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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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; a humidity; and a lighting condition” 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 35 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 “a device” The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer functions of perform a biometric scan) 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 “the characteristic of a device used to perform a biometric scan comprises one or more of the following: a type of the device; a model or manufacturer of the device; age of the device; speed of the device to perform a biometric scan; quality of the data capture when the device performs a biometric scan; one or more performance characteristics of the device; and environmental conditions recommended or required for operation of the device” 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 element of “a device” to perform the “perform” step amounts 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 “the characteristic of a device used to perform a biometric scan comprises one or more of the following: a type of the device; a model or manufacturer of the device; age of the device; speed of the device to perform a biometric scan; quality of the data capture when the device performs a biometric scan; one or more performance characteristics of the device; and environmental conditions recommended or required for operation of the device” 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 36 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 performing traveler processing based on the received traveler information comprises performing one or more of the following: a traveler verification process in which it is verified that the received traveler information for the plurality of different information collection modes is consistent or for the same traveler; a background check for the traveler to determine if at least a portion of the received traveler information matches information stored in one or more background check lists; and an identity fraud check in which it is determined whether at least a portion of the received traveler information was previously presented or received for a different 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 performing traveler processing based on the received traveler information comprises performing one or more of the following: a traveler verification process in which it is verified that the received traveler information for the plurality of different information collection modes is consistent or for the same traveler; a background check for the traveler to determine if at least a portion of the received traveler information matches information stored in one or more background check lists; and an identity fraud check in which it is determined whether at least a portion of the received traveler information was previously presented or received for a different 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 37 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 “receiving for the traveler, traveler information via an additional different information collection mode if the cumulative score is less than the threshold comprises: ranking a plurality of remaining information collection modes; and receiving for the traveler, traveler information via a highest ranked additional different information collection mode among the plurality of remaining information collection modes” 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 “receiving for the traveler, traveler information via an additional different information collection mode if the cumulative score is less than the threshold comprises: ranking a plurality of remaining information collection modes; and receiving for the traveler, traveler information via a highest ranked additional different information collection mode among the plurality of remaining information collection modes” 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 38 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 plurality of different information collection modes comprises a travel document and a plurality of different biometric modes, wherein the receiving, for a traveler, traveler information via a plurality of different information collection modes comprises: ranking, based on a reliability score, a plurality biometric modes; and receiving, for a traveler, at least a travel document for the traveler and highest ranked biometric scan for 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 plurality of different information collection modes comprises a travel document and a plurality of different biometric modes, wherein the receiving, for a traveler, traveler information via a plurality of different information collection modes comprises: ranking, based on a reliability score, a plurality biometric modes; and receiving, for a traveler, at least a travel document for the traveler and highest ranked biometric scan for 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 39 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 an apparatus 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 “an apparatus, one processor, one memory”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer function of 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.
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 “an apparatus, one processor, one memory” to perform the “performing” step 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.
Claim 40 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 storage medium 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 “determine 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, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses a user assigns a score for each of the travel document/information. Similarly, the limitation of “determine 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, “determine” 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 “determine 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 “perform 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, “perform” 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 non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a processor, one computing system”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing the generic computer functions of determine, determine, determine and perform) 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 “receive, for a traveler, traveler information from a plurality of information collection modes”, and “receive 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 “receive 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 non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a processor, one computing system” to perform the “determine, determine, determine and perform” 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 “receive, for a traveler, traveler information from a plurality of information collection modes”, and “receive 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 “receive 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 27-36 and 39-40 are 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).
As per claim 27, Kaehler teaches a device comprising:
a processor [paragraph 0006, “a hardware processor”]; and
a non-transitory memory storing one or more programs for execution by the processor, the one or more programs including instructions for [paragraphs 0258 and 0260, “Code modules or any type of data may be stored on any type of non-transitory computer-readable medium, such as physical computer storage including hard drives, solid state memory, random access memory … Each of the processes, methods, and algorithms described herein and/or depicted in the attached figures may be embodied in, and fully or partially automated by, code modules executed by one or more physical computing systems, hardware computer processors”]:
receiving, for a traveler, traveler information from a plurality of information collection modes [paragraphs 0026-0027, “at an airport security checkpoint, a traveler usually presents his or her identification document (e.g., a driver's license or passport) to an inspector who may wear the ARD (augmented reality device) … The traveler may also present a ticket which can include travel information such as the traveler's name, destination, carrier, etc. The inspector may view the traveler (as well as other persons in the traveler's environment) and the traveler's documents through the ARD. The ARD can image the traveler and the traveler's documents and detect linkages among the traveler's documents and the traveler … the ARD can image the traveler's passport to detect a photograph of the traveler and compare it to an image of the traveler obtained by an outward-facing camera on the ARD to determine whether the passport photograph is that of the traveler”; paragraph 0103, “The ARD can capture an image 1200a which includes a portion of the person 5030's body and the driver's license 5150a. The ARD can extract biometric information of the person from the image 1200a and determine the person's identity using the extracted biometric information”; paragraph 0111, “the ARD may use other biometrics (such as height, hair color, eye color, iris code, voice print, etc.) to identify a person”; paragraph 0114, “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”];
determining a reliability score for each of the plurality of information collection modes [paragraphs 0107 and 0125-0126, “The ARD may assign different weights to different factors. For example, the ARD may assign a heavy weight to matching iris code while a light weight to matching hair color … when the ARD detects that the person's iris code matches the one in the document, the ARD may flag that the person is the one described in the document … different weights may be associated with different facial features … the ARD can assign weights to components of the feature vector”; Examiner interprets the assigned different weights to different factors as the reliability scores that assigned to the information collection modes/types of traveler information (scanning mode, biometric mode, etc.,) to identify a person, to determine if the person is the same person as described by the document];
determining a cumulative score [paragraph 0125, a confidence score] for the traveler based on the reliability score for each of the plurality of information collection modes [paragraph 0103-0107, “FIG. 12A illustrates an example of identity verification by analyzing characteristics of a person and information in a document … The ARD can capture an image 1200a which includes a portion of the person 5030's body and the driver's license 5150a. The ARD can extract biometric information of the person from the image 1200a and determine the person's identity using the extracted biometric information … the ARD can characterize the face by calculating a feature vector for the face. The feature vector can be a numerical representation of the face. For example, ARD may calculate the feature vector based on facial features (such as, e.g., comers of the eyes, eyebrows, mouth, the tip of the nose, etc.) of the detected face … Feature vectors of the two faces within the image 1200a may be used to compare similarities and dissimilarities between the two faces … embodiments, different weights may be associated with different facial features. For example, the ARD can assign weights to components of the feature vector based on the location of the facial features. As a result, the weight associated with respective facial features may be incorporated in determining similarities and dissimilarities of the two faces”; paragraphs 0125-0126, “The ARD may assign different weights to different factors. For example, the ARD may assign a heavy weight to matching iris code while a light weight to matching hair color … the ARD may calculate a confidence score to determine whether the person is the same one as described by the document. The confidence score may be calculated using matches (or mismatches) of one or more factors between the person and the document. For example, the ARD may calculate the confidence score based on matching hair color, pictures of the face, and gender. If the ARD determines all three characteristics match, the ARD may determine that the person is the one shown by the document with 99% confidence];
determining whether the cumulative score is greater than or equal to a threshold [paragraph 0107, “different weights may be associated with different facial features … the ARD can assign weights to components of the feature vector … As a result, the weight associated with respective facial features may be incorporated in determining similarities and dissimilarities of the two faces; paragraph 0212, “calculating a confidence score based at least in part on the similarities or dissimilarities … and detecting the match when the confidence score passes a threshold value”; paragraph 0158, “the AR system may compare multiple pieces of information in the document and calculate a confidence score based on the comparisons. The AR system may flag the document as valid (or invalid) by comparing the confidence score with a threshold score”; paragraph 0128, “if the confidence score is greater than or equal to the threshold, the ARD may determine that the document is valid”];
performing traveler processing based on the received traveler information if the cumulative score is greater than or equal to the threshold [paragraph 0158, “the AR system may compare multiple pieces of information in the document and calculate a confidence score based on the comparisons. The AR system may flag the document as valid (or invalid) by comparing the confidence score with a threshold score”; paragraph 0128, “if the confidence score is greater than or equal to the threshold, the ARD may determine that the document is valid”; paragraph 0027, “The inspector can use the virtual information displayed by the ARD to pass the traveler through security (in the event of a high degree of match for the linkage between the photo and the traveler)”]; and
if the cumulative score is less than the threshold [paragraph 0158, “the AR system may compare multiple pieces of information in the document and calculate a confidence score based on the comparisons. The AR system may flag the document as valid (or invalid) by comparing the confidence score with a threshold score”; paragraph 0128, “If the confidence score is below a certain threshold, the ARD may determine that the document is invalid”].
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.
Casillas teaches
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 [abstract, "determining an initial identity trust score for the user based on the identifying information"; Col. 10, lines 50-52, "the user may be asked to provide additional identifying information to raise the identity trust score"; Col. 2, lines 5-8, "additional information is collected until a revised identity trust score meets or exceeds the activity trust threshold only if the identity trust score is below the activity trust threshold"; Col. 4, lines 26-29, "information may include ... biometric data"; Fig. 4, Col. 12, line 67 to Col. 13, line 31, "if the identity trust score does not meet or exceed the activity trust threshold ... additional identifying information is collected or acquired … For example, while on the phone, the user's voice may be authenticated and thus the identity trust score is revised (voice can be used as biometric data). Or the user may be asked to provide a one-time password ... thus raising the identity trust score. After the additional information is collected, the operation returns to block 440 to determine a revised identity trust score", then the revised identity trust score (cumulative score) is compared with the trust threshold to determine whether the revised identity trust score exceed trust threshold; Col. 13, lines 29-31, “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). 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”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of detecting a linkage in an augmented reality environment of Kaehler to include the process of receiving an additional information if the cumulative score is less than the threshold, wherein the additional information collection includes at least one biometric scan 94Customer No. 22,852of Casillas. Doing so would help determining whether the document is valid by comparing the updated confidence score with the threshold score.
As per claim 28, Kaehler and Casillas teach the device of claim 27.
Kaehler further teaches
the plurality of different information collection modes comprises at least a travel document for the traveler [paragraph 0005, “obtain, with the outward-facing imaging system, an image of the environment; detect a first face and a second face in the image, wherein the first face is the face of a person in the environment and wherein the second face is a face on an identification document”; paragraph 0026, “at an airport security checkpoint, a traveler usually presents his or her identification document ( e.g., a driver's license or passport) to an inspector”] and a biometric scan for the traveler [paragraph 0060, “The inward-facing imaging system 466 can be used to obtain images … for biometric identification of the user (e.g., via iris identification)”; paragraph 0103, “The ARD can extract biometric information of the person from the image 1200a and determine the person's identity using the extracted biometric information”; paragraph 0111, “the ARD may use other biometrics (such as height, hair color, eye color, iris code, voice print, etc.) to identify a person”; paragraph 0114, “the document ( e.g. airline ticket 5470) may include an optical label such as a quick response (QR) code 5470 or a bar code … the ARD can scan the QR code and communicate with another data source (such as airline's reservation system) 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”].
As per claim 29, Kaehler and Casillas teach the device of claim 27.
Kaehler further teaches
wherein 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.
[paragraph 0005, “obtain, with the outward-facing imaging system, an image of the environment; detect a first face and a second face in the image, wherein the first face is the face of a person in the environment and wherein the second face is a face on an identification document”; paragraph 0060, “The inward-facing imaging system 466 can be used to obtain images … for biometric identification of the user (e.g., via iris identification)”; paragraph 0103, “The ARD can extract biometric information of the person from the image 1200a and determine the person's identity using the extracted biometric information”; paragraph 0111, “the ARD may use other biometrics (such as height, hair color, eye color, iris code, voice print, etc.) to identify a person”; paragraph 0168, “The AR system may also use other factors such as whether description of hair color in the document matches the hair color of the person, whether the iris code on the document matches the iris code generated by scanning the person”].
As per claim 30, Kaehler and Casillas teach the device of claim 29.
Kaehler further teaches
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.
[paragraph 0026, “at an airport security checkpoint, a traveler usually presents his or her identification document (e.g., a driver's license or passport) to an inspector who may wear the ARD (augmented reality device) … The traveler may also present a ticket which can include travel information such as the traveler's name, destination, carrier, etc. The inspector may view the traveler (as well as other persons in the traveler's environment) and the traveler's documents through the ARD. The ARD can image the traveler and the traveler's documents and detect linkages among the traveler's documents and the traveler”].
As per claim 31, Kaehler and Casillas teach the device of claim 27.
Kaehler further teaches
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.
[paragraph 0107, “different weights may be associated with different facial features. For example, the ARD can assign weights to components of the feature vector based on the location of the facial features. As a result, the weight associated with respective facial features may be incorporated in determining similarities and dissimilarities of the two faces”; paragraphs 0125-0126, “The confidence score may be calculated using matches (or mismatches) of one or more factors between the person and the document. For example, the ARD may calculate the confidence score based on matching hair color, pictures of the face, and gender … The ARD may assign different weights to different factors. For example, the ARD may assign a heavy weight to matching iris code while a light weight to matching hair color because it is difficult to forge a person's the iris code. Therefore, when the ARD detects that the person's iris code matches the one in the document, the ARD may flag that the person is the one described in the document”].
As per claim 32, Kaehler and Casillas teach the device of claim 31.
Kaehler further teaches
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.
[paragraph 0151, “the AR system may be configured to only identify certain types of documents such as identification documents or airline tickets”; paragraph 0116, “the document may also have an electromagnetic label, such as an RFID tag”; paragraph 0118, “The ARD can also verify a document using only the information in the document. For example, the ARD may receive a signal from a label associated with the document. If the signal is in a particular frequency band, the ARD may determine that the document is authentic … the image of a document may include an image of an RFID”].
As per claim 33, Kaehler and Casillas teach the device of claim 31.
Kaehler further teaches
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.
[paragraph 0026, “at an airport security checkpoint, a traveler usually presents his or her identification document (e.g., a driver's license or passport) to an inspector who may wear the ARD. The driver's license can include identifying information such as the traveler's name, photo, age, height, etc.”, paragraph 0112, “the ARD can use the person's height, hair color, eye color, facial features to obtain additional personal information (such as name, address, occupation, etc.) by referencing to a database”].
As per claim 34, Kaehler and Casillas teach the device of claim 31.
Kaehler further teaches
the environmental condition comprises one or more of the following environmental conditions:
a temperature;
a humidity; and
a lighting condition.
[paragraph 0077, “The wearable systems can use various sensors (e.g., … temperature sensors …, etc.) to determine the location and various other attributes of the environment of the user”; paragraph 0182, “the identification document includes hidden information not directly perceivable when the identification document is illuminated with light within a human visible spectrum (RVS)”; paragraph 0115, “the hidden information may only be perceivable under certain optical conditions outside the HVS such as, e.g., ultraviolet (UV) light or infrared (IR) light. The ARD may include optical sensors that can emit light outside of a human visible spectrum (e.g., UV light or IR light). For example, to protect privacy of a person, the iris code in a passport may only be seen under UV light. The ARD may obtain the iris code by emitting the UV light and obtain an image of the document under the UV condition. The ARD can then extract iris code using the image obtained under the UV condition. In other cases, for security reasons, an identification document may include two copies of a photograph of the person: the first copy viewable with visible light (within the HVS) and the second copy viewable only when illuminated with light outside the HVS (e.g., under UV or IR illumination)];
As per claim 35, Kaehler and Casillas teach the device of claim 31.
Kaehler further teaches
the characteristic of a device used to perform a biometric scan comprises one or more of the following:
a type of the device;
a model or manufacturer of the device;
age of the device;
speed of the device to perform a biometric scan;
quality of the data capture when the device performs a biometric scan;
one or more performance characteristics of the device; and
environmental conditions recommended or required for operation of the device.
[paragraph 0103, “The person 5030 may stand in front of an ARD (augmented reality device), which for example may be worn by a security inspector at a checkpoint. The ARD can capture an image 1200a which includes a portion of the person 5030's body and the driver's license 5150a. The ARD can extract biometric information of the person from the image 1200a and determine the person's identity using the extracted biometric information”; paragraph 0111, “alternative to facial recognition, the ARD may use other biometrics (such as height, hair color, eye color, iris code, voice print, etc.) to identify a person … the ARD can determine the person 5030's hair color based on the 1200a image acquired by the outward-facing imaging system 464. The ARD can also estimate the person 5030's personal information such as age, sex, height based on the image acquired by the outward facing imaging system … The ARD may also estimate the person's age based on his facial features … the ARD can use an individual's voice print alone or in combination with facial recognition (or other biometrics) to determine the person's identity … The ARD can further look up the identified features in a database to determine whether there are one or more persons matching the identified features”; paragraph 0107, “embodiments, different weights may be associated with different facial features. For example, the ARD can assign weights to components of the feature vector based on the location of the facial features. As a result, the weight associated with respective facial features may be incorporated in determining similarities and dissimilarities of the two faces”; paragraph 0126, “The ARD may assign different weights to different factors. For example, the ARD may assign a heavy weight to matching iris code while a light weight to matching hair color”].
As per claim 36, Kaehler and Casillas teach the device of claim 27.
Kaehler further teaches
the performing traveler processing based on the received traveler information comprises performing one or more of the following:
a traveler verification process in which it is verified that the received traveler information for the plurality of different information collection modes is consistent or for the same traveler;
a background check for the traveler to determine if at least a portion of the received traveler information matches information stored in one or more background check lists; and
an identity fraud check in which it is determined whether at least a portion of the received traveler information was previously presented or received for a different traveler.
[paragraph 0120, “the ARD can verify whether the person standing in front of the wearer is the same person shown on the driver's license”; paragraph 0131, “The ARD can verify the validity of the two documents by referencing to another data source … the ARD may be able to retrieve the passenger's name, date of birth, and gender by scanning the QR code 5470. The ARD can compare such information with information shown on the driver's license and determine whether the airline ticket and the driver's license belong to the same person”; paragraph 0158, “The AR system may flag the document as valid (or invalid) by comparing the confidence score with a threshold score”; paragraph 0128, “the confidence score is greater than or equal to the threshold, the ARD may determine that the document is valid”; paragraph 0249, “displaying a linkage of among the first document, the second document, and the person in response to a determination that the likelihood of match exceeds a threshold condition”; paragraph 0257, “displaying a virtual annotation indicating at least one of the first document or the second document as valid in response to a determination that the confidence score exceeds a threshold value”].
As per claim 39, Kaehler and Casillas teach the device of claim 27.
Kaehler further teaches
An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform a device of claim 27 [paragraphs 0005-0006, “an augmented reality (AR) system for detecting a linkage in an AR environment … The method can be performed under control of an augmented reality device (ARD) comprising … a hardware processor”; paragraph 0258-0260, “methods, and algorithms described herein and/or depicted in the attached figures may be embodied in, and fully or partially automated by, code modules executed by one or more physical computing systems, hardware computer processors, application-specific circuitry, and/or electronic hardware configured to execute specific and particular computer instructions … Code modules or any type of data may be stored on any type of non-transitory computer-readable medium, such as physical computer storage including hard drives, solid state memory, random access memory …”].
As per claim 40, Kaehler teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored thereon, when executed by at least one processor, are configured to cause at least one computing system to at least [paragraph 0258-0260, “methods, and algorithms described herein and/or depicted in the attached figures may be embodied in, and fully or partially automated by, code modules executed by one or more physical computing systems, hardware computer processors, application-specific circuitry, and/or electronic hardware configured to execute specific and particular computer instructions … Code modules or any type of data may be stored on any type of non-transitory computer-readable medium, such as physical computer storage including hard drives, solid state memory, random access memory …”]:
receive, for a traveler, traveler information from a plurality of information collection modes [paragraphs 0026-0027, “at an airport security checkpoint, a traveler usually presents his or her identification document (e.g., a driver's license or passport) to an inspector who may wear the ARD (augmented reality device) … The traveler may also present a ticket which can include travel information such as the traveler's name, destination, carrier, etc. The inspector may view the traveler (as well as other persons in the traveler's environment) and the traveler's documents through the ARD. The ARD can image the traveler and the traveler's documents and detect linkages among the traveler's documents and the traveler … the ARD can image the traveler's passport to detect a photograph of the traveler and compare it to an image of the traveler obtained by an outward-facing camera on the ARD to determine whether the passport photograph is that of the traveler”; paragraph 0103, “The ARD can capture an image 1200a which includes a portion of the person 5030's body and the driver's license 5150a. The ARD can extract biometric information of the person from the image 1200a and determine the person's identity using the extracted biometric information”; paragraph 0111, “the ARD may use other biometrics (such as height, hair color, eye color, iris code, voice print, etc.) to identify a person”; paragraph 0114, “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”],
determine a reliability score for each of the plurality of information collection modes [paragraphs 0107 and 0125-0126, “The ARD may assign different weights to different factors. For example, the ARD may assign a heavy weight to matching iris code while a light weight to matching hair color … when the ARD detects that the person's iris code matches the one in the document, the ARD may flag that the person is the one described in the document … different weights may be associated with different facial features … the ARD can assign weights to components of the feature vector”; Examiner interprets the assigned different weights to different factors as the reliability scores that assigned to the information collection modes/types of traveler information (scanning mode, biometric mode, etc.,) to identify a person, to determine if the person is the same person as described by the document];
determine a cumulative score [paragraph 0125, a confidence score] for the traveler based on the reliability score for each of the plurality of information collection modes [paragraph 0103-0107, “FIG. 12A illustrates an example of identity verification by analyzing characteristics of a person and information in a document … The ARD can capture an image 1200a which includes a portion of the person 5030's body and the driver's license 5150a. The ARD can extract biometric information of the person from the image 1200a and determine the person's identity using the extracted biometric information … the ARD can characterize the face by calculating a feature vector for the face. The feature vector can be a numerical representation of the face. For example, ARD may calculate the feature vector based on facial features (such as, e.g., comers of the eyes, eyebrows, mouth, the tip of the nose, etc.) of the detected face … Feature vectors of the two faces within the image 1200a may be used to compare similarities and dissimilarities between the two faces … embodiments, different weights may be associated with different facial features. For example, the ARD can assign weights to components of the feature vector based on the location of the facial features. As a result, the weight associated with respective facial features may be incorporated in determining similarities and dissimilarities of the two faces”; paragraphs 0125-0126, “The ARD may assign different weights to different factors. For example, the ARD may assign a heavy weight to matching iris code while a light weight to matching hair color … the ARD may calculate a confidence score to determine whether the person is the same one as described by the document. The confidence score may be calculated using matches (or mismatches) of one or more factors between the person and the document. For example, the ARD may calculate the confidence score based on matching hair color, pictures of the face, and gender. If the ARD determines all three characteristics match, the ARD may determine that the person is the one shown by the document with 99% confidence”];
determine whether the cumulative score is greater than or equal to a threshold [paragraph 0107, “different weights may be associated with different facial features … the ARD can assign weights to components of the feature vector … As a result, the weight associated with respective facial features may be incorporated in determining similarities and dissimilarities of the two faces; paragraph 0212, “calculating a confidence score based at least in part on the similarities or dissimilarities … and detecting the match when the confidence score passes a threshold value”; paragraph 0158, “the AR system may compare multiple pieces of information in the document and calculate a confidence score based on the comparisons. The AR system may flag the document as valid (or invalid) by comparing the confidence score with a threshold score”; paragraph 0128, “if the confidence score is greater than or equal to the threshold, the ARD may determine that the document is valid”];
perform traveler processing based on the received traveler information if the cumulative score is greater than or equal to the threshold [paragraph 0158, “the AR system may compare multiple pieces of information in the document and calculate a confidence score based on the comparisons. The AR system may flag the document as valid (or invalid) by comparing the confidence score with a threshold score”; paragraph 0128, “if the confidence score is greater than or equal to the threshold, the ARD may determine that the document is valid”; paragraph 0027, “The inspector can use the virtual information displayed by the ARD to pass the traveler through security (in the event of a high degree of match for the linkage between the photo and the traveler)”]; and
if the cumulative score is less than the threshold [paragraph 0158, “the AR system may compare multiple pieces of information in the document and calculate a confidence score based on the comparisons. The AR system may flag the document as valid (or invalid) by comparing the confidence score with a threshold score”; paragraph 0128, “If the confidence score is below a certain threshold, the ARD may determine that the document is invalid”].
Kaehler does not explicitly teach
receive 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.
Casillas teaches
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 [abstract, "determining an initial identity trust score for the user based on the identifying information"; Col. 10, lines 50-52, "the user may be asked to provide additional identifying information to raise the identity trust score"; Col. 2, lines 5-8, "additional information is collected until a revised identity trust score meets or exceeds the activity trust threshold only if the identity trust score is below the activity trust threshold"; Col. 4, lines 26-29, "information may include ... biometric data"; Fig. 4, Col. 12, line 67 to Col. 13, line 31, "if the identity trust score does not meet or exceed the activity trust threshold ... additional identifying information is collected or acquired … For example, while on the phone, the user's voice may be authenticated and thus the identity trust score is revised (voice can be used as biometric data). Or the user may be asked to provide a one-time password ... thus raising the identity trust score. After the additional information is collected, the operation returns to block 440 to determine a revised identity trust score", then the revised identity trust score (cumulative score) is compared with the trust threshold to determine whether the revised identity trust score exceed trust threshold; Col. 13, lines 29-31, “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). 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”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of detecting a linkage in an augmented reality environment of Kaehler to include the process of receiving an additional information if the cumulative score is less than the threshold, wherein the additional information collection includes at least one biometric scan 94Customer No. 22,852of Casillas. Doing so would help determining whether the document is valid by comparing the updated confidence score with the threshold score.
Claims 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaehler (US Pub. 2017/0351909) in view of Casillas et al. and further in view of Siddall et al. (US Pub. 2006/0106852).
As per claim 37, Kaehler and Casillas teach the device of claim 27.
Kaehler (as modified) further teaches
receiving for the traveler, traveler information via an additional different information collection mode if the cumulative score is less than the threshold [Casillas, abstract, "determining an initial identity trust score for the user based on the identifying information"; Col. 10, lines 50-52, "the user may be asked to provide additional identifying information to raise the identity trust score"; Col. 2, lines 5-8, "additional information is collected until a revised identity trust score meets or exceeds the activity trust threshold only if the identity trust score is below the activity trust threshold"; Col. 4, lines 26-29, "information may include ... biometric data"; Fig. 4, Col. 12, line 67 to Col. 13, line 31, "if the identity trust score does not meet or exceed the activity trust threshold ... additional identifying information is collected or acquired … For example, while on the phone, the user's voice may be authenticated and thus the identity trust score is revised (voice can be used as biometric data). Or the user may be asked to provide a one-time password ... thus raising the identity trust score. After the additional information is collected, the operation returns to block 440 to determine a revised identity trust score"] comprises:
ranking a plurality of remaining information collection modes [Kaehler, paragraph 0107, “different weights may be associated with different facial features … the ARD can assign weights to components of the feature vector; paragraph 0126, “The ARD may assign different weights to different factors”];
Kaehler and Casillas do not teach
receiving for the traveler, traveler information via a highest ranked additional different information collection mode among the plurality of remaining information collection modes.
Siddall teaches
receiving for the traveler, traveler information via a highest ranked additional different information collection mode among the plurality of remaining information collection modes [paragraphs 0181-0182, “a determination may be made whether additional purging of digital files is necessary to bring the cumulative amount of consumed storage space in the storage allocation below a threshold value. If it is determined that such purging is necessary, in Act 353, all of the remaining digital files (e.g., those that were not already added to the purge list) may be ranked in an order, such as according to a last time each digital file was accessed. For example, a file most recently accessed may be given a highest rank at the beginning of the order, and a digital file least recently accessed may be given a lowest rank at the end of the order … starting at the beginning of the order (e.g., at the most recently accessed digital file), one or more digital files may be added to the purge list in order, with the cumulative amount of consumed storage space recalculated each time a digital file is added to the list, until the amount of consumed storage space is below the threshold value”; Kaehler (as modified) teaches when the confidence score for the traveler is less than a threshold, additional information is received/required (Casillas, Cols. 2 and 4), and information collection modes are ranked (Kaehler, paragraph 0107 and 0126), Kaehler (as modified), however, is silent of “to meet the threshold, the highest ranked document/information is received/required”, while Siddall teaches to meet the threshold, the remaining files are ranked, and starting to receive/collect the highest rank file to add to the list, recalculating the cumulative amount until the threshold is met, therefore, the combination of Kaehler (as modified) and Siddall read on the above claim limitation].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of detecting a linkage in an augmented reality environment of Kaehler to include the process of receiving information via a highest ranked additional different information among the plurality of remaining information 94Customer No. 22,852of Siddall. Doing so would help recalculating the cumulative amount each time the document is received starting from the highest rank until the threshold is met (Siddall, 0182).
