3D Volumetric Scanning Security Detector for Intrusion Detection

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional security systems often fail to distinguish between true security threats and false positives, such as small animals or moving objects, and can be easily bypassed by avoiding sensor beams or covering detectors.

Innovation Solution

A scanning security system that uses a transmitter and detectors to illuminate and reflect energy across a space, generating three-dimensional maps over time intervals to identify changes and determine potential security threats, distinguishing between true threats and false positives based on movement rate, height, and location.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If simple motion sensors and light beams are used, then the system is simple and inexpensive, but it cannot distinguish false positives from true security threats

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvethreat detection accuracyVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent transitions from 2D beam detection to 3D volumetric mapping by introducing depth measurement through time-of-flight calculations. The security system creates three-dimensional maps of the monitored space, adding a spatial dimension that enables differentiation between objects at different distances and positions, thereby improving threat detection accuracy while maintaining reasonable system complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

Solution Approach 2:

The system measures multiple parameters simultaneously (distance, position, movement rate, height) rather than relying on a single detection parameter. By analyzing changes in these parameters over time and comparing them against threshold values, the system can distinguish between false positives and genuine threats, significantly improving measurement precision.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Reliability

If simple light beam sensors are used, then the system is inexpensive, but it can be easily defeated by avoiding beams or covering detectors

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveanti-tamper capabilityVSAvoiddetection system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system employs volumetric 3D mapping instead of planar beam detection, creating multiple detection planes and depth layers throughout the monitored space. This dimensional expansion makes it difficult for intruders to bypass detection, as they would need to avoid detection from multiple angles and distances simultaneously, thereby enhancing reliability against tampering.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

Solution Approach 2:

The system continuously builds and updates baseline 3D maps of the environment before intrusion detection is activated. This preliminary mapping establishes normal conditions and object positions, enabling the system to detect deviations and potential tampering attempts more effectively, improving reliability without requiring overly complex real-time response mechanisms.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

3Measurement precision

If continuous scanning is performed, then detection accuracy is improved, but energy consumption increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvechange detection accuracyVSAvoidenergy source consumption
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSUse of energy by moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs scanning in periodic intervals rather than continuous operation. Energy consumption is optimized by activating the energy source and detectors only during scheduled scan cycles, while maintaining detection precision through strategic timing of these periodic measurements and comparing results across intervals to detect changes.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #19Periodic action

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs scanning at a level of detail exceeding minimum requirements during critical periods, then reduces scanning intensity during low-risk periods. This partial action approach maintains high detection accuracy when needed while conserving energy during periods when full-resolution scanning is less critical, balancing precision and energy consumption.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Applied Scientific Principles

This section explains which scientific principles are used to turn an abstract innovation direction into a practical engineering solution.

Function Achieved in This Case

Effectively identifies and differentiates between actual security threats and false positives, reducing false alarms and enhancing the system's ability to detect intrusions accurately.

Implementation Method 1

illuminating at least a portion of the space with energy from an energy source at an illumination angle, such that the energy is reflected from a surface in the space

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectReflection: Reflection

Implementation Method 2

calculating a distance from the surface to the energy source based on the incident angle

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectTriangulation:

Data Source

PatentUS8508366B2Scanning security detector
Publication Date: 2013.08.13 BOSCH SECURITY SYST INC
  • US8508366B2 patent drawing
  • US8508366B2 patent drawing
  • US8508366B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A method of identifying a potential security threat in a space. A first scan of the space is performed during a first time interval by illuminating at least a portion of the space with energy from an energy source at an illumination angle, such that the energy is reflected from a surface in the space. An incident angle of the reflected energy is detected with a detector located at a known distance from the energy source and a distance from the surface to the energy source is calculated based on the incident angle. The steps are repeated for a plurality of different locations in the space. A first map of the space is generated from the first scan, and a second map is generated from a second scan of the area. The maps are compared to determine a change in the space and to determine if a potential security threat is present.