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 .
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 5, 7-9, 11-12, 16-18, and 20 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.
The term “especially” in claims 5, 7-9, 11-12, 16-18, and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “especially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In addition, the specification to not expound on the term “especially” in such a way as to define the metes and bounds of the term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, and 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bendahan et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2011/012903.
Regarding Claim 1, Bendahan teaches a shoe and/or foot scanner combining electromagnetic wave and inductive scanning capabilities (see figure 1E-1G), comprising:
at least one electromagnetic wave sensor (see figure 1E-1F, in which 105 and 110 are configured to transmit and receive electromagnetic waves, i.e. X-ray),
at least one inductive sensor (see [0060]-[004] and figure 1F, 108), and
a control unit, wherein the at least one electromagnetic wave sensor and the at least one inductive sensor are arranged such that the at least one electromagnetic wave sensor and the at least one inductive sensor have at least one overlapping detection volume and/or area (see [0060], [0110], and figure 1F, which shows that the EM wave sensor 105 and the induction sensor 108 have an overlapping detection area), and
wherein the control unit is configured to evaluate the corresponding sensor measurements from the at least one electromagnetic wave sensor and the at least one inductive sensor for at least a part or each of the at least one overlapping detection volume and/or area to determine an overall threat probability (taught in [0040], [0045], [0060]-[0064], [0104]-[0115] discussing broadly determining a threat probability by outputting a scan state of the footwear to a user with associated data, thereby allowing the user to generally better understand the probability of a detected threat or false alarm).
Regarding Claim 14, the device as recited in claim 1 is specific to this method and thus it must perform the method. The method is intrinsic to the apparatus because the recited method steps will be performed during normal operation of the apparatus. Therefore, Claim 14 is also rejected.
Regarding Claim 2, Bendahan teaches the shoe and/or foot scanner according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to decide whether there is an alarm to be reported based on the overall threat probability (see [0071] which discusses conditions for controlling an alarm based on the presence of a threat; note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of an overall threat probability, the determination of a threat qualifies as the determination of an overall threat probability).
Regarding Claim 3, Bendahan teaches the shoe and/or foot scanner according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to determine at least one individual threat probability based on the corresponding sensor measurements from the at least one electromagnetic wave sensor (taught in [0040], [0045], [0060]-[0064], [0104]-[0115] and figure 1E-1F).
Regarding Claim 4, Bendahan teaches the shoe and/or foot scanner according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to determine at least one further individual threat probability based on the corresponding sensor measurements from the at least one inductive sensor (taught in figure 1E-1F and [0040], [0045], [0060]-[0064], [0104]-[0115]).
Regarding Claim 5, Bendahan teaches the shoe and/or foot scanner according to claim 3, wherein if at least a part or each of the at least one individual threat probability is inconclusive, the control unit is configured to combine at least the part or each of the at least one individual threat probability with at least a part or each of at least one further individual threat probability based on the corresponding sensor measurements from the at least one inductive sensor especially to get at least one conclusive threat probability (taught in figure 1E-1F and [0040], [0045], [0060]-[0064], [0104]-[0115]).
Regarding Claim 6, Bendahan teaches the shoe and/or foot scanner according to claim 4, wherein if at least a part or each of the at least one further individual threat probability is inconclusive, the control unit is configured to combine at least the part or each of the at least one further individual threat probability with at least a part or each of at least one individual threat probability based on the corresponding sensor measurements from the at least one electromagnetic wave sensor especially to get at least one further conclusive threat probability (taught in figure 1E-1F and [0040], [0045], [0060]-[0064], [0104]-[0115]).
Regarding Claim 8, Bendahan teaches the shoe and/or foot scanner according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to infer an amount of metal and/or shape with respect to the correspondingly scanned object and/or materials especially based on the corresponding sensor measurements from the at least one electromagnetic wave sensor and/or the at least one inductive sensor (disclosed in [0056]).
Regarding Claim 10, Bendahan teaches the shoe and/or foot scanner according to claim 1, wherein at least a part or each of the at least one electromagnetic wave sensor comprises or is at least one millimeter-wave transceiver, and/or wherein at least a part or all of the at least one electromagnetic wave sensor forms a millimeter-wave transceiver array or a millimeter-wave panel (see [0119]).
Regarding Claim 11, Bendahan teaches he shoe and/or foot scanner according to claim 1, wherein at least a part or each of the at least one inductive sensor comprises or is at least one coil, especially at least one metal detection coil (see figures 1E-1F and [0052]-[0055]).
Regarding Claim 12, Bendahan teaches the shoe and/or foot scanner according to claim 1, wherein the control unit comprises or is a controller or an application-specific integrated circuit, especially an application-specific integrated circuit acquisition unit (see figure 8).
Regarding Claim 13, Bendahan teaches the shoe and/or foot scanner according to claim 1, wherein the shoe and/or foot scanner is used in the context of security areas such as airport security (see [0001]).
Regarding Claim 15, Bendahan the method according to claim 14, wherein the method further comprises the step of: deciding whether there is an alarm to be reported based on the overall threat probability especially with the aid of the control unit (see [0071] which discusses conditions for controlling an alarm based on the presence of a threat; note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of an overall threat probability, the determination of a threat qualifies as the determination of an overall threat probability).
Regarding Claim 16, Bendahan the method according to claim 14, wherein the method further comprises the step of: determining at least one individual threat probability based on the corresponding sensor measurements from the at least one electromagnetic wave sensor especially with the aid of the control unit (taught in [0040], [0045], [0060]-[0064], [0104]-[0115] and figure 1E-1F).
Regarding Claim 17, Bendahan the method according to claim 14, wherein the method further comprises the step of: determining at least one further individual threat probability based on the corresponding sensor measurements from the at least one inductive sensor especially with the aid of the control unit (taught in figure 1E-1F and [0040], [0045], [0060]-[0064], [0104]-[0115]).
Regarding Claim 18, Bendahan the method according to claim 16, wherein the method further comprises the step of: if at least a part or each of the at least one individual threat probability is inconclusive, preferably with the aid of the control unit, combining at least the part or each of the at least one individual threat probability with at least a part or each of at least one further individual threat probability based on the corresponding sensor measurements from the at least one inductive sensor especially to get at least one conclusive threat probability (taught in figure 1E-1F and [0040], [0045], [0060]-[0064], [0104]-[0115]).
Regarding Claim 19, Bendahan the method according to claim 17, wherein the method further comprises the step of: if at least a part or each of the at least one further individual threat probability is inconclusive, preferably with the aid of the control unit, combining at least the part or each of the at least one further individual threat probability with at least a part or each of at least one individual threat probability based on the corresponding sensor measurements from the at least one electromagnetic wave sensor especially to get at least one further conclusive threat probability (taught in figure 1E-1F and [0040], [0045], [0060]-[0064], [0104]-[0115]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7, 9, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendahan et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2011/012903 in view of Setegn et al. USPG Pub. No.: 2023/0204688.
Regarding Claim 7 and 20, Bendahan the shoe and/or foot scanner according to claims 1 and 14, but is silent in explicitly disclosing wherein the control unit is configured to use machine learning and/or artificial intelligence and/or at least one artificial neural network to identify the correspondingly scanned object and/or materials especially based on the corresponding sensor measurements from the at least one electromagnetic wave sensor and/or the at least one inductive sensor. However, Setegn teaches wherein the control unit is configured to use machine learning and/or artificial intelligence and/or at least one artificial neural network to identify the correspondingly scanned object and/or materials especially based on the corresponding sensor measurements from the at least one electromagnetic wave sensor and/or the at least one inductive sensor (see Setegn [0242], claim 20, figures 1 and 29, in which the detection apparatus uses a machine learning algorithm to optimize object detection within an enclosed space). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Bendahan with those of Setegn in order to determine the likelihood of a future anomaly (as discussed in Setegn [0247]).
Regarding Claim 9, Bendahan the shoe and/or foot scanner according to claim 8, but is silent in explicitly disclosing wherein the control unit is configured to correlate the amount of metal and shape with respect to the correspondingly scanned object and/or materials especially by using machine learning and/or artificial intelligence and/or at least one artificial neural network preferably to identify the correspondingly scanned object and/or materials. However, Setegn teaches wherein the control unit is configured to correlate the amount of metal and shape with respect to the correspondingly scanned object and/or materials especially by using machine learning and/or artificial intelligence and/or at least one artificial neural network preferably to identify the correspondingly scanned object and/or materials (see Setegn [0242], claim 20, figures 1 and 29, in which the detection apparatus uses a machine learning algorithm to optimize object detection within an enclosed space). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Bendahan with those of Setegn in order to determine the likelihood of a future anomaly (as discussed in Setegn [0247]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/MICHAEL A HARRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights