DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the recitation of “wherein the first wing panel, the second wing panel” in line 6 is vague because of what its intension in the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 5, the recitation “blocks” in line 7 is suggested to change to - - block - -.
Regarding claim 20, the recitation of “a second vertical” in line 8 is suggested to change to - - the second vertical - -.
Appropriate corrections are 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lais et al. (CA 2749036A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lais teaches an archway truss device (fig. 1) comprising: a structural frame defining a lane (3s) for passage of a set of objects (person or individual); a plurality of sensor devices (8s) mounted to the structural frame and positioned to obtain sensor data (biometric data, page 6, lines 11-29) associated with the set of objects through the lane, the plurality of sensor devices comprising a set of image capture devices generating image data associated with the set of objects (page 10, lines 30-33); and a barrier member (four barrier members 4) comprising a wing panel connected to the structural frame (page 3, line 23 to page 4, line 32 and page 8, line 32 to page 10, line 33).
Lais silent to wherein the wing panel is positioned to block an object located outside the lane from detection of the plurality of sensor devices.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized that the wing panels, as shown in figure 1 where the wing panels (4s) are positioned in front of the plurality of sensor devices (8s), would be able to block an object in the field of view of the plurality of sensor devices that located outside the lane or other side of the wing panels.
Regarding claim 2, Lais further teaches wherein the structural frame comprises a pair of opposing vertical support members and a horizontal top member connected to the pair of opposing vertical support members (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Lais further teaches wherein each sensor device (8) in the plurality of sensor devices is mounted to positions on the structural frame for detecting the set of objects by multiple sensor devices (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Lais further teaches wherein the barrier member (4s) comprises: a first barrier member (two middle 4s) associated with a first vertical support (the middle supports 11), the first barrier member including a first wing panel (the second 4) and a second wing panel (the third 4); and a third wing panel (the fourth 4) associated with a second vertical support member (the third supports 11) (fig. 1). Lais silent to, a fourth wing panel associated with the second vertical support member, wherein the first barrier member and the second barrier member block objects in an adjacent lane from a field of view of at least one image capture device associated with the lane.
However, Lais suggested plurality of passage control locks (archway truss devices) are arranged beside one another and a plurality of biometric unit (cameras 8) are also mounted on the plurality of passage control locks (page 3, lines 4-10 and lines 23-33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lais by providing additional passage control lock (archway truss device) arranging side-by-side which would have a fourth wing (the fifth 4) associated with the second vertical support member in order to arrive at the claimed invention (mere duplication).
With regarding to the first barrier member and the second barrier member block objects in adjacent lane from a field of view of at least one image capture device associated with the lane, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized that the first barrier member and the second barrier member (second, third, fourth and fifth wing panels 4), as shown in figure 1 where the wing panels (4) are positioned in front of the plurality of sensor devices (8), would be able to block objects in adjacent lane from a field of view of at least one image capture device associated with the lane.
Regarding claim 6, Lais further teaches wherein the wing panel (4) is downwardly sloped relative to a vertical support member (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Lais further teaches wherein the lane is a first lane (3), and further comprising: a second lane (3) defined by the structural frame, and wherein the plurality of sensor devices (8s) comprises one or more sensor devices removably mounted to the structural frame and positioned to obtain sensor data associated with objects passing through both the first lane and the second lane, wherein a central support member (middle 1) is shared by the first lane and the second lane, and wherein at least one barrier member including a pair of wing panels (the two middle wing panels 4) is disposed between the first lane and the second lane (fig. 1 and page 8, line 32 to page 10, line 33).
Regarding claim 11, Lais teaches a multi-lane (3) interactive passageway system (fig. 1) comprising: a structural frame defining a plurality of lanes for passage of a set of objects (human or individual), the plurality of lanes comprising a first lane (3) and a second lane (another lane 3); a plurality of sensor devices (8s) mounted to the structural frame and positioned to obtain sensor data associated with the set of objects moving through the first lane and the second lane, the plurality of sensor devices comprising a set of image capture devices generating image data associated with the set of objects (page 10, lines 30-33); and a barrier member (four barrier members 4) connected to the structural frame and configured to limit a field of view of the plurality of sensor devices to an area within the first lane and the second lane, the barrier member comprising a pair of wing panels (page 3, line 23 to page 4, line 32 and page 8, line 32 to page 10, line 33).
Lais silent to wherein the pair wing panels positioned to block an object located outside the plurality of lanes from detection by the plurality of sensor devices.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized that the wing panels, as shown in figure 1 where the wing panels (4s) are positioned in front of the plurality of sensor devices (8s), would be able to block an object in the field of view of the plurality of sensor devices that located outside the lane or other side of the wing panels.
Regarding claim 12, Lais further teaches wherein the barrier member further comprises: a first barrier member (4) associated with a first vertical support member (11); a second barrier member (4) associated with a second vertical support member (11); wherein the plurality of sensor devices include a first image capture device (8) mounted to the first vertical support member, a second image capture device (8) mounted to the second vertical support member (fig. 1) but silent to a third barrier member associated with a third vertical support member and a third image capture device mounted to the third vertical support member. However, Lais suggested that plurality of passage control locks are arranged beside one another and a plurality of biometric unit (cameras 8) are also mounted on the plurality of passage control locks (page 3, lines 4-10 and lines 23-33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lais by providing additional passage control lock (passageway system) arranged side-by-side having a third barrier member associated with a third vertical support member and a third image capture device mounted to the third vertical support member in order to arrive at the claimed invention (mere duplication).
Regarding claim 14, same rationale is applied as for claim 12 based on mere duplication of the barrier members for the passageway system.
Regarding claim 15, Lais further teaches wherein each wing panel in the pair of wing panel is downwardly sloped relative to a vertical support member (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, same rationale is applied as for claim 12 based on mere duplication of the third lane.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lais in view of Schroeder et al. (US 2022/0325946).
Regarding claim 3, Lais teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Lais further teaches wherein the barrier member (4) further comprises: a first member associated with a first vertical support member (11); and a second barrier member (4) associated with a second vertical support member (11), wherein the plurality of sensor devices (8s) include a first image capture device (8, page 9, lines 25-33) mounted to the first vertical support member, a second image capture device (8) mounted to the second vertical support member (fig. 1) but silent to a third image capture device mounted to a horizontal top member.
However, Schroeder teaches cabinet comprising a plurality image capture devices (162); wherein one of the plurality of image capture devices mounted on a vertical support member and horizontal top member (fig. 3 and [0032]).
In view of Schroeder’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lais by incorporating the teaching as taught by Schroeder so that additional image capture device can be implemented for detecting and monitoring objects pass therethrough (see Schroeder: [0032]).
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lais in view of Sowers (US 12,098,572).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Lais teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for wherein the barrier member is removably attached to the structural frame and includes paddings.
However, Sowers teaches barrier member (118) is removably attached to the structural frame and includes paddings (col. 5, lines 48-55; col. 6, lines 25-30 and col. 11, lines 48-55).
In view of Sowers’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lais by incorporating the teaching as taught by Sowers so that the barrier member can be removably attached to the structural frame.
Claim(s) 8, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lais in view of Jones et al. (US 2018/0094936).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Lais teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Lais further teaches plurality readers (6, fig. 1) but silent to RFID and barcode readers as claimed.
However, Jones teaches entrance device comprises at least one of RFID and barcode readers as claimed ([0021] and claim 15).
In view of Jones’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lais by incorporating the teaching as taught by Jones in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, Lais teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Lais further teaches wherein each sensor device in the plurality of sensor devices (8) are mounted to positions on the structural frame for detecting the set of objects passing through the first lane and the second lane (fig. 1), wherein the plurality of sensor devices comprises at least one camera (page 8, line 32 to page 9, line 33) but silent to at least one RFID reader.
However, Jones teaches entrance device comprises at least one of RFID and barcode readers as claimed ([0021] and claim 15).
In view of Jones’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lais by incorporating the teaching as taught by Jones in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lais in view of Dorfinger et al. (US 2024/0051246).
Regarding claim 10, Lais teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Lais further teaches the image data generated by the set of image capture device is analyzed by a programmable computer (page 10, line 31 to page 11, line 3) but silent to a computer vision (CV) machine learning (ML) model as claimed.
