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 .
Response to Amendment
The following is a final office action in response to the communication filed on 08/25/2026. Claims 1, 9 and 13 have been amended. Claim 6 is cancelled. Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 08/25/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments partially overcome the objections to the specification. The objection to paragraph [0065] has been resolved, and the objection to paragraph [0062] has not been addressed.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the objections to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments provided for the U.S.C. §102 and §103 rejections of claims 1-15 have been considered but are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues, “Furthermore, as set forth in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., quoting from In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), "[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasonings with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." The Office Action (page 9) merely concludes that "[o]ne of ordinary skill would be motivated to include a radome in order to provide a cover suitable for use with radar." Respectfully, such conclusion fails short of the "articulated reasonings," and at best, is based on impermissible hindsight,” (from remarks page 9).
As to point (A), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that including a radome as taught by Wright in the invention of Gumbmann relies on impermissible hindsight. MPEP section 2143 gives examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness, including “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results”. Gumbmann teaches a screening system utilizing radar. Wright teaches a surveillance system utilizing radar, and the radar includes a radome cover “suitable” for use with radar (see col. 7, lines 55-63). Examiner’s motivation to combine relies on combining the known prior art methods of radar and radomes to yield the predictable results of a radar protected by a suitable cover. The combination provides the structural limitation recited in dependent claim 3 without yielding any unexpected results. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
(B) Applicant argues, “Gumbmann presents the demonstrator of a fully polarimetric ultra-wideband multistatic imaging system for screening of groups of walking people in public areas. While Gumbmann discloses a top-down antenna geometry, it completely fails to teach or suggest the active utilization of a reflective surface to overcome shadowing via multipath illumination. Gumbmann focuses exclusively on a direct line-of-sight top-down configuration, stating that the "antenna arrangement is a roof-like geometry which can be installed on ceilings or archways" (see item 1). There is no mention or suggestion of placing a reflective surface (such as a floor plate) on the opposite side of the walking path to interact with the radar signals.
Further, Gumbmann explicitly acknowledges the physical limitations of a pure overhead system, noting the following: "Since the radar sensor system illuminates the person to be examined at an angle from above, the reflection from the head and shoulders dominates. No signal is reflected in the area of the torso, as the incoming signal is reflected away from the sensors" (see item 4).
In contrast to Gumbmann, the claimed invention (particularly as amended) introduces a reflective surface specifically to bounce those "reflected away" signals back to the target's obscured areas. This achieves the illumination of regions in the screening area that cannot be directly imaged, a concept entirely absent from Gumbmann's teaching. This is consistent with the acknowledgement by the Office Action (page 9) that Gumbmann fails to teach "wherein the at least one Rx antenna is arranged to receive the multipath reflections of the RF signals from the reflecting surface in the screening area."
As for the secondary reference of Wright, it discloses a through-wall radar system. While Wright touches upon "multipath echoes" (see Abstract), its technological objective, hardware environment, and algorithmic utilization of multipath signals are diametrically opposed to the claimed invention. Thus, Wright in fact teaches away the claimed invention. Under MPEP §2145(X)(D) and In re Gurley, a reference teaches away when it criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the claimed approach.
Wright treats multipath reflections as a detrimental source of systemic error or ghost targets that must be filtered out and destroyed. Wright explicitly states that its subject matter is designed to: "[...] identif[y] at least one of the plurality of candidate targets at one or more range bins on the correlation map that have a correlation exceeding a threshold. The device can then reject the at least one identified candidate target [...] [which] may be a multipath echo [...]" (see column 2, top section).
In contrast to claimed invention, Wright does not utilize a dedicated reflective surface constructively; whereby the multipath reflections are actively captured by the RX antenna to illuminate and image physical blind spots (non-line-of sight regions) caused by crowd shadowing. Wright provides no mention of any capability to harvest multipath signals for image reconstruction of obscured body parts. Accordingly, Wright is completely silent with respect to the claimed features, particularly as now amended.
Even assuming the references of Gumbmann and Wright were properly combined based on some teaching or suggestion in the references, and assuming the modifications proposed in the Office Action were justified by additional teachings or suggestions found in the references, even the combination does not render the claimed invention obvious. Specifically, none the references taken alone, or in combination, teaches or suggests "wherein the system comprises a reflective surface in the screening area, said reflective surface used to generate multipath reflections of the RF signals; wherein the at least one Rx antenna is arranged to receive the multipath reflections of the RF signals from the reflecting surface in the screening area; and wherein by means of the multipath reflections, illumination of regions in the screening area that cannot be directly imaged is achieved." Therefore, Applicant submits that the features of amended independent claims 1, 9, and 15 are not satisfied,” (from remarks pages 10-12).
As to point (B), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that the cited references do not meet the limitations of amended claim 1 because they do not include dedicated multipath reflection surfaces, because Wright allegedly teaches away from the claimed invention, and because the cited references are not taught to be capable of harvesting multipath signals for image reconstruction of obscured body parts. MPEP section 2114(II) teaches “‘[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.’ Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).” All structural limitations required by the independent claim are taught by Gumbmann, Wright, or both. Both teach boundary surfaces in the detection area upon which the radar signals impinge. Wright explicitly teaches walls generating multipath signals, detecting those multipath signals, and Wright further shows in Fig. 23 those signals illuminating areas not directly imaged. Although Wright later filters out the multipath signals, because Wright teaches all the structural limitations, intended use does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from Wright.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., image reconstruction of obscured body parts using received multipath signals) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
(C) Applicant argues, “35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claim 12
Applicant respectfully traverses the obviousness rejection.
The secondary reference of Obata, which is applied for a purported disclosure of "wherein the screening area is an elevator cabin, wherein the at least one TX antenna and at least one RX antenna are arranged above or below the elevator cabin," does not fill in the gaps of Gumbmann.
Obata discloses a two-stage screening system (Primary Rough Screening and Secondary Coprime-Array Imaging) to find dangerous articles. To achieve complete body coverage and overcome low-reflectance or hidden angles, Obata relies on complex mechanical linear/sector scanners or extensive two dimensional array antennas placed at multiple locations around the target, stating: "...sliders 32 b (guide rails 32 a) are arranged in eight directions in total, that is, four directions on the front, rear, left and right of the inspection area, and an oblique direction [...]" (see paragraph [0119]).
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the obviousness rejection.
U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claim 15
Applicant respectfully traverses the obviousness rejection.
The combination of Obata, Gumbmann, and Wright does not satisfy all features of the amended claims for the reasons proffered above.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the obviousness rejection,” (from remarks pages 12-13).
As to point (C), see point (A).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0062], line 3, there is an opening parenthesis “(“ but the paragraph contains no closing parenthesis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gumbmann et al. (GUMBMANN, "Fully polarimetric UWB imaging demonstrator for group screening", Proceedings of the SPIE, Vol. 12274, December 7, 2022, 122740U, from the IDS dated 2/10/2026; hereinafter Gumbmann) in view of Wright et al. (US-9229102-B1; hereinafter Wright).
Regarding claim 1, Gumbmann discloses [note, what Gumbmann fails to disclose is strike-through]:
A system for screening a group of people in a screening area (see at least Abs; “This paper presents the demonstrator of a fully polarimetric ultra-wideband (UWB) multistatic imaging system for screening of groups of walking people in public areas.”), comprising:
an RF imaging device comprising at least one TX antenna and at least one RX antenna for transmitting respectively receiving one or more RF signals (see at least section 2, ‘Demonstrator Setup’; “Figure 3 and 2 show a sketch and a photograph of the realized demonstrator. It consists of 16 RF boards, each including 8 transmit antennas (4 x horizontal polarization and 4 x vertical polarization) and 16 receive antennas (8 x horizontal polarization and 8 x vertical polarization), whereby only 8 boards are utilized for screening.”);
wherein the at least one TX antenna and the at least one RX antenna are arranged above and/or below a path of movement of the group of people in the screening area (see at least Figs. 1-3, showing the antennas above the path of movement); and
wherein the RF imaging device is configured to generate an RF image of the group of people in the screening area (see again Abs; see also exemplary imaging results shown on page 6);
wherein the system further comprises an image processing device (see at least section 3, ‘Data Reconstruction’; “The reconstruction is implemented with a highly parallelized backprojection algorithm on a GPU (graphics processing unit).”) configured to detect at least one non-body object based on the generated RF image (see at least section 5.1 ‘Static Scenarios’; “For all scenarios the concealed items can be identified. Especially the relevant objects as the two metal cylinders or the plasticine bag with screws, acting as suicide bomb vest dummy, can be clearly recognized.”);
wherein the system comprises a reflective surface in the screening area (see at least Figs. 1-3, where the floor beneath the scanner or demonstrator is mapped to the reflective surface),
However, Gumbmann does not explicitly teach:
said reflective surface used to generate multipath reflections of the RF signals;
wherein the at least one Rx antenna is arranged to receive the multipath reflections of the RF signals from the reflecting surface in the screening area; and
wherein by means of the multipath reflections, illumination of regions in the screening area that cannot be directly imaged is achieved.
Gumbmann discloses UWB imaging for group screening, and Wright is directed to a sensing targets on the opposite side of a wall using radar. Wright teaches:
wherein the system comprises a reflective surface in the screening area (see at least Fig. 23, reproduced below, front wall 2330 and back wall 2340), said reflective surface used to generate multipath reflections of the RF signals (see at least Fig. 23, multipath reflection 2360);
wherein the at least one Rx antenna is arranged to receive the multipath reflections of the RF signals from the reflecting surface in the screening area (see at least col. 48, lines 61-67; “The model of the reflection 2350 and the multipath reflection 2360 may be used in the classifier module 1750 to distinguish between detections that arise from actual targets, such as moving or stationary persons, and detections that arise from other phenomena, such as detections that result from the presence of multiple path reflections such as the multipath reflection 2360.”); and
wherein by means of the multipath reflections, illumination of regions in the screening area that cannot be directly imaged is achieved (see again Fig. 23, where multipath reflection 2360 illuminates areas not directly imaged).
PNG
media_image1.png
460
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Both Gumbmann and Wright teach using radar for surveillance within a building. Wright teaches that physical boundaries in the screening area generate multipath reflections that illuminate areas not directly imaged and are detected by the scanning device. Gumbmann teaches radar signals in the screening area directed to impinge on the floor (see Fig. 1, reproduced below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the radar signals directed to the floor in Gumbmann would generate detectable multipath reflections and illuminate areas not directly imaged, as is taught by Wright in a similar environment.
PNG
media_image2.png
266
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Gumbmann in view of Wright discloses the system of claim 1. Gumbmann further teaches:
wherein the at least one Tx antenna and the at least one Rx antenna are arranged in at least one antenna array of the RF imaging device (see at least section 2, ‘Demonstrator Setup’; “Figure 3 and 2 show a sketch and a photograph of the realized demonstrator. It consists of 16 RF boards, each including 8 transmit antennas (4 x horizontal polarization and 4 x vertical polarization) and 16 receive antennas (8 x horizontal polarization and 8 x vertical polarization)…”);
wherein the at least one antenna array is angled towards a walking surface or a ceiling surface in the screening area (see at least Figs. 1 and 3 and section 4, ‘Polarimetric Evaluation’; “Since the radar sensor system illuminates the person to be examined at an angle from above, the reflection from the head and shoulders dominates.”).
Regarding claim 3, Gumbmann in view of Wright discloses the system of claim 1. However, Gumbmann does not explicitly teach:
wherein the system comprises at least one RF transparent radome which is arranged to cover the at least one Rx and at least one Tx antenna.
Gumbmann discloses UWB imaging for group screening, and Wright is directed to a sensing targets on the opposite side of a wall using radar. Wright teaches:
wherein the system comprises at least one RF transparent radome which is arranged to cover the at least one Rx and at least one Tx antenna (see at least col. 7, lines 55-63; “FIG. 2A illustrates an antenna design 200 employed in one implementation of the device of FIG. 1B. The design 200 employs separate transmit and receive antennas 205 and 210 to simplify the electronics, provide spatial separation and reduce very shallow reflections. The antennas 205 and 210, which may serve as particular implementations of the antennas 114 and 116 of FIG. 1B, may be placed in a housing 215, and a cover 220 may be placed over the antennas. The cover 220 may be made of a suitable radome material.”).
Both Gumbmann and Wright teach using radar for surveillance within a building. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a radome cover in the device of Gumbmann, as is taught by Wright. Doing so would provide benefits such as shielding the radar from environmental contaminants, concealing the radar for aesthetic reasons, and protecting the radar from physical tampering.
Regarding claim 4, Gumbmann in view of Wright discloses the system of claim 1. Gumbmann further teaches:
wherein the image processing device is configured to perform a polarimetric evaluation of the RF signals received by the at least one Rx antenna (see at least the data processing flow chart of Fig. 7, data acquisition and polarimetric evaluation steps).
Regarding claim 5, Gumbmann in view of Wright discloses the system of claim 4. Gumbmann further teaches:
wherein the image processing device is configured to detect flat surfaces, edges and/or dipoles in the screening area based on the polarimetric evaluation (see at least section 4, ‘Polarimetric Evaluation’, where interpretations in the table include surface reflections, dipoles, and reflection at corners).
Regarding claim 7, Gumbmann in view of Wright discloses the system of claim 1. Gumbmann further teaches:
wherein the RF imaging device is configured to self-calibrate based on reflections of the RF signals received from known locations in the screening area (see at least section 2, ‘Demonstrator Setup’; “Two additional boards are included for a self calibration approach and the remaining 6 boards are for testing purposes.”).
Regarding claim 8, Gumbmann in view of Wright discloses the system of claim 1. Gumbmann further teaches:
wherein the system comprises at least one further imaging sensor, such as an RGB-D or a time-of-flight sensor, configured for capturing a 3D image of the group of people in the screening area;
wherein the image processing device is configured to detect the at least one non-body object based on the RF image and the 3D image (see at least section 5, ‘Measurement Results with Mannequins’; “To facilitate the mapping of scattering centers in the radar images for humans a lidar camera (Intel RealSense LiDAR Camera L515) was utilized. The lidar sensor provides a 3D point cloud which is transformed to the coordinates of the UWB scanner and fused with the radar information. A registration of both sensor coordinate systems is accomplished by evaluating a reference scenario consisting of four spatially distributed spheres.”).
Regarding claim 9, Gumbmann discloses:
A system for screening a group of people in a screening area (see at least Abs; “This paper presents the demonstrator of a fully polarimetric ultra-wideband (UWB) multistatic imaging system for screening of groups of walking people in public areas.”), comprising:
an RF imaging device comprising at least one TX antenna and at least one RX antenna for respectively transmitting and receiving one or more RF signals (see at least section 2, ‘Demonstrator Setup’; “Figure 3 and 2 show a sketch and a photograph of the realized demonstrator. It consists of 16 RF boards, each including 8 transmit antennas (4 x horizontal polarization and 4 x vertical polarization) and 16 receive antennas (8 x horizontal polarization and 8 x vertical polarization), whereby only 8 boards are utilized for screening.”);
wherein the RF imaging device is configured to generate an RF image of the group of people in the screening area (see again Abs; see also exemplary imaging results shown on page 6); and
an image processing device (see at least section 3, ‘Data Reconstruction’; “The reconstruction is implemented with a highly parallelized backprojection algorithm on a GPU (graphics processing unit).”) configured to detect at least one non-body object based on the generated RF image (see at least section 5.1 ‘Static Scenarios’; “For all scenarios the concealed items can be identified. Especially the relevant objects as the two metal cylinders or the plasticine bag with screws, acting as suicide bomb vest dummy, can be clearly recognized.”);
wherein the image processing device is configured to perform a polarimetric evaluation of the RF signals received by the at least one Rx antenna (see at least the data processing flow chart of Fig. 7, data acquisition and polarimetric evaluation steps);
wherein the system comprises a reflective surface in the screening area (see at least Figs. 1-3, where the floor beneath the scanner or demonstrator is mapped to the reflective surface),
However, Gumbmann does not explicitly teach:
said reflective surface used to generate multipath reflections of the RF signals;
wherein the at least one Rx antenna is arranged to receive the multipath reflections of the RF signals from the reflecting surface in the screening area; and
wherein by means of the multipath reflections, illumination of regions in the screening area that cannot be directly imaged is achieved.
Gumbmann discloses UWB imaging for group screening, and Wright is directed to a sensing targets on the opposite side of a wall using radar. Wright teaches:
wherein the system comprises a reflective surface in the screening area (see at least Fig. 23, front wall 2330 and back wall 2340), said reflective surface used to generate multipath reflections of the RF signals (see at least Fig. 23, multipath reflection 2360);
wherein the at least one Rx antenna is arranged to receive the multipath reflections of the RF signals from the reflecting surface in the screening area (see at least col. 48, lines 61-67; “The model of the reflection 2350 and the multipath reflection 2360 may be used in the classifier module 1750 to distinguish between detections that arise from actual targets, such as moving or stationary persons, and detections that arise from other phenomena, such as detections that result from the presence of multiple path reflections such as the multipath reflection 2360.”); and
wherein by means of the multipath reflections, illumination of regions in the screening area that cannot be directly imaged is achieved (see again Fig. 23, where multipath reflection 2360 illuminates areas not directly imaged).
Both Gumbmann and Wright teach using radar for surveillance within a building. Wright teaches that physical boundaries in the screening area generate multipath reflections that illuminate areas not directly imaged and are detected by the scanning device. Gumbmann teaches radar signals in the screening area directed to impinge on the floor (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the radar signals directed to the floor in Gumbmann would generate detectable multipath reflections and illuminate areas not directly imaged, as is taught by Wright in a similar environment.
Regarding claim 10, Gumbmann in view of Wright discloses the system of claim 9. The remaining limitations of claim 10 are analogous to those of claim 5 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 11, Gumbmann in view of Wright discloses the system of claim 9. Gumbmann further teaches:
wherein (see at least Figs. 2 and 3, where some of the RF boards are mounted to the vertical columns to the side of the screening area).
However, Gumbmann teaches that the RF boards above the testing area are used for screening, and the RF boards mounted to the vertical columns are used for “testing purposes”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the column-mounted RF boards to perform similar measurements to the overhead-mounted RF boards. Such a measurement would have been obvious because both RF boards use the same hardware, and because taking measurements would be an obvious use for boards designated for “testing purposes”.
Regarding claim 13, Gumbmann discloses [note, what Gumbmann fails to disclose is strike-through]:
A system for screening a group of people in a screening area (see at least Abs; “This paper presents the demonstrator of a fully polarimetric ultra-wideband (UWB) multistatic imaging system for screening of groups of walking people in public areas.”), comprising:
an RF imaging device comprising at least one TX antenna and at least one RX antenna for transmitting respectively receiving one or more RF signals (see at least section 2, ‘Demonstrator Setup’; “Figure 3 and 2 show a sketch and a photograph of the realized demonstrator. It consists of 16 RF boards, each including 8 transmit antennas (4 x horizontal polarization and 4 x vertical polarization) and 16 receive antennas (8 x horizontal polarization and 8 x vertical polarization), whereby only 8 boards are utilized for screening.”);
wherein the RF imaging device is configured to generate an RF image of the group of people in the screening area (see again Abs; see also exemplary imaging results shown on page 6); and
an image processing device (see at least section 3, ‘Data Reconstruction’; “The reconstruction is implemented with a highly parallelized backprojection algorithm on a GPU (graphics processing unit).”) configured to detect at least one non-body object based on the generated RF image (see at least section 5.1 ‘Static Scenarios’; “For all scenarios the concealed items can be identified. Especially the relevant objects as the two metal cylinders or the plasticine bag with screws, acting as suicide bomb vest dummy, can be clearly recognized.”);
wherein the system comprises a reflective surface in the screening area (see at least Figs. 1-3, where the floor beneath the scanner or demonstrator is mapped to the reflective surface),
However, Gumbmann does not explicitly teach:
said reflective surface used to generate multipath reflections of the RF signals;
wherein the at least one Rx antenna is arranged to receive the multipath reflections of the RF signals from the reflecting surface in the screening area; and
wherein by means of the multipath reflections, illumination of regions in the screening area that cannot be directly imaged is achieved.
