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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 03/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 21 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/14/2026.
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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.
Claims 3, 8-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claims fail to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter. Applicant appears to be attempting to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims, which as noted above is improper.
Regarding claim 3, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the term “confirm a classification.” As claimed the term is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed term “confirm” cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. The term “confirm a classification” recited in claim 3 implies a classification for an object has already been established such that the system may “confirm” it. Although claim 3 establishes antecedent basis for “a classification,” neither claim 3 nor its preceding claims establish a prior classification to “confirm.” Review of the specification reveals at paragraph [0039], “When the system scans across a target or a target traverses across the scanning region, there are at least the following methods of rapid threat detection, confirmation and notification,” suggesting there is a step of detection or classification preceding the confirmation of a threat. It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “classification.” For examination purposes “confirm a classification” will be interpreted to mean “confirm a previously established classification.”
Regarding claim 10 and similarly claims 8 and 9, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the term “up to about one million scans per second.” As claimed the term is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed term “about” cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(A) defines the word “about” as relative terminology in the form of an approximation. Review of the specification reveals at paragraph [0042], “Scanning at a rate of greater than or equal to 1 million scans per second data points significantly increases the resolution of the image for identification with the camera using machine learning and artificial intelligence,” however the Examiner find no disclosure defining what range is explicitly covered by the term “about.” As the claim and specification lacks clarity regarding what range is explicitly covered by the term “about,” the term renders the claim indefinite. It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “scans per second.”
Regarding claim 19, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the claim “evaluating at least one of a person and an object that is not in a confined region in a non-individualized manner to determine whether the person and the object possess the threat.” The term “a non-individualized manner“ is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed term cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. As claimed, it is unclear if the term “non-individualized” is intended to mean that the person and the object are treated as one object, treated separately, or that the ”at least one of a person” in a group of people are treated together as a “non-individualized“ group. Review of the specification reveals at paragraph [0085] “The invention thereby enables persons to be evaluated for possessing threats in a non-individualized manner by which each person, facility and vehicle is separately scanned before entering an area.” While the specification discloses evaluating in “a non-individualized manner,“ the examiner cannot find further clarification for regarding the explicit definition of the term ““non-individualized.“ It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “evaluating.” For examination purposes “a non-individualized manner” will be interpreted to mean that people and objects will be evaluated for possessing a threat.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)).
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 (and its dependents) recites a method of detecting threats. The claim therefore recites a process.
Claim 20 (and its dependents) recites a threat detection system. The claim therefore recites a product.
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 1 and similarly claim 20 recites,
comparing time and frequency domain characteristic data of the return signal to the signature database
The claim recites the step of comparing collected information to a database, which is an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 3 recites,
reviewing the threat to confirm a classification.
This limitation is a step that covers performance of this limitation in the mind in the form of reviewing and confirming a classification. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 4 recites,
notifying at least one of public safety and security when the threat is detected.
This limitation is a step that covers an abstract idea in the form of organizing human activity being specifically directed to managing personal behavior. Therefore, this limitation recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(c).
Claim 13 recites,
analyzing the image to identify the threat.
The claim recites the step of comparing information to make a determination, which is an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 15 recites,
utilizing artificial intelligence to review the return signal.
This limitation is a step that covers performance of this limitation in the mind in the form of reviewing information. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 18 recites,
automatically engaging an access control device to prevent a person from entering a structure associated with the access control device when the person possesses the threat
This limitation recites the mental process of making a judgement in the form of performing an identification for a threat. Thus, this step is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process.
Claim 19 recites,
evaluating at least one of a person and an object that is not in a confined region in a non-individualized manner to determine whether the person and the object possess the threat.
This limitation recites the mental process of making a judgement in the form of performing an identification for a threat. Thus, this step is an abstract idea in the form of a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 and similarly claim 20 also recites,
a signature database
This limitation merely describes data; therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
the signature database comprises a time and frequency domain characteristic data for a threat
This limitation merely describes data; therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
emitting a signal by the millimeter wave radar
This limitation merely mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
receiving a return signal when the signal bounces off an object
Receiving a return signal is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 5 also recites,
the notifying is done using at least one of an electronic transmission, a display, an email, a text message and a telephone call
This limitation describes merely displaying data which is mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 6 also recites,
transmitting at least one of an identification of the threat, an image of the threat and a location of the threat.
This is a step that merely describes providing data. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 7 also recites,
changing a direction in which the signal is emitted by the millimeter wave radar to scan an area for threats.
The limitation is selecting a data source or type of data to be manipulated and has been found to be an extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 8 also recites,
threat detection system scans at frequencies of between about 10 GHz and about 330 GHz.
The limitation is merely describing a data source or type of data to be manipulated and has been found to be an extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 9 also recites,
the threat detection system processes data associated with the return signals at greater than about 10 Gbps.
This is a step that merely describes the rate data is manipulated. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 10 also recites,
the threat detection system conducts up to about one million scans per second.
This is a step that merely describes the rate data is obtained. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 11 also recites,
obtaining an image of the threat with the camera that is associated with the threat detection system.
This limitation merely mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 12 also recites,
directing the camera at the threat to obtain the image of the threat.
The limitation is selecting a data source or type of data to be manipulated and has been found to be an extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 14 also recites,
The threat comprises at least one of flammables, combustibles, chemicals, drugs, agriculture products, soil and weapons
This limitation merely describes data; therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
Claim 16 also recites,
the threat detection is done in autonomously in real-time.
This limitation merely describes when data is collected; therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. See Memorandum.
Claim 1 and similarly claim 20 also recites,
a signature database
This limitation merely describes data; therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
the signature database comprises a time and frequency domain characteristic data for a threat
This limitation merely describes data; therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
emitting a signal by the millimeter wave radar
This limitation merely mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
receiving a return signal when the signal bounces off an object
Receiving a return signal is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 1 and similarly claim 20 further recites,
providing a threat detection system comprising a controller
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
a millimeter wave radar
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
a camera
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 2 further recites,
the millimeter wave radar comprises a frequency-modulated continuous-wave radar.
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 5 also recites,
the notifying is done using at least one of an electronic transmission, a display, an email, a text message and a telephone call
This limitation describes merely displaying data which is mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 6 also recites,
transmitting at least one of an identification of the threat, an image of the threat and a location of the threat.
This is a step that merely describes providing data. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 7 also recites,
changing a direction in which the signal is emitted by the millimeter wave radar to scan an area for threats.
The limitation is selecting a data source or type of data to be manipulated and has been found to be an extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 8 also recites,
threat detection system scans at frequencies of between about 10 GHz and about 330 GHz.
The limitation is merely describing a data source or type of data to be manipulated and has been found to be an extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 9 also recites,
the threat detection system processes data associated with the return signals at greater than about 10 Gbps.
This is a step that merely describes the rate data is manipulated. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 10 also recites,
the threat detection system conducts up to about one million scans per second.
This is a step that merely describes the rate data is obtained. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 11 also recites,
obtaining an image of the threat with the camera that is associated with the threat detection system.
This limitation merely mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 12 also recites,
directing the camera at the threat to obtain the image of the threat.
The limitation is selecting a data source or type of data to be manipulated and has been found to be an extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 14 also recites,
The threat comprises at least one of flammables, combustibles, chemicals, drugs, agriculture products, soil and weapons
This limitation merely describes data; therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 16 also recites,
the threat detection is done in autonomously in real-time.
This limitation merely describes when data is collected; therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 17 further recites,
training the threat detection system prior to using the threat detection system to identify the threat.
This limitation describes mere instructions to apply an exception in the form of applying a computer algorithm, in the form of a rules-based decision-making algorithm, being performed on a general-purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than data gathering steps that collect necessary data for estimating, analyzing, and evaluating and requires no more than a generic computer to perform operations and generic computer functions that are well- understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikolova(US10229328B2) in view of Fleisher(US20130121529A1)
Regarding claim 1, Nikolova discloses
A method of detecting threats comprising: providing a threat detection system (“issue a “threat” or “no threat” recommendation” [Col.7, ll.48]) comprising a controller (“a controller coupled to each of the radiofrequency transmitter,” [Col.8, ll.59]), a signature database (“The training database may include a first dataset with a first plurality of resonant signal components associated with the weapon or weapons being detected” [col.18, ll.39-41]) and a camera (“a monitoring device such as a video camera could be activated to track the target” [Col.19, ll27-29]), wherein the signature database comprises a time and frequency domain characteristic data for a threat (“The training database may include a first dataset with a first plurality of resonant signal components (and early time signal components) associated with the weapon or weapons to be detected “ [Col.13, ll.38-41]); emitting a signal by the […] radar (FIG.1, Part.16); receiving a return signal when the signal bounces off an object (FIG.1, Part.22); and comparing time and frequency domain characteristic data of the return signal to the signature database (“ The target assessment may be determined using a statistical model that is based on resonant signals and early time portion signal components associated with the weapon or weapons being detected.” [Col.18, ll.31-34]).
Nikolova does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the sensor employs millimeter wave radar. Fleisher teaches in the same field of radio wave security scanning. Fleisher discloses the use of millimeter wave radar (“the accuracy of observation may be benefited by employing millimeter-wave imaging technology” [0011]).
Fleisher teaches in the same field of human body security scanning. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nikolova with the teachings of Fleisher to incorporate the features of millimeter-wave imaging so as to gain the advantage of improving accuracy [0011, Fleisher]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, Nikolova as modified by Fleisher discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nikolova does not explicitly disclose the use of frequency-modulated continuous-wave radar. Fleisher teaches in the same field of human body security scanning. Fleisher discloses the method wherein, the millimeter wave radar comprises a frequency-modulated continuous-wave radar (“frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW)” [0015])
Fleisher teaches in the same field of human body security scanning. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nikolova with the teachings of Fleisher to incorporate the features of frequency-modulated continuous-wave radar so as to gain the advantage of improving measurement duration. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 3, Nikolova as modified by Fleisher discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nikolova discloses the method further comprising, reviewing the threat to confirm a classification (“This may allow an operator or security personnel to determine the appropriate response. “ [col.14, ll.2-4]).
Regarding claim 4, Nikolova as modified by Fleisher discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nikolova discloses the method further comprising, notifying at least one of public safety and security when the threat is detected (“The automatic response action may include […] automatically alerting response personnel (e.g. police).” [col.8, ll.49-53]).
Regarding claim 5, Nikolova as modified by Fleisher discloses all the limitations of claim 4. Nikolova discloses the method wherein, the notifying is done using at least one of an electronic transmission, a display, an email, a text message and a telephone call (“ the target response may be communicating the target assessment classification in some form (visual display, audible warning) using output device 3”[col.14, ll.1-2]).
Regarding claim 6, Nikolova as modified by Fleisher discloses all the limitations of claim 4. Nikolova discloses the method further comprising, transmitting at least one of an identification of the threat, an image of the threat and a location of the threat (“The automatic response action may include actions such as photographing or filming the target,” [Col.8, ll.49-51])
Regarding claim 8, Nikolova as modified by Fleisher discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nikolova does not explicitly disclose scan frequencies between about 10 GHz and about 330 GHz. Fleisher discloses the method wherein, the threat detection system scans at frequencies of between about 10 GHz and about 330 GHz (“Accordingly, imaging, or the production of images from the detected radiation, may be obtained using electromagnetic radiation in the frequency range of one gigahertz (GHz) to about 300 GHz.” [0015]).
Regarding claim 11, Nikolova as modified by Fleisher discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nikolova discloses the method further comprising, obtaining an image of the threat with the camera that is associated with the threat detection system (“The automatic response action may include actions such as photographing or filming the target,” [Col.8, ll.49-51])
Regarding claim 12, Nikolova as modified by Fleisher discloses all the limitations of claim 4. Nikolova discloses the method further comprising, directing the camera at the threat to obtain the image of the threat (“a monitoring device such as a video camera could be activated to track the target” [Col.19, ll27-29])
Regarding claim 13, Nikolova as modified by Fleisher discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nikolova discloses the method further comprising, analyzing the image to identify the threat (“a monitoring device such as a video camera could be activated to track the target.” [Col.8, ll.44-46]).
Regarding claim 14, Nikolova as modified by Fleisher discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nikolova discloses the method wherein, the threat comprises at least one of flammables, combustibles, chemicals, drugs, agriculture products, soil and weapons (“the target assessment may classify the target into a particular weapon category” [Col.10, ll.26-27]).
Regarding claim 15, Nikolova as modified by Fleisher discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nikolova discloses the method further comprising, utilizing artificial intelligence to review the return signal (“Various machine learning techniques may be applied to generate the statistical model to different between preprocessed resonant signals indicative of a threat or weapons, and those indicating no threat is present.” [Col.18, ll.50-54]).
Regarding claim 16, Nikolova as modified by Fleisher discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nikolova discloses the method wherein, the threat detection is done in autonomously in real-time (“The system 10 can provide a weapons detection result in real time” [Col.14, ll.13-14]).
Regarding claim 17, Nikolova as modified by Fleisher discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nikolova discloses the method further comprising, training the threat detection system prior to using the threat detection system to identify the threat (“The statistical model may be trained to distinguish weapons from such innocuous items.” [Col.14, ll.21-22]).
Regarding claim 18, Nikolova as modified by Fleisher discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nikolova discloses the method further comprising, automatically engaging an access control device to prevent a person from entering a structure associated with the access control device when the person possesses the threat (“The automatic response action may include actions such as photographing or filming the target, closing and/or locking and/or barring an entrance/exit or passageway,” [Col.8, ll.49-41]).
Regarding claim 19, Nikolova as modified by Fleisher discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nikolova discloses the method wherein, evaluating at least one of a person and an object that is not in a confined region in a non-individualized manner to determine whether the person and the object possess the threat (“The described embodiments can detect electromagnetic signatures of a weapon in a scattered signal stream that is scattered by the inspected person or object” [Col.8,ll.44-46] & (FIG.3, Part.60)).
Regarding claim 20, Nikolova discloses
A threat detection system (“issue a “threat” or “no threat” recommendation” [Col.7, ll.48]) comprising: a controller (“a controller coupled to each of the radiofrequency transmitter,” [Col.8, ll.59]) […] radar that is capable of emitting a signal (FIG.1, Part.16) and receiving a return signal that bounces off an object (FIG.1, Part.22); a signature database that contains time and frequency domain characteristic data for at least one threat (“The training database may include a first dataset with a first plurality of resonant signal components (and early time signal components) associated with the weapon or weapons to be detected “ [Col.13, ll.38-41]), wherein the controller compares the return signal to the time and frequency characteristic data to identify a threat (“ The target assessment may be determined using a statistical model that is based on resonant signals and early time portion signal components associated with the weapon or weapons being detected.” [Col.18, ll.31-34]); and a camera that is directed to the threat and captures an image of the threat (“a monitoring device such as a video camera could be activated to track the target” [Col.19, ll27-29])
Nikolova does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the sensor employs millimeter wave radar. Fleisher teaches in the same field of radio wave security scanning. Fleisher discloses the use of millimeter wave radar (“the accuracy of observation may be benefited by employing millimeter-wave imaging technology” [0011]).
Fleisher teaches in the same field of human body security scanning. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nikolova with the teachings of Fleisher to incorporate the features of millimeter-wave imaging so as to gain the advantage of improving accuracy [0011, Fleisher]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikolova(US10229328B2) as modified by Fleisher(US20130121529A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Derham(US20130176161A1)
Regarding claim 7, Nikolova as modified by Fleisher discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nikolova as modified by Fleisher does not explicitly disclose changing scan direction. Derham teaches in the same field of radar object detection. Derham discloses the method further comprising changing a direction (“The multiple elements together form a beam that may be highly directional (depending on the number of elements), where the beam pattern is changed by controlling the variable phase shifters (and attenuators)”[0089]) in which the signal is emitted by the millimeter wave radar to scan an area for threats (“The device 20 may just scan its local environment to see if any object to be detected might be there or not, without necessarily knowing that any objects exist or what direction they are in.” [0095] ).
Derham teaches in the same field of radar object detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nikolova as modified by Fleisher with the teachings of Derham to incorporate the features of changing scan direction so as to gain the advantage of increasing device field of view. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 9, Nikolova as modified by Fleisher discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nikolova as modified by Fleisher does not explicitly disclose data processing speeds of 10 gbps. Derham teaches in the same field of radar object detection. Derham discloses the method wherein, the threat detection system processes data associated with the return signals at greater than about 10 Gbps (“ millimeter
wave systems operating in the 60 GHz frequency band have been specified to provide data rates of several Gigabits per second (Gbps) “ [0077]).
Derham teaches in the same field of radar object detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nikolova as modified by Fleisher with the teachings of Derham to incorporate the features of processing data associated with the return signals at greater than about 10 Gbps so as to gain the advantage of improving data processing speeds. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikolova(US10229328B2) as modified by Fleisher(US20130121529A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of BINDER (US20190154439A1).
Regarding claim 10, Nikolova as modified by Fleisher discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nikolova as modified by Fleisher does not explicitly disclose conducting up to about one million scans per second. BINDER teaches in the same field of millimeter wave radar systems. BINDER discloses the method wherein, the threat detection system conducts up to about one million scans per second (“which rapidly emits radio pulses (approximately one million per second) that are extremely short (less than a billionth of a second in duration)“ [0099])
BINDER teaches in the same field of millimeter wave radar systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nikolova as modified by Fleisher with the teachings of BINDER to incorporate the features of conducting up to about one million scans per second so as to gain the advantage of improving data collection speeds. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
Testar(US10247809B2) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [Col.3, ll.49-51] “An active radar scan can be taken e.g. by an active millimeter-wave sensor or scan unit or a radar scan sensor or radar scan unit.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights