DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 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.
Claim Interpretation
Since claim(s) 21 does not use a standard transitional phrase (e.g. comprising, consisting of, consisting essentially of), according to MPEP 2111.03 IV, whether the transitional phrase is inclusive (like "comprising") or exclusive (like "consisting of") is determined on a case-by-case basis based on the disclosure. Since there is no clear statement in the disclosure, the Office is interpreting the claim to be inclusive as the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)/6th ¶
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f)/6th ¶ (hereinafter 112(f)):
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim(s) 1: an imaging unit configured to ...,
Claim(s) 1: a measurement unit configured to ...,
Claim(s) 20: an imaging unit ... configured to ...,
Claim(s) 20: a measurement unit ... configured to ....
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 12 and 21 is/are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 because of the following informalities:
In claim 12, line , "the specified object" should be replaced by --a specified object-- because "a specified object" has not been previously recited in the claim.
With regard to claim 21, where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should begin on a new line and be preceded with a line indentation. Plural indentations may be necessary to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75(i) and MPEP §608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 13, 16, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu (EP 4102823 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Yu discloses a system comprising:
a radar configured to irradiate electromagnetic waves on a target and receive reflected electromagnetic waves from the target (Antenna 1, Antenna 2, Fig. 1; Fig. 3; S404, Fig. 4; ¶9; ¶54(1); ¶139) [where in the active electromagnetic imaging embodiment (¶54(1)), when the antenna used for communication is reused (¶139), and when the antenna used for communication is a radio antenna (2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, BT, WLAN, GNSS, or FM, Antenna 1, Antenna 2, Fig. 1), the second component/electromagnetic sensor is a radar];
an imaging unit configured to image the target and output target image information (193, Fig. 1; S402, Fig. 4; ¶10);
a measurement unit configured to measure a position of the radar (¶84; ¶92; ¶154-155); and
a processor (110, Fig. 1) configured to output first image information representing a first area within the target where the electromagnetic waves are not irradiated based on the position of the radar (Fig. 10; Fig. 15; ¶151-152; ¶155) [where in Fig. 10 and 15, the big arrows shows where the user is in the scan process, such that behind the arrow is the part of the scan that has already occurred/the area that has already been irradiated, and in front of the area is the part of the scan that still must occur/the area that has not yet been irradiated].
It is noted that a radar is not required to performing distance/range finding. For example, Morris (US 3,281,838 A) teaches a radar tracking system using automatic angle tracking without the use of range tracking (claim 5). Angelo (radar imaging) teaches radar imaging based on the energy of reflection, with no use of distance/range measurements (p. 1-3). Similarly, applicant's disclosure does not teach applicant's imaging is based on distance/range measurements.
In regard to claim 21, Yu discloses:
a processing device (110, Fig. 1) connected to a radar (Antenna 1, Antenna 2, Fig. 1), an imaging unit (193, Fig. 1), and a measurement unit (160, Fig. 1; ¶84; ¶92; ¶154-155);
the radar configured to irradiate electromagnetic waves on a target and receive reflected electromagnetic waves from the target (Antenna 1, Antenna 2, Fig. 1; Fig. 3; S404, Fig. 4; ¶9; ¶54(1); ¶139) [where in the active electromagnetic imaging embodiment (¶54(1)), when the antenna used for communication is reused (¶139), and when the antenna used for communication is a radio antenna (2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, BT, WLAN, GNSS, or FM, Antenna 1, Antenna 2, Fig. 1), the second component/electromagnetic sensor is a radar];
the imaging unit configured to image the target and output target image information (193, Fig. 1; S402, Fig. 4; ¶10); and
the measurement unit configured to measure a position of the radar (¶84; ¶92; ¶154-155),
the processing device is configured to output first image information representing a first area within the target where the electromagnetic waves are not irradiated based on the position of the radar (Fig. 10; Fig. 15; ¶151-152; ¶154-155) [where in Fig. 10 and 15, the big arrows shows where the user is in the scan process, such that behind the arrow is the part of the scan that has already occurred/the area that has already been irradiated, and in front of the area is the part of the scan that still must occur/the area that has not yet been irradiated].
It is noted that a radar is not required to performing distance/range finding. For example, Morris (US 3,281,838 A) teaches a radar tracking system using automatic angle tracking without the use of range tracking (claim 5). Angelo (radar imaging) teaches radar imaging based on the energy of reflection, with no use of distance/range measurements (p. 1-3). Similarly, applicant's disclosure does not teach applicant's imaging is based on distance/range measurements.
In regard to claim 2, Yu further discloses the processor is configured to generate the first image information based on the position of the radar when the radar irradiates the electromagnetic wave (¶154-155).
In regard to claim 3, Yu further discloses the radar comprises a transmit antenna (¶54(1)), the transmit antenna comprising an equally spaced array antenna (¶55), an unequally spaced array antenna, or a minimum redundancy array antenna.
In regard to claim 4, Yu further discloses the radar comprises a receive antenna (¶54(1)), the receive antenna comprising an equally spaced array antenna (¶55), an unequally spaced array antenna, or a minimum redundancy array antenna.
In regard to claim 5, Yu further discloses the measurement unit is configured to measure the position of the radar using an output signal of a gyro sensor (180B, Fig. 1; ¶92; ¶128; ¶154-155) [where the motion sensor is the gyro] or the target image information (¶128; ¶154-155) [where the motion sensor is the optical camera].
In regard to claim 6, Yu further discloses a display configured to display a target image and a first image, the target image being based on the target image information (Fig. 5; ¶109; ¶133; ¶137; ¶140), and the first image being based on the first image information (S406, Fig. 4; Fig. 13; ¶171; ¶175).
In regard to claim 7, Yu further discloses an operation period of the system includes: a primary scan period in which the radar irradiates the electromagnetic waves on an arbitrary area of the target; and a secondary scan period in which the radar irradiates the electromagnetic waves on the first area after the first image information is output (Fig. 10; Fig. 15; ¶151-152) [where in Fig. 10 and 15, the big arrows shows where the user is in the scan process, such that the primary scan period was the period in which the area of the target behind the area was irradiated, and the second scan period is period in which the area in front of the arrow will be irradiated, which occurs after the first image information is output (i.e. the image in Fig. 10 or 15 has been displayed, showing the big arrow)].
In regard to claim 8, Yu further discloses a display mode of the display includes: a first display mode in which the first image is not displayed (Fig. 5; ¶133); and a second display mode in which the first image is displayed (S406, Fig. 4; Fig. 13; ¶171).
In regard to claim 9, Yu further discloses the display mode of the display is the first display mode during the primary scan period (S404, Fig. 4; Fig. 10; ¶151-152); and after the primary scan period, the display mode of the display is changed from the first display mode to the second display mode (S406, Fig. 4; Fig. 13; ¶171) [where the movement of the device during the primary scan period occurs prior to the final image being displayed].
In regard to claim 10, Yu further discloses the processor is configured to generate object image information representing a specified object in the target using reflected electromagnetic waves from at least one area (¶54(1); ¶175).
In regard to claim 13, Yu further discloses the display comprises a flat display (Fig. 10; ¶161) [where the mobile phone display is illustrated as a flat display], an eyeglass-type display, or a goggle-type display.
In regard to claim 16, Yu further discloses
the processor is configured to determine a planned irradiation area within the target based on the position of the radar and generate a second image representing the planned irradiation area (Fig. 10 and 15) [where in Fig. 10 and 15, the big arrows shows where the user is in the scan process, such that behind the arrow is the part of the scan that has already occurred/the area that has already been irradiated, and in front of the area is the area that is planned to be irradiated to complete the scan]; and
the display is configured to display the target image (Fig. 5; ¶109; ¶133; ¶137; ¶140), the first image (S406, Fig. 4; Fig. 13; ¶171; ¶175), and the second image (Fig. 10; Fig. 15; ¶151-152; ¶155).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu.
In regard to claim 17, Yu further discloses the display is configured to display the first image (Fig. 13; ¶171).
The Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention to display an first image continuously. Since the option before the "or" has been addressed, the option after the "or" need not be addressed.
In regard to claim 19, Yu further discloses the processor is configured to output second image information representing a second area within the target where electromagnetic waves are irradiated (Fig. 10; Fig. 15; ¶151-152; ¶155).
The Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention to indicate different features of an image with different graphical qualities, such as different hues, brightnesses, or saturations.
Claim(s) 11-12, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, as applied to claims 6 and 10, above, and further in view of Ender (DE 102010051207 A1).
In regard to claim 11, Yu fails to disclose the display is configured to display an object image based on the object image information by superimposing the object image on the target image.
Ender teaches a display configured to display an object image based on the object image information by superimposing the object image on the target image ["in order to provide the observer with a realistic view of the person in which these possibly hidden objects and their position on the person are recognizable"] (p. 2; ¶2; p. 6, ¶3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow security personnel to readily identify the position on the person or object that needs to be further examined.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the person or object that needs to be further examined is able to be examined more quickly.
In regard to claim 12, Ender further teaches determining whether or not the target contains a specified object using reflected electromagnetic waves from at least one area; and the display is configured to display a determination result as to whether or not the target contains the specified object (p. 2; ¶2; p. 5, ¶2; p. 6, ¶3) [where undesirable items are automatically detected and displayed (p. 6, ¶3), the undesirable items being weapons and explosives (p. 2; ¶2; p. 5, ¶2), where failure to detect any undesirable items is a determination that the specified object has not been detected].
In regard to claim 18, Yu further discloses the processor is configured to output second image information representing a second area within the target where electromagnetic waves are irradiated (Fig. 10 and 15) [where in Fig. 10 and 15, the big arrows shows where the user is in the scan process illustrating a track, such that behind the arrow is the part of the scan that has already occurred/the area that has already been irradiated, and in front of the area is the area that is planned to be irradiated to complete the scan; and in general teaches three types of images, a target image, and first image, and a second image, as detailed above].
Ender teaches a display configured to display two of the images superposed (p. 2; ¶2; p. 6, ¶3).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized from this that all three of the images could likewise be superimposed if there were a benefit of doing so.
Here, superimposing all three images the first image and a second image would help a user identify a situation when they inadvertently miss an area to be scanned (e.g. a situation like the lower left of Fig. 10 of Yu, one in which the user overshoots the pattern too much and fails to scan a port of the target) and thus are able to correct their error and scan the area of the target, where also superimposing the target image would help the user identify what area of the person or object being scanned to point the scanner at.
The Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention to indicate areas to of interest using rectangles as an alternative to a track covering those areas.
In regard to claim 20, Yu further discloses the processor is configured to output second image information representing a second area within the target where electromagnetic waves are irradiated (Fig. 10; Fig. 15; ¶151-152; ¶155); and displaying a first image (S406, Fig. 4; Fig. 13; ¶171; ¶175) [and in general teaches three types of images, a target image, and first image, and a second image, as detailed above].
Ender teaches a display configured to display two of the images superposed (p. 2; ¶2; p. 6, ¶3).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized from this that any other two of the images could likewise be superimposed if there were a benefit of doing so.
Here, superimposing the first image and a second image would help a user identify a situation when they inadvertently miss an area to be scanned (e.g. a situation like the lower left of Fig. 10 of Yu, one in which the user overshoots the pattern too much and fails to scan a port of the target) and thus are able to correct their error and scan the area of the target.
The Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention to indicate different features of an image with different graphical qualities, such as by continuous display vs. blinking.
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
Morris (US 3,281,838 A), which teaches a radar tracking system using automatic angle tracking without the use of range tracking (claim 5).
Angelo (radar imaging), which teaches radar imaging based on the energy of reflection, with no use of distance/range measurements (p. 1-3).
Zeng (US 2023/0194701 A1), which teaches an antenna array imaging system for identifying a target using electromagnetic echo signals (Fig. 1; abstract).
Yanik (Near-Field MIMO-SAR Millimeter-Wave Imaging With Sparsely Sampled Aperture Data), which teaches a MIMO radar using a sparse array antenna (abstract, Fig. 1, p. 31803, section B).
Applicant is encouraged to consider these documents in formulating their response (if one is required) to this Office Action, in order to expedite prosecution of this application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection(s) set forth in this Office Action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance/Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance/allowable subject matter:
The references cited, alone or in combination, do not teach or make obvious the following limitation(s):
quoted from claim 14, in combination with the claim as a whole:
"the first area includes ... an area in a second surface perpendicular to the first surface within the target where the electromagnetic waves are not irradiated".
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance".
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred H. Mull whose telephone number is 571-272-6975. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from approximately 9-5:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai, can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
Fred H. Mull
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/F. H. M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights