The work of Thomas James Lodato
November 1st, 2011

The Patent Multiple (final version)

The Patent Multiple: a case for the document-object is a presentation of a working paper at 4S 2011 in Cleveland, OH. This is a close to final version of the talk.

The questioning of patents is by no means a new project. Numerous authors who study technology have studied these documents to uncover what they tell us about science, technology, and society. Most have explored the legal uses of patents: how patents are deployed in debates over innovation1; how the legal status of patents produce an “anticommons”2; how patents legally bind progress, innovation, and R&D.3 Others have historicized the claims within patents against real practice either in tracing the closure of a technology4 or in tracing knowledge transfer.5 And still there are more.

While the aims, approaches, and arguments are diverse and sometimes contradictory, one feature remains unquestionably consistent: the focus of these discussions involving patents is not patents, but patented objects, whether those objects be mining processes or drill bits. By this token, patents are defined as documents about objects, or more concisely, object-documents.

The patent as object-document denotes many things, a few of which are worth highlighting. First, since patents and patented things are discussed so inextricably tied, patents appear to have the same sociotechnical networks as patented things. In this dependent situatedness, patents exist as embedded waypoints for technologies. To account for patents is nothing more than to account formalizing objects as patentable. Second and derived from the first, an interest in patents is really an interest patented objects, whether that is in the purchase patents or in their debate. The patent officially constitutes an object. Geof Bowker provides a prime example of this, claiming that patents “give internalist and Whig accounts of [...] [what] they describe, and as legal instruments they attempt to impose that interpretation on the material world.”6. Hence, patents blueprint objects by relying on textual-material slippage and anchorage. Third, in these contexts, patents self-efface. The background discussions, descriptions, claims, and drawings, amongst other things, gain credence in how they point away from the patent as an artifact and toward the patent as a fact. This is not to say patents are the intended deployment of an object regardless of accuracy–Bowker does a fine job of debunking this. Instead, patents are reduced–patents are what they say in spite of their instantiations as documents. Lastly, when entered into debates, patents-as-artifacts appear as immutable matter. Certainly the interpretations can render the document differently, but the patent-as-artifact does not change.

These understandings of patents have their rightful place as dominating the discussion involving patents, at least historically. Patents do describe objects, and, in debates about those objects, patents shed light on what is and is not protected, or innovative, or historically accurate. Likewise, patents necessarily self-efface and appear immutable–what legal status could they claim otherwise? But these understandings beg questioning themselves: Are patents really so tied to their purported innovation? Can patents make claims beyond those listed as such? Are they immutable?

The present paper does not answer these in full, but posits a complementary notion: patents are objects that happen to be documents, that is, patents are document-objects. Accordingly, a study of patents does not need to be brought back to the objects described, but can and should explore the patent itself. If STS is concerned at times with failures and flops, marginalia and minutiae, then concerning ourselves with only the descriptive content of patents denies that patents are not just description, but actual objects in the world.

This paper focuses on four specific aspects of one specific patent. These aspects are litanies, drawings, associated documents, and language, only one of which will be covered here, namely associated documents; the patent is Security system for screening people. The presentation is structured around description: specifically describing the difference between the US patent and the associated WIPO patent in order to unpack the way these patents deploy different objects regardless of what they describe. In exploring patents outside of the traditional legal or historical work, the paper aims to contribute to the ongoing discussion within STS as to how to, as John Law puts it, decenter the object.

To begin, we need to start with the patent: Security system for screening people. Here is an excerpt from the abstract:

“The present invention is directed towards an X-ray people screening system capable of rapidly screening people for detection of metals, low Z materials (plastics, ceramics and illicit drugs) and other contraband which might be concealed beneath the person’s clothing or on the person’s body”7

The device of Security system for screening people is one associated with the Transportation Security Administrations’ program called Advanced Imaging Technology. But just to be preemptively clear, I am not concerned with this object (slide 2, pause) or this object (slide 3, pause) but this object (slide 4) and this object (physical patent in hand). While many are aware of the controversy about the TSA program, the device described in this patent is only a piece of the system: Security system for screening people as described by the patent only produces the raw detection data by way of X-rays and not the hotly contested images of AIT. The digital computer and software processes are elsewhere. While the patent mentions the device as generating and displaying images, along with being categorically aligned with imaging, what this might entail is bracketed as demonstrated by figures 1-3 where the words “digital computer” and “image display monitor” appear in within aptly designed black boxes.

But again, the described device is not the concern here. Instead, the concern is the patent itself. (slide 5)

Filed in December 2008 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and issued in November 2010, a provisional application is listed as filed in December 2007 under the same name–save different capitalization upon search.

The originally published patent is 14 pages long as a printer-ready PDF. The first page is a standard overview of a patent including one drawing, the abstract, the inventors, the assignee, the filer, the referenced patents, etc.; the second page is a continuation of the referenced patents (there are 162 cited patents in total, spanning 34 years from 1970 to 2004) (slide 6); the next five pages are drawings; the last seven pages are written text divided into sections. The patent contains 6 drawings and 18 claims. A fifteenth page was added in August 2011 detailing an error reported within the body.

Two foreign patents–one with the European Patent Office and the other with the World Intellectual Property Organization–are listed as being foreign patent documents. The former is a patent from 1988 and the latter is a patent from 2007. We will revisit this second document in a moment. (slide 7)

Online and through Google’s patent database, the patent can be viewed primarily as a combination of two-column webpage with sequential scrolling PDF pages (all fifteen) or as converted, and rather buggy, rich-text. The 14-page patent can also be downloaded from Google Patents. (slide 8) The USPTO website offers different options: the patent primarily displays as simply formatted HTML without the drawings or secondarily as scanned 15-page PDF. The USPTO readable database does not offer a downloadable version of the patent at all, though it is accessible elsewhere. In both cases, various document links are all internal links within the US database. (slide 9)

As previously mentioned, Security system for screening people has two associated patent documents. The later document, as it turns out, is an international dzygotic twin titled Improved security system for screening people. This document, despite its titular amendment, was filed in parallel the US patent and subsequently published a year faster.

Improved security system for screening people is 27 pages long. The only internal changes to the content (at least in English) are additions: an international search report added as an appendix and one additional claim inserted between claims 5 and 6 of the US version. The descriptions, the drawings, inventors, and the other 18 claims are identical Security system for screening people save minor changes such as replacing the abbreviated “FIG.” with the full word “figure” when discussing the diagrams. (slide 10)

Online through the WIPO site, this document can be viewed in full text, browsed with a tabbed display without the full set of images. The WIPO site also offers a downloadable PDF of the patent and the various filing documents–status reports, search reports, preliminaries documents–all in multiple digital formats such as XML with TIFF images and scanned PDFs. The WIPO site also includes external links Improved security system for screening people in its various national phases, that is, as external links. (slide 11)

The length increase is more due to formatting than additions: The US patent of Security system for screening people is two-column justified type with tight leading and 9 point font. Line numbers are placed between the columns, and the top and bottom margins are tight at only a 1-inch and a half inch respectively. On the other hand, the WIPO patent is one-column justified type with more open line spacing, a slightly larger font, and a widened left margins to account for line numbering. The top and bottom margins are significantly larger at 1.5 inches and 1 inch respectively. (slide 12)

As for the the added claim–international claim 6–it simply states “The imaging apparatus of claim 1 wherein said processor processes programmable code that causes the first module or the second module to move vertically.”8 This is truly the only distinguishing feature of the international patent, maybe accounting for why is improved. Without judging whether this is significant enough, the unchanged descriptions, diagrams, and field of invention make this puzzling. Not only are there are no added features described, nor added processes or enumerated parts of mechanical articulation, the US patent actually includes vertical movement in the optional features, though without specifically highlighting it as a claim. (slide 13)

There is one more thing: proceeding the unchanged body text is a note in both that states “The present invention relies on, for priority, [the] United States Provisional Patent Application [...] of the same title, filed on December 25, 2007.”9 The referenced provisional title, however, does not actually contain the word Improved. This is a hold over from the US patent, never modified for the WIPO patent.

What we see is, as artifacts, patents are rather mutable both internally and externally. Internally, a patent can be improved upon not by being different, but by separating claims into smaller parts or enumerating claims that are always there. Innovation is a fractal and document-objects are combinatoric even while the material object remains static.

Externally, the patent can change too. While the international version appears to incorrectly list the title of the US provisional patent, it is the international patent that moves most widely, re-filed with Canada, Europe, Japan, Russia, and Australia, protected in most countries around the world, and easily locateable and interlinked on the web. Hence, the international patent assembles a wide network of consenting organizations, secondary-tier documents, patent officials, obliging governments, eager lawyers, search results, and downloadable PDFs. From this perspective, it is the US patent that gets the title wrong. If facts are merely those things that gain enough observational consensus, then the international patent has constructed a fact about the provisional patent regardless of the US or provisional patents’ disagreement. It is not the security system that improves, but the patent for that security system in how it amasses a globally recognized network.

The patent as an artifact is not simply amended, but recombined and reconstituted as other objects by other objects, some of which are documents. Where Bowker recognizes the patent is a text that can be deployed with interpretation, there is an assumption that the patent itself does not change. Bowker stresses how the non-neutral patent-text can be looked at in terms of its falsehood, i.e. how it is out-of-sync with the world at large, and in this space of discord formulates a rhetorical device on this at the level of content. The claim here goes further: the patent composes a rhetorical device in how it composes networks, such as how one document appears by way of another or how the text itself can be reused. The object described is the same in both, but the patent is not. (slide 14)

What does this say about patents? While patents are often primarily understood as descriptors, patents themselves are partially, and by no means primarily, themselves descriptors. Instead, as objects, patents are ontologies–they compose being by exemplifying categorical intersections, litanizing heterogeneous things, recontextualizing text, and assembling networks. As shown in the association of documents, by approaching patents outside their claims, we see patents configure networks which overlap, but also conflict. When centered, the patented device of Security system for screening people obscures this realization, amongst others here unmentioned. Hence, the patent is multiple: it is a series of objects, a set of practices, a deployment of arguments, a collection of topologies. To reiterate, if STS is concerned at times with failures and flops, marginalia and minutiae, then concerning ourselves with only the descriptive content of patents denies that patents are not just description, but actual objects in the world. To recognize the object-ness of patents is to recognize patents are more than claims, and to admit them to STS finally.

  1. Cambrosio, Alberto; Keating, Peter; MacKenzie, Michael. “Scientific Practice in the Courtroom: The Construction of Sociotechnical Identities in a Biotechnology Patent Dispute” Social Problems Vol. 37, No. 3 (Aug., 1990), pp. 275-293 []
  2. Heller, Michael A. and Eisenberg, Rebecca S.   “Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research” Science 1 May 1998: 280 (5364), 698-701. []
  3. Bessen, James; Maskin, Eric. “Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation” The RAND Journal of Economics 40: 4 (2009) 611-635 []
  4. Bowker, Geof. 1992. “What’s in a Patent?” In Shaping Technology/Building Society, ed. Weibe E. Bijker and John Law, 53-74. Cambridge: The MIT Press. []
  5. Agrawal, Ajay; Henderson, Rebecca. “Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT” Management Science
    Vol. 48, No. 1, Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer (Jan., 2002), pp. 44-60 []
  6. Bowker, Geof. 1992. What’s in a Patent? In Shaping Technology/Building Society, ed. Weibe E. Bijker and John Law, 53-74. Cambridge: The MIT Press., 53 []
  7. http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=EorYAAAAEBAJ []
  8. http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2009082762&recNum=1&tab=PCTClaims&maxRec=&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString= []
  9. http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2009082762&recNum=1&maxRec=&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=&tab=PCTDescription []
by | Posted in mess | No Comments » |
October 21st, 2011

The Patent Multiple: a case for the document-object.

The Patent Multiple: a case for the document-object is a presentation of a working paper at 4S 2011 in Cleveland, OH. This is a working version of the talk.

The questioning of patents is by no means a new project. Numerous authors who study technology have studied these documents to uncover what they tell us about science, technology, and society. Most have explored the legal uses of patents: how patents are deployed in debates over innovation1; how the legal status of patents produce an “anticommons”2; how patents legally bind progress, innovation, and R&D.3 Others have historicized the claims within patents against real practice either in tracing the closure of a technology4 or in tracing knowledge transfer.5 And still there are more.

{ //optional

studies of differences in research geared toward patents versus pure research and development6; the effect of patents, as markers of innovation, on stock prices7; and so on.

}

While the aims, approaches, and arguments are diverse and sometimes contradictory, one feature remains unquestionably consistent: the focus of these discussions involving patents is not patents, but patented objects, whether those objects be mining processes or drill bits. In other words, patents are defined by this use as documents about objects, or more concisely, object-documents.

The patent as object-document denotes many things, a few of which are worth highlighting. First, since patents and patented things are discussed so inextricably tied, patents appear to have the same sociotechnical network as the patented thing. In this dependent situatedness, patents exist as embedded waypoints for technologies. To account for patents is nothing more than to account patented objects and a process of patenting. Second and derivative of the first, arguing with patents is really deploying arguments about objects. When one brings a patent into debate, the patent serves as another, though certainly official, constitution of an object. Geof Bowker provides a prime example of this, claiming that patents “give internalist and Whig accounts of the development of the process or apparatus that they describe, and as legal instruments they attempt to impose that interpretation on the material world.”8. The patent is a manifestation of some version of an object: an internalist and Whig version for some or maybe an externalist and socially constructed for others. Regardless of what the object is, the patent deploys it. Third, the object-document patent self-effaces. The background discussion, the description, the claims, the drawings, and the search report enter to point away from the patent as an artifact and toward the patent as a fact. This is not to say patents are true–Bowker does a fine job of debunking the veracity of patents by making its text exactly such. Instead, patents are reduced–the patent is what it says. Lastly and most subtly, when entered into debates, patents appear as immutable matters-of-fact. Certainly the interpretations can render the text differently, but the patent as a document does not change.

These understandings of patents have their rightful place as dominating the discussion involving patents. Patents do describe objects, and, in debates about those objects, patents shed light on what is and is not protected, or innovative, or historically accurate. Likewise, patents necessarily self-efface and appear immutable–what legal relevance would they have otherwise? But these understandings beg questioning themselves: Are patents really so tied to their purported innovation? Can a patent make claims beyond claims about its object? Are they not objects themselves? Are they immutable? Are they so one dimensional?

The present paper does not answer these in full, but posits a complementary notion: patents are objects that happen to be documents, that is, patents are document-objects. Accordingly, a study of patents does not need to be brought back to the objects described, but can and should explore the patent itself.

This paper focuses on four specific aspects of one specific patent. These aspects are litanies, drawings, associated documents, and language; the patent is Security system for screening people. The paper is structured around description, and specifically trying to describe what the patent for Security system for screening people is beyond the object the patent itself describes. These aspects provide counterpoints to the traditional notions of patents. In exploring patents outside of the traditional object-contextualization work, the paper aims to contribute to the ongoing discussion within STS as to how to, as John Law puts it, decenter the object.

For the purposes of the presentation, only discuss associated documents will be covered.

To begin, we need to start with the patent: Security system for screening people. An excerpt from the abstract:

“The present invention is directed towards an X-ray people screening system capable of rapidly screening people for detection of metals, low Z materials (plastics, ceramics and illicit drugs) and other contraband which might be concealed beneath the person’s clothing or on the person’s body”9

{ //optional

In an exemplary embodiment, the scanning system has two scanning modules that are placed in parallel, yet opposing positions relative to each other. The two modules are spaced to allow a subject, such as a person, to stand and pass between the two scanning modules. The first module and second module each include a radiation source (such as X-ray radiation) and a detector array. The subject under inspection stands between the two modules such that a front side of the subject faces one module and the back side of the subject faces the other module.”((http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=EorYAAAAEBAJ))

}

The device of Security system for screening people is one associated with the Transportation Security Administrations’ program called Advanced Imaging Technology. While many are aware of the controversy about the TSA program, the device described in this patent is only a piece of the system: the device of Security system for screening people only produces the raw detection data by way of X-rays and not the hotly contested images of AIT. The digital computer and software processes are elsewhere. While the patent mentions the device as generating and displaying images and is categorically aligned with imaging, what this might entail is bracketed as demonstrated by figures 1-3 where the words “digital computer” and “image display monitor” appear in within aptly designed black boxes.

{ //optional

Here are three diagrams that bring this abstract into some visual form. The first diagram shows “a side view of the screening system of the present invention, further illustrating the position of a subject under inspection”. The next diagrams show “a side view of the screening system of the present invention, further illustrating a subject being scanned by the first [and second] module”. These drawings show “a mechanical means for generating a horizontal [and vertical] sweeping pencil beam of X-rays”.10

}

Filed in December 2008 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and issued in November 2010, a provisional application is listed as filed in December 2007 under the same name–save different capitalization. The listed inventors–Andreas Kotowski and Ronald J. Hughs–are located in California–Ranchos Palos Verde and Garden Grove, respectively at the time of filing–and work presumably for Rapiscan Systems, Inc., located in Torrence, California.

The originally published patent is 14 pages long as a printer-ready PDF. The first page is a standard overview of a patent including one drawing, the abstract, the inventors, the assignee, the filer, the referenced patents, etc.; the second page is a continuation of the referenced patents (there are 162 cited patents in total, spanning 34 years from 1970 to 2004); the next five pages are drawings; the last seven pages are written text divided into sections. The patent contains 6 drawings and 18 claims. A fifteenth page was added in August 2011 detailing an error reported within the body.

{ //conditionally read with other documents

Two foreign patents–one with the European Patent Office and the other with the World Intellectual Property Organization–are listed as being foreign patent documents. The former is a patent from 1988 and the latter is a patent from 2007. (We will revisit this second document later.)

}

Online and through Google’s patent database, the patent can be viewed primarily as a combination of two-column webpage with sequential scrolling PDF pages (all fifteen) or as converted, and rather buggy, rich-text. The 14-page patent can also be downloaded from Google Patents. The USPTO website offers different options: the patent primarily displays as simply formatted HTML without the drawings or secondarily as scanned 15-page PDF. The USPTO does not offer a downloadable version of the patent at all.

{ //conditionally read with litanties

The patent is listed within the international subcategory of G01N 23/201. The category holds patents dealing with “[i]nvestigating or analysing materials by the use of wave or particle radiation [...] by using diffraction of the radiation [... and specifically] by measuring small-angle scattering”.11 The patent as list with this category is defined negatively as grouped with those patents “not covered by group G01N 21/00 or G01N 22/00, e.g. X-rays, neutrons”.12 Within the US, the patent is cross-categorized in classes 378/57 and 378/87. The former groups patents for inspecting closed containers13; the latter groups patents for imaging14. The patent is here defined in three non-intersecting ways–by its method, by its subject, and by its product.

}

Now that the patent has been laid out, we arrive at a question: what does this tell us?

Litanies:

In revisiting the first sentence of the abstract we find a curious thing:

“The present invention is directed towards an X-ray people screening system capable of rapidly screening people for detection of metals, low Z materials (plastics, ceramics and illicit drugs) and other contraband which might be concealed beneath the person’s clothing or on the person’s body.”

Worth noting are the two lists, or litanies, within this single sentence: one containing “metals, low Z materials and other contraband”, and another parenthetical litany refining low Z materials, “plastics, ceramics, and illicit drugs”. Focusing on the second litany we seem to be given a definition by example of what low Z materials are. Put directly, low Z materials are materials that are composed of elements with a low atomic weight, such as carbon and nitrogen. While plastics, ceramics, and illicit drugs are most certainly low Z materials, so are sandwiches, people, and leather belts. That is to say, low Z materials define a large number of things that are commonly occurring. Within the context of airport security, plastics, ceramics, and illicit drugs certainly rise in particular interest since people are asked to remove all of these other items when passing through a checkpoint, leaving, say, a ceramic pistol to the gaze of the machine. But this litany is not simply a list that describes what the patented machine detects since it will detect watches if given the opportunity. Instead, the litany does something else, namely presents what a threat is more abstractly.

This form of list is often called a Latour litany in object-oriented philosophy. In general, Latour litanties, as philosopher Graham Harman writes, “establish the autonomous force and personality of individual actors, rather than allowing them to be reduced to or swallowed up by some supposedly deeper principle”,15 or, as philosopher Ian Bogost states a Latour litany “underscores the rich diversity of things”.16 In terms of arguments, litanies explain the composition of the world, i.e. an ontology, by demonstrating the heterogeneous co-existence of things. Plastics, ceramics, and illicit drugs define a world that is complicated, changing, and categorically blurry, but also what one that is detectable and distinguishable.

More over, the parenthetical litany is further exaggerated by its containment in another litany–metals, low Z materials, and contraband. Here, again, is a description of the fluid and fuzzy being of threats. Metal is not necessarily contraband, nor are low Z materials. The patent collocates these, and so correlates them. In a post-9/11 world where insurgents and terrorists intermingle with allies and freedom fighters, the state of being a threat is not simply being deductively dangerous, but inductively threatening. Shampoo, nail clippers, and tennis shoes exist alongside glocks, carbon-fiber knives, and plastic explosives. Security system for screening people, the patent and not the object, describes (shall we say patents) a world view as being composed of ever changing requirements and sites of security.

There are more however: the list of categories, the list of locations, the list of claims. As for the first, imaging, closed containers, and small-angle scattering assemble to define the patent as Venn diagram, the genetic intersection of separate objects. The second defines the patent as a geography. As much as it and the patented apparatus can be located, the patent also has an opposite vector–placing people, companies, linked files, and governments in space. The third defines Security system for screening people as a rich collection of sentences beginning with phrase “The imaging apparatus” as much as a litany of who and what has efficacy in airports.

Other documents:

As previously mentioned, Security system for screening people has two associated patent documents. The later document, as it turns out, is an international dzygotic twin titled Improved security system for screening people. This document, despite its titular amendment, was filed in parallel the US patent and subsequently published a year quicker.

Improved security system for screening people is 27 pages long. The only internal changes to the content (at least in English) are additions: an international search report added as an appendix and one additional claim inserted between claims 5 and 6 of the US version. The descriptions, the drawings, inventors, and the other 18 claims are identical Security system for screening people save minor changes such as replacing the abbreviated “FIG.” with the full word “figure” when discussing the diagrams.

The length increase is more due to formatting than additions: The US patent of Security system for screening people is two-column justified type with tight leading and 9 point font. Line numbers placed between the columns, and the top and bottom margins are tight at only a 1-inch and a half inch respectively. On the other hand, the WIPO patent is one-column justified type with more open line spacing, a slightly larger font, and a widened left margins to account for line numbering. The top and bottom margins are significantly larger at 1.5 inches and 1 inch respectively.

{ //optional

Additionally, the online format is a tabbed javascript enabled page, separating out sections and excluding drawings. A PDF and an XML with TIFF images are downloadable.

}

As for the the added claim–international claim 6–it simply states “The imaging apparatus of claim 1 wherein said processor processes programmable code that causes the first module or the second module to move vertically.”17 This is truly the only distinguishing feature of the international patent, maybe accounting for why is improved. Without judging whether this is significant enough, the unchanged descriptions, diagrams, and field of invention make this puzzling. Not only are there are no added features described, nor processes of mechanical articulation, the US patent actually includes vertical movement in the optional features, though without specifically highlighting this as unique.

Regardless of whether it actually improves upon the US patent, the WIPO document does something else. Proceeding the unchanged body text is a note that states “The present invention relies on, for priority, United States Provisional Patent Application Number 61/016,590, of the same title, filed on December 25, 2007.”18 The referenced provisional title, however, does not actually contain the word Improved.

What this demonstrates is that as artifacts patents are rather mutable both internally and externally. A patent can be improved upon not by being different, but by separating claims into smaller parts or enumerating claims that are always there. Innovation appears combinatoric through internal reconfiguration.

Externally, the patent can change as well. While the international patent appears to incorrectly state the title of the provisional US patent, it is the international patent that moves most widely, re-filed with Canada, Europe, Japan, and Australia, and protected in most countries around the world. From this perspective, it is the US provisional patent that got it wrong. To clarify, the international patent assembles a network of consenting organizations, secondary-tier documents, patent officials, obliging governments, eager lawyers, and search results. If facts are merely those things that gain enough observational consensus, then the international patent has constructed a fact about the provisional patent regardless of the provisional patents’ disagreement.

What matters in both these cases is that the patent as an artifact is not simply built upon, but recombined and reconstituted as other objects by other objects, some of which are documents. Where Bowker recognizes the patent is a text that can be deployed with interpretation, there is an assumption that the patent does not itself change. Bowker stresses how the non-neutral patent-text can be looked at in terms of its falsehood, i.e. how it is out-of-sync with the world at large, and in this space of discord formulates a rhetorical device on this at the level of content. These examples claim otherwise: the patent composes a rhetorical device in how it moves through these networks, such as how one document appears by way of another or how the text can be reused. The object described in both is the same, but the patent is not. The inextricable ties seem to be loosening. Even more these deployments appear as matters-of-fact, further strengthening their potency: the international version can be distributed as an XML document with TIFF images. Unassuming enough, this format disguises that the bulk of its composition enumerates geographies of protection rather than what it protects.

To briefly conclude, I pose a question: what does this say about patents? While patents are often primarily understood as descriptors, patents themselves are partially, and by no means primarily, themselves descriptors. If STS is concerned with failures and flops, marginalia and minutiae, then preferencing the descriptive capacity of patents denies the many other ways to concern one’s self with document-objects in general and patents in particular. As objects, patents in many ways move move independently of their objects. As an example, Security system for screening people provides insight into how we can decenter objects, whether those be the patented objects or patents themselves.

  1. Cambrosio, Alberto; Keating, Peter; MacKenzie, Michael. “Scientific Practice in the Courtroom: The Construction of Sociotechnical Identities in a Biotechnology Patent Dispute” Social Problems Vol. 37, No. 3 (Aug., 1990), pp. 275-293 []
  2. Heller, Michael A. and Eisenberg, Rebecca S.   “Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research” Science 1 May 1998: 280 (5364), 698-701. []
  3. Bessen, James; Maskin, Eric. “Sequential innovation, patents, and imitation” The RAND Journal of Economics 40: 4 (2009) 611-635 []
  4. Bowker, Geof. 1992. “What’s in a Patent?” In Shaping Technology/Building Society, ed. Weibe E. Bijker and John Law, 53-74. Cambridge: The MIT Press. []
  5. Agrawal, Ajay; Henderson, Rebecca. “Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT” Management Science
    Vol. 48, No. 1, Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer (Jan., 2002), pp. 44-60 []
  6. Bound, J. et al. “Who Does R&D and Who Patents?” R&D, Patents and Productivity, edited by Zvi Griliches. Chicago: Univeristy of Chicago Press, (1984).pp. 21-54. []
  7. Cockburn, Iain; Griliches, Zvi. “Industry Effects and Appropriability Measures in the Stock Markets Valuation of R&D and Patents” American Economic Review, Proceedings Issue vol. 78, no. 2, May 1988. PP. 4 19-423 []
  8. Bowker, Geof. 1992. What’s in a Patent? In Shaping Technology/Building Society, ed. Weibe E. Bijker and John Law, 53-74. Cambridge: The MIT Press., 53 []
  9. http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=EorYAAAAEBAJ []
  10. http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=EorYAAAAEBAJ []
  11. http://www.wipo.int/ipcpub/#symbol=G01N0023201000&refresh=page []
  12. http://www.wipo.int/ipcpub/#symbol=G01N0023201000&refresh=page []
  13. http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc378/defs378.htm#C378S057000 []
  14. http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc378/defs378.htm#C378S087000 []
  15. http://doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/latour-litanies-and-gibbon/ []
  16. http://www.bogost.com/blog/latour_litanizer.shtml []
  17. http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2009082762&recNum=1&tab=PCTClaims&maxRec=&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString= []
  18. http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2009082762&recNum=1&maxRec=&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=&tab=PCTDescription []
by | Posted in mess | No Comments » |
September 22nd, 2011

Making a technology surveil

Let’s begin with two propositions:

1/ No technology is fully determined by its negotiations.

2/ No technology is fully determined by its materiality.

The first statement deals in the dimension of associations (some call this the social dimension); the second statement deals in the dimension of postulation. In other words, the first proposition demands some account of material and the second demands some account of negotiation. Let’s follow an example.

The doorknob is an artifact that is often found on doors, but it isn’t always on doors. Doorknobs exist doorless in hardware stores, or affixed to other surfaces, such as walls, for aesthetic, and possibly functional, reasons. Linguistically, the doorknob is a portmanteau that is communicative of context and function, coupling what it is with what it is designed to do. We learn, or are taught, over time to use this as a way to open and close the affixed surface. Sometime this learning is through patterning–we watch our mothers and fathers, friends and strangers, twist or turn the object when passing beyond a doored threshold, and so follow accordingly. Other times, we are taught, or maybe scolded, as grimy-fingered children not to touch the door itself, hence relying on the bastion of the knob to avoid punishment. Additionally, we learn by material trial and error. The doorknob itself teaches us how to use it. When we don’t turn it (in certain cases mind you), the door will not open. The materiality of the doorknob allows us to grab it, as much as its often metallic contrast to matte paints on doors situate it as different (it jumps out in a phenomenological sense). But a round metallic doorknob differs only slightly from a trailer hitch at a short distance, so the material object doesn’t just afford and ally itself without effort.

In the same way, I have recently been considering how a technology comes to be a surveillance technology. Obviously, some part of this is materially embedded in the technology. A surveillance technology must detect, track, monitor, or watch something; it has to indicate that this something is present or not; it has to accommodate in its embodiment the objects of surveillance as well as the observers. But these are not everything. What makes something like a metal detector a surveillance measure, and so a security object? The simple answer is “It depends on what we think is worth watching.” Hence (and this should be no surprise), surveillance technologies must be rhetorically positioned, either by officials, or the public, or by themselves.

My claim is this happens at the stage of patenting, not just at the final production level. Patents provide the a formal((I mean this in two ways: formal in terms of the literal form of the patent itself and formal in terms of a patent as an official avenue)) co-location of actors. The document-objects technomorphize threats as well as threatmorphize technology.

by | Posted in mess, surveillance | No Comments » |
September 8th, 2011

The Raw XML version of WO PCT/US2008/088345

<?xml version=”1.0″ encoding=”UTF-8″?>
<wo-published-application produced-by=”IB” file=”wo-published-application.xml” dtd-version=”1.7″ lang=”en” date-produced=”20090702″>
<wo-bibliographic-data produced-by=”IB” lang=”en”>
<publication-reference>
<document-id lang=”en”>
<country>WO</country>
<doc-number>2009/082762</doc-number>
<kind>A1</kind>
<date>20090702</date>
</document-id>
</publication-reference>
<wo-publication-info>
<pct-pub-info>
<wo-published-text>
<wo-text-letter-code>x</wo-text-letter-code>
</wo-published-text>
</pct-pub-info>
<wo-pubnum>27/2009</wo-pubnum>
</wo-publication-info>
<application-reference appl-type=”international”>
<document-id lang=”en”>
<country>US</country>
<doc-number>US2008/088345</doc-number>
<date>20081224</date>
</document-id>
</application-reference>
<invention-title lang=”en”>IMPROVED SECURITY SYSTEM FOR SCREENING PEOPLE</invention-title>
<invention-title lang=”fr”>SYSTÈME DE SÉCURITÉ AMÉLIORÉ POUR LE CRIBLAGE DE PERSONNES</invention-title>
<parties>
<applicants>
<applicant app-type=”applicant” sequence=”1″ designation=”all”>
<addressbook lang=”en”>
<name>RAPISCAN SECURITY PRODUCTS, INC.</name>
<address>
<address-1>2805 Columbia Street</address-1>
<address-2>Torrance, CA 90503</address-2>
<postcode>90503</postcode>
<country>US</country>
</address>
</addressbook>
<nationality>
<country>US</country>
</nationality>
<residence>
<country>US</country>
</residence>
</applicant>
</applicants>
<inventors>
<inventor sequence=”1″ designation=”all”>
<addressbook lang=”en”>
<name>HUGHES, Ronald, J.</name>
<address>
<address-1>12812 Topaz Street$Garden Grove, CA 92845</address-1>
<postcode>92845</postcode>
<country>US</country>
</address>
</addressbook>
</inventor>
<inventor sequence=”2″ designation=”all”>
<addressbook lang=”en”>
<name>KOTOWSKI, Andreas F.</name>
<address>
<address-1>2315 Sunnyside Ridge Road$Rancho Palos Verdes, CA</address-1>
<postcode>CA</postcode>
<country>US</country>
</address>
</addressbook>
</inventor>
</inventors>
<agents>
<agent sequence=”1″ rep-type=”agent”>
<addressbook lang=”en”>
<name>ANSARI, Hazim</name>
<address>
<address-1>Patentmetrix</address-1>
<address-2>14252 Culver Dr.</address-2>
<address-3>Box 914</address-3>
<address-4>Irvine, CA 92604</address-4>
<postcode>92604</postcode>
<country>US</country>
</address>
</addressbook>
</agent>
</agents>
</parties>
<designation-of-states>
<designation-pct>
<regional>
<region>
<country>EP</country>
</region>
<country>AT</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>BE</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>BG</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>CH</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>CY</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>CZ</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>DE</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>DK</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>EE</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>ES</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>FI</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>FR</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>GB</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>GR</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>HR</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>HU</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>IE</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>IS</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>IT</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>LT</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>LU</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>LV</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>MC</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>MT</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>NL</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>NO</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>PL</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>PT</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>RO</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>SE</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>SI</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>SK</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>TR</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
</regional>
<regional>
<region>
<country>OA</country>
</region>
<country>BF</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>BJ</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>CF</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>CG</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>CI</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>CM</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>GA</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>GN</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>GQ</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>GW</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>ML</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>MR</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>NE</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>SN</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>TD</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>TG</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
</regional>
<regional>
<region>
<country>AP</country>
</region>
<country>BW</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>GH</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>GM</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>KE</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>LS</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>MW</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>MZ</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>NA</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>SD</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>SL</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>SZ</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>TZ</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>UG</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>ZM</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>ZW</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
</regional>
<regional>
<region>
<country>EA</country>
</region>
<country>AM</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>AZ</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>BY</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>KG</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>KZ</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>MD</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>RU</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>TJ</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>TM</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
</regional>
<national>
<country>AE</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>AG</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>AL</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>AM</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>provisional-patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>AO</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>AT</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>AU</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>AZ</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>BA</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>BB</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>BG</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>BH</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>BR</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>BW</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>BY</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>BZ</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>CA</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>CH</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>CN</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>CO</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>CR</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>CU</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>inventor-certificate</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>CZ</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>DE</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>DK</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>DM</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>DO</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>DZ</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>EC</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>EE</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>EG</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>ES</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>FI</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>GB</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>GD</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>GE</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>GH</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-certificate</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>GM</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>GT</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>HN</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>HR</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>consensual-patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>HU</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>ID</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>IL</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>IN</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>IS</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>JP</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>KE</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>KG</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>KM</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>KN</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>KP</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>inventor-certificate</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>KR</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>KZ</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>provisional-patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>LA</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>LC</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>LK</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>LR</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>LS</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>LT</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>LU</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>LY</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>MA</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>MD</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>ME</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>MG</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>MK</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>MN</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>MW</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>MX</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>MY</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-innovation</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>MZ</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>NA</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>NG</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>NI</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>NO</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>NZ</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>OM</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>PG</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>PH</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>PL</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>PT</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>RO</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>RS</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>petty-patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>RU</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>SC</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>SD</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>SE</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>SG</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>SK</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>SL</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>SM</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>ST</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>SV</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>SY</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>TJ</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>TM</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>provisional-patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>TN</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>TR</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>TT</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-certificate</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>TZ</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>UA</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>UG</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-certificate</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>US</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>UZ</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-model</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>VC</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>utility-certificate</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>VN</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent-for-utility-solution</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>ZA</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>ZM</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
<country>ZW</country>
<protection-request>
<kind-of-protection>patent</kind-of-protection>
</protection-request>
</national>
</designation-pct>
</designation-of-states>
<wo-priority-info>
<priority-claim kind=”national” sequence=”1″>
<country>US</country>
<doc-number>61/016,590</doc-number>
<date>20071225</date>
</priority-claim>
</wo-priority-info>
<search-authority>
<isa>
<country>US</country>
</isa>
</search-authority>
<classifications-ipcr>
<classification-ipcr>
<ipc-version-indicator>
<date>20060101</date>
</ipc-version-indicator>
<classification-level>A</classification-level>
<section>G</section>
<class>01</class>
<subclass>N</subclass>
<main-group>23</main-group>
<subgroup>20</subgroup>
<symbol-position>F</symbol-position>
<classification-value>I</classification-value>
<generating-office>
<country>US</country>
</generating-office>
<classification-status>B</classification-status>
<classification-data-source>H</classification-data-source>
</classification-ipcr>
</classifications-ipcr>
</wo-bibliographic-data>
<abstract lang=”en”>
<p num=”0000″>The present invention is directed towards an X-ray people screening system capable of rapidly screening people for detection of metals, low Z materials (plastics, ceramics and illicit drugs) and other contraband which might be concealed beneath the person’s clothing or on the person’s body. In an exemplary embodiment, the scanning system has two scanning modules that are placed in parallel, yet opposing positions relative to each other. The two modules are spaced to allow a subject, such as a person, to stand and pass between the two scanning modules. The first module and second module each include a radiation source (such as X-ray radiation) and a detector array. The subject under inspection stands between the two modules such that a front side of the subject faces one module and the back side of the subject faces the other module. </p>
</abstract>
<abstract lang=”fr”>
<p num=”0000″>La présente invention concerne un système de criblage de personnes par rayons X capable de cribler rapidement des personnes pour la détection de métaux, de matériaux à Z faible (plastiques, céramiques et drogues illicites) et autres contrebandes pouvant être cachées sous les vêtements d’une personne ou sur le corps d’une personne. Selon un exemple de mode de réalisation, le système de balayage comprend deux modules de balayage qui sont placés en parallèle, mais en positions opposées l’un par rapport à l’autre. Les deux modules sont espacés pour permettre à un sujet, par exemple une personne, de se tenir et de passer entre les deux modules de balayage. Le premier module et le second module comprennent chacun une source de rayonnements (par exemple de rayons X) et un réseau de détection. Le sujet inspecté se tient entre les deux modules de manière à ce que l’avant du sujet soit en face d’un module et l’arrière du sujet en face de l’autre module.</p>
</abstract>
<abstract-figure orientation=”V”>
<img file=”US2008088345_02072009_pf_fp.g4″ img-format=”tif” img-content=”drawing” he=”217MM” wi=”161MM”/>
</abstract-figure>
<abstract-figure orientation=”V” lang=”en”>
<img file=”US2008088345_02072009_gz_en.g4″ img-format=”tif” img-content=”drawing” he=”217MM” wi=”161MM”/>
</abstract-figure>
<abstract-figure orientation=”V” lang=”fr”>
<img file=”US2008088345_02072009_gz_fr.g4″ img-format=”tif” img-content=”drawing” he=”210MM” wi=”158MM”/>
</abstract-figure>
<front-page>
<doc-page id=”docp000001″ type=”tif” file=”000001.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
<doc-page id=”docp000002″ type=”tif” file=”000002.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
</front-page>
<description>
<doc-page id=”docp000003″ type=”tif” file=”000003.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
<doc-page id=”docp000004″ type=”tif” file=”000004.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
<doc-page id=”docp000005″ type=”tif” file=”000005.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
<doc-page id=”docp000006″ type=”tif” file=”000006.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
<doc-page id=”docp000007″ type=”tif” file=”000007.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
<doc-page id=”docp000008″ type=”tif” file=”000008.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
<doc-page id=”docp000009″ type=”tif” file=”000009.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
<doc-page id=”docp000010″ type=”tif” file=”000010.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
<doc-page id=”docp000011″ type=”tif” file=”000011.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
<doc-page id=”docp000012″ type=”tif” file=”000012.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
<doc-page id=”docp000013″ type=”tif” file=”000013.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
<doc-page id=”docp000014″ type=”tif” file=”000014.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
<doc-page id=”docp000015″ type=”tif” file=”000015.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
<doc-page id=”docp000016″ type=”tif” file=”000016.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
<doc-page id=”docp000017″ type=”tif” file=”000017.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
<doc-page id=”docp000018″ type=”tif” file=”000018.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
</description>
<claims>
<doc-page id=”docp000019″ type=”tif” file=”000019.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
<doc-page id=”docp000020″ type=”tif” file=”000020.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
<doc-page id=”docp000021″ type=”tif” file=”000021.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
</claims>
<drawings>
<doc-page id=”docp000022″ type=”tif” file=”000022.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
<doc-page id=”docp000023″ type=”tif” file=”000023.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
<doc-page id=”docp000024″ type=”tif” file=”000024.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
<doc-page id=”docp000025″ type=”tif” file=”000025.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
<doc-page id=”docp000026″ type=”tif” file=”000026.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
</drawings>
<wo-search-report>
<doc-page id=”docp000027″ type=”tif” file=”000027.tif” wi=”2540″ he=”3560″/>
</wo-search-report>
</wo-published-application>

by | Posted in mess, surveillance | No Comments » |
September 8th, 2011

The Annotated WO PCT/US2008/088345: Improved Security System for Screening People

ABSTRACT

The present invention is directed towards an X-ray people screening system capable of rapidly screening people for detection of metals, low Z materials (plastics, ceramics and illicit drugs)1 and other contraband2 which might be concealed beneath the person’s clothing or on the person’s body. In an exemplary embodiment, the scanning system has two scanning modules that are placed in parallel, yet opposing positions relative to each other. The two modules are spaced to allow a subject, such as a person,((The oddness of this specifying clause is clear. The invention is called “Improved Security System for Screening People” )) to stand and pass between the two scanning modules. The first module and second module each include a radiation source (such as X-ray radiation) and a detector array. The subject under inspection stands between the two modules such that a front side of the subject faces one module and the back side of the subject faces the other module.3

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention generally relates to the field of X-ray screening systems for screening people, and more specifically to an inspection system that uses a first module and a second module to sequentially or simultaneously scan both the front side and the back side of a subject without requiring the subject to rotate. In addition, the present invention relates to an inspection system that that uses a first module and a second module for generating images from both a) image signals backscattered from the subject and b) shadow image signals created from X-rays that do not strike the subject during a scan.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Security systems4 are presently limited in their ability to detect contraband, weapons, explosives, and other dangerous objects concealed under clothing. Metal detectors and chemical sniffers are commonly used for the detection of large metal objects and some types of explosives; however, a wide range of dangerous objects exist that cannot be detected with these devices. Plastic and ceramic weapons are non-metallic objects that security personnel are required to detect. Currently, existing systems do not detect such objects well, and the alternative of manual searching is slow, inconvenient, and not well tolerated by the general public, especially as a standard procedure in, for example, airports.5
Prior art X-ray systems for detecting objects concealed on persons do exist and can be improved from the perspective of radiation dosing, scanning speed and image quality. For example, United States Patent Number 5,181,234 (hereinafter, the ‘”234 patent”), assigned to the assignee of the present invention, and herein incorporated by reference in its entirety, describes “[a] pencil beam of X-rays is scanned over the surface of the body of a person being examined. X-rays that are scattered or reflected from the subject’s body are detected by a detector. The signal produced by this scattered X-ray detector in then used to modulate an image display device to produce an image of the subject and any concealed objects carried by the subject. The detector assembly is constructed in a configuration to automatically and uniformly enhance the image edges of low atomic number (low Z) concealed objects to facilitate their detection. A storage means is provided by which previously acquired images can be compared with the present image for analyzing variances in similarities with the present image, and provides means for creating a generic representation of the body being examined while suppressing anatomical features of the subject to minimize invasion of the subject’s privacy.” The system, as described, however, requires that the subject assume at least two poses for a full scan. Even with the at least two poses, certain areas of the subject may not be captured due to hidden areas. In addition, the scanning system of the ’234 patent is only capable of detecting backscattered radiation, due to the position of the detector array. This patent is incorporated by reference.
In addition, United States Patent Number 6,094,472 (hereinafter, the ‘”472 patent”), also assigned to the assignee of the present invention, describes a method for using an X-ray backscatter imaging system for searching a subject for concealed objects, “comprising the steps of: moving the subject within a passageway, the passageway having an entrance and an exit; initiating operation of at least one X-ray source upon entry of the subject into the passageway; producing a pencil beam of X-rays having a low dose directed toward a scanning area at a plurality of scanning positions within the passageway; scanning the pencil beam of X-rays over the scanning area; tracking said pencil beam of X-rays to each of said plurality of scanning positions, wherein the tracking is substantially coordinated with forward progress of the subject through the passageway; using a plurality of detectors, detecting X-rays that are backscattered from said pencil beam as a result of interacting with the subject when positioned at each scanning position of the plurality of scanning positions; and displaying a digitally represented image of the detected backscattered X-rays.” The ’472 patent suffers from the same disadvantages as the ’234 patent in that it is only capable of detecting backscattered radiation, due to the positioning of the detector array and radiation sources and requires that the subject move through the passageway of the system, thus complicating detection capability due to the motion of the subject. This patent is incorporated by reference.
Further, United States Patent No. 6,393,095 (hereinafter the ‘”095 patent), issued to Robinson, describes a method for detecting a defect in a sample in which “a pair of stereoscopic images of the sample are produced, one image is subtracted from the other to provide a resulting two dimensional image, and that said resulting two dimensional image is checked against a golden two dimensional image which has been produced in identical fashion from the said golden sample, identity of the two images indicating identity between the said sample and the said golden sample, differences indicating a difference between the said sample and the said golden sample.” The ’095 patent, however, uses methods of subtracting resultant images, rather than combining images. This patent is incorporated by reference.
The above-mentioned systems, while effective at people screening, have low overall throughput and require several scanning or image acquisition steps. In addition, they require large amounts of operational space, which is not always available at a given inspection site.
Accordingly, there is need for a relatively compact people screening system that is capable of scanning both the front side and back side of a person without requiring the person to rotate or walk through for additional scans, thereby enabling relatively higher overall system throughput.6
Further, conventional people screening systems generally contend with the competing interests of image quality and privacy, usually at the expense of either one of the two. Thus, there is a need for a people screening system that uses a combination of backscatter image signals with shadow image signals to provide higher quality images for better edge enhancement and contraband detection without invading privacy of the person.7

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In one embodiment, the present invention comprises an imaging apparatus for detecting a concealed object carried on a human body comprising: a first module, further comprising a first X-ray source for producing a first pencil beam of X-rays directed toward said human body and a first detector assembly providing a signal representative of the intensity of the X-rays scattered from said human body as a result of being scanned by the first X-ray source, said first detector assembly being disposed on a same side of said human body as said first X-ray source and having an active area for receiving a portion of said scattered X-rays from said human body as a result of being scanned by said first X-ray source and a portion of transmitted X-rays; a second module, further comprising a second X-ray source for producing a second pencil beam of X-rays directed toward said human body and a second detector assembly providing a signal representative of the intensity of the X-rays scattered from said human body as a result of being scanned by said second X-ray source, said second detector assembly being disposed on a same side of said human body as said second X-ray source and having an active area for receiving a portion of said scattered X-rays from said human body as a result of being scanned by said second X-ray source and a portion of transmitted X-rays from the first module; a processor for processing detector signals generated from said first detector assembly and second detector assembly to form at least one image; and a display for presenting said at least one image to an operator.
Optionally,8 the imaging apparatus further comprises an enclosure having four walls, at least one ceiling and at least one floor with a pressure sensitive sensor that transmits signals to a processor to initiate scanning. Optionally, the processor comprises programmable code that causes the first module to scan the human body while the second X-ray source is not activated. Optionally, the processor comprises programmable code that causes said second module to scan the human body while the first X-ray source is not activated. Optionally, the processor comprises programmable code that causes the first module or the second module to move vertically. Optionally, the vertical movement is coordinated. Optionally, the first module is interchangeable with the second module. Optionally, the processor comprises programmable code that uses signals representative of the intensity of the X-rays scattered from said human body as a result of being scanned by the first X-ray source from first detector assembly and signals representative of the intensity of the X-rays scattered from said human body as a result of being scanned by the second X-ray source from second detector assembly to generate said image. Optionally, the processor processes programmable code that uses signals representative of the intensity of the X-rays scattered from said human body as a result of being scanned by the second X-ray source from second detector assembly and signals representative of the intensity of the X-rays scattered from said human body as a result of being scanned by the first X-ray source from first detector assembly to generate said image.
Optionally, the processor processes programmable code that uses signals representative of the intensity of the transmitted X-rays from the first module to form a shadow image of the human body. Optionally, the processor processes programmable code that uses signals representative of the intensity of the transmitted X-rays from the second module to form a shadow image of the human body. Optionally, the first module and second module sequentially scan the human body. Optionally, the first module and second module move vertically in a synchronous manner such that, while the first detector array captures backscattered image signals, the second detector array captures transmitted signals that are not absorbed or backscattered by the human body. Optionally, the first module and second module move vertically in a synchronous manner such that, while the second detector array captures backscattered image signals, the first detector array captures transmitted signals that are not absorbed or backscattered by the human body. Optionally, the signals produced from the first detector array and second detector array are routed to the processor along with synchronization signals.
In another embodiment, the present invention comprises a first module, further comprising a first X-ray source and a first detector assembly, said first detector assembly being disposed on a same side of said human body as said first X-ray source and having an active area for receiving a portion of X-rays scattered from said human body as a result of being scanned by said first X-ray source and a portion of transmitted X-rays; a second module, further comprising a second X-ray source and a second detector assembly, said second detector assembly being disposed on a same side of said human body as said second X-ray source and having an active area for receiving a portion of said scattered X-rays from said human body as a result of being scanned by said second X-ray source and a portion of transmitted X-rays from the first module; wherein said first and second modules are parallel to each other; a processor for processing detector signals generated from said first detector assembly and second detector assembly to form at least one image wherein said processor comprises programmable code that uses signals representative of the intensity of the X-rays scattered from said human body as a result of being scanned by the first X-ray source from first detector assembly and signals representative of the intensity of the X-rays scattered from said human body as a result of being scanned by the second X-ray source from second detector assembly to generate said image; and a display for presenting said at least one image to an operator.
Optionally, the first module and second module sequentially scan the human body. Optionally, the first module and second module move vertically in a synchronous manner such that, while the first detector array captures backscattered image signals, the second detector array captures transmitted signals that are not absorbed or backscattered by the human body.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

These and other features and advantages of the present invention will be appreciated, as they become better understood by reference to the following detailed description when considered in connection with the accompanying drawings, wherein:
Figure 1 is a side view of the screening system of the present invention, further illustrating the position of a subject under inspection;
Figure 2a is a side view of the screening system of the present invention, further illustrating a subject being scanned by the first module;
Figure 2b is a side view of the screening system of the present invention, further illustrating a subject being scanned by the second module;
Figure 3 is an illustration of one embodiment of a mechanical means for generating a horizontal sweeping pencil beam of X-rays; and
Figures 4a and 4b depict one embodiment of a mechanical means for generating a vertical sweeping pencil beam of X-rays.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The present invention is directed towards an X-ray people screening system capable of rapidly screening people for detection of metals, low Z materials (plastics, ceramics and illicit drugs) and other contraband which might be concealed beneath the person’s clothing or on the person’s body.
In an exemplary embodiment, the present invention is directed towards an object detection system in which two scanning modules are placed in parallel, yet opposing positions relative to each other. The two modules (hereinafter, by way of reference only, first module and second module) are spaced to allow a subject, such as a person, to stand and pass between the two scanning modules. The first module and second module each include a radiation source (such as X-ray radiation) and a detector array. The subject under inspection stands between the two modules such that a front side of the subject faces one module and the back side of the subject faces the other module.
In one embodiment, the modules sequentially scan the subject from the front and the back. The sequentially scanned images are combined to form a complete image of the subject.

Thus, the present invention is directed towards a people screening system in which both the front and back images of a subject under inspection are generated while the subject stands in a single position. Further, the sequential scanning ensures that the scanning X-ray beams from the two modules do not interfere with each other. Moreover in placing the detector arrays on opposing sides of each radiation source, the inspection system of present invention detects both backscattered radiation and transmitted radiation (the shadow of the subject), thus enhancing image quality. Additionally, the images generated by the detected backscattered radiation and shadow of the subject are combined to further enhance image quality.
In one embodiment, edge enhancement is provided while simultaneously suppressing the edges of internal anatomy that produce confusion in image interpretation.
In another embodiment, a storage means is provided by which previously acquired images can be compared with the present image for analyzing variances in the present image.
The present invention also provides means for creating a non-human representation of the body being examined to thereby permit faster inspection with less invasion of privacy. One embodiment of the present invention does not require the operator to view an actual image of the subject’s body to obtain an indication of objects desired to be detected; rather, a generic body outline or template can be used to indicate relative location of concealed objects. This eases concerns related to a possibly objectionable invasion of privacy. These techniques are discussed in detail in co-pending United States Patent Application Number 12/204,320, entitled “Personnel Security Screening System with Enhanced Privacy”, filed on February 2, 2008, and herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Various modifications to the preferred embodiment, disclosed herein, will be readily apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art and the disclosure set forth herein may be applicable to other embodiments and applications without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention and the claims hereto appended. Reference will now be made in detail to specific embodiments of the invention. Language used in this specification should not be interpreted as a general disavowal of any one specific embodiment or used to limit the claims beyond the meaning of the terms used therein.
Figure 1 is a side view of the screening system 100 of the present invention, further illustrating the position of a subject 104 under inspection. In one embodiment, the screening system optionally comprises an enclosure 102, having four walls (two of which are shown as 102a and 102b), ceiling 102e, and a floor 135. It should be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that such an enclosure is exemplary and any number of suitable enclosures may be employed. For example, and not limited to such example, the enclosure may be free of a ceiling or at least one wall. The enclosure 102 houses the elements of the X-ray imaging system 100 and is designed to form a housing or passageway that extends through the imaging system 100 from an entry point to an exit point.
In one embodiment, X-ray imaging system 100 comprises a first module 105 and a second module 110. In one embodiment, a subject 104 is sequentially scanned by the first module 105 and second module 110 to allow for a complete front side and back side screening of the subject 104, for concealed weapons or contraband, as the subject stands between the two modules 105, 110 through the enclosure 102.
The first module 105, which, in one embodiment, is designed to be interchangeable with the second module 110, comprises a radiation source 108 and a detector array 106. Similarly, the second module 110 comprises a radiation source 113 and a detector array 111. Interchangeability is not a necessity, but may be a desirable feature of the system 100 for a variety of reasons including simplicity in the manufacturing of the modules 105, 110. In other embodiments, module 105 is designed as a “mirror” version of module 110 such that the radiation sources 108, 113 are located in directly opposing positions as illustrated in Figure 1.
Screening system 100 further comprises a processor system that includes computer processor 115 for processing detected X-rays as input from the first module 105 and second module 110, generating representative images from the inputs, and delivering the resultant images to a monitor 120 from the detected X-rays. The processor assembly may be provided as part of the structure 102, or it may be remotely located utilizing appropriate cables or wireless connections known to persons of ordinary skill in the art.
In one embodiment of the screening system of the present invention, radiation source 108 on first module 105 emits X-rays that are incident upon the front side of the subject under inspection 104 when the subject 104 is facing forward and looking at the first module 105. Some of the incident X-rays that reach the subject are backscattered, and subsequently received by the detector array 106 of the first module 105, thus generating an image of the front side of the subject 104. Those incident X-rays neither absorbed by nor backscattered by the subject 104 are received by the detector array 111 located at the second module 110. Thus, the detector array 111 receives X-ray radiation from the first module that can be processed to form a transmission image, or shadow image, of the subject 104. Data from the detectors 106, 111 of both the first and second modules 105, 110 are combined to recreate an image of the front side of the subject.9

In a similar manner, radiation source 113 on second module 110 emits X-rays that are incident upon the back side of the subject under inspection 104. Some of the incident X-rays that reach the subject are backscattered, and subsequently received by the detector array 111 of the second module 110, thus generating an image of the back side of the subject 104. Those incident X-rays neither absorbed by nor backscattered by the subject 104 are received by the detector array 106 located at the first module 105. Thus, the detector array 106 receives X-ray radiation from the second module that can be processed to form a transmission image, or shadow image, of the subject 104. Data from the detectors 106, 111 of both the first and second modules 105, 110 are combined to recreate an image of the front side of the subject.
In one embodiment, first module 105 and second module 110 sequentially scan the subject 104. When the first module 105 is scanning a first side of the subject 104, the X-ray source of the second module remains deactivated; however, both modules move vertically and in sync with each other so that while the detector array 106 of the first module 105 captures the backscattered image signals, the detector array 111 of the second module 110 captures the shadow image signals produced by the X-rays generated from the radiation source 108 of the first module 105 that are not absorbed or backscattered by the subject.
Subsequently, once the first module 105 has scanned the first side of the subject, the radiation source 108 is deactivated and the radiation source 113 of the second module 110 is activated to begin scanning the second side, back side of the subject 104. Again, both modules move vertically in sync with each other so that while the detector array 111 of the second module 110 captures the backscattered image signals, the detector array 106 of the first module 105 captures the shadow image signals produced by the X-rays generated from the radiation source 113 of the second module 110 that are not absorbed or backscattered by the subject.
Figures 2a and 2b are perspective views of the first module 205 and second module 210 respectively, of the imaging system 200, providing pencil beams 235, 236 (in Figure 2a) and 235′, 236′ (in Figure 2b) of X-rays directed at the body of the subject 202 being examined. The generation of pencil beams is described with respect to Figure 3 below.
Figure 2a is a side view of the screening system of the present invention, further illustrating a subject under inspection by the first module 205. In one embodiment, subject under inspection 202 stands with his front side facing the first module 205 and his back side toward second module 210. While the present invention is described with respect to screening a subject assuming this pose, it should be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that the subject may be positioned in several other poses to achieve the same effect. When first module 205 is activated, X-rays 235 are emitted and X-rays that are scattered or reflected 237 from the front side of the subject 202 are detected by X-ray sensitive detectors 206 positioned on the same side of the subject 202 as is the X-ray pencil beam source 208 of the first module 205 while the remaining incident X-rays 236 that are not absorbed or reflected by the subject 202 are detected by the detectors 211 of the second module 210 on the side opposite to the source 208. The detectors 206 and 211 are positioned for substantially uniform X-ray detection on all sides of the incident X-ray beams 235, 236.
In one embodiment, electronic signals 225, 230 produced from the detectors 206, 211 are routed into digital computer 215. In another embodiment, synchronization signals 226 from the X-ray source 208 are also routed into digital computer 215, and vice-versa. The computer 215 combines the front side scattered imaging signals 225 and the front side shadow imaging signals 230 from both detectors 206, 211, respectively, to generate the front side image of the body on a monitor (screen) 220.
Figure 2b is a side view of the screening system of the present invention, further illustrating a subject being scanned by the second module 210. With reference to Figure 2b, when the second module 210 is activated X-rays 235′ are emitted and X-rays 237′ that are scattered or reflected from the back side of the subject under inspection 202 are detected by X-ray sensitive detectors 211 positioned on the same side of the subject as the X-ray pencil beam source 213 of the second module 210 while the remaining incident X-rays 236′ that are not absorbed or backscattered by the subject 202 are detected by the detectors 206 of the first module 205 on the side opposite to the source 213 of the second module 210.
In one embodiment, electronic signals 225, 230 produced from detectors 206, 211 for the back side of the subject under inspection 202 are routed into digital computer 215. In another embodiment, synchronization signals 231 from X-ray source 213 are also routed into digital computer 215, and vice-versa. The computer 215 combines the back side scattered imaging signals 230 and the back side shadow imaging signals 225 from both detectors 211, 206, respectively to generate the back side image of the body on the monitor (screen) 220.

Thus, in one embodiment, by placing detector arrays 206, 211 on opposing sides of the inspection area, the image quality of the subject under inspection is enhanced because image signals generated from backscattered radiation and shadow images are combined to form a detailed image.
Referring again to Figures 2a and 2b, in one embodiment of the present invention, first module 205 and second module 210 sequentially scan the subject 202. Sequential scanning ensures that the two scanning beams of X-rays 235 and 235′ generated from first module 205 and second module 210, respectively, do not interfere with each other. Thus, when the subject 202 stands between first module 205 and second module 210, radiation source 208 on first module 205 is activated first for scanning the side of the subject 202 facing first module 205, which is in one embodiment, the front side of subject 202. It should be appreciated that the digital computer 215 comprises a processor, memory, and software for synchronizing the sequence and timing of the scanning by the first and second modules. Furthermore, it should be appreciated that the first and second modules are attached to vertical structures that permit and enable the vertical physical movement of the modules, as driven by at least one motor that receives timing signals from the digital computer 215.
Once the first module scan is completed the radiation source 208 of the first module 205 is deactivated and the source 213 of the second module 210 is activated to initiate the scan of the other side of the subject 202 facing the second module 210. Thus, the scans from the first and the second modules occur sequentially, one after another, to eliminate possibility of interference of the beams 235, 235′ from first and second modules 205, 210, respectively.
Figure 3 is an illustration of one embodiment of a mechanical means for generating a horizontal sweeping pencil beam of X-rays. Referring now to Figure 3, each screening module comprises an X-ray tube 305, a mechanical chopper wheel 306 and slit 307, which combine to create X-ray pencil beam source 308, as is known in the art, for scanning the pencil beam 309 in a horizontal motion across the body of a subject. The generation of such pencil beams is well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art and will not be discussed in further detail. It should be appreciated that, in one embodiment, a gap between the two detector arrays of the first and second modules, shown as 226 in Figure 2b, can act as a beam shaping slit through which X-rays are emitted.

Figures 4a and 4b depict one embodiment of a mechanical means for generating a vertical sweeping pencil beam of X-rays that will scan the entire height of a subject under inspection.

While Figures 4a and 4b illustrate the vertical mechanism with reference to first module of the imaging system of the present invention, it is to be understood that a similar mechanism occurs for enabling vertical sweep of the X-ray beam of the second module.
Referring back to Figures 4a and 4b, the detectors 406 contain opening 407 through which the pencil beams of X-rays 408 pass before striking the subject under examination. Detectors 406 are mounted on two vertical shafts 409 which are in turn mounted on a base 410 to guide the motion of the detectors 406 as they are moved in a vertical direction. The X-ray pencil beam source 411 is mounted on a carriage 412, which in turn is supported by pivot joint 413, connected to detector 406, and pivot joint 414, connected to a vertical support 415. As the detectors 406 are moved in a vertical direction, the X-ray pencil beam 408 is moved in an arc, such that it always passes through the opening 407 in the detector 406.
Referring again to Figure 2a, and keeping in mind the vertical motion mechanism of the modules described above with respect to Figures 4a and 4b in mind, when first module 205 is activated for scanning the first side of the subject 202 facing the first module 205 the second module source 213 remains deactivated. However, as described earlier, the imaging system of the present invention uses backscatter imaging signals generated by detection by a first module in combination with the shadow image signals generated by detection by a second module to generate an image of the side of the subject facing that module.
Therefore, although the radiation source 213 of second module 210 remains deactivated while the first module 205 is scanning the subject 202, the source 213 and detector 211 of the second module 210 move in sync with the vertical motion of the source 208 and detector 206 of the first module 205. This is to ensure that while the backscatter image signals 225 due to X-rays 235 from the first module 205 striking the subject 202 are captured by the detectors 206 of the first module 205, the shadow image signals 230 due to X-rays 236 from the first module 205 are also captured by the detectors 211 of the second module 210 that had been moving in sync with the first module 205.
Referring now to Figure 2b, once the scan from the first module 205 is complete, the radiation source 208 of the first module 205 is deactivated and the source 213 of the second module 210 is activated to start the scan of the back side of the subject 202. As the second module 210 scans subject 202, and moves vertically, first module 205 (with its source deactivated) moves in sync with the second module 210, capturing the shadow image signals

225. The X-ray imaging system of the present invention is fully automated in one embodiment.

In another embodiment, the imaging system of the present invention is semi-automated with operator assistance.
In one embodiment, both the first module 205 scan and second module 210 ranges in time from 0 seconds to 20 seconds. In one embodiment, the scan time is 3 seconds.
In one embodiment, the vertical movement of the source and detectors is 4 to 5 feet. It should be noted herein that while a vertical movement is described with respect to this embodiment, the source and detector may swivel, pivot, rotate, or make a combination of these movements.
In one embodiment, the distance between first module 205 and second module 210 is in the range of 2-10 feet. In one embodiment, the distance between first module 205 and second module 210 is 3 feet.
Referring back to Figure 1, in one embodiment, the floor or base or platform 135 of the structure 102 is pressure sensitive such that as soon as the subject under inspection 104 steps on to the floor 135 an embedded pressure sensor (not shown) triggers the activation of the imaging system 100. The subject 104 is then scanned on a first side by the first module 105 and thereafter on the second side by the second module 110, or vice-versa. Once both the front side and the back side of the subject under inspection 104 have been completed, first module 105 and second module 110 deactivate and stop scanning, waiting for the next subject to step upon the floor or base 135.
Other embodiments of scan triggering mechanisms may be employed such as infra-red beam interruption where the scanning is triggered when a subject enters the booth structure and in doing so intercepts a beam of infra red rays installed in the structure. Other triggering mechanisms would also be evident to persons of ordinary skill in the art.
In another embodiment, the screening system of the present invention is semi-automated, in that an operator manually triggers the scanning cycle. Once triggered, the scanning cycle completes the sequential front and back screening of the subject as predetermined or pre-programmed.

During operation of the system 100, the subject 104 is first scanned with the imaging system 100 to obtain digital image signals of both the front and back of the subject 104. As shown in Figure 1, the imaging system 100 produces image signals 125, 130 that are modulated by characteristics of the body of the person 104 being examined. The image signals 125, 130 are routed into a digital computer system 115 such as an IBM PC that is capable of implementing preprogrammed instructions for image analysis. The computer system 115 comprises a memory in which is stored the library of previous image signals of persons not concealing dangerous objects. The computer system 115 uses this information to generate a processed image on monitor 120 in which image features that correspond to common benign objects and normal human anatomy are suppressed. The operator viewable image may be inspected for evidence of dangerous concealed objects.
In one embodiment, in order to preserve the subject’s privacy, certain anatomical features may be suppressed or screened out to avoid the display of these features to the system operator. The key features in the newly acquired image are then compared with a stored library containing previously obtained human images. This library of human images is used to identify common anatomical features in the present subject so those anatomical features can be suppressed. The library may also contain within its images certain common benign objects which can also be suppressed to permit more accurate detection of dangerous or illegal concealed objects. These common anatomical and benign features are not of concern to the system operator and are suppressed in the processed image signal. The remaining features in the image are regarded as unusual and potentially indicative of objects that the system operator is attempting to detect.
The location of detected features can be referenced to the absolute location in the image, or in relation to the body of the person being examined. The latter method has the advantage of being insensitive to subject positioning within the imaging window and differing subject size.
The suppression of anatomical and benign image features can consist of selectively displaying the features at reduced intensity, in a different color, or removing them entirely from the image. In one embodiment, the outline of the subject’s body is removed from the image and a humanoid outline is substituted for location reference. In another embodiment, if very few or no abnormal features are detected, the display may consist of alpha-numeric information, such as: “No abnormal features detected” or “Diagonal edge detected on upper chest”.

The task of isolating an object from the associated background is a common problem in the art of image processing. It is well known that detection of an object edge is often more reliable than detection of the entire object based on a shifted signal level alone. Edge enhancement is a common method of processing digitally represented images to increase the detectability of objects. The present invention uses extensive edge detection in visual processing as described in United States Patent No. 5,181,234, the specification of which is hereby incorporated by reference. In order to enable edge enhancement for detection and enhance the quality of the images of the front side and back side of the subject, both the radiation backscattered from the subject as well as the shadow signals of the subject due to radiation not striking the subject are combined. United States Patent Number 7,110,493, assigned to the assignee of the present invention, describes “[a] method for detecting concealed items on or in an object, the method comprising: producing a pencil beam of x-rays from an x-ray source directed toward said object; scanning said beam of x-rays over the surface of said object; and detecting x-rays scattered from said beam of x-rays as a result of interacting with said object and a low Z material panel, said object located between said detector and said panel, said detecting comprising differentiating x-rays back scattered by the object from those back scattered by the low Z material panel, wherein said pencil beam of x-rays exposes said object to an x-ray dose in the range of about 1 microRem to about 10 microRem”, and is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Also, while in one embodiment the operator is presented with discrete, processed images of the front side and back side of the subject adjacent to each other on the monitor screen, in an alternate embodiment these two images are combined to generate a three dimensional image (still suppressed with anatomical details) that can be rotated on the screen by the operator to view a combined image of the front side and back side. It should be appreciated that the scanning functions described herein, including the initiation, and processing, of backscatter and transmission scanning is performed by programmable code stored in the digital computer and executed by the processor.
The above examples are merely illustrative of the many applications of the system of present invention. Although only a few embodiments of the present invention have been described herein, it should be understood that the present invention might be embodied in many other specific forms without departing from the spirit or scope of the invention. Therefore, the present examples and embodiments are to be considered as illustrative and not restrictive, and the invention may be modified within the scope of the appended claims.

CLAIMS

We claim:
1. An imaging apparatus for detecting a concealed object carried on a human body comprising: a first module, further comprising a first X-ray source for producing a first pencil beam of X-rays directed toward said human body and a first detector assembly providing a signal representative of the intensity of the X-rays scattered from said human body as a result of being scanned by the first X-ray source, said first detector assembly being disposed on a same side of said human body as said first X-ray source and having an active area for receiving a portion of said scattered X-rays from said human body as a result of being scanned by said first X-ray source and a portion of transmitted X-rays;
a second module, further comprising a second X-ray source for producing a second pencil beam of X-rays directed toward said human body and a second detector assembly providing a signal representative of the intensity of the X-rays scattered from said human body as a result of being scanned by said second X-ray source, said second detector assembly being disposed on a same side of said human body as said second X-ray source and having an active area for receiving a portion of said scattered X-rays from said human body as a result of being scanned by said second X-ray source and a portion of transmitted X-rays from the first module;
a processor for processing detector signals generated from said first detector assembly and second detector assembly to form at least one image; and
a display for presenting said at least one image to an operator.
2. The imaging apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an enclosure having four walls.
3. The imaging apparatus of claim 2, further comprising at least one ceiling and at least one floor.
4. The imaging apparatus of claim 1 wherein said processor processes programmable code that causes said first module to scan the human body while the second X-ray source is not activated.
5. The imaging apparatus of claim 1 wherein said processor processes programmable code that causes said second module to scan the human body while the first X-ray source is not activated.
6. The imaging apparatus of claim 1 wherein said processor processes programmable code that causes the first module or the second module to move vertically.

7. The imaging apparatus of claim 6 wherein said vertical movement is coordinated.
8. The imaging apparatus of claim 1 wherein the first module is interchangeable with the second module.
9. The imaging apparatus of claim 1 wherein processor processes programmable code that uses signals representative of the intensity of the X-rays scattered from said human body as a result of being scanned by the first X-ray source from first detector assembly and signals representative of the intensity of the X-rays scattered from said human body as a result of being scanned by the second X-ray source from second detector assembly to generate said image.
10. The imaging apparatus of claim 1 wherein processor processes programmable code that uses signals representative of the intensity of the X-rays scattered from said human body as a result of being scanned by the second X-ray source from second detector assembly and signals representative of the intensity of the X-rays scattered from said human body as a result of being scanned by the first X-ray source from first detector assembly to generate said image.
11. The imaging apparatus of claim 1 wherein said processor processes programmable code that uses signals representative of the intensity of the transmitted X-rays from the first module to form a shadow image of the human body.
12. The imaging apparatus of claim 1 wherein said processor processes programmable code that uses signals representative of the intensity of the transmitted X-rays from the second module to form a shadow image of the human body.
13. The imaging apparatus of claim 1 wherein the first module and second module sequentially scan the human body.
14. The imaging apparatus of claim 1 wherein the first module and second module move vertically in a synchronous manner such that, while the first detector array captures backscattered image signals, the second detector array captures transmitted signals that are not absorbed or backscattered by the human body.
15. The imaging apparatus of claim 1 wherein the first module and second module move vertically in a synchronous manner such that, while the second detector array captures backscattered image signals, the first detector array captures transmitted signals that are not absorbed or backscattered by the human body.

16. The imaging apparatus of claim 1 wherein signals produced from the first detector array and second detector array are routed to the processor along with synchronization signals.
17. An imaging apparatus for detecting a concealed object carried on a human body comprising: a first module, further comprising a first X-ray source and a first detector assembly, said first detector assembly being disposed on a same side of said human body as said first X-ray source and having an active area for receiving a portion of X-rays scattered from said human body as a result of being scanned by said first X-ray source and a portion of transmitted X-rays; a second module, further comprising a second X-ray source and a second detector assembly, said second detector assembly being disposed on a same side of said human body as said second X-ray source and having an active area for receiving a portion of said scattered X-rays from said human body as a result of being scanned by said second X-ray source and a portion of transmitted X-rays from the first module; wherein said first and second modules are parallel to each other;
a processor for processing detector signals generated from said first detector assembly and second detector assembly to form at least one image wherein said processor processes programmable code that uses signals representative of the intensity of the X-rays scattered from said human body as a result of being scanned by the first X-ray source from first detector assembly and signals representative of the intensity of the X-rays scattered from said human body as a result of being scanned by the second X-ray source from second detector assembly to generate said image; and
a display for presenting said at least one image to an operator.
18. The apparatus of claim 17 wherein the first module and second module sequentially scan the human body.
19. The apparatus of claim 18 wherein the first module and second module move vertically in a synchronous manner such that, while the first detector array captures backscattered image signals, the second detector array captures transmitted signals that are not absorbed or backscattered by the human body.

  1. As all Latour litanies, this one is used to make a rhetorical claim for the heterogeneity of the nonhuman world. In terms of threat detection, the list brings together turns objects classified as “low Z materials” into heterogeneous threats and implies the difficulty of current surveillance is found in the tactical wiles of terrorism. This last notion is echoed often by politicians in the ubiquitous statement that “we need to always be one step ahead of terrorists” implying the threat is not attacks themselves, but heterogeneity. []
  2. Playing into the previous litany, there is a coupling that occurs between low Z materials and contraband are placed next to one another. Low Z materials are not, in fact, contraband in most cases. By excluding this detail, one can assume the technology only detects illegal things. As evidenced by Alaskan state representative Sharon Cissna, low Z materials include things like prostheses such as those worn post-mastectomy. []
  3. This last portion is an internalist and Whigish historical reference later brought up in the International Search Report (ISR). There have been numerous previous inventions that detect in this fashion. The important improvement is that the embodiment implements found results that can be applied in industry. That is to say, the invention is does not rely on an inventive step/non-obviousness, but a novelty–namely, the creation of such an extrapolation–and industry applicability–namely, the embodiment manifesting that extrapolation for use. The patent presents a view of technological progress in the fashion of building blocks. The US version of this patent lays this out further by showing the foundational patents as a list; the international patent organization does not require this. Also worth noting is the us patent is called “Security System for Screening People”. While the US and international patents were filed at the same time, the addition of “Improved” seems anomalous since there is no international patent for the eponymous to the US version. Maybe this is an effort, as Pinch and Bijker state, to manifest effects by claiming them. For Pinch and Bijker, the bike was deemed safe partially by advertisements claiming just that. Maybe the same thing is happening here. []
  4. Other than the title this is the first time security is used within the body of the patent. It is used in total only three (3) times. In these instances, the patent positions the area of use and so invokes need. []
  5. At the time of the filling of the patent, increased pat downs had not yet been in place. In the same way Geof Bowker explains about oil surveying, the patent and the real-world practice were not in alignment at first. For Bowker, the orchestration of the proper conditions to make the patentable process an obligatory passage point was done by the inventor himself. In the case here, the deployment of the devices created a demand for more extensive hand searches, hence increasing the discomfort and contest of such measures in public. []
  6. To explain further, the technology being described is ideal for larger number of people in small spaces as it takes less time to produce the images and takes up less space. The additional claim is that the technology takes on the responsibility of seeing around the body by seeing back and front without forcing a person to move. This is important in that embedded within the technology is a stipulation of human error. The subject as much as the operator are rid of responsibility both of knowing the procedures and enacting them. The location of blame is removed from personnel or passenger, and placed on the machine. The machine is then believed to be objective in that it is fully autonomous, simply relaying facts without human interruption. []
  7. In later versions of the technology the privacy concerns are addressed further by abstracting the image even more. The deployment of this second generation was only a deployment of software. []
  8. There are 17 optional portions of the patent. This means the patent describes 17! objects. The spectrum of inventions allows for the non-fixture of the object. Features can be included or not without compromising the integrity of the invention. While these seem to just describe the invention within particular conditions, certain options–specifically those that rely on only one of the modules working–are in fact other inventions entirely. Hence the patent can sit above less robust inventions. Encapsulating this other inventions is done by citation (above) and here by description. The patent not only presents a Whig history of this sort of invention, but quite literally builds one by layering previous patents within the proposed material. []
  9. These descriptions provide a Hegelian notion of the thing-in-itself–the more data one collects about something, say, through sight, the more one knows about it. Hence, the technology here claims to not miss any available information. The availability and previous loss of that information strongly argues that the threat has always been present, but simply unable to be detected. It makes a positivist argument for security. []
by | Posted in misc | No Comments » |
September 8th, 2011

TSA Oversight Committee (Panel I): excerpts, summary, notes

Sen. Bruce Braley (Dem., Iowa): “With each successive terrorist attack against our airports and airplanes, the TSA has responded with new and usually more inconvenient technology to address the threat. From removing our shoes at the X-ray machine to limiting liquids and gels to Advanced Imaging Technologies that are able to screen whole bodies for suspect material. I don’t deny there is a clear need for security with the attempts by would-be terrorists Richard Reed and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab show, but I have serious concerns over protecting the rights of our citizens and assuring the technology we use are fully effective and safe. Recent studies suggest that the whole body imaging technology currently in use may be ineffective at detecting concealed explosives such as those used in the Christmas day bombing attempt in 2009 as well as suggesting the backscatter x-ray technology in these AIT devices could be a higher risk to health than indicated. I belief we should work together to find more effective screening mechanisms through the greater deployment and use of trace explosive detection technology that could better detect explosives and preserve the modesty and personal rights of American citizens. [...]  I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses today and I hope this hearing sheds light on why technology has to be the best answer to terrorist threats from the TSA and how we work together to protect the rights of our own citizens.”

Alaskan State Rep. Sharon Cissna: Cancer survivor which places her on the pat down list (due to mastectomy); refers to pat down as “being felt up”; describes the experience as traumatic; next time traveling refuses (is banned, but she does not say this explicitly); advocates to the less invasive methods (Holland and Israel have less invasive and “extraordinary screening devices that are very non-invasive, very.”); affirms of biometrics is an alternative, advocates the use of a profiling technology to determine if people are “up to no good” by using data-mining or the like

Cummings: empathy deficit

1/ Begins by looking at tech

2/ Diverts to consequences of tech (pat downs)

3/ Concludes with a more empathetic approach to pat downs (tech left out) or biometric alternative to pat downs (AIT left in place for those not willing to submit to this)

by | Posted in mess, surveillance | No Comments » |
September 8th, 2011

TSA Oversight Panel: Whole Body Imaging

by | Posted in mess, surveillance, vision | No Comments » |
April 9th, 2011

G01N-23/20: info viz (part one)


Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/theminu1/public_html/wp-content/plugins/good-old-gallery/inc/shortcode.php on line 13

by | Posted in vision | No Comments » |
February 7th, 2011

Protected: Is being thick?

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:


by | Posted in mess | Enter your password to view comments. |
February 4th, 2011

AIT is plural.

Advanced Imaging Technology is actually a combination of two different types of imaging systems (TSA does not hide this). One of these systems (top) is produced by Rapiscan Systems and relies x-ray backscatter to produce images beyond the visual barrier of clothing. The other system (bottom) is produced by L-3 Communications Corporation and implements active millimeter wave imaging.

Read the rest of this entry »

by | Posted in vision | No Comments » |














view my portfolio:
coroflot.com/theminutewaltz