DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on April 23, 2026.
Claims 1, 21, and 23-26 are amended.
Claims 2-7, 9-10, 13, 15-18, 20, 22, and 35-81 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 8, 11-12, 14, 19, 21, and 23-34 are pending this application.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 11-12, 14, 19, 21-22, 27, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMakin et al (US 2004/0090359 A1) in view of Sheen et al (IEEE, 2001).
Regarding Claim 1, McMakin teaches a radar system for scanning a target subject and detecting concealed objects [0010-0011 for scanning and detecting specific concealed objects in the 200MHz to 1THz range (radar is usually 77-80 GHz so within specified range) and 0034 for using the millimeter bands],
the system comprising a radar-based sensor unit, a pre-processing unit and a processing unit, wherein [0009-0011 for multiple processing units, 0036-0037]:
the radar-based sensor unit comprises: an array of transmitters configured to transmit a beam of electromagnetic radiations towards the target subject [0034 for an array of transmitters using an electromagnetic radiation];
and an array of receivers configured to receive a beam of electromagnetic radiations reflected from the target subject [0034 for using receivers with an electromagnetic radiation],
wherein the electromagnetic radiations received by the receiver comprise a raw complex image comprising a 3D matrix of voxels [0029 for having an image of what in underneath clothing with 0055-0056 for using complex valued spatial frequencies in the Fourier space];
the pre-processing unit is configured to receive the raw complex image from the receivers and generate a plurality of convoluted slices [0047 for getting interrogation data from transceiver (raw) and accumulating imaging data with 0056-0057 for using feature extraction].
McMakin teaches cross sectional and cylindrical slicing [004-0052] however, McMakin fails to explicitly teach wherein generating the plurality of convoluted slices comprises deriving a two-dimensional matrix from the 3D matrix of voxels by applying a mathematical function along one dimension of the 3D matrix to determine a representative value for each pair of orthogonal coordinates and the processing unit configured to receive the convoluted slices from the pre-processing unit and detect the concealed object within the target subject.
Sheen has a millimeter wave imaging technique for the detection of concealed weapons and contraband at airports and other secure locations (page 1, abstract) and teaches wherein generating the plurality of convoluted slices comprises deriving a two-dimensional matrix from the 3D matrix of voxels by applying a mathematical function along one dimension of the 3D matrix to determine a representative value for each pair of orthogonal coordinates [page 1585, left column, 1st paragraph for using 2D and 3D FFT, with page 1588, left column 2nd paragraph for 3-D image is then collapsed using a maximum value projection into a fully-focused 2-D image of the target for display on the computer]
and the processing unit configured to receive the convoluted slices from the pre- processing unit and detect the concealed object within the target subject [page 1582, left column last two paragraphs for using SAR imaging for 3D image construction using slices].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the concealed object imaging techniques, as disclosed by McMakin, further including the convolutional slicing calculations as taught by Sheen for the purpose of having wide-band images that are fully focused due to the 3-D image reconstruction (Sheen, page 1589, right column, first paragraph).
Regarding Claim 8, McMakin teaches a database configured to store one or more of the raw complex images received by the receiver, the convoluted slices generated by the pre-processing unit and an identification of the detected concealed object [0053 for identifying conceal object feature and subregion, with 0057-0058].
Regarding Claim 11, McMakin teaches a communicator configured to transmit a notification of the detected concealed object to one or more concerned authorities through a communication network [0063 for having a communication subsystem].
Regarding Claim 12, McMakin teaches an anomaly detector which is configured to detect deviation of the detected concealed object from a standard identification stored in the database [0057 for determining suspicious/non-suspicious (standard) objects].
Regarding Claim 14, McMakin teaches the radar-based sensor unit is selected from at least one of a group consisting of portable hand devices, full body scanners, walk-through scanners and combinations thereof [0071 for scanning booth and figure 9].
Regarding Claim 19, McMakin teaches the radar-based sensor unit comprises one or more of the processing unit, a database [0059],
a communicator and an anomaly detector are a part of the radar-based sensor unit [0055 for using logic subsystem to classify image portions of the suspected object].
Regarding Claim 21, McMakin teaches a method for scanning a target subject and detecting concealed objects, the method comprising [0010-0011 for scanning and detecting specific concealed objects in the 200MHz to 1THz range (radar is usually 77-80 GHz so within specified range) and 0034 for using the millimeter bands]:
transmitting, by an array of transmitters, a beam of electromagnetic radiations towards the target subject [0034 for an array of transmitters using an electromagnetic radiation];
receiving, by an array of receivers, a beam of electromagnetic radiations reflected from the target subject [0034 for using receivers with an electromagnetic radiation],
wherein the received electromagnetic radiations comprise a raw complex image comprising a 3D matrix of voxels [0029 for having an image of what in underneath clothing with 0055-0056 for using complex valued spatial frequencies in the Fourier space];
receiving, by a pre-processing unit, the raw complex image from the receivers and generating a plurality of convoluted slices [0047 for getting interrogation data from transceiver (raw) and accumulating imaging data with 0056-0057 for using feature extraction].
McMakin teaches cross sectional and cylindrical slicing [004-0052] however, McMakin fails to explicitly teach wherein generating the plurality of convoluted slices comprises deriving a two-dimensional matrix from the 3D matrix of voxels by applying a mathematical function along one dimension of the 3D matrix to determine a representative value for each pair of orthogonal coordinates and the processing unit configured to receive the convoluted slices from the pre-processing unit and detect the concealed object within the target subject.
Sheen has a millimeter wave imaging technique for the detection of concealed weapons and contraband at airports and other secure locations (page 1, abstract) and teaches wherein generating the plurality of convoluted slices comprises deriving a two-dimensional matrix from the 3D matrix of voxels by applying a mathematical function along one dimension of the 3D matrix to determine a representative value for each pair of orthogonal coordinates [page 1585, left column, 1st paragraph for using 2D and 3D FFT, with page 1588, left column 2nd paragraph for 3-D image is then collapsed using a maximum value projection into a fully-focused 2-D image of the target for display on the computer]
and the processing unit configured to receive the convoluted slices from the pre- processing unit and detect the concealed object within the target subject [page 1582, left column last two paragraphs for using SAR imaging for 3D image construction using slices].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the concealed object imaging techniques, as disclosed by McMakin, further including the convolutional slicing calculations as taught by Sheen for the purpose of having wide-band images that are fully focused due to the 3-D image reconstruction (Sheen, page 1589, right column, first paragraph).
Regarding Claim 22, McMakin teaches the raw complex image comprises a 3D matrix of voxels [0049 for cylindrical (3D) images with image data].
Regarding Claim 27, McMakin fails to explicitly teach the concealed objects are detected by the processing unit from the convoluted slices using a Convolutional neural network.
Sheen has a millimeter wave imaging technique for the detection of concealed weapons and contraband at airports and other secure locations (page 1, abstract) and teaches the concealed objects are detected by the processing unit from the convoluted slices using a Convolutional neural network [page 1582, left column last two paragraphs for using SAR imaging for 3D image construction using slices].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the concealed object imaging techniques, as disclosed by McMakin, further including the convolutional slicing calculations as taught by Sheen for the purpose of having wide-band images that are fully focused due to the 3-D image reconstruction (Sheen, page 1589, right column, first paragraph).
Regarding Claim 28, McMakin teaches storing, in a database, one or more of the raw complex images received by the receiver, the convoluted slices generated by the pre-processing unit and an identification of the detected concealed object [0049-0050 for using overlapping arc segments to created a 3D body surface].
Regarding Claim 29, McMakin teaches training the processing unit for detecting the concealed objects using the information stored in the database [0081].
Regarding Claim 30, McMakin teaches the training of the processing unit for detecting the concealed objects is done using a Machine Learning (ML) algorithm [0057].
Regarding Claim 31, McMakin teaches transmitting, by a communicator, a notification of the detected concealed object to one or more concerned authorities through a communication network [0054 for alert signals].
Regarding Claim 32, McMakin teaches detecting, by an anomaly detector, deviation of the detected concealed object from a standard identification stored in the database [0057 for determining suspicious/non-suspicious (standard) objects].
Regarding Claim 33, McMakin teaches the detected deviation is indicative of detection of non-specific concealed objects [0057 for determining suspicious/non-suspicious (standard) objects].
Regarding Claim 34, McMakin teaches detecting, by the processing unit, at least one of a position of the concealed object within the target subject, a size of the concealed object, and a shape of the concealed object [figure 8, for getting object shape].
Claims 23-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMakin et al (US 2004/0090359 A1) in view of Sheen et al (IEEE, 2001), as applied to Claim 22 above, and further in view of Buyanovski (US 2007/0040833 A1).
Regarding Claim 23, McMakin fails to explicitly teach the convoluted slices are maximum intensity slices, wherein the maximum intensity slice is a matrix of the energy levels of the voxels with the highest intensity for each pair of orthogonal coordinates.
Buyanovski has an adaptive MIP ray casting system first fragments a 3-D dataset into multiple sub-volumes (abstract) and teaches the convoluted slices are maximum intensity slices, wherein the maximum intensity slice is a matrix of the energy levels of the voxels with the highest intensity for each pair of orthogonal coordinates [0005, 0042, and 0063].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the concealed object imaging techniques, as disclosed by McMakin, further including the intensity calculations as taught by Buyanovski for the purpose of determining image value is indicative of the 3-D characteristics of the objects embedded within the image volume encountered by the ray path (Buyanovski, 0005).
Regarding Claim 24, McMakin fails to explicitly teach the convoluted slices are range slices, wherein the range slice is a matrix of argument values of the voxels with the highest energy values for each pair of orthogonal coordinates.
Buyanovski has an adaptive MIP ray casting system first fragments a 3-D dataset into multiple sub-volumes (abstract) and teaches the convoluted slices are maximum intensity slices, wherein the maximum intensity slice is a matrix of the energy levels of the voxels with the highest intensity for each pair of orthogonal coordinates [0005, 0042, and 0063].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the concealed object imaging techniques, as disclosed by McMakin, further including the intensity calculations as taught by Buyanovski for the purpose of determining image value is indicative of the 3-D characteristics of the objects embedded within the image volume encountered by the ray path (Buyanovski, 0005).
Regarding Claim 26, McMakin fails to explicitly teach the convoluted slices are median value slices, wherein the median value slice is a matrix of average energy values for each voxel.
Buyanovski has an adaptive MIP ray casting system first fragments a 3-D dataset into multiple sub-volumes (abstract) and teaches teach the convoluted slices are median value slices, wherein the median value slice is a matrix of average energy values for each voxel [0005, 0042, and 0063].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the concealed object imaging techniques, as disclosed by McMakin, further including the intensity calculations as taught by Buyanovski for the purpose of determining image value is indicative of the 3-D characteristics of the objects embedded within the image volume encountered by the ray path (Buyanovski, 0005).
Claims 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMakin et al (US 2004/0090359 A1) in view of Sheen et al (IEEE, 2001), as applied to Claim 22 above, and further in view of Du et al (BMC Bioinformatics, 2013).
Regarding Claim 25, McMakin fails to explicitly the convoluted slices are Laplacian slices, wherein the Laplacian slice is a matrix of phase values of a z-plane containing the voxel having the highest intensity.
Du has an adaptive MIP ray casting system first fragments a 3-D dataset into multiple sub-volumes (abstract) and teaches the convoluted slices are maximum intensity slices, wherein the maximum intensity slice is a matrix of the energy levels of the voxels with the highest intensity for each pair of orthogonal coordinates [page 8, left column, second paragraph and page 12, right column, first two paragraphs].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the concealed object imaging techniques, as disclosed by McMakin, further including the voxel calculations as taught by Du for the purpose to minimize the area and topology distortions of the surface net in the mapping (Du, page 8, left column, second paragraph).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, 11-12, 14, 19, 21, and 23-34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In applicant’s arguments page 6, last paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that the references do not teach the claims as amended. The examiner thanks the applicant for the amendments. New reference Sheen (IEEE, 2001) teaches using 2D images to create focused 3D images [Sheen, page 1585, left column, 1st paragraph for using 2D and 3D FFT, with page 1588, left column 2nd paragraph for 3-D image is then collapsed using a maximum value projection into a fully-focused 2-D image of the target for display on the computer].
The examiner acknowledges that this is a broader interpretation than Applicant’s. However, examiners are not only allowed to apply broad interpretations, but are required to do so, as it reduces the possibility that the claims, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. MPEP §2111. Patentability is determined by the “broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification” (MPEP §2111), not the narrowest reasonable interpretation. And Applicant does not have an explicit lexicographical statement in line with MPEP §2111.01
subsection IV requiring a specific interpretation of the relevant phrases which forces the examiner to interpret them only one way.
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
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.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMARINA MAKHDOOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursdays from 8:30 to 5:30 pm eastern time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Kelleher can be reached on 571-272-7753 The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
