DETAILED ACTION
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the Rejection under 35 U.S.C 101, the Applicant purports that independent claim 10 does not recite a judicial exception. In support of this position that Applicant argues that “The system is configured to interact with a physical body of a person to be checked, obtain multiple human body images, and determine whether the person to be checked carries real, physical contraband. This system of Amended Claim 10 with its recited structural specifics cannot fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process or method of organizing human activity).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated below and in the previously filled rejection, determining whether a person carries real physical contraband is a judicial exception in the form of a mental process. Obtaining images of a person using plane array scanning surfaces is an additional element which is not considered under step 2A prong one. The purported “structural specifics” do not detract from the fact that the claim recites steps directed to forming observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The Examiner further notes that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states, “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation… Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.”
With respect to step 2A prong two, the Applicant purports that the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In support of this position the Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides improvements in the field of security screening by providing the ability to “reduce or avoid the problem of mutual occlusion between different parts of the human body, improve an accuracy of carrying inspection of contraband in human body security checking, reduce under-reporting, and improve a security checking efficiency.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states, “The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.” Although the above improvements are recited in the specification, they are only recited in a conclusory manner. It is not explicitly clear from the disclosure how the claimed additional elements yield the above improvements. By way of example, the specification does not indicate how obtaining two images of a person in different postures necessarily avoids the problem of mutual occlusion between different parts of the human body. It is further noted that MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” Limitations reciting the steps of determining whether the person to be checked carries contraband based on at least the first millimeter-wave human body image and the second millimeter-wave human body image recite a judicial exception and cannot alone provide an improvement.
With respect to step 2B, the Applicant purports that the claims amount to significantly more. In support of this position the Applicant argues that as the claimed system is configured to take images of the “front and sides of the body, armpits, inner and outer thighs, inner arms, and soles of the person to be checked” it provides the practical improvements of “reducing or avoiding the problem of mutual occlusion between different parts of the human body, improving an accuracy of carrying inspection of contraband in human body security checking, reducing under-reporting, and improving a security checking efficiency of the system.“ The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in greater detail above, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), MPEP 2106.05(a), and also MPEP 2106(I) indicate criteria for determining what constitutes an improvement. As it is not explicitly clear from the disclosure how the claimed additional elements yield the above improvements, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to applicants arguments regarding the Rejection under 35 U.S.C 103, the Applicants' arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely solely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 10, 13-15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)).
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 10 (and its dependents) recites a system of millimeter-wave human body security checking based on double standing postures. The claim therefore recites a product.
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 10 recites,
determine whether the person to be checked carries contraband based on at least the first millimeter-wave human body image and the second millimeter-wave human body image
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of forming an opinion based on millimeter-wave human body images. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
the system of millimeter-wave human body security checking is configured to guide the first standing posture and the second standing posture of the person to be checked, so that a part of the body of the person to be checked scanned by the plane array scanning surface when the body of the person to be checked is in the first standing posture is at least partially complementary to a part of the body of the person to be checked scanned by the plane array scanning surface when the body of the person to be checked is in the second standing posture
This limitation is a process that covers the abstract idea of organizing human activity in the form of guiding the checked person into a first and second standing posture. Guiding behavior is a form of managing personal behavior via teaching or instructing. Therefore, this limitation recites a method of organizing human activity, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
Claim 13 recites,
guide or instruct the person to be checked to stand at a designated security checking position in the first standing posture, so that a front or back of the body of the person to be checked faces the scanning surface; and/or guide or instruct the person to be checked to stand at a designated security checking position in the second standing posture, so that a side of the body of the person to be checked faces the scanning surface.
This limitation is a process that covers the abstract idea of organizing human activity in the form of guiding the checked person into a first and second standing posture. Guiding behavior is a form of managing personal behavior via teaching or instructing. Therefore, this limitation recites a method of organizing human activity, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
Claim 14 recites,
the guidance device is configured to guide or instruct the person to be checked to stand at the designated security checking position in the first standing posture or the second standing posture by at least one of a voice prompt and a visual prompt.
This limitation is a process that covers the abstract idea of organizing human activity in the form of guiding the checked person into a first and second standing posture. Guiding behavior is a form of managing personal behavior via teaching or instructing. Therefore, this limitation recites a method of organizing human activity, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
Furthermore, this limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind in the form of visually and audibly instructing a checked person. This limitation could be performed by humans without a computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3). Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
Claim 15 recites,
a voice prompt device configured to prompt the person to be checked to stand at the designated security checking position in the first standing posture or the second standing posture in a voice mode; and/or a display device disposed near the millimeter-wave human body security detector so as to be visible to the person to be checked, and configured to prompt the person to be checked to stand at the designated security checking position in the first standing posture or the second standing posture in a visual mode.
This limitation is a process that covers the abstract idea of organizing human activity in the form of guiding the checked person into a first and second standing posture. Guiding behavior is a form of managing personal behavior via teaching or instructing. Therefore, this limitation recites a method of organizing human activity, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C).
Furthermore, this limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind in the form of visually and audibly instructing a checked person. This limitation could be performed by humans without a computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3). Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
Claim 18 recites,
determine whether the first standing posture of the person to be checked meets a requirement of a first designated standing posture based on the first visible light image;
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind in the form of making a judgement regarding whether a first visible light image of posture meets a requirement. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
determine whether the second standing posture of the person to be checked meets a requirement of a second designated standing posture based on the second visible light image.
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind in the form of making a judgement regarding whether a second visible light image of posture meets a requirement. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
Claim 29 recites,
determine whether the first standing posture of the person to be checked meets a requirement of a first designated standing posture based on the first millimeter-wave human body image;
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind in the form of forming an opinion on standing posture. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
determine whether the second standing posture of the person to be checked meets a requirement of a second designated standing posture based on the second millimeter- wave human body image.
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind in the form of forming an opinion on standing posture. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Claim 10 also recites,
scan and check a body of a person to be checked in a first standing posture at a designated security checking position, so as to obtain a first millimeter-wave human body image,
This limitation is mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
after the first standing posture of the person to be checked at the designated security checking position is switched to a second standing posture different from the first standing posture,
This limitation is mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
scan and check the body of the same person to be checked in the second standing posture at the designated security checking position, so as to obtain a second millimeter-wave human body image
This limitation is mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
wherein the millimeter-wave human body security detector has plane array scanning surfaces opposite to each other for scanning the body of the person to be checked
This limitation describes where data is collected, which is mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
a combination of the first millimeter-wave human body image and the second millimeter-wave human body image obtained through a scanning of the millimeter-wave human body security detector forms a roughly complete contour image of the body of the person to be checked,
This limitation merely describes data; therefore, this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
wherein the system of millimeter-wave human body security checking is configured to select the first standing posture and the second standing posture so that the combination of the first millimeter-wave human body image and the second millimeter- wave human body image obtained through the scanning of the millimeter-wave human body security detector at least comprises images of front and sides of the body, armpits, inner and outer thighs, inner arms, and soles of the person to be checked.
This limitation merely describes data; therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 18 also recites,
acquire a first visible light image of the body of the person to be checked in the first standing posture and a second visible light image of the body of the person to be checked in the second standing posture
This limitation is mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. See Memorandum.
Claim 10 also recites,
scan and check a body of a person to be checked in a first standing posture at a designated security checking position, so as to obtain a first millimeter-wave human body image,
This limitation is mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
after the first standing posture of the person to be checked at the designated security checking position is switched to a second standing posture different from the first standing posture,
This limitation is mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
scan and check the body of the same person to be checked in the second standing posture at the designated security checking position, so as to obtain a second millimeter-wave human body image
This limitation is mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
wherein the millimeter-wave human body security detector has plane array scanning surfaces opposite to each other for scanning the body of the person to be checked
This limitation describes where data is collected which is mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
a combination of the first millimeter-wave human body image and the second millimeter-wave human body image obtained through a scanning of the millimeter-wave human body security detector forms a roughly complete contour image of the body of the person to be checked,
This limitation merely describes data; therefore, this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
wherein the system of millimeter-wave human body security checking is configured to select the first standing posture and the second standing posture so that the combination of the first millimeter-wave human body image and the second millimeter- wave human body image obtained through the scanning of the millimeter-wave human body security detector at least comprises images of front and sides of the body, armpits, inner and outer thighs, inner arms, and soles of the person to be checked.
This limitation merely describes data; therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 10 further recites,
a millimeter-wave human body security detector
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
a processor communicating with the millimeter-wave human body security detector
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
the millimeter-wave human body security detector has plane array scanning surfaces opposite to each other
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 18 also recites,
acquire a first visible light image of the body of the person to be checked in the first standing posture and a second visible light image of the body of the person to be checked in the second standing posture
This limitation is mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 18 further recites,
a camera device
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than data gathering steps that collect necessary data for estimating, analyzing, and evaluating and requires no more than a generic computer to perform operations and generic computer functions that are well- understood, routine, and conventional activities.
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 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith(US20190108403A1) in view of AHMED (US 20180224538 A).
Regarding claim 10, Smith discloses
A system of millimeter-wave human body security checking based on double standing postures, comprising: a millimeter-wave human body security detector configured to: scan and check a body of a person to be checked in a first standing posture at a designated security checking position (“The electronic image 70 produced by the body scanner contains a digital representation of the person's body “ [0008]), so as to obtain a first millimeter-wave human body image(“ As thus described, the images from the body scanner are converted into humanoid coordinates to facilitate the comparison of image features between images” [0038), […] and a processor communicating with the millimeter-wave human body security detector and configured to determine whether the person to be checked carries contraband based on at least the first millimeter-wave human body image […] (“Body scanners are capable of detecting a wide range of security threats and contraband;” [0007]) […] at least comprises images of front […] of the body (Fig.4), armpits (“ The armpits 236 237 “ [0024]), inner and outer thighs(Fig.4, Parts. 270 & 238), inner arms, (“The inside and outside of the elbows 229 230 231 232,” [0024]).
Smith does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the system includes a second image of a second posture. AHMED teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. AHMED discloses the system comprising, after the first standing posture of the person to be checked at the designated security checking position is switched to a second standing posture different from the first standing posture, scan and check the body of the same person to be checked in the second standing posture at the designated security checking position, so as to obtain a second millimeter-wave human body image (“he first detector-pair is adapted to scan a front of the form of interest, while the form of interest enters the first continuous passageway, and/or the second detector-pair is adapted to scan a back of the form of interest, while the form of interest leaves the second continuous passageway” [0006]) […] wherein the millimeter-wave human body security detector has plane array scanning surfaces opposite to each other for scanning the body of the person to be checked (FIG.6, Parts. 12a & 12b), and the system of millimeter-wave human body security checking is configured to guide the first standing posture and the second standing posture of the person to be checked(“The first continuous passageway and the second continuous passageway are aligned, forming a joint continuous passageway for the motion of the form of interest. “ [0011] The examiner notes that a pathway comprising transmitters along it guides the person to be checked to a first and second posture), so that a part of the body of the person to be checked scanned by the plane array scanning surface when the body of the person to be checked is in the first standing posture is at least partially complementary to a part of the body of the person to be checked scanned by the plane array scanning surface when the body of the person to be checked is in the second standing posture (“perform more than one scan of the front of the person, before the person enters the first continuous passageway and to perform more than one scan of the back of the person, after the person leaves the second continuous passageway” [0008]), and a combination of the first millimeter-wave human body image and the second millimeter-wave human body image obtained through a scanning of the millimeter-wave human body security detector forms a roughly complete contour image of the body of the person to be checked (“ generate an image of the form of interest, based on one or more reflections transmitted and received by the same panel, out of the first panel, the second panel, the third panel and the fourth panel, and/or one or more reflections transmitted and received by different panels from one panel-pair of the first panel-pair and the second panel-pair” [0012]), and wherein the system of millimeter-wave human body security checking is configured to select the first standing posture (FIG.10) and the second standing posture (FIG.11) so that the combination of the first millimeter-wave human body image and the second millimeter- wave human body image obtained through the scanning of the millimeter-wave human body security detector (“ generate an image of the form of interest, based on one or more reflections transmitted and received by the same panel, out of the first panel, the second panel, the third panel and the fourth panel, and/or one or more reflections transmitted and received by different panels from one panel-pair of the first panel-pair and the second panel-pair” [0012]) at least comprises images of front and sides of the body, armpits, inner and outer thighs, inner arms, and soles of the person to be checked (“The system further comprises at least one additional panel, whose surface is not arranged vertically, and which is configured to receive reflections from portions of the walking person not in focus of the first panel, the second panel, the third panel and of the fourth panel. These portions of the walking person advantageously are an angled arm, or the top of the head, or the hair, or the bottom of the foot, or a calf outside of a viewing plane, or a foot outside of a viewing plane”[0026] & FIG.11 ).
AHMED teaches in the same field of human body security scanning. 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 Smith with the teachings of AHMED to incorporate the features of a second image of a second posture so as to gain the advantage of improving scanning accuracy [0026, AHMED]. 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 13, Smith as modified by AHMED discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Smith discloses the system wherein, the system of millimeter- wave human body security checking further comprises: a guidance device configured to: guide or instruct the person to be checked to stand at a designated security checking position in the first standing posture (FIG.1, Part 101 & In one configuration 100, the person being screened 12 stands motionless within the apparatus 101
performing the scan. [0004]), so that a front or back of the body of the person to be checked faces the […] scanning surface (Fig.4);
Smith does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the system includes guiding to a second posture. AHMED teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. AHMED discloses the system further comprising guide or instruct the person to be checked to stand at a designated security checking position in the second standing posture (“The first continuous passageway and the second continuous passageway are aligned, forming a joint continuous passageway for the motion of the form of interest. “ [0011] The examiner notes that a pathway comprising transmitters along it guides the person to be checked to a first and second posture), so that a side of the body of the person to be checked faces the plane array scanning surface (FIG.3, Parts.1 & 3).
AHMED teaches in the same field of human body security scanning. 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 Smith with the teachings of AHMED to incorporate the features of guiding the person to be checked to stand at a designated security checking position in the second standing posture so as to gain the advantage of improving scanning accuracy [0026, AHMED]. 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).
Claims 14-15, 18, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith(US20190108403A1) as modified by AHMED (US 20180224538 A) as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of CHEN(US20140184773A1).
Regarding claim 14, Smith as modified by AHMED discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Smith as modified by AHMED fails to set forth the prompt to guide posture of claim 14. CHEN teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. CHEN discloses the system wherein, the guidance device is configured to guide or instruct the person to be checked to stand at the designated security checking position in the first standing posture or the second standing posture by at least one of a voice prompt (“provide a voice instruction through the voice device 8 to tell the human to be inspected 2 the position and posture that he/she shall make” [0035]) and a visual prompt (“provide a literal description, image or video through the display device 7 to show the human to be inspected 2 the position and posture that he/she shall make, in order to assist the human to be inspected 2 to enter the specified position and pose the specified posture.” [0035])
CHEN teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. 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 Smith as modified by AHMED with the teachings of CHEN to incorporate the features of a voice and visual prompt to guide posture so as to gain the advantage of improving automation of security inspection [0010, CHEN]. 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 15, Smith as modified by AHMED discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Smith as modified by AHMED fails to set forth the prompt to guide posture of claim 15. CHEN teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. CHEN discloses the system wherein, the guidance device comprises: a voice prompt device configured to prompt the person to be checked to stand at the designated security checking position in the first standing posture or the second standing posture in a voice mode (“provide a voice instruction through the voice device 8 to tell the human to be inspected 2 the position and posture that he/she shall make” [0035]); and/or a display device disposed near the millimeter-wave human body security detector so as to be visible to the person to be checked, and configured to prompt the person to be checked to stand at the designated security checking position in the first standing posture or the second standing posture in a visual mode (“provide a literal description, image or video through the display device 7 to show the human to be inspected 2 the position and posture that he/she shall make, in order to assist the human to be inspected 2 to enter the specified position and pose the specified posture.” [0035])
CHEN teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. 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 Smith as modified by AHMED with the teachings of CHEN to incorporate the features of a voice and visual prompt to guide posture so as to gain the advantage of improving automation of security inspection [0010, CHEN]. 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 18, Smith as modified by AHMED discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Smith fails to set forth a camera device. AHMED discloses the system further comprising: a camera device configured to acquire a first visible light image of the body of the person to be checked (“The location-tracking device then includes an optical camera and a controller for processing images recorded by the optical camera” [0022]) in the first standing posture and a second visible light image of the body of the person to be checked in the second standing posture (“he camera 14, or more generally spoken, a location-tracking device, monitors the location of the form of interest” [0037] & FIG.6, Parts. 12a & 12b).
AHMED teaches in the same field of human body security scanning. 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 Smith with the teachings of AHMED to incorporate the features of a camera device configured to acquire a first visible light image of the body of the person to be checked as to gain the advantage of improving scanning efficiency [0022, AHMED]. 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).
Smith as modified by AHMED does not explicitly disclose nor limit checking posture requirement with visible light images of claim 18. Chen teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. Chen discloses the system wherein the processor is further configured to: determine whether the first standing posture of the person to be checked meets a requirement of a first designated standing posture based on the first visible light image (“That is, after the posture and position conform to the relevant requirements, the inspection of the human to be inspected 2 can be performed (i.e., continuation of the step (3)).[0034] If the human to be inspected 2 in the step (6) cannot get into” [0033]); and/or determine whether the second standing posture of the person to be checked meets a requirement of a second designated standing posture based on the second visible light image (FIG.3).
CHEN teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. 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 Smith as modified by AHMED with the teachings of CHEN to incorporate the features of checking posture requirement with visible light images so as to gain the advantage of improving automation of security inspection [0010, CHEN]. 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 29, Smith as modified by AHMED discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Although Smith as modified by AHMED disclose a first and second standing posture, they fail to set forth verifying if posture meets a set requirement. Chen teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. Chen discloses the system wherein, the processor is further configured to: determine whether the first standing posture of the person to be checked meets a requirement of a first designated standing posture based on the first millimeter-wave human body image (“That is, after the posture and position conform to the relevant requirements, the inspection of the human to be inspected 2 can be performed (i.e., continuation of the step (3)).[0034] If the human to be inspected 2 in the step (6) cannot get into” [0033]); and/or determine whether the second standing posture of the person to be checked meets a requirement of a second designated standing posture based on the second millimeter- wave human body image (FIG.3).
CHEN teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. 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 Smith as modified by AHMED with the teachings of CHEN to incorporate the features of checking posture requirement with visible light images so as to gain the advantage of improving automation of security inspection [0010, CHEN]. 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.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
Mueller(US20070114418A1)is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [0012] “the security portal having two scanning heads each thereof for scanning the beam through a range of angles”
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 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
