DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments (see Remarks dated 12/04/2025) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, the applicant argues that Segawa and Mirza do not disclose or suggest:
“wherein the hologram generator is configured to begin projection the holographic target in response to a determination that a user is present in a predetermined location” (claim 1),
“a proximity sensor configured to generate a presence detection signal in response to detecting a presence of a user” (claim 7), and
“detecting a presence of a user in a predetermined location; generating a presence detection signal in response to detecting the presence of the user; in response to the presence detection signal, projecting a holographic target onto free space in a predetermined target area” (claim 15).
On page 8, applicant states that “Mirza does not disclose or suggest that the QR code scanner inside the elevator is activated in response to a user waving in front of the motion sensors located outside the elevator” & asserts that no interaction between Mirza’s sensors and scanner is disclosed. Applicant continues that “Mirza does not disclose or suggest that its QR code scanner is activated to project a target in response to a user waving in front of the motion detector.”
However, Mirza uses “an infrared sensor…to detect objects or any physical motion in its view” ([0001]) and subsequently “permits the user to use a QR code to…select a floor [after] summoning the elevator” (claim 2). In other words, Mirza’s infrared sensor generates a presence detection signal in response to detecting a presence of a user ([0001]) in a predetermined location ([0011], at the outside buttons of an elevator), in order to summon an elevator. After being detected by the sensor and boarding the elevator, the user is directed to scan a code ([0012]). Therefore, Mirza does teach that the QR code scanner inside the elevator is activated in response to a user waving in front of the motion sensors located outside the elevator.
The examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the hologram projection capabilities of Segawa with the sensor detection capabilities of Mirza, in order to arrive at the claimed invention—especially since Segawa and Mirza each disclose the scanning of unique barcodes in order to facilitate the travel/transport of passengers.
On page 9, applicant argues that Okawa and Mirza should not be combined, for essentially the same reason that the applicant has argued against combining Segawa and Mirza: because Mirza allegedly “does not disclose or suggest that the QR code scanner inside the elevator is activated in response to a user waving in front of the motion sensors located outside of the elevator.” However, the examiner maintains the combination for Okawa and Mirza, for the same reasons cited above regarding the combination of Segawa and Mirza.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
4. Claims 1-2, 4, 7-9, 11, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Segawa (JP 05-166022 A, of record) in view of Mirza et al. (US 20210094796 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Segawa discloses a verification device, comprising:
a scanner (Fig. 1, 8) configured to capture an image ([0013], “reading of the barcode 6”) of an authentication pattern in a predetermined target area (Fig. 1, pattern 6 in area 5); and
a hologram generator (Fig. 1, 4) configured to project a holographic target onto free space in the target area ([0013], “This light forms an image on window 5… by the converging function of the hologram”),
wherein the hologram generator is configured to project the holographic target ([0001], when a ticket is displayed in a scanning region for the ticket gate),
wherein the scanner captures the image of the authentication pattern in response to projection of the holographic target in the target area (claims 2 & 5).
Segawa fails to explicitly disclose wherein the hologram generator is configured to begin projecting the holographic target in response to a determination that a user is present in a predetermined location.
However, Mirza teaches a similar scanning device (Abstract), and discloses wherein a QR code is scanned (claim 2 & Fig. 6) in response to a determination that a user is present in a predetermined location (claim 1 & Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Segawa and Mirza such that a hologram generator was configured to begin projecting the holographic target in response to a determination that a user is present in a predetermined location, motivated by promoting a process which requires no physical contact (Mirza - Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, modified Segawa discloses wherein the hologram generator is disposed such that the holographic target is visible from within a predetermined field of view, and is not visible from outside of the predetermined field of view (Segawa - Fig. 1, 4 is disposed such that the target is only visible above window 5).
Regarding claim 4, modified Segawa discloses wherein the authentication pattern is a two-dimensional barcode (Segawa - [0015], 6 is on a transportation ticket).
Regarding claim 7, Segawa discloses a ticket validation system, comprising:
a hologram generator (Fig. 1, 4) configured to project a holographic target onto free space in a predetermined target area ([0013], “This light forms an image on window 5… by the converging function of the hologram);
a scanner (Fig. 1, 8) configured to capture an image ([0013], “reading of the barcode 6”) of an authentication pattern in the predetermined target area (Fig. 1, pattern 6 in area 5) in response to projection of the holographic target ([0013]); and
a controller ([0004]-[0012], automatic ticket gate) configured to process the image captured by the scanner and output a determination of whether the authentication pattern meets a predetermined criterion ([0004]-[0008]).
Segawa fails to explicitly disclose a proximity sensor configured to generate a presence detection signal in response to detecting a presence of a user, and wherein a target is projected in response to receiving the presence detection signal.
However, Mirza teaches a similar scanning device (Abstract), and discloses wherein a QR code is scanned in response to an infrared sensor’s detection of a presence of a user ([0001] & Figs. 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Segawa and Mirza such that a proximity sensor was configured to generate a presence detection signal in response to detecting a presence of a user, and the target was projected in response to receiving the presence detection signal, motivated by promoting a process which requires no physical contact (Mirza - Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, modified Segawa discloses wherein the controller is configured to: generate an authentication information from the image; compare the authentication information with a reference information, the reference information corresponding to the predetermined criterion; and in a case where the authentication information agrees with the reference information, generate a control signal configured to cause a gate to open (Segawa - [0004]-[0012], the automatic ticket gate inherently compares authentication information with reference information corresponding to predetermined criterion, in order to generate a control signal for allowing use of the gate).
Regarding claim 9, modified Segawa discloses a memory configured to store the reference information (Segawa - [0004]-[0012], the automatic ticket gate inherently comprises a memory from which its processes run).
Regarding claim 10, modified Segawa discloses communication circuitry configured to receive the reference information from a remote device (Mirza - [0012]-[0013], via UCU)
Regarding claim 11, modified Segawa discloses a user interface (Segawa - [0004]-[0012], the gate interfaces with a user by examining their ticket).
Regarding claim 14, modified Segawa discloses wherein the hologram generator is configured to begin projecting the holographic target in a case where the presence detection signal indicates that a user is present in a predetermined location (Mirza - Figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 15, Segawa discloses an authentication code reading method, comprising:
detecting a presence in a predetermined location ([0001], when a ticket is displayed in a scanning region for the ticket gate);
generate a presence detection signal in response to detecting the presence (Fig. 1, on photodetector 8);
in response to the presence detection signal, projecting a holographic target (Fig. 1, 4) onto free space in a predetermined target area ([0013], “This light forms an image on window 5… by the converging function of the hologram”);
capturing an image (Fig. 1, 8; [0013], “reading of the barcode 6”) of an authentication pattern in the target area (Fig. 1, pattern 6 in area 5) in response to projecting the holographic target ([0013]); and
determining whether the captured authentication pattern meets a predetermined criterion ([0004]-[0008]).
Segawa fails to explicitly disclose detecting the presence of a user, and generating a presence detection signal in response to detecting the presence of the user.
However, Mirza teaches a similar scanning device (Abstract), and discloses wherein a QR code is scanned in response to an infrared sensor’s detection of a presence of a user ([0001] & Figs. 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Segawa and Mirza such that a presence of a user was detected, and a presence detection signal was generated in response to detecting the presence of the user, motivated by promoting a process which requires no physical contact (Mirza - Abstract).
Regarding claim 16, modified Segawa discloses extracting an authentication information from the authentication pattern;
comparing the authentication information to a reference information; and
generating an access control signal based on the comparing (Segawa - [0004]-[0012], the automatic ticket gate inherently compares authentication information with reference information, in order to generate a control signal for allowing use of the gate).
Regarding claim 17, modified Segawa discloses in a case where the access control signal indicates an access grant, causing a gate to open (Segawa - [0004]-[0012]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Segawa discloses wherein the authentication pattern is a two-dimensional barcode (Segawa - [0015], 6 is on a transportation ticket).
Regarding claim 19, modified Segawa discloses monitoring the target area to determine that the authentication pattern has entered the target area (Segawa - Fig. 1, 5 is monitored); and
at a predetermined time after the authentication pattern has entered the target area, performing the capturing (Segawa - Fig. 1, 8 performs capturing).
Regarding claim 20, Segawa discloses wherein the holographic target is configured to be visible from within a predetermined field of view, and not visible from outside of the predetermined field of view (Segawa - Fig. 1, 4 is disposed such that the target is only visible above window 5).
Regarding claim 21, modified Segawa discloses a proximity sensor configured to generate a presence detection signal, wherein the hologram generator is configured to receive the presence detection signal and to begin projecting the holographic target in response to the received presence detection signal (Mirza - Figs. 5-6).
5. Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Okawa et al. (JP 04-330583 A, of record) in view of Mirza.
Regarding claim 1, Okawa discloses a verification device, comprising:
a scanner ([0010], barcode reading device) configured to capture an image of an authentication pattern in a predetermined target area ([0010], barcode reading window); and
a hologram generator ([0010], transmission hologram 26) configured to project a holographic target onto free space in the target area ([0010], 26 projects 28 onto the barcode reading window),
wherein the hologram generator is configured to project the holographic target ([0004]-[0006], when an operator is positioning a barcode to be read),
wherein the scanner captures the image of the authentication pattern in response to projection of the holographic target in the target area ([0007]).
Okawa fails to explicitly disclose wherein the hologram generator is configured to begin projecting the holographic target in response to a determination that a user is present in a predetermined location.
However, Mirza teaches a similar QR scanning device (Abstract), and discloses wherein the QR code is scanned (claim 2 & Fig. 6) in response to a determination that a user is present in a predetermined location (claim 1 & Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Okawa and Mirza such that a hologram generator was configured to begin projecting the holographic target in response to a determination that a user is present in a predetermined location, motivated by promoting a process which requires no physical contact (Mirza - Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, modified Okawa discloses wherein the holographic target is a static image (Okawa - [0010] & Fig. 1, 28 is static).
6. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Segawa in view of Mirza, and further in view of Leopold et al. (WO 2008064644 A2, of record).
Regarding claim 3, modified Segawa fails to explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined field of view subtends a solid angle of between π/128 and π/4 steradians.
However, Leopold teaches a barcode reading system (Abstract), wherein a predetermined field of view subtends a solid angle of between π/128 and π/4 steradians ([0012]-[0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Segawa and Leopold such that the predetermined field of view was to subtend a solid angle of between π/128 and π/4 steradians, motivated by avoiding visual intrusions.
7. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Segawa in view of Mirza, and further in view of Jiang (US 20150205984 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 6, modified Segawa fails to explicitly disclose wherein the holographic target is a dynamic image.
However, Jiang teaches a similar barcode verification device, wherein a holographic target is a dynamic image ([0144], “dynamic barcode images”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Segawa and Jiang such that the holographic target was a dynamic image, motivated by dynamic images offering enhanced security resistance for verification purposes.
8. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Segawa in view of Mirza, and further in view of Terlizzi et al. (US 7140546 B1, of record).
Regarding claim 12, modified Segawa fails to explicitly disclose wherein the user interface includes a display device configured to display a visual representation of the determination.
However, Terlizzi teaches a barcode validation system, wherein a user interface includes a display device configured to display a visual representation of a determination (column 4 lines 26-38, green and red lights).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Segawa and Terlizzi such that the user interface was to include a display device configured to display a visual representation of the determination, motivated by notifying a user in an effective manner.
Regarding claim 13, modified Segawa fails to explicitly disclose wherein the user interface includes an audio transducer configured to provide an auditory representation of the determination.
However, Terlizzi teaches a barcode validation system, wherein a user interface includes an audio transducer configured to provide an auditory representation of a determination (column 4 lines 26-38, higher- and lower-pitched beeps).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Segawa and Terlizzi such that the user interface was to include an audio transducer configured to provide an auditory representation of the determination, motivated by notifying a user in an effective manner.
Conclusion
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872