Gumbmann discloses UWB imaging for group screening, and Wright is directed to a sensing targets on the opposite side of a wall using radar. Wright teaches:
wherein the system comprises a reflective surface in the screening area (see at least Fig. 23, front wall 2330 and back wall 2340), said reflective surface used to generate multipath reflections of the RF signals (see at least Fig. 23, multipath reflection 2360);
wherein the at least one Rx antenna is arranged to receive the multipath reflections of the RF signals from the reflecting surface in the screening area (see at least col. 48, lines 61-67; “The model of the reflection 2350 and the multipath reflection 2360 may be used in the classifier module 1750 to distinguish between detections that arise from actual targets, such as moving or stationary persons, and detections that arise from other phenomena, such as detections that result from the presence of multiple path reflections such as the multipath reflection 2360.”); and
wherein by means of the multipath reflections, illumination of regions in the screening area that cannot be directly imaged is achieved (see again Fig. 23, where multipath reflection 2360 illuminates areas not directly imaged).
Both Gumbmann and Wright teach using radar for surveillance within a building. Wright teaches that physical boundaries in the screening area generate multipath reflections that illuminate areas not directly imaged and are detected by the scanning device. Gumbmann teaches radar signals in the screening area directed to impinge on the floor (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the radar signals directed to the floor in Gumbmann would generate detectable multipath reflections and illuminate areas not directly imaged, as is taught by Wright in a similar environment.
Regarding claim 14, Gumbmann in view of Wright discloses the system of claim 13. The remaining limitations of claim 14 are analogous to those of claim 11 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gumbmann in view Wright, further in view of Obata et al. (US-20200393594-A1; hereinafter Obata).
Regarding claim 12, Gumbmann in view of Wright discloses the system of claim 9. However, Gumbmann does not explicitly teach:
wherein the screening area is an elevator cabin, wherein the at least one TX antenna and at least one RX antenna are arranged above or below the elevator cabin.
Gumbmann discloses UWB imaging for group screening, and Obata is directed to use radar to determine a degree of danger relating to a possibility that the target person possesses a dangerous article. Obata teaches:
wherein the screening area is an elevator cabin (see at least [0039]; “The primary screening system transmits information regarding the suspicious person to the secondary screening system. An operation of secondary screening (irradiation from the radar 16) may be started when the information regarding the suspicious person is received and it is detected that the suspicious person has entered into the image capturing area of the camera 18… Furthermore, in an environment in which people do not move, such as in elevators and seats of concert halls, the inspection location for the primary screening may be the same as that for the secondary screening.”), wherein the at least one TX antenna and at least one RX antenna are arranged above or below the elevator cabin (see at least [0034]; “A radar 12 and a camera 14 are installed on the ceiling, the wall, or the floor of the inspection area.”).
Both Gumbmann and Obata image in the millimeter wave region to monitor crowds of people in indoor environments with the aim of detecting dangerous articles such as hidden weapons. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system of Gumbmann in an elevator, as is taught for the similar system of Obata.
Regarding claim 15, Gumbmann in view of Wright discloses the system of claim 13. The remaining limitations of claim 15 are analogous to those of claim 12 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20200025911-A1 is considered relevant prior art because it teaches generating images using indirect radar reflections (see Fig. 4 and [0057]).
Kaul, C.; Mitchell, K.J.; Kassem, K.; Tragakis, A.; Kapitany, V.; Starshynov, I.; Villa, F.; Murray-Smith, R.; Faccio, D. AI-Enabled Sensor Fusion of Time-of-Flight Imaging and mmWave for Concealed Metal Detection is considered relevant prior art because it teaches radar sensing of occluded objects (see Introduction) and of concealed metal objects (see Abs).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
/ASHLEY BROWN RAYNAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights