Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-22 remain pending in this application. Claims 17-22 have been amended. No claims have been newly cancelled or are new. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12/18/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/17/2026 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner maintains all prior art rejections for the same or similar reasoning as provided in the previous office action dated 12/18/2025.
Applicant argues that neither Foote nor Aeron discloses, teaches or suggests the claim 1 elements “transmitting and […] implementing a corrective action”. However, the Examiner disagrees. First, the Applicant argues that the architectures of Foote and Aeron are fundamentally distinct, however the Examiner notes that teachings of Aeron in the context of claim 1 are simply relied upon to teach radar operation rather than moving, placing an emphasis on the quality of data observed. In the context of the combination of Foote and Aeron, Aeron simply teaches not moving the radar system which is already present and fully disclosed in Foote. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success if attempting to combine the prior art references to arrive at Applicant’s system.
Further, Applicant argues that “detecting an object entering (or egressing) the body scanner system”, however the Applicant appears to interpret this limitation as ‘detecting an entrance (or egressing) of an object through a body scanner system’. However, the Examiner argues that the broadest reasonable interpretation of this element of the claim includes the detecting of an object that entering, not the entrance itself. Further, claim 1 does not claim that initiation of the radar scan is accomplished by the detection of an entrance or that an entrance is limited to, for example, the moment a user steps foot in a zone. Rather, the broadest reasonable interpretation of entering a body scanner may include any point of detection in or around the body scanner. Therefore, the Applicant’s limiting interpretation of “entering” is not consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Further, the claims do not further limit what “entering” includes, such as whether there are special steps, limitations, or definitions that must be applied.
The Applicant further argues that because of the alleged previous deficiencies of Foote, a step in response to the previous steps cannot be accomplished. However, because the Examiner maintains that the combination of Foote and Aeron disclose the previous step, Foote further discloses “responsive to […]”, as claimed.
Additionally, the Applicant argues that the modification of Foote by Aeron is not properly motivated because the claimed invention is not arrived at. However, the Examiner maintains that the Foote and Aeron disclose all limitations claim 1, and therefore the motivation is not disqualified. Further, the Applicant argues that different motion systems are used between Foote and Aeron, however the Examiner argues that the source of motion (supplied by the user or the scanners) is a simple design decision and therefore would lead a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the imaging systems, as relative motion is necessary regardless. While the Applicant argues that significantly different geometries and model and processing pipelines exist between Foote and Aeron, the Examiner notes that these alleged differences are not reflected in the claims as currently presented. The Applicant again argues for a narrower interpretation of entering than is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as presented. In view of these arguments, the Examiner maintains the prior art rejections.
The same or similar reasoning provided for claim 1 is applied to similar independent claim 16, and all dependent claims.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed to claim 3, the Examiner disagrees and maintains the prior art rejection. Aeron simply discloses that radar systems described elsewhere in the application as involving doppler sensing and processing, which is analogous to the radar systems of Foote. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the prior art rejection of claim 3, and similar claim 21.
Regarding claims 7-15 and 17-19, the Examiner maintains the prior art rejections for the same or similar reasoning as provided above.
Additionally, the Applicant is invited to discuss any additional concerns with the Examiner over a scheduled telephone interview.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 16, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foote (US 20060066469 A1), hereinafter Foote, in view of Aeron (US 20220099823 A1), hereinafter Aeron.
Regarding claim 1, Foote, as shown below, discloses a body scanner system comprising the following limitations:
a first imaging mast and a second imaging mast (See at least Fig. 21, [0105] “subsystem 334 is configured to controllably slide each of two arrays 336 along corresponding guide rods 337”); and
a processing system comprising (See at least Fig. 21, [0104] “System 320 includes dual planar panel scanning portal 330 and processing subsystem 340 included in monitoring/control station 350.”):
a memory comprising computer readable instructions (See at least [0104] “processing subsystem 340 and can be configured the same as subsystem 40”, [0096] “processor(s) 44 include logic […] This logic can be in the form of one or more of software programming instructions, […]. Furthermore such logic can be in the form of one or more signals carried with memory 46”); and
a processing device for executing the computer readable instructions, the computer readable instructions controlling the processing device to perform operations comprising (See at least [0104] “processing subsystem 340 and can be configured the same as subsystem 40”, [0096] “processor(s) 44 include logic […] This logic can be in the form of one or more of software programming instructions, […]. Furthermore such logic can be in the form of one or more signals carried with memory 46”):
transmitting and receiving electromagnetic waves by the first imaging mast or the second imaging mast (See at least [0040] “Interrogation routine 130 interrogates a portion of person 22 within a field of view of array 36”, [0106] “As the array moves, a number of scans are performed with array 336. During each scan, only one element of the transmitting subarray is illuminating the person and only one element of the receiving subarray is collecting reflected electromagnetic radiation at any given time”);
detecting an object entering the body scanner system based on the electromagnetic waves received by the first imaging mast or the second imaging mast (See at least [0040] “Interrogation routine 130 interrogates a portion of person 22 within a field of view of array 36”, [0106] “As the array moves, a number of scans are performed with array 336. During each scan, only one element of the transmitting subarray is illuminating the person and only one element of the receiving subarray is collecting reflected electromagnetic radiation at any given time”); and
responsive to detecting the object entering the body scanner system, implementing a corrective action. (See at least [0093] “Visual and/or audible alert signals can be generated to focus the operator's attention on the person undergoing inspection and/or a corresponding image.”)
Foote does not explicitly disclose
(See at least Fig. 2B, [0096] “Some types of tracking sensors may include optical and depth sensors 265A-265C that may additionally detect a three-dimensional 3D model of the object 240, i.e. person, in order to track the deformations of the person as it moves through the imaging system.” Aeron discloses multiple stable masts.);
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the body scanner system disclosed by Foote with the stationary system disclosed by Aeron. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar resolution (See at least [0013] “Other embodiments of the present disclosure are based on another recognition that a radar imaging system can jointly use measurements of a scene acquired over multiple time steps. Such a system of measurements can be used to improve the resolution of the radar”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Foote and Aeron, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Foote does not disclose the operations further comprising determining a direction of movement of the object relative to the first imaging mast or the second imaging mast. However, Aeron further discloses
the operations further comprising determining a direction of movement of the object relative to the first imaging mast or the second imaging mast (See at least [0096] “Some types of tracking sensors may include optical and depth sensors 265A-265C that may additionally detect a three-dimensional 3D model of the object 240, i.e. person, in order to track the deformations of the person as it moves through the imaging system. For example, tracking the deformation of the object may include determining the position and orientation of each part of the person's body, such as the arms and legs, relative to the imaging system.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the body scanner system disclosed by Foote with the stationary system disclosed by Aeron. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar resolution (See at least [0013] “Other embodiments of the present disclosure are based on another recognition that a radar imaging system can jointly use measurements of a scene acquired over multiple time steps. Such a system of measurements can be used to improve the resolution of the radar”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Foote and Aeron, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Foote does not disclose the detecting is performed using a Doppler effect of the electromagnetic waves emitted by the at least one of the first imaging mast and the second imaging mast. However, Aeron further discloses
the detecting is performed using a Doppler effect of the electromagnetic waves emitted by the at least one of the first imaging mast and the second imaging mast (See at least [0181] “some radar can include Bistatic radar, Continuous-wave radar, Doppler radar”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the body scanner system disclosed by Foote with the stationary system disclosed by Aeron. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar resolution (See at least [0013] “Other embodiments of the present disclosure are based on another recognition that a radar imaging system can jointly use measurements of a scene acquired over multiple time steps. Such a system of measurements can be used to improve the resolution of the radar”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Foote and Aeron, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Foote does not disclose the pulse rate is substantially 256 pulses of electromagnetic waves per second. However, Aeron further discloses
the pulse rate is substantially 256 pulses of electromagnetic waves per second (See at least [0097] “The person 240 moves relative to the sensor configuration, where, for example, a transmitter of the measurement sensors 260A-260C, 261A-261C, 262A-262C may emit continuously or in pulses, a transmission signal.” Aeron discloses the use of a pulsed signal. The specific claimed pulse rate has no additional unexpected results or criticality; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 regarding similar and overlapping ranges. Additionally, the Examiner notes the term “substantially”, which while broad is not indefinite because a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand what is meant by “substantially”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the body scanner system disclosed by Foote with the stationary system disclosed by Aeron. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar resolution (See at least [0013] “Other embodiments of the present disclosure are based on another recognition that a radar imaging system can jointly use measurements of a scene acquired over multiple time steps. Such a system of measurements can be used to improve the resolution of the radar”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Foote and Aeron, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Foote does not disclose discloses the detecting the object is performed using both of the first imaging mast and the second imaging mast based at least in part on a pulse rate of the electromagnetic waves emitted by both of the first imaging mast and the second imaging mast. However, Aeron further discloses
the detecting the object is performed using both of the first imaging mast and the second imaging mast based at least in part on a pulse rate of the electromagnetic waves emitted by both of the first imaging mast and the second imaging mast (See at least [0097] “The person 240 moves relative to the sensor configuration, where, for example, a transmitter of the measurement sensors 260A-260C, 261A-261C, 262A-262C may emit continuously or in pulses, a transmission signal.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the body scanner system disclosed by Foote with the stationary system disclosed by Aeron. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar resolution (See at least [0013] “Other embodiments of the present disclosure are based on another recognition that a radar imaging system can jointly use measurements of a scene acquired over multiple time steps. Such a system of measurements can be used to improve the resolution of the radar”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Foote and Aeron, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Foote does not disclose wherein the detecting comprises detecting entrance of the object into the body scanner using the first imaging mast based at least in part on the pulse rate of the electromagnetic waves emitted by the first imaging mast, the operations further comprising: verifying a presence of the object by detecting the object in the scanning device using the second imaging mast based at least in part on the pulse rate of the electromagnetic waves emitted by the second imaging mast. However, Aeron further discloses
wherein the detecting comprises detecting entrance of the object into the body scanner using the first imaging mast based at least in part on the pulse rate of the electromagnetic waves emitted by the first imaging mast, the operations further comprising: verifying a presence of the object by detecting the object in the scanning device using the second imaging mast based at least in part on the pulse rate of the electromagnetic waves emitted by the second imaging mast (See at least [0097] “The person 240 moves relative to the sensor configuration, where, for example, a transmitter of the measurement sensors 260A-260C, 261A-261C, 262A-262C may emit continuously or in pulses, a transmission signal.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the body scanner system disclosed by Foote with the stationary system disclosed by Aeron. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar resolution (See at least [0013] “Other embodiments of the present disclosure are based on another recognition that a radar imaging system can jointly use measurements of a scene acquired over multiple time steps. Such a system of measurements can be used to improve the resolution of the radar”).
Regarding claim 16, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 20, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2, shown above.
Regarding claim 21, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 21 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3, shown above.
Regarding claim 22, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 5. Accordingly, claim 22 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5, shown above.
Claim 7-8 and 11-13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foote, in view of Aeron, in further view of Xu (WO 2018095104 A1), hereinafter Xu.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Foote and Aeron, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Foote and Aeron does not explicitly disclose a pair of light curtain devices, which together selectively generate a light curtain in an opening of the scanning device. However, Xu, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
a pair of light curtain devices, which together selectively generate a light curtain in an opening of the scanning device (See at least “a pair of light curtains are usually installed at the entrance and exit respectively, and when the personnel enters the inspection channel, the light curtain is triggered” Fix. 2, The Examiner notes that the Xu discloses a preferred alternative to light curtains, however this is not the same as “teaching away”. As a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. Xu discloses an alternative to light curtains for use in specific scenarios which are not applicable to the present application as claimed. See also MPEP 2145.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the body scanner system disclosed by Foote with the stationary system disclosed by Aeron with the light curtain system disclosed by Xu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously ensure personnel safety (See at least “in order to ensure the personal safety of the personnel, a pair of light curtains are usually installed at the entrance and exit respectively”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Foote, Aeron, and Xu, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 7. The combination of Foote and Aeron does not explicitly disclose the operations further comprising verifying a presence of the object by detecting the object interrupting the light curtain. However, Xu, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the operations further comprising verifying a presence of the object by detecting the object interrupting the light curtain (See at least “a pair of light curtains are usually installed at the entrance and exit respectively, and when the personnel enters the inspection channel, the light curtain is triggered” Fix. 2, The Examiner notes that the Xu discloses a preferred alternative to light curtains, however this is not the same as “teaching away”. As a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. Xu discloses an alternative to light curtains for use in specific scenarios which are not applicable to the present application as claimed. See also MPEP 2145.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the body scanner system disclosed by Foote with the stationary system disclosed by Aeron with the light curtain system disclosed by Xu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously ensure personnel safety (See at least “in order to ensure the personal safety of the personnel, a pair of light curtains are usually installed at the entrance and exit respectively”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Foote, Aeron, and Xu, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 7, and 8. The combination of Foote and Aeron does not explicitly disclose the opening of the body scanner is an entrance to the body scanner. However, Xu, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the opening of the body scanner is an entrance to the body scanner (See at least “a pair of light curtains are usually installed at the entrance and exit respectively, and when the personnel enters the inspection channel, the light curtain is triggered” Fix. 2, The Examiner notes that the Xu discloses a preferred alternative to light curtains, however this is not the same as “teaching away”. As a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. Xu discloses an alternative to light curtains for use in specific scenarios which are not applicable to the present application as claimed. See also MPEP 2145.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the body scanner system disclosed by Foote with the stationary system disclosed by Aeron with the light curtain system disclosed by Xu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously ensure personnel safety (See at least “in order to ensure the personal safety of the personnel, a pair of light curtains are usually installed at the entrance and exit respectively”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Foote, Aeron, and Xu, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 7, and 8. The combination of Foote and Aeron does not explicitly disclose the opening of the body scanner is an exit of the body scanner. However, Xu, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the opening of the body scanner is an exit of the body scanner (See at least “a pair of light curtains are usually installed at the entrance and exit respectively, and when the personnel enters the inspection channel, the light curtain is triggered” Fix. 2, The Examiner notes that the Xu discloses a preferred alternative to light curtains, however this is not the same as “teaching away”. As a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. Xu discloses an alternative to light curtains for use in specific scenarios which are not applicable to the present application as claimed. See also MPEP 2145.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the body scanner system disclosed by Foote with the stationary system disclosed by Aeron with the light curtain system disclosed by Xu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously ensure personnel safety (See at least “in order to ensure the personal safety of the personnel, a pair of light curtains are usually installed at the entrance and exit respectively”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Foote, Aeron, and Xu as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 7, and 8. The combination of Foote and Aeron does not explicitly disclose the pair of light curtain devices is a first pair of light curtain devices, the light curtain is a first light curtain, and the opening of body scanner is a first opening of the body scanner, the system further comprising a second pair of light curtain devices, which together selectively generate a second light curtain in a second opening of the body scanner. However, Xu, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the pair of light curtain devices is a first pair of light curtain devices, the light curtain is a first light curtain, and the opening of body scanner is a first opening of the body scanner, the system further comprising a second pair of light curtain devices, which together selectively generate a second light curtain in a second opening of the body scanner (See at least “a pair of light curtains are usually installed at the entrance and exit respectively, and when the personnel enters the inspection channel, the light curtain is triggered” Fix. 2, The Examiner notes that the Xu discloses a preferred alternative to light curtains, however this is not the same as “teaching away”. As a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. Xu discloses an alternative to light curtains for use in specific scenarios which are not applicable to the present application as claimed. See also MPEP 2145.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the body scanner system disclosed by Foote with the stationary system disclosed by Aeron with the light curtain system disclosed by Xu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously ensure personnel safety (See at least “in order to ensure the personal safety of the personnel, a pair of light curtains are usually installed at the entrance and exit respectively”).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foote, in view of Aeron, in further view of Xu, in further view of Kattainen (US 20190322485 A1), hereinafter Kattainen.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Foote, Aeron, and Xu, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 7, and 8. The combination of Foote and Aeron does not explicitly disclose the pair of light curtain devices comprises a transmitter light curtain device and a receiver transmitter light. However, Kattainen, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the pair of light curtain devices comprises a transmitter light curtain device and a receiver transmitter light (See at least [0037] “For example, the light curtains are supplied as one or more pairs of a transmitter and receiver”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the body scanner system disclosed by Foote with the stationary system disclosed by Aeron with the light curtain system disclosed by Xu with the light curtain device system disclosed by Kattainen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance accuracy and safety (See at least [0037] “The receiver is designed to only accept the specific pulse and frequency from its dedicated transmitter. This enables the rejection of spurious infrared light and thus enhances their suitability as components within a safety system.”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Foote, Aeron, and Xu, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 7, and 8. The combination of Foote and Aeron does not explicitly disclose each of the pair of light curtain devices is an opto-electronic device. However, Kattainen, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
each of the pair of light curtain devices is an opto-electronic device (See at least [0037] “Such a light curtain is e.g. an opto-electronic device”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the body scanner system disclosed by Foote with the stationary system disclosed by Aeron with the light curtain system disclosed by Xu with the light curtain device system disclosed by Kattainen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance accuracy and safety (See at least [0037] “The receiver is designed to only accept the specific pulse and frequency from its dedicated transmitter. This enables the rejection of spurious infrared light and thus enhances their suitability as components within a safety system.”).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foote, in view of Aeron, in further view of Evsenin (WO 2024189400 A1), hereinafter Evsenin.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Foote and Aeron, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Foote does not explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprise detecting the object entering or egressing the body scanner system using at least one of the first imaging mast, the second imaging mast, or the linear transceiver array. However, Aeron, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
wherein the operations further comprise detecting the object entering or egressing the body scanner system using at least one of the first imaging mast, the second imaging mast, or the linear transceiver array (See at least [0096] “Some types of tracking sensors may include optical and depth sensors 265A-265C that may additionally detect a three-dimensional 3D model of the object 240, i.e. person, in order to track the deformations of the person as it moves through the imaging system. For example, tracking the deformation of the object may include determining the position and orientation of each part of the person's body, such as the arms and legs, relative to the imaging system.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the body scanner system disclosed by Foote with the stationary system disclosed by Aeron. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar resolution (See at least [0013] “Other embodiments of the present disclosure are based on another recognition that a radar imaging system can jointly use measurements of a scene acquired over multiple time steps. Such a system of measurements can be used to improve the resolution of the radar”).
The combination of Foote and Aeron does not explicitly disclose a linear transceiver array. However, Evsenin, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
a linear transceiver array (See at least [0016] “The side pillars each comprise a vertical linear array of transceiver antennas 101”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the body scanner system disclosed by Foote with the stationary system disclosed by Aeron with the linear array system disclosed by Evsenin. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously quickly and at lost cost identify threats (See at least [0004] “There is a need for lower cost multi-threat detection systems with very short processing time allowing for the detection of a variety of threats simultaneously”).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Foote, Aeron, and Evsenin as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 14. The combination of Foote and Aeron does not explicitly disclose the linear transceiver array uses a synthetic-aperture radar (SAR). However, Evsenin, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the linear transceiver array uses a synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) (See at least [0026] “The MDD subsystem comprises a low-power radar system with inverse synthetic aperture (ISAR - Inverse synthetic-aperture)”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the body scanner system disclosed by Foote with the stationary system disclosed by Aeron with the linear array system disclosed by Evsenin. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously quickly and at lost cost identify threats (See at least [0004] “There is a need for lower cost multi-threat detection systems with very short processing time allowing for the detection of a variety of threats simultaneously”).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foote, in view of Aeron, in further view of Kattainen.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Foote and Aeron, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16. The combination of Foote and Aeron does not explicitly disclose the body scanner system further comprises a pair of light curtain devices comprising a first transmitter light curtain device and a first receiver transmitter light to generate a light curtain. However, Kattainen, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the body scanner system further comprises a pair of light curtain devices comprising a first transmitter light curtain device and a first receiver transmitter light to generate a light curtain (See at least [0037] “For example, the light curtains are supplied as one or more pairs of a transmitter and receiver. The transmitter projects an array of parallel light beams,”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the body scanner system disclosed by Foote with the stationary system disclosed by Aeron with the light curtain device system disclosed by Kattainen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance accuracy and safety (See at least [0037] “The receiver is designed to only accept the specific pulse and frequency from its dedicated transmitter. This enables the rejection of spurious infrared light and thus enhances their suitability as components within a safety system.”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Foote, Aeron, and Kattainen as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 16 and 17. The combination of Foote and Aeron does not explicitly disclose verifying a presence of the object by detecting the object interrupting the light curtain. However, Kattainen, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
verifying a presence of the object by detecting the object interrupting the light curtain (See at least [0037] “When an object breaks one or more of the beams, a detection signal is generate to the controller 60”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the body scanner system disclosed by Foote with the stationary system disclosed by Aeron with the light curtain device system disclosed by Kattainen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance accuracy and safety (See at least [0037] “The receiver is designed to only accept the specific pulse and frequency from its dedicated transmitter. This enables the rejection of spurious infrared light and thus enhances their suitability as components within a safety system.”).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Foote, Aeron, and Kattainen as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 16 and 17. The combination of Foote and Aeron does not explicitly disclose each of the pair of light curtain devices is an opto-electronic device. However, Kattainen, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
each of the pair of light curtain devices is an opto-electronic device (See at least [0037] “a light curtain is e.g. an opto-electronic device that is used”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the body scanner system disclosed by Foote with the stationary system disclosed by Aeron with the light curtain device system disclosed by Kattainen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance accuracy and safety (See at least [0037] “The receiver is designed to only accept the specific pulse and frequency from its dedicated transmitter. This enables the rejection of spurious infrared light and thus enhances their suitability as components within a safety system.”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William J. Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648