Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 1/21/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the prior art of record is silent on teaching the limitation of the scanning position is displayed in animated form. It is the examiner’s position that the reference of Hastings et al. teaches the limitation of the scanning position is displayed in animated form by presenting a video that shows perspiration, Shiftiness of movement, pattern or gaze direction, irregular gaits ( paragraph 051). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation of scanning position is displayed in animated form is that image is made to move or brought to life. The video of the user in the interlock represent an animated image of the user.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,6,9-11,13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hastings et al. US Patent Application Publication 20200320814 in view of Soyugenc US Patent Application Publication 20080244978.
Regarding claims 1-2, Hastings teaches an interlock, wherein the interlock comprises an entrance (ingress, paragraph 029) and an inner region arranged behind the entrance (paragraph 029), wherein the interlock has a body scanner (paragraph 027) and an optical playback device (display, paragraph 042), wherein the body scanner is configured to scan a body of a person in the inner region of the interlock (paragraph 027) and wherein the playback device is configured to display a scanning position of the person, wherein the scanning position is suitable for successfully scanning the body of the person (paragraph 042,079). Hastings teaches the scanning position is displayed in animated form (video is displayed and video analysis is performed to detect perspiration, Shiftiness of movement, pattern or gaze direction, irregular gaits, paragraph 051). Hastings is silent on teaching the interlock comprises at least separation sensor configured to measure at least whether a number of people in the inner region of the interlock is exactly one. Soyugenc in an analogous art teaches a secured compartment comprises at least separation sensor configured to measure at least whether a number of people in the inner region of the interlock is exactly one (paragraph 019,023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hastings as disclosed by Soyugenc because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Hasting by increasing the security of the interlock system by ensuring only the authorized number of person is presence in the interlock system.
Regarding claim 6, Hastings teaches an image of the person currently located in the interlock is used to display the scanning position, wherein the image shows a spatial position of the person and/or a size of the person and/or a contour of the person and/or the actual appearance of the person and/or blurred form (paragraph 042).
Regarding claim 9, Hastings teaches the entrance also serves as an exit or wherein the exit is arranged opposite or to the side of the entrance (paragraph 029, 034).
Regarding claim 10, Hastings teaches the body scanner is configured to detect dangerous objects on the body of the person and/or on the clothing of the person (paragraph 041-042).
Regarding claim 11, Hastings teaches the system additionally has a front region arranged in front of the entrance of the interlock, wherein the front region is configured to be entered through an access device, wherein at the access device in the vicinity of the access device is arranged a sensor device and/or an identity checking device (paragraph 032,047).
Regarding claim 13, Hastings teaches a method for controlling a flow of people and/or for security screening by means of an interlock comprising an entrance and an inner region arranged behind the entrance (ingress, paragraph 029), wherein the interlock has a body scanner (paragraph 029) and an optical playback device (display, paragraph 042),
wherein the body scanner is configured to scan a body of a person in the inner region of the interlock (paragraph 027) and wherein the playback device is configured to display a scanning position of the person (paragraph 042,079),
wherein the scanning position is suitable for successfully scanning the body of the person (paragraph 042,079), wherein the method comprises includes the following steps;
displaying of the scanning position (paragraph 042), and
scanning a body of the person in the inner region of the interlock by the body scanner (paragraph 042,079).
Regarding claim 14, Hastings teaches the display of the scanning position by the playback device and the scan of the body by means of the body scanner are carried out indirectly and/or directly one after the other and/or at least partially simultaneously (paragraph 042).
Regarding claim 15, Hasting teaches a computer program product, wherein the computer program product comprises commands which, when the computer program product is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a method according to claim 13 (paragraph 026,0120).
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hastings et al. US Patent Application Publication 20200320814 in view of Soyugenc US Patent Application Publication 20080244978 in view of Harriot US Patent Application Publication 20220412899 and further in view of Prostko et al. US Patent Application Publication 20200168017.
Regarding claim 3 and 8, Hastings is silent on teaching the interlock comprises at least one separation sensor, wherein the separation sensor is configured to measure a number of people in the inner region of the interlock, wherein the at least one separation sensor is designed as a 2D camera. Harriot in an analogous art teaches the interlock comprises at least one separation sensor, wherein the separation sensor is configured to measure a number of people in the inner region of the interlock, wherein the at least one separation sensor is designed as a camera (paragraph 042) but is silent on teaching the use of 2D camera. Prostko in an analogous art teaches the use of 2D camera as a suitable means for capturing images (paragraph 029). Harriot teaches the separation sensor and the body scanner are configured such that a measurement of the separation sensor and a scan of the body scanner take place directly or indirectly one after the other or are carried out at least partially simultaneously (paragraph 042,046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Hastings in view of Soyugenc as disclosed by Harriot in view of Prostko because such modification represents increases the security of the interlock system by detecting tailgating or piggybacking and ensuring the only the authorized number of person enters the interlock system.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hastings et al. US Patent Application Publication 20200320814 in view of Soyugenc US Patent Application Publication 20080244978 and further in view of Koyama et al. US Patent Application Publication 20200296266.
Regarding claim 4, Hastings is silent on teaching at least one second separation sensor is arranged and, together with the separation sensor, is configured to capture a complete view of the person. Koyama et al. in an analogous art teaches at least one second separation sensor is arranged and, together with the separation sensor, is configured to capture a complete view of the person (paragraph 050-051, fig.4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hastings in view of Soyugenc as disclosed by Koyama et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Hasting by ensuring a total view of the person is obtained.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hastings et al. US Patent Application Publication 20200320814 in view of Soyugenc US Patent Application Publication 20080244978 and further in view of Gorian et al. US Patent Application Publication 20090294667.
Regarding claim 5, Hastings teaches the scanning position of the person is displayed (paragraph 042) but is silent on teaching the use of an artificial intelligence system. Gorian et al. in an analogous art teaches the scanning position of the person is displayed by means of an artificial intelligence system (paragraph 061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hastings in view of Soyugenc as disclosed by Gorian et al. because such modification represents an improvement over the system Hastings by providing a more accurate and reliable portrayal of the scanned image.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hastings et al. US Patent Application Publication 20200320814 in view of Soyugenc US Patent Application Publication 20080244978 in view of Harriot US Patent Application Publication 20220412899 in view of Prostko et al. US Patent Application Publication 20200168017 and further in view of Kimura et al. US Patent Application Publication 20190221098.
Regarding claim 7, Hastings is silent on teaching the at least one separation sensor is used to record the inner region after the person has exited directly and/or indirectly, wherein the recording is compared with a reference recording. Kimura et al. in an analogous art teaches the at least one separation sensor is used to record the inner region after the person has exited directly and/or indirectly, wherein the recording is compared with a reference recording (paragraph 050,081-082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Hastings in view of Soyugenc in view of Harriot in view of Prostko as disclosed by Kimura because such modification improve the security and the reliability of the interlock system by detecting any harmful substance left behind or detecting any damage to the interlock system.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hastings et al. US Patent Application Publication 20200320814 in view of Soyugenc US Patent Application Publication 20080244978 and further in view of JU et al. US Patent Application Publication 20190095720.
Regarding claim 12, Hastings is silent on teaching people entering the front region can are configured to be counted by means of the access device,
wherein the system is configured such that: a count of the people entering the front region is carried out by means of the sensor device and/or the identity checking device and/or the ticket checking device, another count of the people exiting the front region through the interlock is carried out by means of the interlock. JU et al. in an analogous art teaches the front region can are configured to be counted by means of the access device,
wherein the system is configured such that: a count of the people entering the front region is carried out by means of the sensor device and/or the identity checking device and/or the ticket checking device, another count of the people exiting the front region through the interlock is carried out by means of the interlock (paragraph 0122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Hastings in view of Soyugenc because such modification improves the security of the system of Hastings by detecting when an abnormal situation exists regarding the number of person entering the system and the number of persons exiting the system.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, EST.
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 on 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.
/VERNAL U BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686