and the camera captures the image of the baggage located upstream of the housing in the transport direction through the opening. The examiner disagrees. Ikeda teaches the housing (3 and 4) has an opening and the camera captures the image of the baggage located upstream of the housing in the transport direction through the opening (para 67, 70 or 113).
Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., outside the housing) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. The claim does not require that the camera inside the interior space of the housing captures the image of the baggage located outside the housing.
Thus, Ikea still anticipates the claimed invention and the application’s assertions are not persuasive.
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 HOON K SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2494. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 10am to 7pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/HOON K SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights