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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 30 June 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP § 2111.01 stated that “… Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms …”). Thus under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification (e.g., see “… As used herein, pose refers to the position or orientation or both of the object to be scanned. In embodiments where the object is a human, the term "pose" as used herein can be the arrangement of the human in term of where arms/legs are, etc. …” in paragraph 41) serves as a glossary for the claim term “pose”.
The specification (e.g., see “… instructional markings 13 to aid the individual in understanding how to stand for purposes of scanning such as footprint markings …” in paragraph 25) serves as a glossary and indicates that the newly added claim term “stationary” should be given its ordinary and customary meaning1 of “standing still; not moving”.
The specification (e.g., see “… training data 1132 includes examples of poses of the object. For example, the information can include visible images of individuals in different poses along with joint information about the individuals, NMR information of individuals in different poses along with joint information about the individuals, and/or the like including combinations and/or multiples thereof …” in paragraph 61) serves as a glossary for the newly added claim term “example poses of the object and joint information associated with the example poses”.
The specification (e.g., see “… light curtains 1150 are opto-electronic devices that form an optical barrier, when activated, by generating beams of light (e.g., infrared light) from a transmitter light curtain 1150' to a receiver transmitter light curtain 1150". If an object passes through the area between the transmitter light curtain 1150' and the receiver transmitter light curtain 1150" when the light curtains 1150 are activated, the beams of light are interrupted and a signal-such as an audible alarm, message, light color change, or monitor graphic-can be generated to alert to the interruption …” in paragraph 69) serves as a glossary for the claim term “light curtain”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the newly added limitation “the system” in line before the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above is/are also indefinite for the same reasons.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10, 12, 15, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2023/0384475) in view of Kanaujia et al. (US 2013/0250050) and Liles (US 2008/0110093).
In regard to claim 1, Chen et al. disclose a system for performing a scan of an object, the system comprising:
(a) a non-optical scanning device to perform the scan of the object (e.g., “… scanning the body of the person to be inspected in the standing posture with the millimeter-wave human body security inspection instrument …” in paragraph 51);
(b) an optical imaging device to capture image information about the object in a stationary pose prior to performing the scan of the object, the image information captured when the object is in the stationary pose (e.g., “… determined, based on a visible light image of the person to be inspected (for example, obtained through a separately disposed imaging device such as a camera), whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of the designated posture or not when scanning the person to be inspected …” in paragraph 51); and
(c) a visual display device to display a visual representation of the stationary pose of the object and a visual representation of the target pose (e.g., “… visible light imaging device is used to obtain a visible light image of the person to be inspected standing at the designated standing position within the inspection channel 101 in the standing posture. The visible light image may be displayed or projected on the second display device 130 to guide the person to be inspected to adjust his/her standing posture according to a comparison between the visible light image and the image of the character in the designated posture, so that the person to be inspected can quickly pose the standing posture that meets the requirement of the designated posture … determine whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of scanning or not …” in paragraph 55);
(d) a processing system comprising: a memory comprising computer readable instructions; and a processing device for executing the computer readable instructions, the computer readable instructions controlling the processing device to perform operations (e.g., “… workstation 200 itself has a processor 210, such as a central processing unit (CPU), for performing routine operations of the workstation; and a millimeter-wave scanning image, a result of determining the standing posture …” in paragraph 50) comprising: (c1) determining the stationary pose of the object based at least in part on the captured image information (e.g., “… visible light imaging device is used to obtain a visible light image of the person to be inspected standing at the designated standing position within the inspection channel 101 in the standing posture. The visible light image may be displayed or projected on the second display device 130 to guide the person to be inspected to adjust his/her standing posture according to a comparison between the visible light image and the image of the character in the designated posture, so that the person to be inspected can quickly pose the standing posture that meets the requirement of the designated posture … determine whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of scanning or not …” in paragraph 55); (c2) determining whether the stationary pose of the object satisfies a target pose by identifying a location associated with the object (e.g., see posture2 in “… determined, based on a visible light image of the person to be inspected (for example, obtained through a separately disposed imaging device such as a camera), whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of the designated posture or not when scanning the person to be inspected … whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of the designated standing posture or not may be determined in the automatic mode, for example, by means of a processor … determined whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of the designated posture or not before scanning the body of the person to be inspected in the standing posture with the millimeter-wave human body security inspection instrument …” in paragraph 51); (c3) responsive to determining that the stationary pose of the object satisfies the target pose, causing the non-optical scanning device to perform the scan of the object (e.g., “… determined, based on a visible light image of the person to be inspected (for example, obtained through a separately disposed imaging device such as a camera), whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of the designated posture or not when scanning the person to be inspected … whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of the designated standing posture or not may be determined in the automatic mode, for example, by means of a processor … determined whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of the designated posture or not before scanning the body of the person to be inspected in the standing posture with the millimeter-wave human body security inspection instrument …” in paragraph 51); (c4) responsive to determining that the stationary pose of the object fails to satisfy the target pose, providing feedback to change the stationary pose of the object to satisfy the target pose prior to initiating the scan of the object (e.g., “… visible light imaging device is used to obtain a visible light image of the person to be inspected standing at the designated standing position within the inspection channel 101 in the standing posture. The visible light image may be displayed or projected on the second display device 130 to guide the person to be inspected to adjust his/her standing posture according to a comparison between the visible light image and the image of the character in the designated posture, so that the person to be inspected can quickly pose the standing posture that meets the requirement of the designated posture … determine whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of scanning or not …” in paragraph 55); and (c5) responsive to the non-optical scanning device completing the scan of the object, allow the object to exit the system without generating an alert (e.g., “… if necessary, an alarm may be issued to guide the person to be inspected suspected of carrying the prohibited item to undergo further inspection, such as manual inspection at the manual inspection station. When it is determined that the person to be inspected is not carrying the prohibited item, the person to be inspected may be allowed to pass …” in paragraph 74).
The system of Chen et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… comparison between the visible light image and the image of the character in the designated posture …” such as the location of joints and details of the “… allowed to pass …” such as deactivating a light curtain disposed adjacent to an egress of the system. However, “… comparison between the visible light image and the image of the character in the designated posture …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… approaches lack an articulated skeleton underlying the human body shape. The 3D shape deformation of body surface is captured by tracking the 3D mesh surfaces directly. Deforming the 3D mesh while maintaining the surface smoothness is not only computationally demanding but also ill-constrained, occasionally causing poor surface deformation due to noisy silhouettes (or visual hull) … video images of a monitored location; detecting a human object within the video images; determining a three dimensional (3D) hull corresponding to the human object within the video images; determining initial pose hypotheses of the human object within the video images, the initial pose hypotheses comprising a plurality of pose predictions each associated with a first probability value; mapping a plurality of simple geometric volumes to each of the pose predictions of the initial pose hypotheses to obtain a plurality of corresponding coarse 3D human models; comparing each of the corresponding coarse 3D human models to the 3D hull … 3D orientations of human body parts of each pose may be represented by a skeleton model comprising … plural skeleton body segments of the skeleton model may be connected to each other at joint locations …” in paragraphs 5, 15, 17, and 18 of Kanaujia et al.) and “… allowed to pass …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… security door system and method of operation which is adapted for operation to accept an authorized user or person passing through the doorway in one direction only, such as commonly used in airports … door system 20 is characterized by a revolving door assembly interposed in a partition or wall 22 which isolates a so-called secure area 24 from, a non-secure area 26. Secure area 24 may, for example, be the passenger waiting lounge or "gate" area in a commercial airport wherein the nonsecure area 26 is that portion of the airport terminal in which passengers and non-passengers may move without a security inspection … security door system 20 includes two spaced apart, so-called light curtain type sensors 60 and 62 … Sensors 60 and 62 may be of a type commercially available, such as a so-called photoelectric light curtains system sold under the trademark GUARDSTAR by TapeSwitch Corporation, Farmingdale, N.Y … object detection sensors, each designated by the numeral 76 … sensors 76 may also be of a type commercially available such as so-called zone scanners available from Pepperl and Fuchs, Twinsburg, Ohio. Zone scanners or sensors available from the aforementioned company … door system 20 may, for example, comprise a commercially available security revolving door system available from Horton Automatics, Corpus Christi, Tex …” in paragraphs 7, 20, 23, 28, 29, and 32 of Liles). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional comparison (e.g., comprising details such as “segments of the skeleton model may be connected to each other at joint locations” for “comparing each of the corresponding coarse 3D human models to the 3D hull” determined from “video images of a monitored location”, in order to avoid “computationally demanding but also ill-constrained” of “3D shape deformation of body surface”) for the unspecified comparison of Chen et al., substituted a known conventional passage (e.g., comprising details such as “a commercially available security revolving door system” and “commercially available, such as a so-called photoelectric light curtains system”, in order to allow “an authorized user or person” to pass “through the doorway in one direction only”) for the unspecified passage of Chen et al., and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional comparison (e.g., comprising details such as determining whether the stationary pose of the object satisfies a target pose by identifying a location of joints associated with the object) as the unspecified comparison of Chen et al. and a known conventional passage (e.g., comprising details such as deactivating a light curtain disposed adjacent to an egress of the system) as the unspecified passage of Chen et al.
In regard to claim 3 which is dependent on claim 1, Chen et al. also disclose that the operations further comprise responsive to determining that the stationary pose of the object fails to satisfy the target pose, providing feedback on the display, the feedback indicating how the stationary pose of the object fails to satisfy the target pose and indicating where the body parts need to be to satisfy the target pose by overlaying points representing body parts on the visual representation of the target pose and overlaying points representing body parts on the visual representation of the stationary pose of the object to be positioned to align with the points representing body parts on the visual representation of the target pose (e.g., “… visible light imaging device is used to obtain a visible light image of the person to be inspected standing at the designated standing position within the inspection channel 101 in the standing posture. The visible light image may be displayed or projected on the second display device 130 to guide the person to be inspected to adjust his/her standing posture according to a comparison between the visible light image and the image of the character in the designated posture, so that the person to be inspected can quickly pose the standing posture that meets the requirement of the designated posture … determine whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of scanning or not …” in paragraph 55). The system of Chen et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… comparison between the visible light image and the image of the character in the designated posture …” such as the body parts are joints. However, “… comparison between the visible light image and the image of the character in the designated posture …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… approaches lack an articulated skeleton underlying the human body shape. The 3D shape deformation of body surface is captured by tracking the 3D mesh surfaces directly. Deforming the 3D mesh while maintaining the surface smoothness is not only computationally demanding but also ill-constrained, occasionally causing poor surface deformation due to noisy silhouettes (or visual hull) … video images of a monitored location; detecting a human object within the video images; determining a three dimensional (3D) hull corresponding to the human object within the video images; determining initial pose hypotheses of the human object within the video images, the initial pose hypotheses comprising a plurality of pose predictions each associated with a first probability value; mapping a plurality of simple geometric volumes to each of the pose predictions of the initial pose hypotheses to obtain a plurality of corresponding coarse 3D human models; comparing each of the corresponding coarse 3D human models to the 3D hull … 3D orientations of human body parts of each pose may be represented by a skeleton model comprising … plural skeleton body segments of the skeleton model may be connected to each other at joint locations …” in paragraphs 5, 15, 17, and 18 of Kanaujia et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional comparison (e.g., comprising details such as “segments of the skeleton model may be connected to each other at joint locations” for “comparing each of the corresponding coarse 3D human models to the 3D hull” determined from “video images of a monitored location”, in order to avoid “computationally demanding but also ill-constrained” of “3D shape deformation of body surface”) for the unspecified comparison of Chen et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional comparison (e.g., comprising details such as indicating where the joints need to be to satisfy the target pose by overlaying points representing joints on the visual representation of the target pose and overlaying points representing joints on the visual representation of the stationary pose of the object to be positioned to align with the points representing joints on the visual representation of the target pose) as the unspecified comparison of Chen et al.
In regard to claim 4 which is dependent on claim 3, Chen et al. also disclose that the feedback is displayed prior to causing the non-optical scanning device to perform the scan of the object (e.g., “… visible light imaging device is used to obtain a visible light image of the person to be inspected standing at the designated standing position within the inspection channel 101 in the standing posture. The visible light image may be displayed or projected on the second display device 130 to guide the person to be inspected to adjust his/her standing posture according to a comparison between the visible light image and the image of the character in the designated posture, so that the person to be inspected can quickly pose the standing posture that meets the requirement of the designated posture … determine whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of scanning or not …” in paragraph 55).
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 1, Chen et al. also disclose that the optical imaging device directly performs an estimation of the stationary pose of object (e.g., “… determined, based on a visible light image of the person to be inspected (for example, obtained through a separately disposed imaging device such as a camera), whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of the designated posture or not when scanning the person to be inspected … whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of the designated standing posture or not may be determined in the automatic mode, for example, by means of a processor …” in paragraph 51).
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 1, Chen et al. also disclose that the operations further comprise estimating the stationary pose of object based at least in part on the captured image information received from the optical imaging device (e.g., “… determined, based on a visible light image of the person to be inspected (for example, obtained through a separately disposed imaging device such as a camera), whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of the designated posture or not when scanning the person to be inspected … whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of the designated standing posture or not may be determined in the automatic mode, for example, by means of a processor … determined whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of the designated posture or not before scanning the body of the person to be inspected in the standing posture with the millimeter-wave human body security inspection instrument …” in paragraph 51).
In regard to claim 7 which is dependent on claim 1, Chen et al. also disclose that the optical imaging device includes a visible light imaging device that captures visible light images (e.g., “… determined, based on a visible light image of the person to be inspected (for example, obtained through a separately disposed imaging device such as a camera), whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of the designated posture or not when scanning the person to be inspected …” in paragraph 51).
In regard to claim 10 which is dependent on claim 1, Chen et al. also disclose that the non-optical scanning device is a millimeter-wave imager (e.g., “… scanning the body of the person to be inspected in the standing posture with the millimeter-wave human body security inspection instrument …” in paragraph 51).
In regard to claim 12 which is dependent on claim 1, Chen et al. also disclose that the system further comprises a traffic flow device, and wherein the operations further comprise controlling the traffic flow device to provide traffic flow instructions (e.g., “… information displayed by the first display device 120, reminding the person to be inspected to enter the inspection channel as soon as possible, guiding the person to be inspected to pose an appropriate posture within the inspection channel, precautions about scanning, reminding that scanning is completed, guiding the person to be inspected to leave the inspection channel as soon as possible …” in paragraph 56).
In regard to claim 15 which is dependent on claim 1, Chen et al. also disclose that the operations further comprise: extracting information of the object from the image information captured by the optical imaging device; and transmitting the information of the object to the non-optical scanning device (e.g., “… workstation 200 itself has a processor 210, such as a central processing unit (CPU), for performing routine operations of the workstation; and a millimeter-wave scanning image, a result of determining the standing posture …” in paragraph 50).
In regard to claim 19 which is dependent on claim 1, Chen et al. also disclose that the instructions further comprise initiating a rescan of the object responsive to the scan being failed (e.g., “… If the standing posture of the person to be inspected is incorrect or does not meet the requirement of the designated posture, the system of security inspection will guide the person to be inspected to adjust his/her standing posture (such as using the above display devices and/or the audio device), and re-perform millimeter-wave scanning …” in paragraph 58).
In regard to claim 20, Chen et al. disclose a computer-implemented method for performing a scan of an object, the method comprising:
(a) determining a stationary pose of the object based at least in part on image information about the object captured using an optical imaging device, the image information captured when the object is in the stationary pose (e.g., “… determined, based on a visible light image of the person to be inspected (for example, obtained through a separately disposed imaging device such as a camera), whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of the designated posture or not when scanning the person to be inspected …” in paragraph 51);
(b) comparing the stationary pose of the object to a target pose (e.g., “… whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of the designated standing posture or not may be determined in the automatic mode, for example, by means of a processor …” in paragraph 51);
(c) responsive to determining that the stationary pose of the object fails to satisfy the target pose by identifying a first location associated with the object, providing feedback to cause the stationary pose of the object to satisfy the target pose prior to initiating the scan of the object (e.g., “… visible light imaging device is used to obtain a visible light image of the person to be inspected standing at the designated standing position within the inspection channel 101 in the standing posture. The visible light image may be displayed or projected on the second display device 130 to guide the person to be inspected to adjust his/her standing posture according to a comparison between the visible light image and the image of the character in the designated posture, so that the person to be inspected can quickly pose the standing posture that meets the requirement of the designated posture …” in paragraph 55);
(d) responsive to determining that the stationary pose of the object satisfies the target pose by identifying a second location associated with the object, initiating the scan of the object, the scan being performed by a non-optical scanning device (e.g., “… determined whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of the designated posture or not before scanning the body of the person to be inspected in the standing posture with the millimeter-wave human body security inspection instrument …” in paragraph 51); and
(e) responsive to completing the scan of the object, allow the object to exit the system without generating an alert (e.g., “… if necessary, an alarm may be issued to guide the person to be inspected suspected of carrying the prohibited item to undergo further inspection, such as manual inspection at the manual inspection station. When it is determined that the person to be inspected is not carrying the prohibited item, the person to be inspected may be allowed to pass …” in paragraph 74).
The method of Chen et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… comparison between the visible light image and the image of the character in the designated posture …” such as the location of joints and details of the “… allowed to pass …” such as deactivating a light curtain disposed adjacent to an egress of the non-optical scanning device. However, “… comparison between the visible light image and the image of the character in the designated posture …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… approaches lack an articulated skeleton underlying the human body shape. The 3D shape deformation of body surface is captured by tracking the 3D mesh surfaces directly. Deforming the 3D mesh while maintaining the surface smoothness is not only computationally demanding but also ill-constrained, occasionally causing poor surface deformation due to noisy silhouettes (or visual hull) … video images of a monitored location; detecting a human object within the video images; determining a three dimensional (3D) hull corresponding to the human object within the video images; determining initial pose hypotheses of the human object within the video images, the initial pose hypotheses comprising a plurality of pose predictions each associated with a first probability value; mapping a plurality of simple geometric volumes to each of the pose predictions of the initial pose hypotheses to obtain a plurality of corresponding coarse 3D human models; comparing each of the corresponding coarse 3D human models to the 3D hull … 3D orientations of human body parts of each pose may be represented by a skeleton model comprising … plural skeleton body segments of the skeleton model may be connected to each other at joint locations …” in paragraphs 5, 15, 17, and 18 of Kanaujia et al.) and “… allowed to pass …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… security door system and method of operation which is adapted for operation to accept an authorized user or person passing through the doorway in one direction only, such as commonly used in airports … door system 20 is characterized by a revolving door assembly interposed in a partition or wall 22 which isolates a so-called secure area 24 from, a non-secure area 26. Secure area 24 may, for example, be the passenger waiting lounge or "gate" area in a commercial airport wherein the nonsecure area 26 is that portion of the airport terminal in which passengers and non-passengers may move without a security inspection … security door system 20 includes two spaced apart, so-called light curtain type sensors 60 and 62 … Sensors 60 and 62 may be of a type commercially available, such as a so-called photoelectric light curtains system sold under the trademark GUARDSTAR by TapeSwitch Corporation, Farmingdale, N.Y … object detection sensors, each designated by the numeral 76 … sensors 76 may also be of a type commercially available such as so-called zone scanners available from Pepperl and Fuchs, Twinsburg, Ohio. Zone scanners or sensors available from the aforementioned company … door system 20 may, for example, comprise a commercially available security revolving door system available from Horton Automatics, Corpus Christi, Tex …” in paragraphs 7, 20, 23, 28, 29, and 32 of Liles). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional comparison (e.g., comprising details such as “segments of the skeleton model may be connected to each other at joint locations” for “comparing each of the corresponding coarse 3D human models to the 3D hull” determined from “video images of a monitored location”, in order to avoid “computationally demanding but also ill-constrained” of “3D shape deformation of body surface”) for the unspecified comparison of Chen et al., substituted a known conventional passage (e.g., comprising details such as “a commercially available security revolving door system” and “commercially available, such as a so-called photoelectric light curtains system”, in order to allow “an authorized user or person” to pass “through the doorway in one direction only”) for the unspecified passage of Chen et al., and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional comparison (e.g., comprising details such as determining that the pose of the object fails to satisfy the target pose by identifying a first location of joints associated with the object and determining that the pose of the object satisfies the target pose by identifying a second location of joints associated with the object) as the unspecified comparison of Chen et al. and a known conventional passage (e.g., comprising details such as deactivating a light curtain disposed adjacent to an egress of the system) as the unspecified passage of Chen et al.
In regard to claim 21 which is dependent on claim 20, Chen et al. also disclose that further comprising, responsive to determining that the stationary pose of the object fails to satisfy the target pose, providing feedback on a display the feedback indicating how the stationary pose of the object fails to satisfy the target pose and indicating where the body parts need to be to satisfy the target pose by overlaying points representing body parts on the visual representation of the target pose and overlaying points representing body parts on the visual representation of the stationary pose of the object to be positioned to align with the points representing body parts on the visual representation of the target pose (e.g., “… visible light imaging device is used to obtain a visible light image of the person to be inspected standing at the designated standing position within the inspection channel 101 in the standing posture. The visible light image may be displayed or projected on the second display device 130 to guide the person to be inspected to adjust his/her standing posture according to a comparison between the visible light image and the image of the character in the designated posture, so that the person to be inspected can quickly pose the standing posture that meets the requirement of the designated posture … determine whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of scanning or not …” in paragraph 55). The method of Chen et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… comparison between the visible light image and the image of the character in the designated posture …” such as the body parts are joints. However, “… comparison between the visible light image and the image of the character in the designated posture …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… approaches lack an articulated skeleton underlying the human body shape. The 3D shape deformation of body surface is captured by tracking the 3D mesh surfaces directly. Deforming the 3D mesh while maintaining the surface smoothness is not only computationally demanding but also ill-constrained, occasionally causing poor surface deformation due to noisy silhouettes (or visual hull) … video images of a monitored location; detecting a human object within the video images; determining a three dimensional (3D) hull corresponding to the human object within the video images; determining initial pose hypotheses of the human object within the video images, the initial pose hypotheses comprising a plurality of pose predictions each associated with a first probability value; mapping a plurality of simple geometric volumes to each of the pose predictions of the initial pose hypotheses to obtain a plurality of corresponding coarse 3D human models; comparing each of the corresponding coarse 3D human models to the 3D hull … 3D orientations of human body parts of each pose may be represented by a skeleton model comprising … plural skeleton body segments of the skeleton model may be connected to each other at joint locations …” in paragraphs 5, 15, 17, and 18 of Kanaujia et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional comparison (e.g., comprising details such as “segments of the skeleton model may be connected to each other at joint locations” for “comparing each of the corresponding coarse 3D human models to the 3D hull” determined from “video images of a monitored location”, in order to avoid “computationally demanding but also ill-constrained” of “3D shape deformation of body surface”) for the unspecified comparison of Chen et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional comparison (e.g., comprising details such as responsive to determining that the stationary pose of the object fails to satisfy the target pose, providing feedback on a display the feedback indicating how the stationary pose of the object fails to satisfy the target pose and indicating where the joints need to be to satisfy the target pose by overlaying points representing joints on the visual representation of the target pose and overlaying points representing joints on the visual representation of the stationary pose of the object to be positioned to align with the points representing joints on the visual representation of the target pose) as the unspecified comparison of Chen et al.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. in view of Kanaujia et al. and Liles as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Gray et al. (US 2011/0274250).
In regard to claim 8 which is dependent on claim 1, the system of Chen et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… imaging device …” such as a visible light imaging device that captures visible light and an infrared imaging device that captures IR images. However, “… imaging device …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… video analytics can implement various forms of optical detection, including infrared and visible light, to determine a) the shape of the individual's pose …” in paragraph 142 of Gray et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional imaging device (e.g., comprising details such as “various forms of optical detection, including infrared and visible light”, in order to “determine a) the shape of the individual's pose”) for the unspecified imaging device of Chen et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional imaging device (e.g., comprising details such as a visible light imaging device that captures visible light and an infrared (IR) imaging device that captures IR images) as the unspecified imaging device of Chen et al.
In regard to claim 9 which is dependent on claim 1, the system of Chen et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… imaging device …” such as the optical imaging device is used for depth estimation of the object. However, “… imaging device …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… video analytics can implement various forms of optical detection, including infrared and visible light, to determine a) the shape of the individual's pose …” in paragraph 142 of Gray et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional imaging device (e.g., comprising details such as “video analytics”, in order to “determine a) the shape of the individual's pose”) for the unspecified imaging device of Chen et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional imaging device (e.g., comprising details such as the optical imaging device is used for depth estimation of the object) as the unspecified imaging device of Chen et al.
Claim(s) 13, 14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. in view of Kanaujia et al. and Liles as applied to claim(s) 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Hastings et al. (US 2020/0320814).
In regard to claim 13 which is dependent on claim 12, the system of Chen et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… information displayed …” such as the traffic flow instructions cause the traffic flow device to selectively illuminate. However, “… information displayed …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… For embodiments without doors, the system 300 exercises influence over the user by selectively activating or deactivating various aspects of itself, such as the ingress interface 308, the user interface 340, the divestment interface 330, selectively illuminated arrows, and other indicators that can remain dormant or activate, and/or provide instructions such as "access denied see agent" or the like …” in paragraph 54 of Hastings et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional information displayed (e.g., comprising details such as “selectively illuminated arrows”, in order to exercises “influence over the user”) for the unspecified information displayed of Chen et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional information displayed (e.g., comprising details such as the traffic flow device is a light, and wherein the traffic flow instructions cause the light to selectively illuminate) as the unspecified information displayed of Chen et al.
In regard to claim 14 which is dependent on claim 12, the system of Chen et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… information displayed …” such as the traffic flow instructions set a light color of the traffic flow device. However, “… information displayed …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… For embodiments without doors, the system 300 exercises influence over the user by selectively activating or deactivating various aspects of itself, such as the ingress interface 308, the user interface 340, the divestment interface 330, selectively illuminated arrows, and other indicators that can remain dormant or activate, and/or provide instructions such as "access denied see agent" or the like …” in paragraph 54 of Hastings et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional information displayed (e.g., comprising details such as “selectively illuminated arrows”, in order to exercises “influence over the user”) for the unspecified information displayed of Chen et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional information displayed (e.g., comprising details such as the traffic flow device is a light, and wherein the traffic flow instructions set a color of the light) as the unspecified information displayed of Chen et al.
In regard to claim 16 which is dependent on claim 1, Chen et al. also disclose that the operations further comprise receiving a result of the scan from the non-optical imaging device (e.g., “… workstation 200 itself has a processor 210, such as a central processing unit (CPU), for performing routine operations of the workstation; and a millimeter-wave scanning image, a result of determining the standing posture …” in paragraph 50). The system of Chen et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… information displayed …” such as controlling a downstream traffic flow gate in response to a result of the scan. However, “… information displayed …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… to direct the user 204 through a selected one of a plurality of doors, corresponding to one of several possible pathways, according to scan results … doors are able to maintain positive control of a user, e.g., … physically denying exit from the chamber 310 until an alarm or alarms is resolved or an agent is ready to take control of the user upon exit from the chamber 310, e.g., for escorting the user to and/or applying enhanced screening and/or further resolution processes for the user. The system 300 is configured to direct the user to a selected one of a plurality of different egress paths 362 according to a result of the scan of the user. For example, responsive to the scan resulting in no unresolved alarms, the system 300 directs the user along a second one of the egress paths 362 to a secure area (e.g., the airport terminals). Responsive to an unresolved alarm, the system 300 directs the user along a first one of the egress paths 362 to secondary screening, or back out along the ingress path 360 to an unsecure area (e.g., to allow the user to self-divest a prohibited item by disposing of it before returning to the chamber 310 to re-scan)…” in paragraphs 33 and 54 of Hastings et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional information displayed (e.g., comprising details such as “to direct the user 204 through a selected one of a plurality of doors, corresponding to one of several possible pathways, according to scan results”, in order to “maintain positive control of a user”) for the unspecified information displayed of Chen et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional information displayed (e.g., including details such as the operations further comprise controlling a downstream traffic flow gate in response to a result of the scan) as the unspecified information displayed of Chen et al.
In regard to claim 17 which is dependent on claim 16, the system of Chen et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… information displayed …” such as controlling the downstream traffic flow gate comprises opening a gate to a resolution zone responsive to the scan indicating an alarmed region. However, “… information displayed …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… to direct the user 204 through a selected one of a plurality of doors, corresponding to one of several possible pathways, according to scan results … doors are able to maintain positive control of a user, e.g., … physically denying exit from the chamber 310 until an alarm or alarms is resolved or an agent is ready to take control of the user upon exit from the chamber 310, e.g., for escorting the user to and/or applying enhanced screening and/or further resolution processes for the user. The system 300 is configured to direct the user to a selected one of a plurality of different egress paths 362 according to a result of the scan of the user. For example, responsive to the scan resulting in no unresolved alarms, the system 300 directs the user along a second one of the egress paths 362 to a secure area (e.g., the airport terminals). Responsive to an unresolved alarm, the system 300 directs the user along a first one of the egress paths 362 to secondary screening, or back out along the ingress path 360 to an unsecure area (e.g., to allow the user to self-divest a prohibited item by disposing of it before returning to the chamber 310 to re-scan)…” in paragraphs 33 and 54 of Hastings et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional information displayed (e.g., comprising details such as “controlling the downstream traffic flow gate comprises opening a gate to a resolution zone responsive to the scan indicating an alarmed region”, in order to “maintain positive control of a user”) for the unspecified information displayed of Chen et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional information displayed (e.g., including details such as controlling the downstream traffic flow gate comprises opening a gate to a resolution zone responsive to the scan indicating an alarmed region) as the unspecified information displayed of Chen et al.
In regard to claim 18 which is dependent on claim 16, the system of Chen et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… information displayed …” such as controlling the downstream traffic flow gate comprises opening an exit gate responsive to the scan indicating no alarmed regions. However, “… information displayed …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… to direct the user 204 through a selected one of a plurality of doors, corresponding to one of several possible pathways, according to scan results … doors are able to maintain positive control of a user, e.g., … physically denying exit from the chamber 310 until an alarm or alarms is resolved or an agent is ready to take control of the user upon exit from the chamber 310, e.g., for escorting the user to and/or applying enhanced screening and/or further resolution processes for the user. The system 300 is configured to direct the user to a selected one of a plurality of different egress paths 362 according to a result of the scan of the user. For example, responsive to the scan resulting in no unresolved alarms, the system 300 directs the user along a second one of the egress paths 362 to a secure area (e.g., the airport terminals). Responsive to an unresolved alarm, the system 300 directs the user along a first one of the egress paths 362 to secondary screening, or back out along the ingress path 360 to an unsecure area (e.g., to allow the user to self-divest a prohibited item by disposing of it before returning to the chamber 310 to re-scan) …” in paragraphs 33 and 54 of Hastings et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional information displayed (e.g., comprising details such as “responsive to the scan resulting in no unresolved alarms, the system 300 directs the user along a second one of the egress paths 362 to a secure area (e.g., the airport terminals)”, in order to “maintain positive control of a user”) for the unspecified information displayed of Chen et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional information displayed (e.g., including details such as controlling the downstream traffic flow gate comprises opening an exit gate responsive to the scan indicating no alarmed regions) as the unspecified information displayed of Chen et al.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. in view of Kanaujia et al. and Liles as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Black et al. (US 2010/0111370).
In regard to claim 22 which is dependent on claim 1, while Chen et al. also disclose that determining the stationary pose of the object based at least in part on the captured image information (e.g., “… image analysis includes … determined, based on a visible light image of the person to be inspected (for example, obtained through a separately disposed imaging device such as a camera), whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of the designated posture or not when scanning the person to be inspected … For example, it may be determined whether a difference (such as a difference between boundaries of graphics) between an image of a character corresponding to the designated posture and the image (such as the millimeter-wave scanning image or the visible light image) of the person to be inspected is within a predetermined threshold range or not …” in paragraph 51), the system of Chen et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… image analysis …” such as based at least in part on an output of a machine learning model trained on example poses of the object and joint information associated with the example poses. However, “… imaging analysis …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… use a humanoid model for generating training examples. Such approaches are computationally efficient but require a training database that spans all possible poses, body shapes, and/ or scene conditions (camera view direction, clothing, lighting, background, etc.) to be effective … Hasler et al. (2009c) are the first to fit a learned parametric body model to 3D laser scans of dressed people. Their method uses a single pose of the subject and requires the specification of sparse point correspondences between feature locations on the body model and the laser scan; a human operator provides these. They use a body model (Hasler et al. 2009b) similar to SCAPE in that it accounts for articulated and non-rigid pose and identity deformations, but unlike SCAPE, it does not factor pose and shape in a way that allows for the pose to be adjusted while the identity of body shape is kept constant. This is important since estimating shape under clothing is significantly under-constrained in a single pose case, combining information from multiple articulated poses can constrain the solution …” in paragraphs 14 and 17 of Black et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional imaging device (e.g., comprising details such as “a learned parametric body model”, in order for “estimating shape under clothing”) for the unspecified imaging device of Chen et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional imaging device (e.g., comprising details such as determining the stationary pose is further based at least in part on an output of a machine learning model trained on example poses of the object and joint information associated with the example poses) as the unspecified imaging device of Chen et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended and new claims have been fully considered but some are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant's remaining arguments filed 30 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kanaujia et al. are not operable to “determine a stationary pose” based on image information “captured when the object is in the stationary pose” as required by amended claims 1 and 10 because the entirety of Kanaujia et al.'s disclosure relies on a person walking through an environment under video surveillance. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Kanaujia et al. states (paragraph 5) that “… Guan et. al. in "Estimating Human Shape and Pose from a Single Image," (ICCV, pages 1381-1388. IEEE, 2009) used SCAPE based shape model to perform height-constrained estimation of body shape …”. Further, Chen et al. state (paragraph 5) that “… guiding the person to be inspected to enter the inspection channel and stand at a designated standing position within the inspection channel in a standing posture substantially complying with the designated posture …”. It is important to recognize that the “standing posture” of Chen et al. is stationary by standing “at a designated standing position”. Thus Chen et al. disclose an optical imaging device (e.g., “… imaging device such as a camera) …” in paragraph 51) to capture image information about the object in a stationary pose prior to performing the scan of the object, the image information captured when the object (e.g., “… the person to be inspected …” in paragraph 51) is in the stationary pose (e.g., “… the standing posture …” in paragraph 51). Therefore, the combination of the cited prior art teaches all limitations as arranged in the claims.
Applicant argues that one skilled in the art would not look to combine Chen et al. with Kanaujia et al. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found in the references themselves. As discussed above, “… "Estimating Human Shape and Pose from a Single Image," …” is known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, Chen et al. teach that “whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of the designated standing posture or not may be determined in the automatic mode” by “adjust the standing posture of the person” from a first standing posture into a different second standing posture and “image analysis” on each image of an image sequence wherein the image sequence comprises a first image of the first standing posture and a second image of the second standing posture (e.g., “… displaying the visible light image on the second display device, so as to guide the person to be inspected to adjust the standing posture of the person to be inspected according to a comparison between the visible light image and the image of the character in the designated posture … image analysis … whether the standing posture of the person to be inspected meets the requirement of the designated standing posture or not may be determined in the automatic mode, for example, by means of a processor …” in paragraphs 9 and 51). In regard to image analysis, Kanaujia et al. teach (paragraphs 5, 15, 17, and 18) that “segments of the skeleton model may be connected to each other at joint locations” for “comparing each of the corresponding coarse 3D human models to the 3D hull” determined from “video images of a monitored location”, in order to avoid “computationally demanding but also ill-constrained” of “3D shape deformation of body surface”. Therefore, the combination of the cited prior art teaches all limitations as arranged in the claims.
Applicant argues that one skilled in the art would not be able to make the asserted combination with a reasonable expectation of success because paragraphs 12 and 13 of Kanaujia et al. makes it clear that identifying location of joints from video images is anything but predictable. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In this case, Kanaujia et al.’s paragraphs 12 and 13 state “… Y. Chen, T. K. Kim and R. Cipolla "Inferring 3d Shapes and Deformations from Single Views" (ECCV (3), pages 300-313, 2010) Some of these approaches develop a model with an underlying skeleton. However, detailed 3D human shape estimation from multi-view imagery is still a difficult problem that does not have satisfactory solution. The articles referenced in this disclosure are all incorporated by reference in their entirety. The embodiments described here address some of these problems of existing systems …”. In regard to “problems of existing systems”, problems such as loose clothing are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… They have used these shape models to estimate human body shape under loose clothing and also efficiently track across multiple frames …” in paragraph 5 of Kanaujia et al.). Further one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… articulated human models using twists that has been widely employed …” in paragraph 5 of Kanaujia et al.) would have a reasonable expectation of success to use “widely employed” articulated human models for image analysis. Therefore, the combination of the cited prior art teaches all limitations as arranged in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0036230 teaches a millimeter-wave scanner for screening.
US 2024/0329232 teaches a radiation scanner for screening.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571)272-3995. 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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
1 Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
2 posture is defined as “A position of a person's body or body parts” American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Prosecution Insights