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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-13, 15-17, 27 and 28) in the reply filed on 09/22/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 14 and 18-26 are directed to a non-elected invention and are withdrawn.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The following features are absent from the drawings
Claims 1, “a control device connected to the sensor and the projector”
Therefore, the control device must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
(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 1-7, 11-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hastings(US11244527B2).
Regarding claim 1, Hastings discloses
A screening device for screening a person, the screening device comprising: a cabin comprising a wall at least partly enclosing an inner space, space (“FIG. 1 illustrates a screening system 100 including a chamber scanner 120 “ [col.4, ll.25-26]); a sensor on at least part of a surface of the wall facing the inner space, the sensor being configured to sense the person present in the inner space, space (“The chamber scanner 120 is coupled to the chamber 110 and configured to scan the user 104 “ [Col.4, ll.38-39]); a projector projecting an image into the inner space to be viewed by the person, person (FIG.4E, Part 440); and a control device connected to the sensor and the projector (“A chamber environmental control 318 adjusts an environment within the chamber 310“ [Col.9, ll.64-67]) and configured to: operate the sensor to sense the person residing in the inner space (“ designated device/stations make use of various sensor technologies” [Col.25, ll.42-43]); and drive the projector to project instructions to the person, associated with the operating of the sensor (“The user interface 440 provides instructional guidance” [Col.26, ll.5-6]).
Regarding claim 2, Hastings discloses
The screening device according to claim 1, wherein the control device is further configured to: derive a location of an object on the person from sensor data generated by the (“responsive to the system 400 detecting an item 402 in the user's pocket during a scan, the system 400 advises via the user interface 440 “ [col.23, ll.6-8]), sensor; and control the projector to display the location of the object on the person (FIG.4c, Part.444).
Regarding claim 3, Hastings discloses
The screening device according to claim 2, wherein the sensor further comprises a camera directed to a desired position of the person in the inner space, the camera being connected to the control device to transit image data to the control device (“designated device/stations make use of various sensor technologies, including […] camera systems” [Col.25, ll.4146]), and wherein the control device is configured to generate a mirror image of the person from the image data, to create a fused image of the person by fusing the object at the derived location into the mirror image of the person and to control the projector to display the fused image of the person (“The user interface 440 is configured to display a body representation 442 of the user 404 overlaid with an item indication 444 of the undivested item 402 positioned corresponding to the undivested item's location on the user's person” [Col.22, ll.44-48]).
Regarding claim 4, Hastings discloses
The screening device according claim1, wherein the screening device further comprises a camera configured to generate image data (“An optical system 326 collects optical and other information about the user of the system 300” [Col.10, ll.1-2]), a gesture sensor sensing a gesture of the person and configured to generate gesture data (“the system monitors the gestures and gait of the user“ [col.34, ll.29-30]) and a motion sensor recording a movement of the person and configured to generate motion data (“Accordingly, the system 400 monitors user movements” [Col.19, ll.7-8]), wherein the control device is configured to perform a risk assessment from a combination of the sensor data, the camera image data, the gesture data and the motion data and to generate a warning message based on the risk assessment (“The system 400 applies real-time video analytics to enable behavioral/biological indicator monitoring of the user 404, including body language/non-verbal cues, micro facial expressions, heart rate patterns/variations that system 400 uses to identify abnormalities correlated with deception or hostile intent, which the system 400 factors into screening assessments and/or axillary risk indicators/scoring.” [Col.19, ll.15-21])
Regarding claim 5, Hastings discloses
The screening device according to claim 4, wherein the control device is configured to perform the risk assessment using a self-learning system, the self-learning system having been trained using a training dataset additionally comprising operator assessment responsive to the sensor data, camera image data, gesture data and motion data (“In this manner, through iterative algorithm cycle development, the detection algorithm improves organically, as a byproduct of the screening process. Such features result in self-learning” [Col.37, ll.61-64]).
Regarding claim 6, Hastings discloses
The screening device according to claim 1, further comprising a footwear sensor on at least part of the surface of a floor of the cabin (FIG.4a, Part, 426), the footwear sensor being configured to sense the person's footwear present in the inner space (“The totality of incorporated security screening technologies provides the system 400 the ability to function under a wide range of operational parameters, from low-risk users 404 who are allowed to keep footwear/outerwear on through the screening process,” [Col.22, ll.25-28]).
Regarding claim 7, Hastings discloses
The screening device according to claim 6, wherein the control device is further configured to operate the footwear sensor to sense the footwear of the person, and to drive the projector to project instructions to the person, associated with the operating of the footwear sensor (“The totality of incorporated security screening technologies provides the system 400 the ability to function under a wide range of operational parameters, from low-risk users 404 who are allowed to keep footwear/outerwear on through the screening process,” [Col.22, ll.25-28]).
Regarding claim 11, Hastings discloses
The screening device according to claim1, wherein the sensor comprises a radio wave scanner comprising a radio wave antenna array (“ deploying technologies such as: millimeter wave scanners” [Col.37, ll.6-7]), the radio wave antenna array covering at least part of the surface of the wall behind the projected image (FIG.4a, Part, 420).
Regarding claim 12, Hastings discloses
The screening device according to claim1, wherein the projector is configured to project a two dimensional image on the wall of the cabin or a three dimensional image in the inner space (FIG.4C, Parts 440, 410)
Regarding claim 13, Hastings discloses
The screening device according to claim1, further comprising an object depositing tray (FIG.4D, Part.430) and wherein the instructions comprise instructions to deposit an object in the object depositing tray (“The system 400 gives a simple instruction (via user interface 440) such as place cell phone in box #3” [Col.21, ll.5-6]).
Regarding claim 15, Hastings discloses
The screening device according to claim 13(“The ingress interface 408 includes a reading device to scan the user identification” [Col.15, ll. 16-17]), and associate the depositing tray to the identified person (“ the system 500 notifies a checked-baggage system to segregate and/or retain checked bags associated with the user 504 who has generated an alarm condition.” [Col.27, ll.21-24])
Regarding claim 16, Hastings discloses
The screening device according to claim1, wherein the control device is configured to drive a display device to provide instructions to the person to adhere to a predetermined screening sequence (“ the chamber includes a user interface to display visual instructions and a video or still image depicting an example of the divestment procedure” [Col.33, ll.17-20])
Regarding claim 17, Hastings discloses
The screening device according to claim 16, wherein the sensor further comprises the camera, the control device is configured to process an image form the camera to derive a progress of the screening of the person therefrom (“An optical system 326 collects optical and other information about the user of the system 300” [Col.10, ll.1-2]), to compare the derived progress of the screening to the predetermined screening sequence, and to derive the instructions provided to the person from the comparison of the derived progress to the predetermined screening sequence (FIG.8, Part.810, 830, &850)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hastings(US11244527B2) in view of BROOKES(WO2020016540A1)
Regarding claim 27, Hastings disclose all of the limitations of Claim 1. Hastings discloses the screening device is further configured Regarding claim 27, Hastings discloses, operate at least two different detection rates (“Accordingly, scanning systems are operable in a variety of modes (whitelist approach, blacklist approach, mixed approach, and so on)” [Col.38, ll.21-23]),
Hastings discloses multiple detection modes that directly affect screening system detection rates, but does not explicitly disclose an explicitly defined screening system detection rate. BROOKES teaches in the same field of endeavor of Security screening systems. Brookes discloses, the method comprising: defining a screening system detection rate, the screening system detection rate defining a required detection rate of the screening system (“detection point (probability of detection and respective false alarm rate)” [Pg.4, ll.31]); selecting one of the detection rates of the screening device to comply with the screening system detection rate (“ Both probability of detection and false alarm rate are determined by hardware specifications and data processing methodologies” [Pg.5, ll.3-5]); and sending instructions to the control device of the screening device to operate at the selected detection rate so as to comply with the screening system detection rate (“By selecting a threat quantity value the detection point can be selected by adjusting a detection algorithm for a means for screening” [Pg.5, ll.5-6]).
BROOKES teaches in the same field of endeavor of Security screening systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hastings with the teachings of BROOKES to incorporate the features of explicitly defined screening system detection rate so as to gain the advantage of improving the ability of improving security [Pg.4, ll.23-29]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 28, Hastings disclose all of the limitations of Claim 27. Hastings discloses the screening device is further configured Regarding claim 27, Hastings does not explicitly disclose an explicitly defined screening system detection rate. BROOKES teaches in the same field of endeavor of Security screening systems. Brookes discloses, the detection rates of the screening device define a detection rate of a security hazard to be detected at the person, the hand luggage and/or the footwear of the person (“ Both probability of detection and false alarm rate are determined by hardware specifications and data processing methodologies” [Pg.5, ll.3-5]).
BROOKES teaches in the same field of endeavor of Security screening systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hastings with the teachings of BROOKES to incorporate the features of defining a detection rate of a security hazard to be detected at the person, the hand luggage and/or the footwear of the person so as to gain the advantage of improving the ability of improving security [Pg.4, ll.23-29]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 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.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
McFadden (US20210018595A1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [0034] “System 200 may include or be configured to be utilized by user 201 such as screening or security personnel.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646