DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 9 recites a comma and a period at the end of the claim. “,” needs to be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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.
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) 1-2, 5, 8-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hastings et al. (US 20210312201 A1) in view of Osann, JR. (US 20140373761 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Hastings teaches a computing device-implemented method for automatically managing access to and from a restricted area without an attendant (Hastings, Fig. 2 system 201; Para. 50, system 201 is based on a deployment configuration suited for security screening locations in which staffing resource optimization is a consideration. For example, the system 201 can operate in an unstaffed configuration, whereby users 204 are able to perform completely unattended self-screening (an agent can be summoned to handle specific issues or other anomalies, or such users can be directed to exit back out along the ingress path to the unsecure area, and proceed to another security checkpoint that is staffed)), the computing device including at least one processor (Hastings, Para. 128, the divestment scanner 750 (e.g., as directed by a controller of the screening system 700) is configured to extend the divestment tray system 756 responsive to the user actuating the divestment handles 754 to open the divestment door 752), the method comprising: granting an individual access to a screening area from one of an unrestricted area or a restricted area, the screening area being disposed between the unrestricted area and the restricted area (Hastings, Fig. 2B; Para. 52, The user 204 can then re-enter the chamber 210 via the ingress door 212 for re-scanning (this process is repeatable, depending on a given configuration of the system 201). The egress door 214 is shown closed and provides controlled or selective exit for the user 204 upon confirmation that all items that need to be divested have been divested, and the user 204 is otherwise cleared for exit); identifying at least one object associated with the individual (Hastings, Para. 58, The system 201 allows the user 204 to insert their items 202 into the divestment scanner 250. The system 201 then scans the items 202, automatically searching for prohibited objects among the items 202 (e.g., sharp objects, weapons, etc.). If a prohibited object is identified or alarmed, an embodiment of the system 201 returns the prohibited object to the user 204, and relays information about the detected prohibited object and its location in the user's property. For example, the system 201 displays an abstract representation of the user's carry-on luggage on an engagement monitor, such as the user interface 340 shown in FIG. 3, along with an icon overlaid on the luggage representation, with a label such as “prohibited object located in this area of bag,” or even more specific such as “razor blade located here,” “firearm located here” (a similar approach is used in embodiments to display specific locations on the user's body where items are found, and explanatory information as to why the item is prohibited). The system 201 instructs the user 204 to dispose of the prohibited object, e.g., into a divestment object drop box 225. The user 204 is free to interact with the system 201 to request assistance in finding an alarmed prohibited object detected by the system 201); performing, in the screening area, an object scan of the at least one object using an object scanner communicatively coupled to a remote management system (RMS) (Hastings, Para. 47, the divestment interface is within the chamber (e.g., as a slot, tray, or door accessing a divestment scanner such as a luggage X-ray scanner), or is anywhere in an ingress path, e.g. 460, to the chamber), wherein the at least one object is placed into a tray associated with the object scanner (Hastings, Para. 45, the divestment interface is within the chamber (e.g., as a slot, tray, or door accessing a divestment scanner such as a luggage X-ray scanner), or is anywhere in an ingress path, e.g. 460, to the chamber), and wherein the tray is moved through the object scanner based on whether the individual is moving from the unrestricted area to the restricted area or from the restricted area to the unrestricted area (Hastings, Fig. 2); performing, in the screening area, a body scan of the individual using a whole body scanner communicatively coupled to the RMS (Hastings, Para. 49, screening system 200 includes the chamber 210 to accommodate the user 204 to be screened. The divestment interface 230 is accessible from within the chamber 210 and configured to receive items 202 divested from the user 204. At least one chamber scanner 220 (three scanners per chamber are shown) is configured to scan the user 204 to identify whether the user 204 is carrying an undivested item 202 that is to be divested, e.g., to the divestment interface 230 (or by leaving the chamber 210 via ingress door 212 to divest in an unsecure area). The chamber 210 also includes automated ingress door 212 and automated egress door 214. The egress door 214 is configured to release the user 204 upon confirmation that no undivested items 202 are to be divested); and responsive to the body scan of the individual passing a body scan clearance protocol and responsive to the object scan of the at least one object associated with the individual passing an object scan clearance protocol, the RMS automatically granting the individual access to the other of the unrestricted area or the restricted area that is different from the area from which the individual accessed the screening area (Hastings, Para. 70, system 300 including doors are able to maintain positive control of a user, e.g., physically denying entry into the chamber 310 until access is granted, or physically denying exit from the chamber 310 until an alarm or alarms is resolved or an agent is ready to take control of the user upon exit from the chamber 310, e.g., for escorting the user to or applying enhanced screening or further resolution processes for the user. The system 300 is configured to direct the user to a selected one of a plurality of different egress paths 362 according to a result of the scan of the user. For example, responsive to the scan resulting in no unresolved alarms, the system 300 directs the user along a second one of the egress paths 362 to a secure area (e.g., the airport terminals). Responsive to an unresolved alarm, the system 300 directs the user along a first one of the egress paths 362 to secondary screening, or back out along the ingress path 360 to an unsecure area (e.g., to allow the user to self-divest a prohibited item by disposing of it before returning to the chamber 310 to re-scan).
