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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 and 10-21 remain pending in this application. Claims 1, 8, 14, and 16 have been amended. Claim 21 is new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/07/2026 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Prior art rejections of claims 16-20 are overcome in consideration of amendments, however, previous prior art rejections of claims 1-8, and 10-15 are maintained for the same or similar reasoning as provided in the previous office action dated 09/04/2025.
Regarding amendments to claim 1, the Applicant argues that Yoshida “cannot scan along first and second lateral sides of the individual” on pages 6 and 7 of remarks. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. The Examiner argues that the direction faced by the Applicant is mere intended use without structural difference. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114. The Applicant further argues that the Yoshida is “architecturally limited to anterior/posterior scanning and cannot perform the claimed lateral multistatic imaging”. However, these arguments are merely directed to a best use and optimized functioning of the claimed device and not structural limitations of the claim. The amendments merely recite a rotation of the user without any claimed structural differences. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the prior art rejections because the mere intended use of a user direction does not differentiate from the prior art.
Regarding new claim 21, the Applicant argues that Yoshida fails to disclose all elements of claim 21 due to an alleged reliance on monostatic image reconstruction (applicant arguments beginning on page 10 of Remarks). However, the Examiner maintains that Yoshida is not limited to a monostatic reconstruction algorithm. The Examiner refers to previous citations of Yoshida which describe the use of any combination of receiving and transmitting antennas [0039] “It should be noted that a receiving antenna does not necessarily have to correspond to each transmitting antenna. For example, the reflected electromagnetic waves from two transmitting antennas may be received by one receiving antenna, or may be received by three receiving antennas. In short, it is sufficient that any one of the receiving antennas receives the reflected waves of the electromagnetic waves transmitted by all the transmitting antennas.”. Therefore, because Yoshida clearly describes multistatic reconstruction, the claim limitations are disclosed by Yoshida.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5 and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: These claims reference an “object” however this is a minor typographical error that was not updated to ‘individual’ consistent with the amended independent claims. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret “object” as “individual”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8, 11-12, 14-15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshida (JP 2019020212 A), hereinafter Yoshida.
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida discloses a scanning system, comprising:
an entrance (See at least Fig. 1, Item E1, [0023] “In this embodiment, the subject passes through the entrance E1”);
an exit (See at least Fig. 1, Item E2, [0023] “exit E2”);
a first imaging mast including a first plurality of electromagnetic radiation transmitters and a first plurality of electromagnetic radiation receivers, the first imaging mast configured to move past a first lateral side of an individual posed in a forward-facing direction relative to the entrance or the exit and positioned along a central horizontal axis to image at least a first portion of the individual (See at least Fig. 1, [0020] “The body scanner 1 is a device that transmits electromagnetic waves to a subject and generates an image of the subject from the reflected waves, that is, scans the subject, and is an example of the "scanner" of the present invention.”, [0025] The first scanning unit 10 includes a housing 11 and a moving unit 12”, [0027] “The mobile unit 12 comprises a first group of transmitting antennas 13 and a second group of transmitting antennas 14 .” The Examiner notes that orientation of an individual as claimed is merely an intended use with no structural limitation and therefore has no patentable weight.);
a second imaging mast including a second plurality of electromagnetic radiation transmitters and a second plurality of electromagnetic radiation receivers, the second imaging mast configured to move past a second lateral side of the individual posed in the forward-facing direction relative to the entrance or the exit to image at least a second portion of the individual, the first imaging mast and the second imaging mast configured to move in unison in a common horizontal direction relative to the central horizontal axis (See at least Fig. 1, [0020] “The body scanner 1 is a device that transmits electromagnetic waves to a subject and generates an image of the subject from the reflected waves, that is, scans the subject, and is an example of the "scanner" of the present invention.”, [0033] “The second scanning unit 20 includes a housing 21 and a mobile unit 22 , and the mobile unit 22 includes a first transmitting antenna group 23 and a second transmitting antenna group 24 .”, [0043] “When an operation to start scanning is performed, the movement control unit 31 starts moving the moving units 12 and 22”); and
a computing device including a processing unit, the computing device configured to execute instructions to (See at least Fig. 3, [0042] “The control unit 30 is a computer including a CPU (Central Processing Unit)”):
receive imaging data from the first imaging mast and the second imaging mast, the imaging data representative of electromagnetic radiation reflected or scattered by the individual as the first imaging mast and the second imaging mast move past the individual (See at least [0065] “The image generator 35 synthesizes images of the objects that have reflected the reflected waves corresponding to the multiple antennas (the transmitting antennas 100 and 200 in this case) at portions where the reflected points overlap.”); and
apply a multistatic reconstruction algorithm to the imaging data to produce an image of at least a portion of the individual (See at least [0055] “The image generating unit 35 generates an image of the object that has reflected the reflected wave indicated by the information acquired by the received information acquiring unit 34 .”, [0065] “The image generator 35 synthesizes images of the objects that have reflected the reflected waves corresponding to the multiple antennas (the transmitting antennas 100 and 200 in this case) at portions where the reflected points overlap.”)
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yoshida additionally discloses
movement of the first imaging mast on a first scan path and movement of the second imaging mast on a second scan path occur simultaneously (See at least [0043] “When an operation to start scanning is performed, the movement control unit 31 starts moving the moving units 12 and 22”).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshida, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yoshida additionally discloses
at least one of the plurality of second receivers on the second imaging mast is configured to receiver radiation transmitted by at least one of the plurality of first transmitters of the first imaging mast (See at least [0039] “It should be noted that a receiving antenna does not necessarily have to correspond to each transmitting antenna. For example, the reflected electromagnetic waves from two transmitting antennas may be received by one receiving antenna, or may be received by three receiving antennas. In short, it is sufficient that any one of the receiving antennas receives the reflected waves of the electromagnetic waves transmitted by all the transmitting antennas.”).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshida, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yoshida additionally discloses
the first imaging mast moves on a first arcuate scan path and the second imaging mast moves on a second arcuate scan path (See at least Fig. 7, [0078] “The housings 11a and 21a support the moving units 12a and 22a, respectively, so that they can move in a conveying direction A4a that describes an arc centered on the standing position P1 side when viewed vertically from above.”).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshida, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yoshida additionally discloses
the first imaging mast moves on a first linear scan path and the second imaging mast moves on a second linear scan path (See at least Fig. 1, [0077] “the conveying direction of the moving unit is linear, but this is not limiting.”).
Regarding claim 14, Yoshida, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yoshida additionally discloses
the first portion of the individual overlaps at least in part with the second portion of the individual (See at least [0065] “The image generator 35 synthesizes images of the objects that have reflected the reflected waves corresponding to the multiple antennas (the transmitting antennas 100 and 200 in this case) at portions where the reflected points overlap.”).
Regarding claim 15, Yoshida, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yoshida additionally discloses
the scanning system is a millimeter wave scanning system (See at least [0020] “the body scanner 1 performs scanning using electromagnetic waves called millimeter waves (electromagnetic waves with frequencies from 30 GHz to 300 GHz).”).
Regarding claim 21, Yoshida, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yoshida additionally discloses
a portion of the received imaging data comprises scattered or reflected electromagnetic radiation emitted from the first plurality of electromagnetic radiation transmitters on the first imaging mast and received by the second imaging mast (See at least [0039] “It should be noted that a receiving antenna does not necessarily have to correspond to each transmitting antenna. For example, the reflected electromagnetic waves from two transmitting antennas may be received by one receiving antenna, or may be received by three receiving antennas. In short, it is sufficient that any one of the receiving antennas receives the reflected waves of the electromagnetic waves transmitted by all the transmitting antennas.”).
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 of this title, 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida, in view of Fernandes (US 20230273310 A1), hereinafter Fernandes.
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Yoshida does not explicitly disclose further comprising a floor imaging unit that includes one or more transmitters of electromagnetic radiation and one or more receivers of electromagnetic radiation, the one or more transmitters of the floor imaging unit configured to transmit radiation upwards from below a floor configured to support the object. However, Fernandes, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
further comprising a floor imaging unit that includes one or more transmitters of electromagnetic radiation and one or more receivers of electromagnetic radiation, the one or more transmitters of the floor imaging unit configured to transmit radiation upwards from below a floor configured to support the object (See at least Figs 1-2, [0024] “The antenna array 22 is embodied within a movable scanning device and adjacent to lower surface 38 of platform 20 in the depicted embodiment. Antenna array 22 is implemented as a quasi-monostatic array configured to emit electromagnetic waves upwardly through platform 20 and into the footwear of the individual in one embodiment.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scanning system disclosed by Yoshida with the floor transmitter system disclosed by Fernandes. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase user convenience and throughput (See at least [0017] “Allowing the scanning of footwear to detect objects concealed within the footwear without requiring removal of the footwear from the individual may provide increased throughput and convenience compared with other scanning arrangements which require divesting of the footwear for scanning purposes.”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida, in view of Fernandes, in further view of Ammar (US 20100278008 A1), hereinafter Ammar.
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Yoshida and Fernandes, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 3. Yoshida does not explicitly disclose the computing device is further configured to execute instructions to receive imaging data from the one or more receivers of the floor imaging unit. However, Fernandes, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the computing device is further configured to execute instructions to receive imaging data from the one or more receivers of the floor imaging unit, and (See at least Figs. 1-2, [0025] “Transceiver 24 operates with antenna array 22 to transmit and receive electromagnetic radiation at frequencies capable of penetrating non-metallic shoe materials to image the contents of the footwear in one embodiment.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scanning system disclosed by Yoshida with the floor transmitter system disclosed by Fernandes. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase user convenience and throughput (See at least [0017] “Allowing the scanning of footwear to detect objects concealed within the footwear without requiring removal of the footwear from the individual may provide increased throughput and convenience compared with other scanning arrangements which require divesting of the footwear for scanning purposes.”).
The combination of Yoshida and Fernandes does not explicitly disclose wherein the instruction to apply the multistatic reconstruction algorithm further comprises applying the multistatic reconstruction algorithm to imaging data from the first imaging mast, the second imaging mast, and the floor imaging unit to produce the image of at least the portion of the object. However, Ammar, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
wherein the instruction to apply the multistatic reconstruction algorithm further comprises applying the multistatic reconstruction algorithm to imaging data from the first imaging mast, the second imaging mast, and the floor imaging unit to produce the image of at least the portion of the object (See at least [0018] “processing the reflected acoustic/ultrasonic signal to generate a three-dimensional image of the object; and displaying the three-dimensional image; wherein the transmitting and receiving are performed using a multi-dimensional array comprising at least three sensors”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scanning system disclosed by Yoshida with the floor transmitter system disclosed by Fernandes with the reconstruction system disclosed by Ammar. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously detect concealed objects, thereby improving security and safety (See at least [0003] “The subject matter presented herein relates to detecting concealed objects in an obscuring medium”).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida, in view of Louberg (EP 1654560 B1), hereinafter Louberg.
Regarding claim 5, Yoshida, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Yoshida does not explicitly disclose comprising a non-invasive walk-through metal detector configured to detect the presence of metal or metallic objects within one or more spatial detection zones in a volume of space through which the object passes. However, Louberg, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
comprising a non-invasive walk-through metal detector configured to detect the presence of metal or metallic objects within one or more spatial detection zones in a volume of space through which the object passes (See at least Figs 16A-16B, Item 312, [0044] “By combining a mm-wave imaging system and a magnetic metal detector into one portal an improved overall detection capability and object classification can be accomplished.”, [0047] “The metal detector warning lights (or similar indicators) in certain sectors are displayed along with the thermal images from the corresponding sectors”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scanning system disclosed by Yoshida with the metal detection system disclosed by Louberg. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection capability (See at least [0044] “By combining a mm-wave imaging system and a magnetic metal detector into one portal an improved overall detection capability and object classification can be accomplished.”).
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Yoshida and Louberg, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 5. Yoshida does not explicitly disclose the volume of space includes an entrance to the scanning system. However, Louberg, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the volume of space includes an entrance to the scanning system (See at least Figs 16A-16B, Item 312, [0044] “By combining a mm-wave imaging system and a magnetic metal detector into one portal an improved overall detection capability and object classification can be accomplished.”, [0047] “The metal detector warning lights (or similar indicators) in certain sectors are displayed along with the thermal images from the corresponding sectors”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scanning system disclosed by Yoshida with the metal detection system disclosed by Louberg. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection capability (See at least [0044] “By combining a mm-wave imaging system and a magnetic metal detector into one portal an improved overall detection capability and object classification can be accomplished.”).
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Yoshida and Louberg, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 5. Yoshida does not explicitly disclose the computing device is further configured to execute instructions to receive data from the non-invasive walk-through metal detector identifying spatial detection zones where the presence of metal or metallic objects has been detected, and wherein the instructions to apply the multistatic reconstruction algorithm further comprise applying the multistatic reconstruction algorithm to the imaging data from the first imaging mast and the second imaging mast and data from the non-invasive walk-through metal detector. However, Louberg, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the computing device is further configured to execute instructions to receive data from the non-invasive walk-through metal detector identifying spatial detection zones where the presence of metal or metallic objects has been detected (See at least Figs 16A-16B, Item 312, [0047] “The metal detector warning lights (or similar indicators) in certain sectors are displayed along with the thermal images from the corresponding sectors. A decision is then made either by a human operator or automatically by a computer program”), and
wherein the instructions to apply the multistatic reconstruction algorithm further comprise applying the multistatic reconstruction algorithm to the imaging data from the first imaging mast and the second imaging mast and data from the non-invasive walk-through metal detector (See at least Figs 16A-16B, Item 312, [0044] “By combining a mm-wave imaging system and a magnetic metal detector into one portal an improved overall detection capability and object classification can be accomplished.”, [0047] “The metal detector warning lights (or similar indicators) in certain sectors are displayed along with the thermal images from the corresponding sectors”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scanning system disclosed by Yoshida with the metal detection system disclosed by Louberg. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection capability (See at least [0044] “By combining a mm-wave imaging system and a magnetic metal detector into one portal an improved overall detection capability and object classification can be accomplished.”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida, in view of Ammar.
Regarding claim 10, Yoshida, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Yoshida does not explicitly disclose the computing device is configured to receive imaging data before the first imaging mast and the second imaging mast begin moving. However, Ammar, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the computing device is configured to receive imaging data before the first imaging mast and the second imaging mast begin moving (See at least Fig. 12, [0072] “In addition to the enclosure, the system can include one or more transmit transducers 119, one or more receive transducer arrays 110 as previously described” Ammar discloses a static system, equivalent to a scan prior to motion.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scanning system disclosed by Yoshida with the static imaging disclosed by Ammar. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously detect concealed objects, thereby improving security and safety (See at least [0003] “The subject matter presented herein relates to detecting concealed objects in an obscuring medium”)
Claim 13, 16-17, and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida, in view of Zhu (US 20220190488 A1), hereinafter Zhu.
Regarding claim 13, Yoshida, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 12. Yoshida does not explicitly disclose the first imaging mast is configured to pivot about an axis perpendicular to the first linear scan path during motion of the first imaging mast on the first linear scan path such that the one or more receivers of the first imaging mast face the central point during the motion. However, Zhu, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the first imaging mast is configured to pivot about an axis perpendicular to the first linear scan path during motion of the first imaging mast on the first linear scan path such that the one or more receivers of the first imaging mast face the central point during the motion (See at least Fig. 6, [0062] “Therefore, the antenna panel 10 rotates on the Y-Z plane, that is, the side face of the subject 58.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scanning system disclosed by Yoshida with the pivot scan system disclosed by Zhu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously accurately and quickly detect objects (See at least [0058] “Since a person walks, the person may not stay in the inspection area for a long time, and it is desired to accurately detect a dangerous article in a short time, which is possessed by a subject who is walking.”).
Regarding claim 16, Yoshida, as shown below, discloses a scanning system reciting limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 16, is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above. Yoshida does not explicitly disclose while the individual is posed in a forward-facing direction relative to an entrance or an exit, the first imaging mast emits electromagnetic radiation toward a first lateral side of the individual, and the second imaging mast emits electromagnetic radiation toward a second lateral side of the individual. However, Zhu, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
while the individual is posed in a forward-facing direction relative to an entrance or an exit, the first imaging mast emits electromagnetic radiation toward a first lateral side of the individual, and the second imaging mast emits electromagnetic radiation toward a second lateral side of the individual (See at least Fig. 6, [0061] “Furthermore, the antenna panel 10 and the motor may be disposed not only on one side face of the inspection area but also on both side faces of the inspection area”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scanning system disclosed by Yoshida with the individual orientation system disclosed by Zhu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously accurately and quickly detect objects (See at least [0058] “Since a person walks, the person may not stay in the inspection area for a long time, and it is desired to accurately detect a dangerous article in a short time, which is possessed by a subject who is walking.”).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Yoshida and Zhu, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 16. Yoshida further discloses
movement of the first imaging mast on a first scan path and movement of the second imaging mast on a second scan path occur simultaneously (See at least [0043] “When an operation to start scanning is performed, the movement control unit 31 starts moving the moving units 12 and 22”).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Yoshida and Zhu, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 16. Yoshida further discloses
at least one of the plurality of second receivers on the second imaging mast is configured to receive radiation transmitted by at least one of the plurality of transmitters of the first imaging mast (See at least [0039] “It should be noted that a receiving antenna does not necessarily have to correspond to each transmitting antenna. For example, the reflected electromagnetic waves from two transmitting antennas may be received by one receiving antenna, or may be received by three receiving antennas. In short, it is sufficient that any one of the receiving antennas receives the reflected waves of the electromagnetic waves transmitted by all the transmitting antennas.”).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida, in view of Zhu, in further view of Ammar.
Regarding claim 18, The combination of Yoshida and Zhu, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16. Zhu Additionally discloses
receiving imaging data from one or more receivers of a floor imaging unit, (See at least Fig. 8, [0066] “FIG. 8 illustrates an arrangement example of the antenna panel 10 in the inspection device that inspects the subject 58 from below. This inspection device detects a dangerous article hidden in the shoe by the subject 58. The antenna panel 10 and the motor are disposed under the floor of the inspection area.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scanning system disclosed by Yoshida with the individual orientation system disclosed by Zhu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously accurately and quickly detect objects (See at least [0058] “Since a person walks, the person may not stay in the inspection area for a long time, and it is desired to accurately detect a dangerous article in a short time, which is possessed by a subject who is walking.”).
The combination of Yoshida and Zhu does not explicitly disclose wherein reconstructing the image of the object further comprises applying the multistatic reconstruction algorithm to the imaging data from the floor imaging unit. However, Ammar, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
wherein reconstructing the image of the object further comprises applying the multistatic reconstruction algorithm to the imaging data from the floor imaging unit (See at least [0018] “processing the reflected acoustic/ultrasonic signal to generate a three-dimensional image of the object; and displaying the three-dimensional image; wherein the transmitting and receiving are performed using a multi-dimensional array comprising at least three sensors”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scanning system disclosed by Yoshida with the individual orientation system disclosed by Zhu with the reconstruction system disclosed by Ammar. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously detect concealed objects, thereby improving security and safety (See at least [0003] “The subject matter presented herein relates to detecting concealed objects in an obscuring medium”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida, in view of Zhu, in further view of Louberg.
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Yoshida and Zhu, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16. The combination of Yoshida and Zhu does not explicitly disclose receiving data from a non-invasive walk-through metal detector identifying spatial detection zones where the presence of metal or metallic objects has been detected, and wherein reconstructing the image of the object further comprises applying the multistatic reconstruction algorithm to the data from the non-invasive walk-through metal detector. However, Louberg, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
receiving data from a non-invasive walk-through metal detector identifying spatial detection zones where the presence of metal or metallic objects has been detected (See at least Figs 16A-16B, Item 312, [0047] “The metal detector warning lights (or similar indicators) in certain sectors are displayed along with the thermal images from the corresponding sectors. A decision is then made either by a human operator or automatically by a computer program”), and
wherein reconstructing the image of the object further comprises applying the multistatic reconstruction algorithm to the data from the non-invasive walk-through metal detector (See at least Figs 16A-16B, Item 312, [0044] “By combining a mm-wave imaging system and a magnetic metal detector into one portal an improved overall detection capability and object classification can be accomplished.”, [0047] “The metal detector warning lights (or similar indicators) in certain sectors are displayed along with the thermal images from the corresponding sectors”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scanning system disclosed by Yoshida with the individual orientation system disclosed by Zhu with the metal detection system disclosed by Louberg. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection capability (See at least [0044] “By combining a mm-wave imaging system and a magnetic metal detector into one portal an improved overall detection capability and object classification can be accomplished.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 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, William J. Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648