However, Dorfinger teaches the image data generated by the set of image capture device is analyzed by a computer vision (CV) machine learning (ML) model as claimed ([0133]).
In view of Dorfinger’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified by invention of Lais by incorporating the teaching as taught by Dorfinger since it is just a matter of design option to use well-known and alternative method such as computer vision (CV) machine learning (ML) model for analyzing image data.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lais in view of Jones.
Regarding claim 19, Lais teaches an interactive passageway system (fig. 1) comprising: a pair of opposing vertical support members (11s) forming a structural frame defining a lane for passage of a first object (human or individual); a plurality of sensor devices (8s) mounted to the structural frame comprising a set of image capture devices (8s, col. 9, lines 27-28), wherein each sensor device in the plurality of sensor devices are mounted to positions on the structural frame for detecting the first object by multiple sensor devices; a barrier member (4s) comprising a pair of wing panels (4s) connected to a vertical support member (11s), each wing panel being downwardly sloped relative to the vertical support member (fig. 1); a padding (front surface of bases 1) associated with the barrier member preventing damage to objects coming into contact with the barrier member (page 3, line 23 to page 4, line 32 and page 8, line 32 to page 10, line 33).
Lais silent to wherein the barrier member positioned to block the plurality of sensor devices from obtaining sensor data associated with a second object located outside the lane.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized that the wing panels, as shown in figure 1 where the wing panels (4s) are positioned in front of the plurality of sensor devices (8s), would be able to block the plurality of sensor devices from obtaining sensor data associated with a second object located outside the lane.
Lais further teaches the passageway system comprises plurality of readers (6, fig. 1) but silent to a set of RFID readers as claimed.
However, Jones teaches entrance device comprises at least one of RFID ([0021] and claim 15).
In view of Jones’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lais by incorporating the teaching as taught by Jones in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lais as modified by Jones as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Sowers and Schroeder.
Regarding claim 20, Lais as modified by Jones teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Lais further teaches a first barrier member (the second and third wing panels 4 as shown in figure 1) comprising a first pair of wing panels (the second and third wing panels 4 as shown in figure 1) attached to a portion of a first vertical support member (middle support members 11), wherein the plurality of sensor devices including a first image capture device (8) mounted to the first vertical support member; and a another wing panel (a fourth wing panel 4 as shown in figure 1) attached to a portion of a second vertical support member (11), wherein the plurality of sensor devices include a second image device (8) mounted to the second vertical support member (fig. 1).
Lais silent to a fourth wing panel associated with the second vertical support member, wherein the first barrier member and the second barrier member removably attached to a portion of the support members and a third image capture device mounted to a horizontal top member as claimed.
However, Lais suggested plurality of passage control locks (archway truss devices) are arranged beside one another and a plurality of biometric unit (cameras 8) are also mounted on the plurality of passage control locks (page 3, lines 4-10 and lines 23-33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lais by providing additional passage control lock (archway truss device) arranging side-by-side which would have a fourth wing (the fifth 4) associated with the second vertical support member in order to arrive at the claimed invention (mere duplication). Moreover, Sowers teaches barrier member (118) is removably attached to the structural frame and includes paddings (col. 5, lines 48-55; col. 6, lines 25-30 and col. 11, lines 48-55). In addition, Schroeder teaches cabinet comprising a plurality image capture devices (162); wherein one of the plurality of image capture devices mounted on a vertical support member and horizontal top member (fig. 3 and [0032]).
In view of Sowers’s and Schroeder’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lais and Jones by incorporating the teaching as taught by Sowers so that the barrier member can be removably attached to the structural frame and by incorporating the teaching as taught by Schroeder so that additional image capture device can be implemented for detecting and monitoring objects pass therethrough (see Schroeder: [0032]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
References: Claybrook (US 2026/0043285); Toivanen et al. (US 12,456,340); Miura (US 2023/0342570); Bodurka et al. (US 11,727,740); Beggs et al. (US 2022/0356742); Callas (US 9,312,598) and Irizarry et al. (US 2001/0004239) are cited because they are related to passageway system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuyen Kim Vo whose telephone number is (571)270-1657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8AM-6:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/TUYEN K VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights