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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on page 10 directed towards the previous 112(a) rejections,
As to Claim 28,
The Examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments and further notes that the previously raised issues pertaining to height are withdrawn in view of these arguments and amendments. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that the issue of the processing unit being configured to determine if the detected object is within a first or second maximal distance remains, as applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which this feature is implemented.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the newly recited probability feature is properly supported by the disclosure. Applicant’s primary argument is that paragraph 65 discloses almost verbatim the communication unit sensing the pass signal under the conditions of amended claim 28, and that paragraph 95 discloses that a statistical analysis can be performed on data from the capacitive sensors to identify suspicious data.
However, applicant’s disclosure is completely silent as to any manner in which the statistical analysis is implemented, or the manner in which the probability feature is implemented. As to the statistical analysis, merely stating that statistics are used to identify an object does not reasonably provide guidance as to the manner in which this feature is implemented. Here, applicant does not identify a single formula or well-known type of statical analysis used to identify an object, or reasonably explain the manner in which any analysis is performed. As has been held, “What is conventional or well known to one of ordinary skill in the art need not be disclosed in detail. See Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94.” Meaning, to the extent that applicant intends to rely up on that which is well-known in the art, applicant is not required to provide the manner in which any statistical analysis is performed “in detail,” but applicant must still provide some guidance as to the manner in which such an analysis is performed. For example, any output of the sensors indicates a probability of detection of an object, as claimed, by merely providing that output. Furthermore, while applicant does claim and disclose that the probability is referenced to a threshold, the original disclosure is completely silent as to what that threshold is in the context of the disclosure, or the manner in which it is used to indicate the presence of an object. For example, applicant does not explain if the amplitude of the detected signal is used and when it is in a specific range it provides an indication of an object. Or, applicant could be using a more complex analysis with a more complex threshold for such a purpose. As such, any output from sensors used to detect an object that are non-zero can be said to be above a threshold and indicate a probability of detection. Without further guidance as to the manner in which applicant is implementing this feature, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize enough of the process used by applicant for the claimed purpose to demonstrate possession of this claim feature. The original disclosure is completely silent as to what type of analysis applicant is performing and what values applicant is using, and what thresholds would and would be acceptable to reasonably perform the claim features.
Lastly, merely because a feature is stated verbatim in the disclosure does not necessarily meet the written description requirement, as explained in MPEP 2163.03(V) explaining “The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement."Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).”
As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regard to the arguments on page 11 directed towards the previous prior art rejections,
Applicant argues that Karmi et al. (Karmi) (US 2004/0222790) does not disclose detecting of the specific position of an object to be scanned, or the detection of position of the object to be scanned or the precise positioning of the item being scanned. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that these features are neither claimed nor supported by the original disclosure. Applicant does not reasonably disclose the precise detection or location determination of any object. While applicant may detect the proximity of an object, thereby allowing the device to know that an object is present, such a detection does not reasonably also include the precise location of that object as argued. Furthermore, what applicant claims is a proximity detector that “indicates” that the shoe is at a specific position, which reasonably means that the output of the proximity indicates that an object is at a desired position, without any determination of that position. Karmi uses a similar proximity sensor to indicate whether an object is present, and such a detection must include whether the object has reached a specific position. Meaning, any detection that a shoe is present must reasonably provide an “indication” of that shoes actual position, because the proximity sensor will provide a different output depending upon whether the shoe is or is not present, or even where it is located relative to the proximity detector. For example, if an object has not reached a specific position, then the proximity sensor will not provide an indication of the presence of an object. Any position in which the proximity sensor does indicate the presence of an object must correlate to a specific position. As such, Karmi does disclose the argued claim feature.
Applicant then argues that Karmi does not disclose a pass signal is sent if a main detected indicates a probability of the presence of an object is lower than a threshold, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in paragraphs [0028], [0029], [0036], [0091], Karmi discloses the use of a proximity detector to detect whether an object is present or not, and will only send a pass signal, such as a signal to open the barrier, when an object is not detected. By not detecting an object, the probability indicated by the sensor output must be lower than a detection threshold as no object was detected.
Applicant argues that Karmi is silent on determining probabilities, but the Examiner respectfully notes that no probabilities are claimed to be determined. What applicant claims are indication of a probability, which is not the same as an actual determination of a probability. Any signal detected by a sensor is an indication of a probability of detection of an object, with the greater the amplitude of the signal corresponding to a higher probability that an actual object was detected. By claiming an indication of a probability, and not an actual determination of a probability, the prior art reasonably discloses the claim features for this reason. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
Applicant then argues that Karmi fails to disclose determining if an object is within a first or second maximal distance, but no further argument is presented. The Examiner respectfully notes that any detection of an object must be within the overall maximal distance of detection, and thus the processing unit must be determining if the object is within the maximal detection capabilities of the system. The claim does not require that the processing unit distinguish from detection within either of the first or second maximal distances, and the processing unit of the prior art must include this feature by mere detection of an object, as that object must inherently be within the maximal detection distance that the sensing system can detect.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 16/620,323 (‘323), fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
As to Claim 28,
The phrase “when the main detector indicates a probability of a presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s)” on lines 10-11 and the phrase “the main detector indicates the probability of the presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s) being lower than the predefined detection threshold” on the last two lines are not reasonably supported in the parent application.
The parent application does state that the main detector (metal detector) can indicate a probability of a presence of an object. However, the parent disclosure is completely silent as to any mechanism within the main detector that would allow for such a feature, and the parent disclosure does not reasonably explain the manner in which such a feature would be implemented. The main detector is not disclosed to have any form of data processing device reasonably capable of providing an indication of a probability, when such a feature is interpreted to require any actual form of determination. Meaning, while an output from a sensor or series of sensors can be said to indicate a probability of detection by their mere detection of an object, when this phrase is interpreted to mean that an actual determination of a probability made and then output, this phrase is not reasonably disclosed by the parent disclosure. The parent disclosure does not reasonably explain any device capable of making such a determination, nor the manner in which such a determination would be made when referenced to a threshold. There is no disclosure of what thresholds or what values or types of values would reasonably provide an indication of an object exceeding the threshold or being lower than a threshold, but where such an explanation is necessary in order to demonstrate proper written description. These phrases are therefore not reasonably supported in the parent disclosure.
As to Claim 40,
The phrase “the processing unit being configured to control the communication unit for sending a stop signal in order to prompt the individual to stop walking towards a restricted access area and to remove his shoe if the main detector indicates the probability of the presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s) that is higher than a predefined detection threshold” on lines 1-5 is not reasonably supported in the parent application.
Similar to what was noted above, the parent disclosure does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the main detector indicates the probability of the presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s) that is higher than a predefined detection threshold. Such a detector is not reasonably disclosed to include any device that would allow an actual determination of a probability, the manner in which it would be determined, or the manner in which any threshold would be implemented to reasonably allow for and include the above claim feature. The parent disclosure does not reasonably establish the manner in which this feature is implemented by providing a sufficient explanation to demonstrate possession of this claim feature.
As to Claim 41,
The phrase “the communication unit is further configured to transmit to a full-body scanner : the detection signal, the pass signal, the stop signal, and/or the indication of the probability of the presence of a metal and/or unauthorized object that is higher or lower than the predefined detecting threshold; and/or to receive detection results from the body scanner and to control the communication unit for transmitting them to the indication unit for displaying aggregated detection results, and/or to receive a trigger command from the full-body scanner for triggering a scan by means of the detection unit, the main detector and/or the proximity detector” on lines 1-9 is not reasonably supported by the parent application.
Previously recited claims in the parent application, such as claim 19, explains that a communication unit is the device used to transmit a pass signal, for example, to a processing unit of the full body scanner. Claim 23 likewise explains that it is the communication unit that transmits the detection signal. As best understood, nowhere in the parent disclosure is the processing unit configured to transmit the above detection signal, pass signal, stop signal, and/or the indication of a probability as claimed, and as such, this phrase is not reasonably supported by the parent application. Furthermore, as was previously explained with respect to Claim 28, the parent application does not reasonably originally disclose the manner in which any probability is determined so as to allow it to be communicated in the claimed manner. As such, the parent application does not reasonably provide support for the above noted claim feature.
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 16/620,323, filed 12/6/2019, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
In light of the above, the effective filing date for the instant application is the actual filing date of the instant application, which is 11/30/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 28-30, 32, 33, 35, 39-41, and 52-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP 2163.03(V) explains “While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement."Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002)” (emphasis added).
“The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification. Rather, a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought … One shows that one is "in possession" of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious … One does that by such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention” (Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
As to Claim 28,
The phrase “when the main detector indicates a probability of a presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s)” on lines 10-11 and the phrase “the main detector indicates the probability of the presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s) being lower than the predefined detection threshold” on the last two lines lack proper written description.
The original disclosure does state that the main detector (metal detector) can indicate a probability of a presence of an object. However, the original disclosure is completely silent as to any mechanism within the main detector that would allow for such a feature, and the original disclosure does not reasonably explain the manner in which such a feature would be implemented. The main detector is not disclosed to have any form of data processing device reasonably capable of providing an indication of a probability, when such a feature is interpreted to require any actual form of determination. Meaning, while an output from a sensor or series of sensors can be said to indicate a probability of detection by their mere detection of an object, when this phrase is interpreted to mean that an actual determination of a probability made and then output, this phrase is not reasonably disclosed by the original disclosure. The original disclosure does not reasonably explain any device capable of making such a determination, nor the manner in which such a determination would be made when referenced to a threshold. There is no disclosure of what thresholds or what values or types of values would reasonably provide an indication of an object exceeding or being low the threshold, but where such an explanation is necessary in order to demonstrate proper written description. These phrases are therefore not reasonably supported in the original disclosure.
As to Claim 40,
The phrase “the processing unit being configured to control the communication unit for sending a stop signal in order to prompt the individual to stop walking towards a restricted access area and to remove his shoe if the main detector indicates the probability of the presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s) that is higher than a predefined detection threshold” on lines 1-5 lack proper written description.
Similar to what was noted above, the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the main detector indicates the probability of the presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s) that is higher than a predefined detection threshold. Such a detector is not reasonably disclosed to include any device that would allow an actual determination of a probability, the manner in which it would be determined, or the manner in which any threshold would be implemented to reasonably allow for and include the above claim feature. The original disclosure does not reasonably establish the manner in which this feature is implemented by providing a sufficient explanation to demonstrate possession of this claim feature.
As to Claim 41,
The phrase “the communication unit is further configured to transmit to a full-body scanner: the detection signal, a pass signal, a stop signal, and/or an indication of the probability of the presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s) that is higher or lower than the predefined detecting threshold” on lines 2-5 is indefinite. At issue here is that applicant no longer recites an indication of a probability of a presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s) in Claim 28, and instead recites the main detector does not indicate the presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s). As best understood, both the indication of the presence in Claim 28 and the above probability of a presence are intended to refer to the same feature of the disclosure, but are being distinctly recited using different claim language. As such, the difference and relationship between these claim features are unclear.
Nowhere in the original disclosure is the communication unit configured to transmit the above detection signal, pass signal, stop signal, and/or the indication of the probability as claimed. Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the processing unit is configured in the above claim manner, as applicant does not reasonably disclose any process, decision, formula, flow chart, or other reasonably explanation to demonstrate the manner in which the processing unit is configured in the claimed manner, or would perform any of the claim features. Similar to that previously recited in Claim 28, applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which any probability is determined so as to allow the communication unit to be able to transmit such a probability. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description.
As to Claims 29-30, 32, 33, 35, 39-41, and 52-56,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claim 28-30, 32, 33, 35, 39-41, and 52-56 is 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.
As to Claim 28,
The phrase “when the main detector indicates a probability of a presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s)” on lines 10-11 and the phrase “the main detector indicates the probability of the presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s) being lower than the predefined detection threshold” on the last two lines is indefinite.
The original disclosure does state that the main detector (metal detector) can indicate a probability of a presence of an object. However, the original disclosure is completely silent as to any mechanism within the main detector that would allow for such a feature, and the original disclosure does not reasonably explain the manner in which such a feature would be implemented. The main detector is not disclosed to have any form of data processing device reasonably capable of providing an indication of a probability, when such a feature is interpreted to require any actual form of determination. Meaning, while an output from a sensor or series of sensors can be said to indicate a probability of detection by their mere detection of an object, when this phrase is interpreted to mean that an actual determination of a probability made and then output, this phrase is not reasonably disclosed by the original disclosure. The original disclosure does not reasonably explain any device capable of making such a determination, nor the manner in which such a determination would be made when referenced to a threshold. There is no disclosure of what thresholds or what values or types of values would reasonably provide an indication of an object exceeding the threshold, but where such an explanation is necessary in order to demonstrate proper written description.
To that point, it is unclear what applicant means by reciting that the main detector provides an indication of a probability of a presence of an object as opposed providing an indication of a presence of an object. As best understood, the main detector does not include any form of processing capabilities. As such, it is unclear if merely providing an indication of the presence of an object, where that indication is above a threshold such as zero, would reasonably meet the claim requirement, or if applicant intends this phrase to require an actual determination of the probability and then provide an indication of such a probability. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this phrase to mean that an indication of a presence of an object that is used for the detection of the presence of an object meets this requirement.
As to Claim 40,
The phrase “the processing unit being configured to control the communication unit for sending a stop signal in order to prompt the individual to stop walking towards a restricted access area and to remove his shoe if the main detector indicates the probability of the presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s) that is higher than a predefined detection threshold” on lines 1-5 is indefinite.
Similar to what was noted above, the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the main detector indicates the probability of the presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s) that is higher than a predefined detection threshold. Such a detector is not reasonably disclosed to include any device that would allow an actual determination of a probability, the manner in which it would be determined, or the manner in which any threshold would be implemented to reasonably allow for and include the above claim feature. The original disclosure does not reasonably establish the manner in which this feature is implemented by providing a sufficient explanation to demonstrate possession of this claim feature.
To that point, it is unclear what applicant means by reciting that the main detector provides an indication of a probability of a presence of an object as opposed providing an indication of a presence of an object. As best understood, the main detector does not include any form of processing capabilities. As such, it is unclear if merely providing an indication of the presence of an object, where that indication is above a threshold such as zero, would reasonably meet the claim requirement, or if applicant intends this phrase to require an actual determination of the probability and then provide an indication of such a probability. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this phrase to mean that an indication of a presence of an object that is used for the detection of the presence of an object meets this requirement.
As to Claim 41,
The phrase “the communication unit is further configured to transmit to a full-body scanner: the detection signal, a pass signal, a stop signal, and/or an indication of the probability of the presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s) that is higher or lower than the predefined detecting threshold” on lines 2-5 is indefinite. At issue here is that applicant no longer recites an indication of a probability of a presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s) in Claim 28, and instead recites the main detector does not indicate the presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s). As best understood, both the indication of the presence in Claim 28 and the above probability of a presence are intended to refer to the same feature of the disclosure, but are being distinctly recited using different claim language. As such, the difference and relationship between these claim features are unclear.
As to Claim 56,
The phrase “each of said short-range sensing element and said long-range sensing element comprises radio frequency antennas operating in the 100 kHz to 6 GHz range” on lines 1-3 is indefinite.
1) Applicant is claiming that the above element are “operating” in the above frequency ranges, but where such a phrase is indefinite. Apparatus claims are directed towards what the apparatus is, but not what it does. As explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), it is indefinite to recite method steps of using an apparatus inside an apparatus claim, such as the above step of operating the antennas in the above range. For the purpose of compact prosecution, this phrase is being interpreted to mean that the elements are “configured to operate” in the above range, but that they are not required to operate in that range.
2) Applicant distinctly recites the above step of operating the elements in the above range from any structural features that would reasonably be capable of causing or allowing them to operate in this range. An antenna cannot operate in any frequency range by itself, and instead some other device must be configured or otherwise capable of generating signals for the antennas such that collectively these components can operate in the above range. To that point, it is unclear how the above elements can operate in the claimed range without any structural element providing the necessary frequencies allowing for this operation, and it is unclear whether such structural elements are required in the above claim recitation. To the extent that one of the other claim features are configured to provide the necessary signals for the antennas, the difference and relationship between the claim operation in the claimed frequencies and these distinctly recited claim elements are unclear. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the above claim phrase only requires elements reasonably capable of being operated in the claimed range, but that no other structural feature is required. To
As to Claims 29-30, 32, 33, 35, 39-41, and 52-56,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 28-30, 35, 41, and 53-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karmi et al. (Karmi) (US 2004/0222790).
PNG
media_image1.png
292
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 28,
Karmi discloses A shoe scanning system for a restricted area access point, the system comprising a detection unit (10) comprising a flat casing having a top surface onto which an individual can walk, and flat planar board located below the top surface (see the above figure, and note the bottom of the housing shown is reasonably a board), a main detector (coils 16) for sensing a metal and/or unauthorized object(s) above a surface onto which the individual can walk (Paragraphs [0036],[0037],[0055]); a communication unit ((1) or (4b) or the part of the QR system that sends a signal to the display or the part of the display processing that receives a signal from the QR system and that allows the signal to be displaced) for transmitting a message to an indication unit for providing instructions to the individual and/or to an assistant (3) (Paragraphs [0040],[0041]); and a processing unit (the part of the QR system that performs the claimed function) connected to the main detector by a data link for receiving data and controlling the communication unit for sending a detection signal when the main detector indicates a probability of a presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s) (Paragraphs [0040],[0041] / note the entire point of this invention is for the device to indicate whether an object has or has not been detected, and thus must provide the claimed indication), wherein the main detector comprises sensing elements located on the flat planar board and below said top surface (Figure 6 / note the coils located below the surface of the device), the sensing elements comprising: a short-range sensing element arranged on the flat planar board to detect the metal and/or unauthorized object(s) located above said surface up to a first maximal distance (Figure 6 / note the short-range sensing elements can be any coil located at the bottom of the curved plane), said short-range sensing element having a first surface with a first surface area (Figure 6); and a long-range sensing element arranged on the flat planar board to detect the metal and/or unauthorized object(s) located above said surface up to a second maximal distance (Figure 6 / note the long-range sensing elements can be at least two coils collectively located towards the top of the curved plane), the second maximal distance being higher than the first maximal distance (Figure 6), said long-range sensing element having a second surface with a second surface area larger than the first surface area of said short-range sensing element (Figure 6 / note two loops have a larger surface area than one loop (called a coil in the reference), and note that applicant does not limit what can be considered an “element”), wherein the processing unit is configured to determine if the detected potentially unauthorized objects is within the first or the second maximal distance based on a result provided by the short-range sensing element and a result provided by the long-range sensing element (Figure 6), (Paragraphs [0032], [0037][0040], [0041] / note the device will collectively use all of the information from all of the loops to determine a relative location of the detected object, and that relative location is reasonably a height relative to the top surface), wherein the detection unit further comprises a proximity detector, for sensing a positioning of a shoe of the individual on said top surface (Paragraphs [0036], [0091]), the processing unit is further connected to the proximity detector by a data link for receiving data (Paragraph [0036] / note there must be a data link between the processing unit and proximity detector in order for the system to know to activate the measuring sensors when detecting the presence of a measurable object) ; and wherein the communication unit is configured for sending a pass signal when both following conditions are met: the proximity detector indicates that the shoe lays at a specific position on said top surface, and the main detector indicates the probability of the presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s) being lower than a predefined detection threshold (Paragraphs [0028], [0029], [0036], [0091] / note that Karmi discloses the use of a proximity detector to detect whether an object is present or not, and will only send a pass signal, such as a signal to open the barrier, when an object is not detected, and thus below any detection threshold).
As to Claim 29,
Karmi discloses wherein said first maximum distance is below 1 cm and said second maximal distance is below 20 cm (Paragraphs [0040], [0041] / note that, in combination with Claim 1, the detection threshold must be able to be selected in a range from below 1 cm and 20 cm. Karmi discloses this because Karmi is reasonably capable of having a distance of detection that is selectable within this range, because this range essentially includes 0 and above).
As to Claim 30,
Karmi discloses the short-range sensing element is an inductive sensing element, and wherein the long- range sensing element is an inductive sensing element (Paragraph [0055] / note coils 16).
As to Claim 35,
Karmi discloses the short-range sensing element and/or the long-range sensing element of the main detector are located in one or more recesses of a protective casing (Figure 6 / note that there must be recesses / openings in the device (10) to allow the coils to be located inside the device, and the device is reasonably the protective casing in the form of the rectangular shape shown in the figure).
As to Claim 41,
Karmi discloses the processing unit is further configured to transmit to a full-body scanner: the detection signal, a pass signal, a stop signal, and/or an indication of the probability of the presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s) that is higher or lower than the predefined detecting threshold; and/or to receive detection results from the body scanner and to control the communication unit for transmitting them to the indication unit for displaying aggregated detection results, and/or to receive a trigger command from the full-body scanner for triggering a scan by means of the detection unit, the main detector and/or the proximity detector (Paragraphs [0037], [0044]), (Figures 1, 3/ note that the display (12) is being interpreted to be part of the full body scanner, and the shoe scanner transmits to this display a signal indicating a pass (green light) or indication of a threat (red light)).
As to Claim 53,
Karmi discloses wherein each of said short-range sensing element and said long-range sensing element each have an inductor coil (Figure 6).
As to Claim 54,
Karmi discloses the flat planar board is parallel to the top surface of the flat casing (Figure 6).
As to Claim 55,
Karmi discloses a plurality of short-range sensing elements and a plurality of long-range sensing elements, all of said plurality of short-range sensing elements and said plurality of long-range sensing elements arranged on the flat planar board (Figure 6 / note any two of the lower loops can be considered plural short-range sensing elements, and any two pairs of higher coils can be the long-range sensing elements).
As to Claim 56,
Karmi discloses each of said short-range sensing element and said long-range sensing element comprises radio frequency antennas operating in the 100 kHz to 6 GHz range (Paragraph [0032]).
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.
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.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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.
Claims 32, 33, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karmi et al. (Karmi) (US 2004/0222790) in view of Crowley et al. (Crowley) (US 2009/0001975).
As to Claims 32 and 52,
Karmi discloses the short-range sensing element and/or the long-range sensing element are on the flat planar board (Figure 6 / note the coils (16) are below the surface of the overall device and are supported by the bottom board/surface), the second surface area is at least double the first surface area of the short-range sensing element (Figure 6 / note that more coils can be selected for the long-range sensing element than those that are selected for the short range sensing element to cause, in the combination, the printed surface of the long-range sensing element being at least twice the printed surface of the short-range inductive sensing element).
Karmi does not disclose the short-range sensing element and/or the long-range sensing element are printed on the flat planar board, the first surface area comprises a first printed surface area, the second surface area comprises a second printed surface area, and the second printed surface area is at least double the first printed surface area of the short-range sensing element.
Crowley discloses the sensing elements are printed on a flat planar board (Paragraph [0047]), (Figure 2 / note the sensing elements are formed by traces 111 and 112, these traces are on the printed circuit board, and the circuit board is recessed in the device and below the floor 101 that has been removed in the figure (see paragraph [0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Karmi to include the short-range sensing element and/or the long-range sensing element are printed on the flat planar board, the first surface area comprises a first printed surface area, the second surface area comprises a second printed surface area, and the second printed surface area is at least double the first printed surface area of the short-range sensing element given the above disclosure and teaching of Crowley in order to advantageously be able to easily connect the coils to an external circuit while ensuring that the coils are properly supported, as well as to add the ability to provide additional circuitry directly proximate the coils to be able to easily add functionally to the device.
As to Claim 33,
Karmi in view of Crowley discloses the second surface area of the long-range sensing element being at least twice the first surface area of the short-range inductive sensing element (Figure 6 / note that more coils can be selected for the long-range sensing element than those that are selected for the short range sensing element to cause, in the combination, the printed surface of the long-range sensing element being at least twice the printed surface of the short-range inductive sensing element).
Claims 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karmi et al. (Karmi) (US 2004/0222790) in view of Manneschi (US 2008/0164420).
As to Claim 39,
Karmi does not disclose a position identifying mark indicating said specific position on said top surface; wherein the processing unit is further configured to control the communication unit for prompting the individual to place the shoe at said specific position if the proximity detector indicates that the shoe is positioned outside said specific position.
Manneschi discloses a position identifying mark (400) indicating said specific position on said top surface (Figure 1 / note the foot silhouette); wherein the processing unit is further configured to control the communication unit for prompting the individual to place the shoe at said specific position if the proximity detector indicates that the shoe is positioned outside said specific position (Paragraph [0083] / note processing unit is designed to indicate to a user when their foot is placed within the mark (400), and is therefore detectable, and would not provide such an indication when a foot is not detectable, which is an implicit indication that the shoe/foot is not properly located).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Karmi to include a position identifying mark indicating said specific position on said top surface; wherein the processing unit is further configured to control the communication unit for prompting the individual to place the shoe at said specific position if the proximity detector indicates that the shoe is positioned outside said specific position as taught by Manneschi in order to advantageously ensure proper detection by the system, reducing errors, and ensuring that the objects being detected are properly detected to ensure that any object located within the shoe is identified.
As to Claim 40,
Karmi discloses the processing unit being configured to control the communication unit for sending a stop signal in order to prompt the individual to stop walking towards restricted access area (Paragraph [0037] / note providing a red indication is reasonably a stop signal as claimed because it provides an indication that a threat has been detected.)
Karmi does not disclose the processing unit being configured to prompt the individual to remove his shoe if the main detector indicates the probability of the presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s) that is higher than said predefined detecting threshold.
Manneschi discloses the processing unit being configured to prompt the individual to remove his shoe if the main detector indicates the probability of the presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s) that is higher than said predefined detecting threshold (Paragraphs [0082], [0083] / note that the processing unit of Manneschi is reasonably capable of informing an individual to remove his show using the remove message when an object has been detected).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Karmi to include the processing unit being configured to prompt the individual to remove his shoe if the main detector indicates the probability of the presence of the metal and/or unauthorized object(s) that is higher than said predefined detecting threshold as taught by Manneschi in order to advantageously allow for further inspection of the shoe to therefore ensure that no dangerous or illegal object is present.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858