DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/18/2025 has been entered. Claims 27-40 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 06/18/2025, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/18/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 27 and 40 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pages 8-12)
The Claims are Directed to Statutory Subject Matter
Claims 27-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is allegedly directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. See Office Action at p. 8. Applicant respectfully disagrees. In response, Applicant respectfully submits that these claims are directed to statutory subject matter because: (a) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea; and (b) the claims amount to significantly more than an alleged abstract idea and have practical application.
Claims do Not Recite an Abstract Idea
The first part of the analysis is to determine whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception (e.g., abstract idea). Here, the Supreme Court expressly avoided defining the "precise contours of the 'abstract ideas' category." See Alice at 2357.
Instead, the Court found "no meaningful distinction between the concept of risk hedging in Bilski and the concept of intermediated settlement [in Alice]." See id. In other words, the Court concluded that both risk hedging and intermediated settlement are fundamental economic practices. Nevertheless, the Court provided examples of patent-ineligible abstract ideas including fundamental/longstanding economic practices as well as certain methods of organizing human activity, an idea of itself, and mathematical relationships/formulas.
In the instant application, none of the claims are directed to any of the abstract ideas enumerated in Alice. While the pending Office Action alleges, for example, that independent Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, the Office Action does not appear to enumerate any particular abstract idea. See Office Action at p. 8. Instead, the Office Action alleges that the one or more features of the pending claims "covers performance of the limitation in the mind." See Office Action at p. 9. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Independent claims 27 recite and 40 recite, inter alia, computer-implemented instructions for performing traveler processing based on the received traveler information if the cumulative score is greater than or equal to the threshold, and otherwise, receiving for the traveler, traveler information via an additional different information collection mode if the cumulative score is less than the threshold, wherein the additional different information collection mode includes at least one biometric scan. In other words, the calculation of the cumulative score determines whether additional traveler information is retrieved. Thus, the computer functionality is controlled, and computer computation reduced, by the calculation of the cumulative score. The practical application of the invention is readily apparent from the originally-filed specification, including the validation of a traveler at a checkpoint.
The claimed embodiments cannot be performed mentally or using a pen and paper. In addition, the Examiner is essentially performing an abstraction of the unspecified abstract idea, and generalizing at such a high level (i.e., "covers performance of the limitation in the mind") that it no longer has any relationship to the recited features. Under this type of impermissible analysis, all abstract ideas will have been considered to be identified by a court, and the required analysis would be rendered meaningless.
The ultimate inquiry is whether the claim preempts an abstract idea. See Alice at 2354 ("We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principle as one of pre-emption.") (citing Bilski 561 U.S. at 611 (upholding the patent "would pre-empt use of this approach in all fields, and would effectively grant a monopoly over an abstract idea")); see also Myriad, 133 S.Ct. at 2116; Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1301 ("repeatedly emphasized this ... concern that patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of" abstract ideas). The pending claims do not preempt all systems and methods for performing traveler validation.
Therefore, at least because pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea, they recite patent-eligible subject matter.
In response
The examiner, in the 101 rejections section of the Office Action mailed 12/18/2024, has clearly stated which limitations recited in the claim (claim 27) can be performed in a human mind, thus, the claim recites mental processes.
The abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter: Mathematical concepts, Certain methods of organizing human activity, and Mental processes.
The claim recites limitations of (among other) “determining a reliability score for each of the plurality of information collection modes”, “determining a cumulative score for the traveler based on the reliability score”, “determining whether the cumulative score is greater than or equal to a threshold”, and “performing traveler processing based on the received traveler information if the cumulative score is greater than or equal to the threshold”. These limitations are mental processes (grouping of abstract ideas). These steps are based on observations, evaluations, judgments or opinion that are performable in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). That is, other than reciting “a device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a user can assign a score for each of the travel document, add the scores up, compare the total score with a threshold, and determine whether the travel document is valid based on the comparison.
Therefore, the claim does recite an abstract idea.
