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 statements (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2025, 05/16/2025, 04/07/2025 and 11/25/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 2-7 claim “A baggage inspection device according to claim 1”. Therefore, claims should read as “The baggage inspection device according to claim 1” in order to avoid any dependence misinterpretation of the claims. Appropriate correction is required and respectfully requested.
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.
Claims 2 and 5 are 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, the phrase "can be inspect" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase “can” are part of the claimed invention. It has been held that that the recitation that an element “can” perform function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. The phrase “can” renders the claim indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. The rule against indefiniteness is not only a technical one, but to protect public and keep patentee from taking an advantage to which he is not entitled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Krug et al. (US Patent 5.974,111).
With respect to claim 1, Krug et al. teaches a baggage inspection device (10) comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1-10; column 4, line 32 – column 6, line 60; column 15, line – column 16, line 3):
PNG
media_image1.png
474
611
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a conveyor (20) that transports baggage (24A; 24B and 24C); an inspection unit (30) that inspects baggage transported by the conveyor (20) (see Fig. 1; column 4, line 32 – column 6, line 60); a displaceable member (one or two "light curtains" positioned across the entrance to (30) inspection region. Each light curtain includes a set of laser diodes (or LEDs or other collimated light sources), positioned on one side of the inspection region, and the corresponding set of light detectors (e.g., diodes) positioned on the opposite side of the inspection region. As baggage (24B) is transported on conveyor (20), the light of the light curtain at locations corresponding to the dimensions the baggage is blocked. Based on these locations, the optical detector determines the size of baggage (24B)) that is located upstream of the inspection unit in a transport direction of the baggage and is displaced upon coming into contact with the baggage (see Figs. 1 and 9; column 15, line 37 – column 16, line 3); and a sensor (120) that detects displacement of the displaceable member when the displaceable member (one or two "light curtains" positioned across the entrance to (30) inspection region) is displaced by a force imparted by the baggage (24A; 24B and 24C) transported by the conveyor (20) (see Figs. 1 and 9; column 15, line 37 – column 16, line 3).
With respect to claim 2, Krug et al. teaches the baggage inspection device according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1-10; column 4, line 32 – column 6, line 60; column 15, line – column 16, line 3), wherein the displaceable member (one or two "light curtains" positioned across the entrance to (30) inspection region) is displaced when a size of the baggage is larger than a size that can be inspected by the inspection unit (see Figs. 1 and 9; column 15, line 37 – column 16, line 3).
With respect to claim 4, Krug et al. teaches the baggage inspection device according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1-10; column 4, line 32 – column 6, line 60; column 15, line – column 16, line 3), wherein the sensor (120) is an optical sensor that detects displacement of the displaceable member (see Figs. 1 and 9; column 15, line 37 – column 16, line 3).
With respect to claim 5, Krug et al. teaches the baggage inspection device according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1-10; column 4, line 32 – column 6, line 60; column 15, line – column 16, line 3), wherein the displaceable member forms an opening in a shape corresponding to a range that can be inspected by the inspection unit (see Figs. 1 and 9; column 15, line 37 – column 16, line 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
407
749
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 6, Krug et al. teaches the baggage inspection device according to claim 1 comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1-10; column 4, line 32 – column 6, line 60; column 15, line – column 16, line 3): a stopping mechanism (see Fig. 10) that stops transportation of the baggage by the conveyor (20) and inspection of the baggage by the inspection unit when the sensor detects displacement of the displaceable member (see Figs. 1 and 9; column 15, line 37 – column 16, line 3).
With respect to claim 7, Krug et al. teaches the baggage inspection device according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1-10; column 4, line 32 – column 6, line 60; column 15, line – column 16, line 3), wherein the displaceable member has a transparent member that extends along a transport direction of the baggage by the conveyor (see Figs. 1 and 9; column 15, line 37 – column 16, line 3).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Walcher (US PAP 2015/0212229 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Walcher teaches a baggage inspection device (10) comprising (see abstract; Figs. 1-8B; paragraphs 0030-0042):
PNG
media_image3.png
396
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
673
450
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a conveyor (220/226) that transports baggage; an inspection unit (200) that inspects baggage transported by the conveyor (220/226); a displaceable member (such as curtains (240) and the trigger doors (100 and 110)) that is located upstream of the inspection unit (200) in a transport direction of the baggage and is displaced upon coming into contact with the baggage; and a sensor (260) that detects displacement of the displaceable member (240; 100, 110)when the displaceable member is displaced by a force imparted by the baggage transported by the conveyor (see abstract; Figs. 1-8B; paragraphs 0030-0042).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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:
With respect to claim 3, the most relevant prior art, Krug et al. (US Patent 5.974,111) teaches the baggage inspection device according to claim 1 (see abstract; Figs. 1-10; column 4, line 32 – column 6, line 60; column 15, line – column 16, line 3) but fails to explicitly teach or make obvious that the sensor has a magnet and a magnetic member that attach to and detach from each other when the displaceable member is displaced as claimed including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Christensen et al. (US PAP 2019/0142351 A1) teaches an X-ray CT inspection scanner; wherein the plurality of strips are attached to the CT-scanner system that may comprise at least one magnet or material capable to attract a magnet in an area below the at least one curtain or in the conveyor system, such that the strips of the at least one curtain due to magnetism is attracted towards the conveyor and hereby shielding the opening (see paragraphs 0019 and 0111).
Wilson (US PAP 2021/0032051 A1) teaches a conveyor (26 and 24) that transports baggage (14 and 16) the conveyor (20) (see abstract; Fig. 1; paragraphs 0017-0033); a displaceable member (34) (see Fig.1)
PNG
media_image5.png
455
736
media_image5.png
Greyscale
that is located upstream of the inspection unit in a transport direction of the baggage and is displaced upon coming into contact with the baggage (14 and 16); and an optical sensor (46) that detects displacement of the displaceable member when the displaceable member (34) is displaced by a force imparted by the baggage (14 and 16) transported by the conveyor (24) (see abstract; Fig. 1; paragraphs 0017-0033); a displaceable member (34) (see Fig.1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRAKLI KIKNADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6494. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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 J. 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.
Irakli Kiknadze
/IRAKLI KIKNADZE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/I.K./ May 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights