DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 15-23 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 22, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daly et al. [US 20080303708] in view of Arroyo et al. [US 20120148020].
As to claim 1. Daly discloses A mobile security system for managing pedestrian activities from a perimeter of a venue to a point of entry to the venue as well as pedestrian entry into the venue, comprising:
a portable hub unit, [fig. 2, 0058] object detection system 100; [0112] wherein the system can be deployed as a stand-alone system with portable walls or barriers, configured to be located at the venue and between an unsecured area outside the venue and a secured area inside the venue, [0058] located at the entry exit point of the structure, the hub further comprising:
a top wall and a bottom wall connected to a front wall, [figs. 1, 18, 0058, 0064] the structure 100 comprises a top 104 and bottom walls 102 connected to a side wall implemented as the shell 104, and a back wall to define an interior of the portable hub unit, [figs. 1, 18, 0059, 0112] system 100 provided with surrounding walls;
at least one touchless screening lane that defines a walled passageway through the portable hub unit from the unsecured area outside of the venue to the secured area inside the venue, [0016], an entrance or an exit of the at least one touchless screening lane being located in one of the front wall or the back wall of the portable hub unit, [figs. 1, 4, 0069] inspection lane 428 from entry barrier 408 to exit barrier 410;
at least one external screening device located on the portable hub unit that screens for security threats external to the portable hub unit, [0072] cameras to monitor subjects as they wait for entry to the system 816;
a plurality of lane screening devices associated with the at least one screening lane to screen for security threats within the at least one screening lane, [0073] object detection system 534 monitoring the inspection lane 514, wherein the plurality of lane screening devices comprise a combination of different types of lane screening devices for screening for different types of security threats, [0073] millimeter wave cameras to sense for concealed objects, biometrics to screen individual subjects, ; and
a processing unit having one or more processors including program code that, when executed by the one or more processors, [0072] programmable logic controller, causes the one or more processors to:
receive data from the plurality of lane screening devices, [0073, 0074];
characterize the received data as being indicative of one or more security threats or a non-security threat, [0074]; and
in response to determining that the received data is indicative of one or more security threats, perform an action, [0074] if danger is detected, action is taken.
Daly fails to disclose wherein the processing unit receive data from both the at least external screening device in addition to the lane screening devices; and wherein the action taken is output a notification that identifies one or more security threats; wherein the top wall, the bottom wall, front wall, and back wall remain connected and the interior of the portable hub unit, including the at least one touchless screening lane, remains defined during transportation of the portable hub unit.
Arroyo teaches an integrated portable checkpoint system 100 comprising an operator area 110 located within the container unit 100 and being an enclosed space separate from the monitoring area, [figs. 1, 2, 0066, 0070]; wherein the housing can be transported with the enclosed internal volume defined, [0025]; wherein the system comprises both an internal and external module, [0074], that can be used simultaneously, [0079], wherein data from all the scanning modules are transmitted to the operator room and appear on the GUI (display) on the operator station, [0133]; wherein the system outputs a signal when a threat is detected that allows the personnel to take action to neutralize the threat, [0134]; wherein a notification is required for informing the personnel of the detected threat.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Daly with that of Arroyo so that the system can scan objects that would not fit in the housing.
As to claim 2. Daly fails to disclose The mobile security system of claim 1, wherein the portable hub unit further comprises a control room located within the portable hub unit and being an enclosed space separate from the at least one screening lane, the control room having an access door.
Arroyo teaches an integrated portable checkpoint system comprising an operator area 110 located within the container unit 100 and being an enclosed space separate from the monitoring area, [figs. 1, 2, 0066, 0070]; wherein the operator rom is required to have an access door to allow the operator to enter and leave.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Daly with that of Arroyo so that the operator can be protected from a possible hazard that can be detected.
As to claim 3. Daly discloses The mobile security system of claim 1, wherein the at least one external screening device monitors for security threats between the portable hub unit and the perimeter of the venue, [0072] cameras to monitor subjects as they wait for entry to the system 816.
As to claim 4. Daly discloses The mobile security system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of lane screening devices and the at least one external screening device screen for security threats in a touchless manner, [0072] cameras and wireless sensors operate in a touchless manner.
As to claim 5. Daly discloses The mobile security system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of lane screening devices associated with the at least one screening lane include one or more of the following type of lane screening device: a video camera; a thermal sensor; a pair of magnetic radar posts; a biohazard detection device; a radiation detection device; or an x-ray detection device, [0070] magnetometer, X-ray.
As to claim 7. Daly discloses The mobile security system of claim 1, wherein the data received from the plurality of lane screening devices and the at least one external screening device is characterized as being indicative of one or more of the following security threats: (i) a concealed weapon threat; (ii) an exposed weapon threat; (iii) a bomb threat; (iv) a biohazard threat; (v) a radiation threat; (vi) a personal protective equipment non-compliance threat; (vii) an elevated body temperature threat; or (viii) a crowd disturbance threat, [0060] explosives, [0072] concealed weapon detection.
As to claims 22, 23 are rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 1.
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daly in view of Arroyo as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Faddel et al. [US 20150109104].
As to claim 8. Daly discloses The mobile security system of claim 1, wherein the at least one screening lane further comprises a scanning device located within the at least one screening lane configured to scan a ticket to determine pedestrian admittance into the venue, [0010] ID readers included in addition to the other lane screening devices.
The combination of Daly and Arroyo fails to teach that the scanning device is a touchless ticket scanning device.
Fadell teaches a smart home security system comprising a sensor for monitoring the outside of the home, and a sensor for monitoring the inside of the home, [0121, 0513, 0515]; wherein the system analyzes the data from the two sensors, [0513, 0515]; wherein when a dangerous condition is detected, the system provides a notification to contact the occupants of the home, [0121]; wherein the communication to the occupant can include the detected identity and/or intent of the visitor, [0426, 0455]; wherein the system includes a reader to read a tag of the visitor, [0423] to detect the intent and type of the visitor, [0424], and determine if the door can be unlocked based on the identified visitor being authorized, [0422].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Daly and Arroyo with that of Fadell so that the system can control the entry system based on the identification of the visitor.
As to claim 9. the combination of Daly and Arroyo fails to disclose The mobile security system of claim 1, wherein the processing unit is programmed to send the notification to one or more computing devices in a network.
Fadell teaches a smart home security system comprising a sensor for monitoring the outside of the home, and a sensor for monitoring the inside of the home, [0121, 0513, 0515]; wherein the system analyzes the data from the two sensors, [0513, 0515]; wherein when a dangerous condition is detected, the system provides a notification to contact the occupants of the home, [0121]; wherein the communication to the occupant can include the detected identity and/or intent of the visitor, [0426, 0455]; wherein the system communicates the presence of a visitor to the user by transmitting a message to the user device 166, [0421, 0426], through the network [0069].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Daly and Arroyo with that of Fadell so that the system can provide notification and other messages to the user of the system using known communication methods to reduce the implementation cost of the system.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daly in view of Arroyo as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Oh et al. [US 20090050757].
As to claim 10. Daly fails to disclose The mobile security system of claim 1, wherein the portable hub unit further comprises at least one illuminated display device.
Arroyo teaches an integrated portable checkpoint system comprising an operator area 110 located within the container unit 100 comprising an operator workstation with a computer 212, [fig. 2, 0070].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Daly with that of Arroyo so that the operator can monitor the status of the system.
The combination of Daly and Arroyo fails to disclose that the display is pivotably coupled to one of either a first end wall, a second end wall, or the top wall of the portable hub unit.
Oh teaches a mount system adapted to rotate and extend a monitor that allows a monitor to be installed and recessed into a wall; wherein the mount system allows the monitor to swing, rotate, and extend the monitor, [fig. 10, abs.].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Daly and Fadell with that of Oh so that the system can communicate information with the user by placing the monitor in a way that can be easily viewed by the user.
As to claim 11. the combination of Daly and Arroyo fails to disclose The mobile security system of claim 10, wherein the at least one illuminated display device is movable between an extended position where the illuminated display device extends away from the one of either the first end wall, the second end wall, or top wall and a stowed position where the illuminated display device extends alongside the one of either the first end wall, the second end wall, or top wall.
Oh teaches a mount system adapted to rotate and extend a monitor that allows a monitor to be installed and recessed into a wall; wherein the mount system allows the monitor to swing, rotate, and extend the monitor, [fig. 10, abs.].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Daly and Fadell with that of Oh so that the system can communicate information with the user by placing the monitor in a way that can be easily viewed by the user.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daly in view of Arroyo and Oh as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Fadell.
As to claim 12. the combination of Daly, Arroyo and Oh fails to disclose The mobile security system of claim 11, wherein the first end wall includes a first illuminated display device and the second end wall includes a second illuminated display device.
Fadell teaches a smart home security system comprising a sensor for monitoring the outside of the home, and a sensor for monitoring the inside of the home, [0121, 0513, 0515]; wherein the smart home devices comprise a display to output messages and warnings to the user, [0219], that can be mounted to a plurality of the walls, [0233, 0257, 0264].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Daly, Arroyo and Oh with that of Fadell so that the system can provide messages to the user at different locations.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daly in view of Arroyo as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Neeld [US 20190044753].
As to claim 15. the combination of Daly and Arroyo fails to disclose The mobile security system of claim 1, wherein the portable hub unit further comprises one or more solar panels located on the top wall of the portable hub unit and being configured to generate electricity to power components of the portable hub unit.
Neeld teaches a container comprising a security system, [0047]; wherein the container provides power to the electrical components using a solar panel mounted on top of the container, [0039].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Daly and Arroyo with that of Neeld so that the system can be implemented to be independent and self-sufficient.
As to claim 16. the combination of Daly and Arroyo fails to disclose The mobile security system of claim 15, wherein the one or more solar panels are configured to provide power via ethernet cabling to the at least one external screening device and the plurality of lane screening devices.
Neeld teaches a container comprising a security system, [0047]; wherein the container provides power to the electrical components using a solar panel mounted on top of the container, [0039], that provides power to the components using power over ethernet, [0051].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Daly and Arroyo with that of Neeld so that the system can use the same connection to provide power and communication.
As to claim 17. the combination of Daly and Arroyo fails to disclose The mobile security system of claim 16, wherein the ethernet cabling is routed through shielded wireways.
Neeld teaches a container comprising a security system, [0047]; wherein the container provides power to the electrical components using a solar panel mounted on top of the container, [0039], that provides power to the components using power over ethernet, [0051]; wherein Ethernet cables are provided with a shielding and implemented as a shielded twisted pair.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Daly and Arroyo with that of Neeld to use a standard ethernet cable with shielding to avoid interference.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daly in view of Arroyo as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Charych [US 20110001606].
As to claim 18. the combination of Daly and Arroyo fails to disclose The mobile security system of claim 1, wherein the front wall of the portable hub unit includes a display device located above the entrance to the at least one screening lane that is configured to display a screening status of the at least one screening lane.
Charych teaches an access control system and method wherein the system comprises a display mounted above the entrance to the screening lane, [fig. 1, 0043], to provide information to the user, [0074].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Daly and Arroyo with that of Charych so that the display can be placed out of way but in a visible location.
Claim(s) 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daly in view of Arroyo as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ambrefe et al. [US 20140104034].
As to claim 19. the combination of Daly and Arroyo fails to disclose The mobile security system of claim 1, wherein the back wall of the portable hub unit includes a display device located above the exit to the at least one screening lane that is configured to display a screening status of the at least one screening lane.
Ambrefe teaches a security screening system that provides a display 630, 635 placed above an exit of the screening area, [fig. 4], to provide alerts and warnings to the user based on data received from sensors, [0167, 0171, 0172].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Daly and Arroyo with that of Ambrefe so that the user can be made aware of the alerts.
As to claim 20. the combination of Daly and Fadell fails to disclose The mobile security system of claim 19, wherein the processing unit is programmed to operate each display device as follows: if received data from one or more of the plurality of lane screening devices associated with the at least one screening lane is characterized as being indicative of one or more security threats, change the screening status of each display device to indicate a detected security condition.
Ambrefe teaches a security screening system that provides a display 630, 635 placed above an exit of the screening area, [fig. 4], to provide alerts and warnings to the user based on data received from sensors, [0167, 0171, 0172].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Daly and Fadell with that of Ambrefe so that the user can be made aware of the alerts.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daly in view of Arroyo as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Curtiss [US 8779921].
As to claim 21. the combination of Daly and Arroyo fails to disclose The mobile security system of claim 1, further comprising at least one perimeter unit configured to be located a distance from the portable hub unit and within the unsecured area outside of the venue, the perimeter unit comprising: at least one perimeter screening device to screen for security threats; wherein the processing unit is further programmed to receive data from the at least one perimeter screening device.
Curtiss teaches a security system to monitor a perimeter of a secured area, [fig. 2] comprising sensors attached on the outside of the perimeter fence, [fig. 2, col. 11, lines 57-61].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Daly and Arroyo with that of Curtiss so that the sensor can monitor threats approaching the perimeter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, 15-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688