Applicant then argues that
“Independent claims 27 recite and 40 recite, inter alia, computer-implemented instructions for performing traveler processing based on the received traveler information if the cumulative score is greater than or equal to the threshold, and otherwise, receiving for the traveler, traveler information via an additional different information collection mode if the cumulative score is less than the threshold … Thus, the computer functionality is controlled, and computer computation reduced, by the calculation of the cumulative score. The practical application of the invention is readily apparent from the originally filed specification, including the validation of a traveler at a checkpoint.”
In response
Limitations regarding whether the judicial exception is/is not integrated into a practical application based on the additional limitations, or applying the judicial exception using generic computer components or algorithm are evaluated under Steps 2A, prong 2 and 2B.
As explained above and in the 101 rejections section below, since the claim recites an abstract idea, additional limitations are analyzed under Step 2A Prong2 and 2B to determine if the additional limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. According to MPEP 2106.05(a), limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
The claim recites a method of performing traveler processing by comparing the cumulative score from the collected information to the threshold, and additional information is required if the cumulative score is less than the threshold. At best, the claimed combination amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea of “performing traveler processing” and/or improves the outcome that the model/device performs, rather than to an improvement on the functioning of a computer or to any other technology.
Applicant argues (pages 10-11)
Combination of Elements is Substantially More than the Alleged Abstract Idea
The second part of the analysis is to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. See Alice at 2357. Even if the claims are considered to be directed to an abstract idea (which is not admitted by Applicant), the claims can include an "inventive concept" or additional elements so that the abstract idea is transformed into a patent-eligible application. See Alice at 2357. For at least the reasons discussed below, the claims do include patentable inventive concepts.
In the pending rejections under§ 101, the Office Action alleges that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See Office Action at p. 10. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Applicant respectfully submits that each of pending claims amounts to "significantly more" than the unspecified abstract idea.
Although Alice did not expressly specify the basis for transforming an abstract idea into patentable subject matter, the Court provided some guideposts based on past court cases. The Alice Court reiterated that "[s]imply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality," is not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into patentable eligible subject matter. See Alice at 2350 (citing Mayo). However, the Court also reaffirmed "that a computer implemented process for curing rubber was patent eligible." See Alice at 2358 (citing Diehr). Here, the Court relied upon the claimed use of a thermocouple (by itself, a well-known element) to record temperatures as the basis for transforming use of a "well-known" mathematical formula into patent eligibility subject matter. The temperature measurements were then fed into a computer to calculate the remaining cure time using the mathematical formula. See id.
As discussed below, the pending claims should be allowable over the cited art. Thus, the pending claims contain elements that in combination are non-conventional. Moreover, a specific technology-centric problem is solved with a claimed solution that is necessarily rooted in computer technology.
As discussed in the 11/02/16 Memorandum an improvement in computer-related technology is not limited to improvements in the operation of a computer or a computer network per se, but may also be claimed as a set of 'rules' (basically mathematical relationships) that improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer." See 11/02/16 Memorandum at p. 2.
Therefore, the pending claims amount to something "significantly more" than an abstract idea. Based at least on the foregoing, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn and the application be allowed.
In response
Applicant presents case law, 101 analysis, and an example of Diehr as support that the claim limitations amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea. These arguments are not persuasive.
In Diehr, the claim recites the use of the Arrhenius equation for operating a rubber-molding press, and the court has found the additional elements of “installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time” to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products.
In contrast, the pending claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements of “receiving, for a traveler, traveler information from a plurality of information collection modes”, and “receiving for the traveler, traveler information via an additional different information collection mode” which amount to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
The claim recites the additional elements of “receiving for the traveler, traveler information via an additional different information collection mode if the cumulative score is less than the threshold”, and “wherein the additional different information collection mode includes at least one biometric scan” which amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim also recites the additional elements of “A traveler validation device, a processor, a non-transitory memory”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer functions of determining, determining, determining and performing) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the claims do not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology. At best, the claimed combination amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea of “determining the cumulative score of the collected travel documents” (by collecting additional information including a biometric scan from the traveler if the cumulative score is less than a threshold), and “performing traveler processing”, rather than to an improvement on the functioning of a computer or to any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, even when considering the elements in combination, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
The Applicant further argues that
“As discussed below, the pending claims should be allowable over the cited art. Thus, the pending claims contain elements that in combination are non-conventional”.
In response
As stated above and in the 103 rejections section below, Applicant’s argument with respect to the rejections of claim 27 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaehler (US Pub. 2017/0351909) in view of Casillas et al. (9,203,860).
Applicant argues (pages 12-13)
All Claims Recite Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-36 and 39-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Kaehler, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0351909 ("Kaehler'') in view of Casillas et al., U.S. Patent No. 9,203,860 ("Casillas"). Claims 37-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Kaehler in view of Casillas and further in view of Siddall et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0106852 ("Siddall"). Applicant traverses the rejections for at least the following reasons.
The instant application and Kaehler describe different approaches to identity and document verification. As will be discussed below, the instant application is directed to a multi-mode data collection and traveler processing system, whereas the Kaehler reference describes an augmented reality (AR) identity verification system.
In the instant application, a system is described that utilizes various physical information collection devices such as travel document scanners, fingerprint scanners, iris scanners, face scanners, palm print scanners, and hand vein scanners. The system processes data from these distinct physical inputs. See instant application at ¶¶ [0012] [ 0015], [0075]-[0082]. In other words, the instant application uses direct collection of data from dedicated physical input devices for different information collection modes. For example, a travel document is physically scanned, or a fingerprint is captured by a fingerprint scanner, and the like.
Kaehler centers around an Augmented Reality Device (ARD) that has an outward-facing imaging system (e.g., cameras) to capture images of the environment, including people and documents. The ARD is designed to display virtual content to a user, enhancing their perception of the physical world. See Kaehler at ¶¶ [0058]-[0061], [0102], [0105]. In other words, Kaehler primarily relies on the ARD's imaging capabilities to obtain images of the person and documents. Information is then extracted from these images using computer vision and biometric analysis techniques, such as facial recognition. Kaehler can also identify optical labels like QR codes or barcodes from the image. See Kaehler at ¶¶ [0114]-[0117].
In response
in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The invention is related to verifying a traveler’s identity, while Kaehler teaches the method for identity verification or document verification. Kaehler teaches the processes of receiving traveler documents, assigning the scores to the received documents, determining a cumulative score, determining whether the cumulative score is greater than a threshold to validate the documents. Kaehler also teaches using the augmented reality device for scanning the QR code to obtain biometric information (0114). Even though Kaehler teaches the process of verification is in part based on an augmented reality device (which the Applicant argues as different approach in determining the traveler identity), but the combination of Kaehler and the secondary reference Casillas teaches every single limitation of claim 27, therefore, claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaehler in view of Casillas. (please in the 103 rejections section below for detail)
Applicant argues (pages 13-14)
In the instant application, a cumulative reliability score is determined based on collected information and it is compared to a threshold. The outcome dictates whether traveler processing is performed or if additional traveler information from a different collection mode, including at least one biometric scan, is required.
The pending Office Action expressly admits that Kaehler does not explicitly teach receiving for the traveler, traveler information via an additional different information collection mode if the cumulative score is less than the threshold, wherein the additional different information collection mode includes at least one biometric scan. See Office Action at pp. 30-31. To cure this admitted deficiency, the Office Action relies upon Casillas. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Casillas does not cure the admitted deficiencies in Kaehler.
Casillas describes a dynamic risk engine for determining when a user may engage in a restricted activity. See Casillas at c. 3, II. 35-62. Casillas operates by engaging in an initial contact with a user via a channel such as an internet portal, face-to-face contact, a mobile application, an instant messaging system, or voice communication. See Casillas at c. 5, II. 12-43. Acquiring identifying information which can include information known to the user (e.g., username, password), a physical attribute of the user (e.g., biometric data), information identifying a device associated with the user, or historical user behavior. See Casillas at c. 4, II. 4-30. Casillas utilizes an identity trust score for the user based on the identifying information and a comparison of current user behavior with historical user behavior. Casillas compares the identity trust score with an activity trust threshold. If the score meets or exceeds the threshold, the user is allowed to proceed. If not, additional identifying information is collected to raise the score. See Casillas at c. 10, II. 42-61.
By contrast, the instant application adjusts its data collection strategy based on the reliability of the input sources given current conditions (e.g., a face scan under poor lighting might have a low reliability score, prompting a request for an iris scan instead). See instant application at ¶¶ [0019]-[0021 ], [0061 ]-[0062]. While Casillas does refer to "biometric data", the reference is silent with respect to the use of a biometric scan to collect additional information.
For at least these reasons, independent claim 1, and independent claim 40, which recites similar limitations, should be allowable over the cited prior art. The remaining claims depend from one of the above independent claims and should also be allowable for at least the above reasons.
In response
As mentioned above, Kaehler in paragraphs 0026-0027, 0103-0107, 0111, 0125-0126 teaches the processes of receiving traveler documents, assigning the scores to the received documents, determining a cumulative score, determining whether the cumulative score is greater than a threshold to validate the documents.
Kaehler in paragraph 0114 further teaches “the ARD can scan the QR code to obtain information encoded in the QR code. Labels may also include biometric labels, such as iris code, fingerprints, etc. For example, a passport may include a person's iris code. The ARD may obtain an image of the passport including the iris code. The ARD can look up a database using the iris code to obtain other biometric information (e.g., date of birth, name, etc.) of the person”.
Kaehler, however, is silent of receiving for the traveler, traveler information via an additional different information collection mode if the cumulative score is less than the threshold, wherein the additional different information collection mode includes at least one biometric scan.
Combining Casillas is to fill in the missing element.
Casillas in Fig. 4, abstract, Cols. 4, 10-13 teaches a process of determining an initial identity trust score for the user, the user is required to provide additional identifying information to raise the identity trust score, and additional information is collected until a revised identity trust score exceeds the threshold, wherein, the additional information includes biometric data … “requiring biometric data such as hair samples to reach an acceptable identity trust score”. It can be seen that to collect the biometric data from the user, an information collection mode that includes at least one biometric scan is used.
Since Kaehler in paragraphs 0128 and 0158 teaches the traveler information are received and scored, and the system compares the score (confidence/cumulative score) with a threshold to determine whether the cumulative score is less than the threshold, Kaehler also teaches scanning the QR code to obtain biometric information, and Casillas teaches, when the cumulative score is less than the threshold, additional information is collected to raise the cumulative score (identity trust score) until a revised identity trust score meets or exceeds the threshold, wherein, the additional information comprises biometric data (which is collected by at least one biometric scan such as the ARD device of Kaehler). Therefore, the combination of Kaehler and Casillas teaches the claim limitation “receiving for the traveler, traveler information via an additional different information collection mode if the cumulative score is less than the threshold, wherein the additional different information collection mode includes at least one biometric scan”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 27-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites a traveler validation device which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 1):
The limitation of “determining a reliability score for each of the plurality of information collection modes”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a user assigns a score for each of the travel document/information. Similarly, the limitation of “determining a cumulative score for the traveler based on the reliability score for each of the plurality of information collection modes”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user, based on the assigned scores for the travel documents, calculates a total score of the received documents/information from the traveler. Similarly, the limitation of “determining whether the cumulative score is greater than or equal to a threshold”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user compares the calculated total score with a predetermined score/value. Similarly, the limitation of “performing traveler processing based on the received traveler information if the cumulative score is greater than or equal to the threshold”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “performing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user determines that the received documents/information are true/valid, thus, directs the traveler to the gate number to wait for departure.
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “A traveler validation device, a processor, a non-transitory memory”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer functions of determining, determining, determining and performing) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional elements of “receiving, for a traveler, traveler information from a plurality of information collection modes”, and “receiving for the traveler, traveler information via an additional different information collection mode” which amount to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional elements of “receiving for the traveler, traveler information via an additional different information collection mode if the cumulative score is less than the threshold”, and “wherein the additional different information collection mode includes at least one biometric scan” which amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “A traveler validation device, a processor, a non-transitory memory” to perform the “determining, determining, determining and performing” steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements of “receiving, for a traveler, traveler information from a plurality of information collection modes”, and “receiving for the traveler, traveler information via an additional different information collection mode”. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
The additional elements of “receiving for the traveler, traveler information via an additional different information collection mode if the cumulative score is less than the threshold”, and “wherein the additional different information collection mode includes at least one biometric scan” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the device which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “the plurality of different information collection modes comprises at least a travel document for the traveler and a biometric scan for the traveler” which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the plurality of different information collection modes comprises at least a travel document for the traveler and a biometric scan for the traveler” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the device which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “the receiving, for a traveler, traveler information via a plurality of different information collection modes comprises receiving two or more of the following for the traveler: a scan of a travel document for the traveler; a fingerprint scan of the traveler; a palm print scan of the traveler; a face scan of the traveler; an iris scan of the traveler; and a hand vein scan of the traveler” which amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the receiving, for a traveler, traveler information via a plurality of different information collection modes comprises receiving two or more of the following for the traveler: a scan of a travel document for the traveler; a fingerprint scan of the traveler; a palm print scan of the traveler; a face scan of the traveler; an iris scan of the traveler; and a hand vein scan of the traveler” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the device which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “the travel document comprises at least one of the following: a passport; a visa; an airline boarding pass; a national identification card; and a driver's license” which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the travel document comprises at least one of the following: a passport; a visa; an airline boarding pass; a national identification card; and a driver's license” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the device which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “the determining a reliability score for each of the plurality of information collection modes comprises: determining a reliability score for each of the plurality of information collection modes based on one or more of the following: a characteristic of a travel document for the traveler where the information collection mode comprises a travel document for the traveler; a characteristic of the traveler; an environmental condition; and a number of biometric scan entries in a database; a characteristic of a device used to perform a biometric scan where the information collection mode comprises a biometric scan of the traveler” which amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the determining a reliability score for each of the plurality of information collection modes comprises: determining a reliability score for each of the plurality of information collection modes based on one or more of the following: a characteristic of a travel document for the traveler where the information collection mode comprises a travel document for the traveler; a characteristic of the traveler; an environmental condition; and a number of biometric scan entries in a database; a characteristic of a device used to perform a biometric scan where the information collection mode comprises a biometric scan of the traveler” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the device which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “the characteristics of the travel document for the traveler comprises one or more of the following characteristics: a type of travel document; a country that issued the travel document; whether the travel document is hand-written or typed; whether or not the travel document includes or uses one or more of the following security features: a digitally-printed photograph; a watermark; a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip; thermochromatic ink; and a hologram” which amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the characteristics of the travel document for the traveler comprises one or more of the following characteristics: a type of travel document; a country that issued the travel document; whether the travel document is hand-written or typed; whether or not the travel document includes or uses one or more of the following security features: a digitally-printed photograph; a watermark; a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip; thermochromatic ink; and a hologram” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the device which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “the characteristic of the traveler comprises one or more of the following: a race of the traveler; a skin color of the traveler; a country of origin of the traveler; an occupation of the traveler; an age of the traveler” which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the characteristic of the traveler comprises one or more of the following: a race of the traveler; a skin color of the traveler; a country of origin of the traveler; an occupation of the traveler; an age of the traveler” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claim recites the device which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2:
Step 2A (prong 2):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of “the environmental condition comprises one or more of the following environmental conditions: a temperature; a humidity; and a lighting condition” which amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitation that amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the environmental condition comprises one or more of the following environmental conditions: a temperature;