As per claim 38, Kaehler and Casillas teach the device of claim 27.
Kaehler further teaches
the plurality of different information collection modes comprises a travel document [paragraph 0005, “obtain, with the outward-facing imaging system, an image of the environment; detect a first face and a second face in the image, wherein the first face is the face of a person in the environment and wherein the second face is a face on an identification document”; paragraph 0026, “at an airport security checkpoint, a traveler usually presents his or her identification document ( e.g., a driver's license or passport) to an inspector”] and a plurality of different biometric modes [paragraph 0060, “The inward-facing imaging system 466 can be used to obtain images … for biometric identification of the user (e.g., via iris identification)”; paragraph 0103, “The ARD can extract biometric information of the person from the image 1200a and determine the person's identity using the extracted biometric information”; paragraph 0111, “the ARD may use other biometrics (such as height, hair color, eye color, iris code, voice print, etc.) to identify a person”; paragraph 0114, “the document ( e.g. airline ticket 5470) may include an optical label such as a quick response (QR) code 5470 or a bar code … the ARD can scan the QR code and communicate with another data source (such as airline's reservation system) 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”], wherein the receiving, for a traveler, traveler information via a plurality of different information collection modes comprises:
ranking, based on a reliability score, a plurality biometric modes [paragraph 0107, “different weights may be associated with different facial features … the ARD can assign weights to components of the feature vector; paragraph 0126, “The ARD may assign different weights to different factors”];
receiving, for a traveler, at least a travel document for the traveler [paragraph 0005, “obtain, with the outward-facing imaging system, an image of the environment; detect a first face and a second face in the image, wherein the first face is the face of a person in the environment and wherein the second face is a face on an identification document”; paragraph 0026, “at an airport security checkpoint, a traveler usually presents his or her identification document ( e.g., a driver's license or passport) to an inspector”];
Kaehler and Casillas do not teach
receiving, for a traveler, highest ranked biometric scan for the traveler.
Siddall teaches
receiving, for a traveler, highest ranked biometric scan for the traveler [paragraphs 0181-0182, “a determination may be made whether additional purging of digital files is necessary to bring the cumulative amount of consumed storage space in the storage allocation below a threshold value. If it is determined that such purging is necessary, in Act 353, all of the remaining digital files (e.g., those that were not already added to the purge list) may be ranked in an order, such as according to a last time each digital file was accessed. For example, a file most recently accessed may be given a highest rank at the beginning of the order, and a digital file least recently accessed may be given a lowest rank at the end of the order … starting at the beginning of the order (e.g., at the most recently accessed digital file), one or more digital files may be added to the purge list in order, with the cumulative amount of consumed storage space recalculated each time a digital file is added to the list, until the amount of consumed storage space is below the threshold value”; Kaehler teaches information collection modes (including biometric scan) are ranked (paragraph 0107 and 0126), and biometric scan for the traveler is received (paragraphs 0060, 0103, 0111 and 0114). Kaehler, however, is silent of “the highest ranked biometric scan is received”, while Siddall teaches to meet the threshold, the remaining files are ranked, and starting to receive/collect the highest rank file, recalculating the cumulative amount until the threshold is met, therefore, the combination of Kaehler and Siddall read on the above claim limitation].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of detecting a linkage in an augmented reality environment of Kaehler to include the process of receiving a highest ranked information 94Customer No. 22,852of Siddall. Doing so would help recalculating the cumulative amount each time the document is received starting from the highest rank until the threshold is met (Siddall, 0182).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
McIntire et al. (US Pub. 2015/0088775) describes a method of implementing electronic document readers, gates, and biometrics to provide the improved functionality.
Eckel et al. (US Pub. 2014/0363057) describes a method for screening a person.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-0103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 AM-5 PM, (CT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, OMAR FERNANDEZ can be reached at 571-272-2589. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRI T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights