DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 1.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Rejection under 35 U.S.C 101, the Applicant purports that claims 20-28 are eligible citing the Federal Circuit in Thales Visionx for support of this position. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Thales Visionx inc v. US (850 F.3d 1343 (2017)) suggests that claims reciting a judicial exception may not be directed to an abstract idea when the judicial exception is “a consequence” of an unconventional configuration of sensors. The judicial exceptions recited in claims 20-28 are not a consequence of the purported “specific hardware elements.” By way of example claim 20 states “determining whether the checked person carries contraband based on at least the first millimeter-wave human body image and the second millimeter-wave human body image.” As described in greater detail below, this recites a mental process in the form of forming an opinion based on millimeter-wave human body images. The limitation does not rely on any specific configuration of millimeter-wave sensors or any unconventional system configuration. The above judicial exception simply uses millimeter-wave images to form an opinion. Any sensor configuration capturing two or more different millimeter-wave human body image is sufficient to perform the above method. Further, the Examiner can find no recited judicial exception in claims 20-28 that are “a consequence” of an unconventional technique. The Examiner disagrees of the application of Thales Visionx inc v. US (850 F.3d 1343 (2017)) and maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to the Rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 the applicant argues that Chen fails to use “any images” obtained by the inspection device to determine whether a subject’s posture meets relevant requirements. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 2 of Chen discloses “detecting and obtaining the posture and positional information about the human to be inspected” and “Detecting whether the posture and positional information conforms to requirements.” Paragraph [0024] of Chen further discloses, “ A camera in the KINECT sensor 3 can capture the posture actions of the human to be inspected 2.” The Examiner maintains that Chen discloses the above subject matter.
With respect to applicant s further arguments regarding the Rejection under 35 U.S.C 103, 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 10-15, 18, and 20-28 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).
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).
Claim 11 recites,
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 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 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 and similarly claim 23 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 and similarly claim 24 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 and similarly claim 27 recites,
determine whether the first standing posture of the person to be checked meets the requirement of the 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 the requirement of the 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 20 recites,
determining whether the checked person 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).
Claim 21 recites,
guiding the first standing posture and the second standing posture of the checked person, so that a part of the body of the checked person scanned by the scanning surface when the body of the checked person is in the first standing posture is at least partially complementary to a part of the body of the checked person scanned by the scanning surface when the body of the checked person 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 25 recites,
determining whether the first standing posture of the checked person meets a requirement of a first designated standing posture;
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).
determining whether the second standing posture of the checked person meets a requirement of a second designated standing posture.
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).
Claim 28 recites,
the first standing posture of the checked person meets the requirement of the first designated standing posture is determined based on the first 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).
wherein whether the second standing posture of the checked person meets the requirement of the second designated standing posture is determined based on 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).
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 and similarly claim 20 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.
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 11 and similarly claim 21 also recites,
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.
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 12 and similarly claim 22 also recites,
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, and inner arms 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 and similarly claim 27 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 26 also recites,
whether the first standing posture of the checked person meets the requirement of the first designated standing posture is determined before scanning and checking the body of the checked person in the first standing posture by using the millimeter-wave human body security detector
This limitation merely describes when data is collected; therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
wherein whether the second standing posture of the checked person meets the requirement of the second designated standing posture is determined before scanning and checking the body of the checked person in the second standing posture by using the millimeter-wave human body security detector.
This limitation merely describes when data is collected; 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 27 also recites,
obtaining a first visible light image of the body of the checked person in the first standing posture,
This limitation is mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
obtaining a second visible light image of the body of the checked person 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 and similarly claim 20 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.
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).
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 11 and similarly claim 21 also recites,
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.
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 11 and similarly claims 13, 21, and 23 further recites,
wherein the millimeter-wave human body security detector has a scanning surface for scanning the body of the person to be checked,
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 12 and similarly claim 22 also recites,
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, and inner arms 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 and similarly claim 27 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.
Claim 26 also recites,
whether the first standing posture of the checked person meets the requirement of the first designated standing posture is determined before scanning and checking the body of the checked person in the first standing posture by using the millimeter-wave human body security detector
This limitation merely describes when data is collected; therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
wherein whether the second standing posture of the checked person meets the requirement of the second designated standing posture is determined before scanning and checking the body of the checked person in the second standing posture by using the millimeter-wave human body security detector.
This limitation merely describes when data is collected; 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 27 also recites,
obtaining a first visible light image of the body of the checked person in the first standing posture,
This limitation is mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
obtaining a second visible light image of the body of the checked person 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.
Dependent 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 10-13, 20-23, 25-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith(US20190108403A1) in view of Valdes(US20160356886A1) and XIA(CN111553310A).
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]).
Smith does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the system includes a second image of a second posture. Valdes teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. Valdes 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 (The imaging module may perform imaging as the subject continuously moves through the hallway scanner” [0102]), so as to obtain a second millimeter-wave human body image(“The system can incorporate various advanced methods to combine the set of images, compensate for the subject's motion, and/or address the subject's changes in posture.” [0088])
Valdes 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 Valdes to incorporate the features of a second image of a second posture so as to gain the advantage of improving measurement [0069, Valdes]. 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 Valdes disclose a first and second standing posture, but does not appear to disclose verifying that a person’s standing posture meets a requirement of a designated standing posture. XIA teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. XIA discloses the method 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 (“The security inspection image acquisition system based on millimeter-wave radar also includes a posture detection module to determine whether the posture of the person being inspected in a clear image is correct” [0077]) 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 imag(“Generally, the person being detected also needs to maintain a certain posture. Therefore, this embodiment also includes a step of determining whether the posture of the person being detected in the clear image is correct based on the relative position of the head and hands.” [0065]).
XIA 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 Valdes with the teachings of XIA to incorporate the features of a designated standing posture requirement so as to gain the advantage of improving body scanning[0065, XIA]. 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 11, Smith as modified by Valdes and XIA discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Smith discloses the system wherein, the millimeter-wave human body security detector has a scanning surface for scanning the body of the person to be checked (FIG.1, Part 101),
Smith does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the system includes guiding to a first and second posture and combining the images. Valdes teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. Valdes discloses the system further comprising, 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 (“Each of a plurality of transmitters spatially distributed on two sides along a path of movement of a subject may transmit” [0092] The examiner notes that a pathway comprising transmitters along it guides to a first and second posture.), so that a part of the body of the person to be checked scanned by the scanning surface when the body of the person to be checked is in the first standing posture (“a first transmitter is located on a first side of the two sides along the path of movement, and may transmit radiation at a first time instance” [0007]) is at least partially complementary to a part of the body of the person to be checked scanned by the scanning surface when the body of the person to be checked is in the second standing posture (“A second transmitter may be located on a second side of the two sides along the path of movement, and may transmit radiation at a second time instance.” [0007]), 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 (“Accordingly, the combination of the information measured from different possible combinations of transmitters/receivers, as well as the different positions of the subject relative to transmitters/receivers can allow for accurate reconstruction of the full body surface.” [0098])
Valdes 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 with the teachings of Valdes to incorporate the features of guiding to a first and second posture and combining the images so as to gain the advantage of improving scan coverage [0068, Valdes]. 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 12, Smith as modified by Valdes and XIA discloses all of the limitations of claim 11. Smith discloses the system 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 (Fig.4), armpits (“ The armpits 236 237 “ [0024]), inner and outer thighs (Fig.4, Parts. 270 & 238), and inner arms of the person to be checked (“The inside and outside of the elbows 229 230 231 232,” [0024]).
Regarding claim 13, Smith as modified by Valdes and XIA discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Smith discloses the system wherein, the millimeter-wave human body security detector has a scanning surface for scanning the body of the person to be checked (FIG.1, Part 101), and 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 (“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. Valdes teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. Valdes 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 (“Each of a plurality of transmitters spatially distributed on two sides along a path of movement of a subject may transmit” [0092] The examiner notes that a pathway comprising transmitters along it guides to a first and second posture.), so that a side of the body of the person to be checked faces the scanning surface (FIG.2B).
Valdes 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 with the teachings of Valdes to incorporate the features of guiding to a second posture so as to gain the advantage of improving scan coverage [0068, Valdes]. 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 20, Smith as modified by Valdes and XIA discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Smith discloses a method of millimeter-wave human body security checking based on double standing postures, implemented by the system of millimeter-wave human body security checking according to claim 20, wherein the method comprises: scanning and checking a body of a checked person in a first standing posture (“The electronic image 70 produced by the body scanner contains a digital representation of the person's body “ [0008]) by using a millimeter-wave human body security detector, 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 determining whether the checked person carries contraband based on at least the first millimeter-wave human body image and the second millimeter-wave human body image (“Body scanners are capable of detecting a wide range of security threats and contraband;” [0007]).
Smith does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the system includes a second image of a second posture. Valdes teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. Valdes discloses the method wherein, scanning and checking the body of the same checked person in a second standing posture by using the millimeter-wave human body security detector(The imaging module may perform imaging as the subject continuously moves through the hallway scanner” [0102]), so as to obtain a second millimeter-wave human body image, wherein the second standing posture is different from the first standing posture (“The system can incorporate various advanced methods to combine the set of images, compensate for the subject's motion, and/or address the subject's changes in posture.” [0088])
Valdes 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 Valdes to incorporate the features of a second image of a second posture so as to gain the advantage of improving measurement [0069, Valdes]. 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 21, Smith as modified by Valdes and XIA discloses all of the limitations of claim 20. Smith discloses a method wherein, the millimeter-wave human body security detector has a scanning surface for scanning the body of the person to be checked (FIG.1, Part 101),
Smith does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the method includes guiding to a first and second posture and combining the images. Valdes teaches in the same field of human body security scanning. Valdes discloses the method further comprising, guiding the first standing posture and the second standing posture of the person to be checked (“Each of a plurality of transmitters spatially distributed on two sides along a path of movement of a subject may transmit” [0092] The examiner notes that a pathway comprising transmitters along it guides to a first and second posture.), so that a part of the body of the person to be checked scanned by the scanning surface when the body of the person to be checked is in the first standing posture (“a first transmitter is located on a first side of the two sides along the path of movement, and may transmit radiation at a first time instance” [0007]) is at least partially complementary to a part of the body of the person to be checked scanned by the scanning surface when the body of the person to be checked is in the second standing posture (“A second transmitter may be located on a second side of the two sides along the path of movement, and may transmit radiation at a second time instance.” [0007]), and a combination of the first millimeter-wave human body image and the second millimeter- wave human body image obtained forms a roughly complete contour image of the body of the person to be checked (“Accordingly, the combination of the information measured from different possible combinations of transmitters/receivers, as well as the different positions of the subject relative to transmitters/receivers can allow for accurate reconstruction of the full body surface.” [0098])
Valdes 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 with the teachings of Valdes to incorporate the features of guiding to a first and second posture and combining the images so as to gain the advantage of improving scan coverage [0068, Valdes]. 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 22, Smith as modified by Valdes and XIA discloses all of the limitations of claim 21. Smith discloses a method wherein, the first standing posture and the second standing posture are selected so that the combination of the first millimeter-wave human body image and the second millimeter-wave human body image at least comprises images of front and sides of the body (Fig.4), armpits (“ The armpits 236 237 “ [0024]), inner and outer thighs (Fig.4, Parts. 270 & 238), and inner arms of the person to be checked (“The inside and outside of the elbows 229 230 231 232,” [0024]).
Regarding claim 23, Smith as modified by Valdes and XIA discloses all of the limitations of claim 20. Smith discloses a method wherein the millimeter-wave human body security detector has a scanning surface for scanning the body of the person to be checked (FIG.1, Part 101), and the method further comprises: guiding or instructing the person to be checked to stand at a designated security checking position in the first standing posture (“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 method includes guiding to a second posture. Valdes teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. Valdes discloses the method further comprising and/or guiding or instructing the person to be checked to stand at a designated security checking position in the second standing posture (“Each of a plurality of transmitters spatially distributed on two sides along a path of movement of a subject may transmit” [0092] The examiner notes that a pathway comprising transmitters along it guides to a first and second posture.), so that a side of the body of the person to be checked faces the scanning surface (FIG.2B).
Valdes 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 with the teachings of Valdes to incorporate the features of guiding to a second posture so as to gain the advantage of improving scan coverage [0068, Valdes]. 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 25, Smith as modified by Valdes and XIA discloses all of the limitations of claim 20. Smith as modified by Valdes disclose a first and second standing posture, but does not appear to disclose verifying that a person’s standing posture meets a requirement of a designated standing posture. XIA teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. XIA discloses the method wherein, determining whether the first standing posture of the checked person meets a requirement of a first designated standing posture (“The security inspection image acquisition system based on millimeter-wave radar also includes a posture detection module to determine whether the posture of the person being inspected in a clear image is correct” [0077]); and/or determining whether the second standing posture of the checked person meets a requirement of a second designated standing posture (“Generally, the person being detected also needs to maintain a certain posture. Therefore, this embodiment also includes a step of determining whether the posture of the person being detected in the clear image is correct based on the relative position of the head and hands.” [0065]).
XIA 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 Valdes with the teachings of XIA to incorporate the features of a designated standing posture requirement so as to gain the advantage of improving body scanning[0065, XIA]. 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 26, Smith as modified by Valdes and XIA discloses all of the limitations of claim 25. Smith as modified by Valdes disclose a first and second standing posture, but does not appear to disclose verifying that a person’s standing posture meets a requirement of a designated standing posture. XIA teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. XIA discloses the method wherein, whether the first standing posture of the checked person meets the requirement of the first designated standing posture is determined before scanning and checking the body of the checked person in the first standing posture by using the millimeter-wave human body security detector(“If the recognition result is one head and two hands, and the center point coordinates satisfy […]then the posture meets the requirements and can be used for subsequent security checks. Otherwise, the posture does not meet the requirements, the system issues a posture error prompt, the person being detected adjusts the posture, re acquires the image, and returns to Step A for processing[0068]); and/or wherein whether the second standing posture of the checked person meets the requirement of the second designated standing posture is determined before scanning and checking the body of the checked person in the second standing posture by using the millimeter-wave human body security detector (“If the recognition result is one head and two hands, and the center point coordinates satisfy […]then the posture meets the requirements and can be used for subsequent security checks. Otherwise, the posture does not meet the requirements, the system issues a posture error prompt, the person being detected adjusts the posture, re acquires the image, and returns to Step A for processing[0068]).
XIA 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 Valdes with the teachings of XIA to incorporate the features of a designated standing posture requirement so as to gain the advantage of improving body scanning[0065, XIA]. 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, Smith as modified by Valdes and XIA discloses all of the limitations of claim 25. Smith as modified by Valdes disclose a first and second standing posture, but does not appear to disclose verifying that a person’s standing posture meets a requirement of a designated standing posture. XIA teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. XIA discloses the method wherein, whether the first standing posture of the checked person meets the requirement of the first designated standing posture is determined based on the first millimeter-wave human body image (“The security inspection image acquisition system based on millimeter-wave radar also includes a posture detection module to determine whether the posture of the person being inspected in a clear image is correct” [0077]); and/or wherein whether the second standing posture of the checked person meets the requirement of the second designated standing posture is determined based on the second millimeter-wave human body image (“Generally, the person being detected also needs to maintain a certain posture. Therefore, this embodiment also includes a step of determining whether the posture of the person being detected in the clear image is correct based on the relative position of the head and hands.” [0065]).
XIA 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 Valdes with the teachings of XIA to incorporate the features of a designated standing posture requirement so as to gain the advantage of improving body scanning[0065, XIA]. 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, 24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith(US20190108403A1) as modified by Valdes(US20160356886A1) and XIA(CN111553310A) as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of CHEN(US20140184773A1).
Regarding claim 14, Smith as modified by Valdes and XIA discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Smith as modified by Valdes fails to set forth the prompt to guide posture of claim 14. XIA teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. XIA 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 […] a visual prompt (“the device can be configured with a display and control subsystem to display the imaging situation, display the prompt information issued by the system, provide opinions on the user's posture, assist in correcting the user's posture” [0078]).
XIA 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 Valdes with the teachings of XIA to incorporate the features of a visual prompt to guide posture so as to gain the advantage of improving body scanning[0065, XIA]. 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 Valdes and XIA disclose a visual prompt to guide posture, but do not appear to disclose a voice prompt. CHEN teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. CHEN discloses a voice prompt to guide posture (“ a voice device 8 and an alert device 9, or a combination thereof for making an alert or displaying information”[0020])
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 Valdes and XIA with the teachings of CHEN to incorporate the features of a voice 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 Valdes and XIA discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Smith as modified by Valdes fails to set forth the display device of claim 15. XIA teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. XIA discloses the System wherein, 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 (“the device can be configured with a display and control subsystem to display the imaging situation, display the prompt information issued by the system, provide opinions on the user's posture, assist in correcting the user's posture” [0078]).
XIA 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 Valdes with the teachings of XIA to incorporate the features of a display device so as to gain the advantage of improving body scanning[0065, XIA]. 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 Valdes and XIA fails to set forth the voice prompt device 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 (“a voice device 8 “ [0020]) 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]);
XIA 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 Valdes and XIA with the teachings of CHEN to incorporate the features of a voice prompt device 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 Valdes and XIA discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Smith as modified by Valdes and XIA fails to set forth 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, a camera device configured to acquire a first visible light image of the body of the person to be checked in the first standing posture (“ a KINECT sensor, configured to real-timely acquire information about the human to be inspected “ [0011]) and a second visible light image of the body of the person to be checked in the second standing posture (“That is, after the posture of the human to be inspected 2 conforms to the relevant requirement, the inspection of the human to be inspected 2 can be performed (i.e., the step (3) is continued).” [0050]), wherein the processor is further configured to: determine whether the first standing posture of the person to be checked meets the requirement of the 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 the requirement of the 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 Valdes and XIA 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 24, Smith as modified by Valdes and XIA discloses all of the limitations of claim 23. Smith as modified by Valdes fails to set forth the prompt to guide posture of claim 24. XIA teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. XIA discloses the system wherein, […] a visual prompt is used to guide or instruct the checked person to stand at the designated security checking position in the first standing posture or the second standing posture through a guidance device (“the device can be configured with a display and control subsystem to display the imaging situation, display the prompt information issued by the system, provide opinions on the user's posture, assist in correcting the user's posture” [0078]).
XIA 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 Valdes with the teachings of XIA to incorporate the features of a visual prompt to guide posture so as to gain the advantage of improving body scanning[0065, XIA]. 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 Valdes and XIA disclose a visual prompt to guide posture, but do not appear to disclose a voice prompt. CHEN teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. CHEN discloses a voice prompt to guide posture (“ a voice device 8 and an alert device 9, or a combination thereof for making an alert or displaying information”[0020])
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 Valdes and XIA with the teachings of CHEN to incorporate the features of a voice 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 27, Smith as modified by Valdes and XIA discloses all of the limitations of claim 26. Smith as modified by Valdes and XIA fails to set forth checking posture requirement with visible light images of claim 27. CHEN teaches in the same field of endeavor of human body security scanning. CHEN discloses the system wherein, the determining whether the first standing posture of the checked person meets the requirement of the first designated standing posture comprises: obtaining a first visible light image of the body of the checked person in the first standing posture (“ a KINECT sensor, configured to real-timely acquire information about the human to be inspected “ [0011]), and determining whether the first standing posture of the checked person meets the requirement of the 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 wherein the determining whether the second standing posture of the checked person meets the requirement of the second designated standing posture comprises: obtaining a second visible light image of the body of the checked person in the second standing posture (“That is, after the posture of the human to be inspected 2 conforms to the relevant requirement, the inspection of the human to be inspected 2 can be performed (i.e., the step (3) is continued).” [0050]), and determining whether the second standing posture of the checked person meets the requirement of the 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 Valdes and XIA 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
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
Prosecution Insights