Hastings does not teach wherein the tray is moved through the object scanner based on whether the individual is moving from the unrestricted area to the restricted area or from the restricted area to the unrestricted area as follows: when the individual is moving from the unrestricted area to the restricted area, moving the tray through a scanning chamber of the object scanner from a first position to a second position while scanning the tray; and when the individual is moving from the restricted area to the unrestricted area, moving the tray through the scanning chamber of the object scanner from the second position to the first position while scanning the tray.
However, the concept of having bidirectional security checking is well known in the art as also taught by Osann, JR. Osann teaches a single access control device may be used at an entrance by providing a bidirectional operation sequence wherein a first subject passes through in a first direction and a second subject passes through in a second direction, the first and second directions being opposite one another, and the first and second subjects being allowed to pass on successive cycles of the access control device (Para. 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have bidirectional security checkpoint (as taught by Osann, JR.) resulting in predictable result of first and second subjects being allowed to pass on successive cycles of the access control device.
In regard to claim 2, Hastings teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: granting the individual access to the screening area based at least in part on verifying an identify of the individual, wherein verifying an identity of the individual is performed using at least one of biometric information associated with the individual, an image of the individual, an identification badge or card associated with the individual, or a password entered by the individual (Hastings, Para. 77, system 400 establishes a biometric key (e.g., a passenger identity token) agnostic to the user's personal info to serve as user identifier. The established biometric key is unique to at least one biometric indicator of the user and contains risk information and security risk assessment information for that user. Accordingly, the embodiment of system 400 avoids needing to store sensitive identification user information into the user identifier in order to uniquely identify the user in the scanning process. For example, the optical system 426 obtains a facial scan or retina scan of the user 404, and the ingress interface 408 obtains a fingerprint or palm scan to validate the user's identity. System 400 accesses risk information corresponding to the validated user identity, and ties that established risk information to the secure biometric token serving as the user's identity identifier and discards personal information of the user).
In regard to claim 5, Combination of Hastings and Osann teach the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the at least one object associated with the individual is performed by: receiving an image of each of the at least one object; and performing object recognition on the image of each of the at least one object to identify the at least one object Hastings, Para. 58, The system 201 allows the user 204 to insert their items 202 into the divestment scanner 250. The system 201 then scans the items 202, automatically searching for prohibited objects among the items 202 (e.g., sharp objects, weapons, etc.). If a prohibited object is identified or alarmed, an embodiment of the system 201 returns the prohibited object to the user 204, and relays information about the detected prohibited object and its location in the user's property. For example, the system 201 displays an abstract representation of the user's carry-on luggage on an engagement monitor, such as the user interface 340 shown in FIG. 3, along with an icon overlaid on the luggage representation, with a label such as “prohibited object located in this area of bag,” or even more specific such as “razor blade located here,” “firearm located here” (a similar approach is used in embodiments to display specific locations on the user's body where items are found, and explanatory information as to why the item is prohibited). The system 201 instructs the user 204 to dispose of the prohibited object, e.g., into a divestment object drop box 225. The user 204 is free to interact with the system 201 to request assistance in finding an alarmed prohibited object detected by the system 201).
In regard to claim 8, combination of Hastings and Osann teach the method of claim 1 wherein the object scanner includes a bi-directional conveyor belt (Osann, Para. 36, a single access control device may be used at an entrance by providing a bidirectional operation sequence wherein a first subject passes through in a first direction and a second subject passes through in a second direction, the first and second directions being opposite one another, and the first and second subjects being allowed to pass on successive cycles of the access control device).
In regard to claim 9, Combination of Hastings and Osann teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: retaining the tray in the scanning chamber such that the at least one object is inaccessible to the individual responsive to the object scan of the at least one object associated with the individual not being clear (Hastings, Para. 51, The walling-off of the isolated divestment interface 230 provides another example of how the various components of system 201 separate secure and unsecure areas, where the area to the left of the wall is unsecure, and the area to the right of the wall is also unsecure but isolated from the unsecure area to prevent access by the unsecure public, and the area to the right of the chambers or divestment scanner 250 is secure. Para. 66, Furthermore, the system 300 holds or diverts alarming items, to prevent the items from being accessible to the user (or other users) until resolution processes are performed to clear the user).
In regard to claim 10, Combination of Hastings and Osann teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: performing the body scan and the object scan concurrently (Hastings, Para. 88, once the passenger enters the system 400, the system 400 is configured to enable the natural movements and time spent by the user during the divestment process to allow the system 400 to capture scan data and conduct automated analysis of the user 404. Such movements, which are leveraged to generate scan data, include but are not limited to: walking into the chamber 410; turning to face the ingress interface 408, user interface 440, or divestment interface 430; bending to remove footwear as appropriate or directed; lifting of arms to remove jackets or sweaters as appropriate or directed; and lifting of carry-on baggage or other items into the divestment interface 430 or other property screening systems such as a table or divestment scanner 450).
In regard to claim 11, Combination of Hastings and Osann teach the method of claim 1, wherein performing the object scan is completed prior to performing the body scan (Hastings, Fig. 2B; Para. 52, upon receiving feedback from the user interface 240 (e.g., a display) that additional items need to be divested, the user 204 exits the chamber 210 via the ingress door 212 to access the area of divesting to perform additional divesting, placing additional items 202 on the conveyor belt to the divestment scanner 250. The conveyor belt itself is illustrated serving as a divestment interface 230. The user 204 can then re-enter the chamber 210 via the ingress door 212 for re-scanning (this process is repeatable, depending on a given configuration of the system 201). The egress door 214 is shown closed and provides controlled or selective exit for the user 204 upon confirmation that all items that need to be divested have been divested, and the user 204 is otherwise cleared for exit).
In regard to claim 12, Combination of Hastings and Osann teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: capturing an image of the at least one object associated with the individual while performing the object scan, and associating a scan result of the object scan with the image of the at least one object (Hastings, Para. 135, the screening system 700 can analyze output from the various technologies (e.g., such as output that is formatted as DICOS property imaging and material composition data), to automatically detect and identify prohibited items with low single-digit detection false-alarm rates. Embodiments of screening system 700 automatically flag potential explosives material for further inspection, and determine whether a screening image of an item is suitable for analysis or needs rescanning, repositioning, or application of image clutter removal; Para. 167, Rather, embodiments build item libraries robust enough to support whitelists, even with millions or more items, based on automated learning or daily input from agents, as performed in systems deployed for active use the field. Thus, rather than being confined to a relatively small blacklist of types of known threats, embodiments can build, update, and leverage a whitelist of, e.g., 10 billion types of safe items, based on dynamic learning. Agents are involved in confirming that a given item, such as one that has been subjected to a detailed item characterization by a divestment scanner, is a safe item to enable systems to take advantage of human interaction and guidance in building and maintaining item databases or libraries).
In regard to claim 13, Combination of Hastings and Osann teach the method of claim 1, wherein the object scanner is a computed tomography scanner (Hastings, Para. 96, responsive to the system 400 detecting an item 402 in the user's pocket during a scan, the system 400 advises via the user interface 440 that the user 404 is carrying an item, and directs the user 404 to perform additional divestment of that area of the user's body. The system 400 then automatically directs the user 404 to remove or divest any items from that area of the user's person, allowing the system to perform further X-ray or CT screening of the item, direct the user 404 to be rescanned, and (barring additional unresolved alarms) enable the user 404 to be subsequently and automatically cleared) and the whole body scanner is a millimeter wave scanner (Hastings, Para. 71, chamber 310 is climate controlled and designed to eliminate background frequencies, radiation, electromagnetic interference, and the like in the chamber 310, to maximize the performance of scanners 320, such as those based on millimeter, backscatter, or Nuclear Quadrupole Resonance (NQR) detection systems. For those embodiments of chamber scanners 320 based on technology including backscatter, NQR, or millimeter wave scanning (for example), the chamber 310 includes a faraday cage structure to minimize or completely block external electromagnetic radiation, to provide an isolated electromagnetic (EM) spectrum environment in the chamber 310).
In regard to claim 14, Combination of Hastings and Osann teach the method of claim 1, wherein the object scan is performed subsequent to verifying that each of the at least one object is on an approved list based on identifying the at least one object (Hastings, Para. 102, the system 400 uses one or more scanners 420 of the chamber 410 to perform detailed item characterizations. The illustrated embodiment includes a conveyor belt, to convey the items into the divestment scanner 450 located away from the in-chamber divestment interface. In other embodiments, the divestment scanner 450 is located at the divestment interface, which also includes a door mechanism and shield to protect the user from emissions generated by the divestment scanner 450. In such embodiments, the items remain at the divestment interface, conveniently located for the user to open the door mechanism and retrieve the items following a successful (non-alarming) scan of the divested items. Such embodiments allow the user to carry such allowed items from the chamber onward to secure areas beyond the egress door).
In regard to claim 15, Combination of Hastings and Osann teach the method of claim 1, further comprising, responsive to the body scan of the individual failing a body scan clearance protocol or responsive to the object scan of the at least one object associated with the individual failing an object scan clearance protocol, alerting the individual (Hastings, Para. 70, Responsive to an unresolved alarm, the system 300 directs the user along a first one of the egress paths 362 to secondary screening, or back out along the ingress path 360 to an unsecure area (e.g., to allow the user to self-divest a prohibited item by disposing of it before returning to the chamber 310 to re-scan) or a remotely located security officer (Hastings, Para. 110, The system 500 notifies on-site security personnel agents that assistance is needed at the chamber 510, and the system 500 maintains control of the user in the chamber 510 until agents 509 respond to the alarm condition. The system 500 sends pertinent alarm information or collected information to other systems, such as a secondary screening location, for resolution and further analysis (including updating of scanning or identity databases to which the system 500 is communicatively coupled, e.g., via networked ingress interface 508)).
In regard to claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1 as stated above.
In regard to claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 13 as stated above.
In regard to claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 13 as stated above.
In regard to claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 8 as stated above.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hastings et al. (US 20210312201 A1) in view of Osann, JR. (US 20140373761 A1) and further in view of Svee (US 20140184387 A1).
In regard to claim 3, Combination of Hastings and Osann do not teach the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the at least one object associated with the individual comprises logging the at least one object.
However, Svee teaches wherein identifying the at least one object associated with the individual comprises logging the at least one object (Svee, Para. 8, an RFID chip, which may be embedded into a token, ticket, card, and/or tag (referred to herein as the "RFID Device"), such as RFID Devices 100, 102, 104, or 106 shown in FIG. 1, which may be removably inserted into a user's luggage, such as a piece of luggage 108 owned by a user 110, a piece of luggage 112 owned by a user 114, or pieces of luggage 116 or 118 owned by a user 120. Using the RFID Device, unmarked and/or lost luggage can be identified and recovered using an RFID reader which reads the alphanumeric code which is associated with specific passenger contact information; Para. 10, the database 122 tracks the relationship between user accounts and the RFID Devices--for example, a user may associate one or more RFID Devices to their user account after purchase, such as the user 120 that owns the piece of luggage 116 having one RFID Device 104 and the piece of luggage 118 having another RFID Device 106).
Hastings, Osann, and Svee are analogous art because they all pertain to luggage checking and tracking system associated with a passenger.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include database tracking luggage associated with each user at an airport (as taught by Svee) resulting in predictable result reduced number of lost luggage articles.
In regard to claim 4, Combination of Hastings, Osann, and Svee teach the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the at least one object associated with the individual is performed by the individual scanning a barcode associated with each of the at least one object to identify the at least one object (Svee, Para. 15, the RFID reading device may be a feature on a multi-function device such as a barcode reader, a cellular phone, an x-ray scanner and or any other standard device located at an airport facility. Once the alphanumeric code is entered into the database 122, the database identifies the user associated with that RFID Device, and tracks the location of the luggage containing the RFID Device).
In regard to claim 6, Combination of Hastings, Osann, and Svee teach the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the at least one object associated with the individual is performed by sampling contents of the tray of the object scanner with a radio frequency emission detector (Svee, Para. 8, an RFID chip, which may be embedded into a token, ticket, card, and/or tag (referred to herein as the "RFID Device"), such as RFID Devices 100, 102, 104, or 106 shown in FIG. 1, which may be removably inserted into a user's luggage, such as a piece of luggage 108 owned by a user 110, a piece of luggage 112 owned by a user 114, or pieces of luggage 116 or 118 owned by a user 120. Using the RFID Device, unmarked and/or lost luggage can be identified and recovered using an RFID reader which reads the alphanumeric code which is associated with specific passenger contact information; Para. 10, the database 122 tracks the relationship between user accounts and the RFID Devices--for example, a user may associate one or more RFID Devices to their user account after purchase, such as the user 120 that owns the piece of luggage 116 having one RFID Device 104 and the piece of luggage 118 having another RFID Device 106).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hastings et al. (US 20210312201 A1) in view of Osann, JR. (US 20140373761 A1) and further in view of Nikolova (EP 2960685 A2).
In regard to claim 7, Combination of Hastings and Osann do not specifically teach the method of claim 1, wherein a radio frequency emission detector monitors the screening area to identify unwanted radio frequency emitters.
However, Nikolova teaches wherein a radio frequency emission detector monitors the screening area to identify unwanted radio frequency emitters (Nikolova, Para. 14, a system for detecting a weapon. The system can include a radiofrequency transmitter having at least one transmission antenna, a radiofrequency receiver having at least one reception antenna, a data storage unit storing environmental signal components for the region of interest and a statistical model based on resonant signals associated with the weapon, and a controller coupled to the radiofrequency transmitter, the radiofrequency receiver, and the data storage unit. The radiofrequency transmitter can be configured to emit a radiofrequency signal stream into a region of interest using the at least one transmission antenna. The radiofrequency receiver can be configured to receive a scattered signal stream from the region of interest using the at least one reception antenna, the scattered signal stream generated in the region of interest from the radiofrequency signal stream emitted by the radiofrequency transmitter when a target is at least partially within the region of interest. The controller can be configured to identify a plurality of resonant signal components from the scattered signal stream, generate a plurality of preprocessed resonant signal components by removing at least one signal component from the plurality of resonant signal components, where the at least one signal component removed corresponds to the stored environmental signal components, determine a target assessment from the plurality of preprocessed resonant signals using the statistical model, and trigger a target response if the target assessment indicates the weapon is detected on the target).
Hastings, Osann, and Nikolova are analogous art because they all pertain to whole-body scanners associated security checks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include radio frequency transmitter for detecting weapons (as taught by Nikolova) resulting in predictable result trigger a target response if the target assessment indicates the weapon is detected on the target.
In regard to claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 7 as stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARMIN AKHTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9365. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached on (571) 272.2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHARMIN AKHTER/
Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights