DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Acknowledgment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on December 30, 2025. Claims 1-9 and 11-18 are currently pending and have been fully examined. Claim 10 has been cancelled by Applicant, and claims 15-18 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the use of a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and biometric matching, overcomes the rejection under 101. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claims are still directed to the abstract idea of matching boarding pass data with a passport data and generating a token and sending a signal to control a gate in response to the matching. Although the CNN and biometric matching are used to authenticate a passenger, the added limitations are merely used as tools for authentication and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant adds that human mind is not practically capable for performing the recited features absent the use of technology. The examiner respectfully notes that the CNN and biometric matching technology are used as tools, as human mind is capable of comparing images and recognize the similarities and differences.
With respect to the 112 rejections, the amendment overcomes the rejections and the rejections are withdrawn.
With respect to the 103 rejection of independent claims, Applicant merely argues the amended claim limitations. The examiner notes that parts of the amendments such as a token having a :validity period” is taught by the previously cited reference Yuchi which in Page 17 paragraph 6 teaches that the authentication code (token) has a validity period. The examiner further notes that new grounds of rejection is provided for the amendments that were not taught by previously cited references and therefore Applicant’s arguments are rendered moot.
Applicant further argues, on page 11 of the remarks, that in rejection of claims 5 and 13 “the Office failed to apply Sakaguchi in a manner sufficient to cure the above noted deficiencies of Cahn.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Yuchi in Page 6 last paragraph – page 7 paragraph 4, Page 6 paragraphs 4-7 teaches determining whether the user identifying information included in a code request (i.e., token issuance request) matches with registered information of the user (i.e., information received from the server.) In addition, Sakaguchi in [0060] teaches that the user identity information may include passport information such as a passport number and issuing country. Therefore, incorporating the use of passport number and issuing country as data for verifying user identity, into the passenger identity verification of Cahn, Yuchi Rose and Sehr, would teach the claim limitation.
Claim Objections
With respect to claims 1, 11 and 12, each amended claim recites: “extract a face image of the user from the biometric information based on a learning model trained using CNN.” No definition for CNN is provided in the claim and the complete term “convolutional neural network” (CNN) should be spelled out.
With respect to claims 1 and 12, each amended claim recites: “in response to the boarding pass information and the passport information having been determined to be consistent: receive…extract…retrieving…” (emphasis added) Following the grammatical structure used in the claim, the “retrieving” should be replaced with “retrieve.”
With respect to claim 11, the amended claim recites: “in response to the boarding pass information and the passport information having been determined to be consistent: receive…extract…retrieving…” (emphasis added) Following the grammatical structure used in the claim, the “receive” and “extract” should be replaced with “receiving” and “extracting,” respectively.
With respect to claims 1, 11 and 12, each amended claim recites: “determine whether boarding pass information and passport information of a user are consistent; and…” (emphasis added) An “and” should be used only before the last claim limitation. In the amendment claim an “and” is added before the last limitation, but the “and” in the quoted limitation, first claim limitation, is not deleted. Deletion of this “and” is required.
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 1-9 and 11-18 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.
Claims 1-9 and 13-18 are directed to a server (product), claim 11 is directed to a method (process), and claim 12 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (product). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-18 are directed to the abstract idea of matching boarding pass data with a passport data and generating a token and sending a signal to control a gate in response to the matching, as explained in detail below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
In the following analysis, bolded text indicates abstract idea and the rest of the text indicates additional elements. Independent claims 1, 11 and 12, recite:
determine whether boarding pass information and passport information of a user are consistent;
in response to the boarding pass information and the passport information having been determined to be consistent:
receive biometric information of the user acquired from a camera;
extract a face image of the user from the biometric information based on a learning model trained using CNN:
retrieving a stored face image from a database;
generate a token with a valid period to enable a boarding procedure using a biometric authentication, wherein the biometric authentication is performed based on a first feature vector related to the stored face image and a second feature vector related to the face image, and the token is identification for the user to receive the boarding procedure using the biometric information;
perform the boarding procedure using the biometric authentication based on the token and the face image of the user;
send a signal via a network to control a gate based on results of the biometric authentication;
in response to the boarding pass information and the passport information having been determined to not be consistent:
do not generate the token.
The claim recitation is directed to determine that the boarding pass and passport data of a person is consistent, generate a token based on the result, authenticate the person and control a gate based on authentication. Therefore the claims recite a fundamental economic principle or practice grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for receiving data, determining data consistency (by comparison) and generating a token based on the result. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of a management server, at least one memory storing instructions, sending a signal via a network, image acquired from a camera, a database, based on a learning model trained using CNN, at least one processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and a computer mounted to a server, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The use of a management server, at least one memory storing instructions, sending a signal via a network, image acquired from a camera, a database, based on a learning model trained using CNN, at least one processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and a computer mounted to a server, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than one or more computing devices performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) ). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 2, recites:
generate the token in a case in which a person who is permitted to board an aircraft to whom a boarding pass has been issued matches a person who has received issuance of a passport presented at a terminal, which further describes the abstract idea. The use of a terminal does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than one or more computing devices performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea, i.e., “apply it.”
Dependent claim 3, recites:
transmit the boarding pass information included in a token issuance request to an airline server that stores passport information acquired at a time of reserving an airline ticket and reservation information of the airline ticket in association with each other;
receive the passport information for the transmitted boarding pass information from the airline server; and
generate the token based on a further criteria of a case in which the passport information of the user as part of the boarding pass information included in the token issuance request matches the passport information received from the airline server, which further describes the abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the additional element of an airline server, merely use one or more computers as tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test the additional element, amounts to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, i.e., “apply it.”
Dependent claim 4, recites:
determine whether the passport information of the user included in the token issuance request matches the passport information received from the airline server, using information other than a name, which further describes the abstract idea. Claim 4 does not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claim 5, recites:
determine whether the passport information of the user included in the token issuance request matches the passport information received from the airline server, based on a passport number and an issuing country, which further describes the abstract idea. Claim 5 does not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claim 6, recites:
determine validity of a passport presented at a terminal; and
generate the token based on a determination that the boarding pass information and the passport information are consistent and a determination the passport is valid, which further describes the abstract idea. Claim 6 does not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claim 7, recites:
determine the validity of the passport by determining whether a person who has presented the passport at the terminal and a person who has received issuance of the passport presented at the terminal are a same person, which further describes the abstract idea. Claim 7 does not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claim 8, recites:
a token issuance request includes the boarding pass information, the passport information of the user, and the biometric information of the user, and determine the validity of the passport by one-to-one collation using the biometric information of the user included in the token issuance request and biometric information in the passport, which further describes the abstract idea. Claim 8 does not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claim 9, recites:
transmit a response to the a token issuance request including the boarding pass information and the passport information at a terminal, which further describes the abstract idea.
Claim 9 does not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 13, recites:
delete a token ID associated with the token of the user in response to the user passing through the gate, which further describes the abstract idea. Claim 13 does not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claim 14, recites:
in addition to a first determination of determining whether the boarding pass information and the passport information of the user are consistent, perform a second determination of determining whether the passport information of the user and a registered passport information acquired at a time of reserving an airline ticket are consistent, the first determination being a determination regarding the consistency between the boarding pass information and the passport information of the user, the second determination being a determination regarding the validity of the passport information of the user, and
in response to confirmation of the consistency between the boarding pass information and the passport information and the validity of the passport information of the user by the first determination being valid and the second determination being valid, generate the token, in further consideration of the confirmation of the consistency, which further describes the abstract idea. Claim 14 does not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claim 15, recites:
control the camera to capture the biometric information in response to the boarding pass information being consistent with the passport information,
Claim15 does not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B. Accordingly, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 16, recites:
terminate the valid period of the token in response to completion of the boarding procedure, which further describes the abstract idea. Claim 16 does not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claim 17, recites:
perform the boarding procedure by:
determining whether the user is permitted to pass an entry of a safety inspection area;
performing departure inspection after determining the user is permitted to pass to the entry of the safety inspection area; and
determining whether the user is permitted to board a vehicle following performing the departure inspection, which further describes the abstract idea. Claim 17 does not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claim 18, recites:
perform the boarding procedure by checking baggage of the user for loading onto the vehicle, , which further describes the abstract idea. Claim 18 does not recite any new additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahn (US Patent Publication No. US 2008/0313088), in view of Yuchi (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2020024603,) further in view of Rose (US Patent Publication No. 2021/0176239,) and further in view of Sehr (US Patent Publication No.: 2002/0100803.)
With respect to claims 1, 11 and 12, Cahn teaches:
determine whether boarding pass information and passport information of a user are consistent; (determine if boarding pass is genuine and matches with passport: [0048], [0051])
in response to the boarding pass information and the passport information having been determined to be consistent:
generate a token with a valid period…(if data matches a DVF (i.e., token) is computed: [0051], the token can be a one-time token only for one use: [0065])
the token is identification for the user… (“if the user has registered his or her driver's license with a UDID service or is offered registration by an agency issuing the identification document, then the UDID service can send a message to the rightful owner of the identification document about the document's use if an airline issues a boarding pass tied to the identification document: [0059]-[0060])
The examiner notes that the claim recitations “…to enable a boarding procedure using a biometric authentication,” and “…to receive the boarding procedure using the biometric information,” indicate intended use of the token and therefore do not further limit the scope of the claim.
in response to the boarding pass information and the passport information having been determined to not be consistent:
do not generate the token; (if names do not match passenger is queried and TSA procedures are performed: [0048])
In addition, with respect to claims 1 and 12 Cahn teaches:
a management server comprising at least one processor, ([0045]-[0046], [0060])
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program ([0045]-[0046], [0060])
Cahn does not explicitly teach; however, Yuchi teach:
receive biometric information of the user acquired from a camera; (camera captures face image data, biological information X1: Page 6, paragraph 5)
retrieving a stored face image from a database; (face image data is stored as biometric information X: Page 5 Paragraph 4)
generate a token with a valid period to enable a boarding procedure using a biometric authentication… (authentication code (i.e., token) issuance: page 6 paragraph 5- page 7 paragraph 1, authentication code has a validity period: Page 17 paragraph 6)
the token is identification for the user to receive the boarding procedure using the biometric information; (the authentication code (token) is printed on boarding pass and used for boarding: Page 8 paragraph 5)
perform a boarding procedure using biometric authentication based on the token and the face image of the user; (issue an authentication code (i.e. token) using biometric authentication: (Page 6 last paragraph-Page 7 first paragraph), boarding procedure using the authentication code based on biometric authentication: Page 8 paragraphs 3-5)
send a signal via a network to control a gate based on results of the biometric authentication; (authentication code(i.e., signal) is transmitted to a gate device to control the gate: Page 8 paragraph 5, the control devices communicate via a network: Page 18 paragraph 4)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate authentication management by generating a token and using biometric authentication, as taught by Yuchi , into the passenger identity verification of Cahn, in order to automate authentication process to reduce operation burden on the service provider while confirming passenger identity. (Yuchi : Abstract, Page 1, last paragraph)
Cahn and Yuchi do not explicitly teach; however, Rose teaches:
extract a face image of the user from the biometric information based on a learning model trained using CNN; ([0414]-[0421])
wherein the biometric authentication is performed based on a first feature vector related to the stored face image and a second feature vector related to the face image, (numerical vectors are extracted from images and extracted features are being matched: [0325]-[0327])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate facial recognition using convolutional neural networks, as taught by Rose, into the passenger identity verification of Cahn and Yuchi, in order to authenticate the passenger using biometric data with speed and efficiency. (Rose : Abstract, [0006])
Cahn, Yuchi and Rose do not explicitly teach; however, Sehr teaches:
send a signal via a network to control a gate based on results of the biometric authentication; (passenger station 31 including a biometric module and a control module: [0048]-[0049])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “…to control a gate…” indicate intended use of the signal and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the gate control system using authentication and identification, as taught by Sehr, into the passenger identity verification of Cahn, Yuchi and Rose, in order to prevent fraudulent use of unauthorized travel means. (Sehr: [0008])
With respect to claim 2, Cahn, Yuchi Rose and Sehr teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Cahn teaches:
generate the token in a case in which a person who is permitted to board an aircraft to whom a boarding pass has been issued matches a person who has received issuance of a passport presented at a terminal. (if data matches a DVF (i.e., token) is computed: [0048], [0051])
The examiner notes that the claim recitations: “…a person who is permitted to board an aircraft to whom a boarding pass has been issued,” and “who has received issuance of a passport presented at a terminal,” indicate non-functional descriptive material because they merely describe a person. The claim recitations do not further limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claim 3, Cahn, Yuchi Rose and Sehr teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Cahn teaches:
transmit the boarding pass information included in a token issuance request to an airline server that stores passport information …(the airline receives passenger information: [0056]-[0057])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation: “information acquired at a time of reserving an airline ticket and reservation information of the airline ticket in association with each other,” indicates non-functional descriptive material and does not further limit the scope of the claim. In addition, “information acquired” does not positively recite the “acquiring” function. Therefore, the claim recitation does not gain patentable weight.
receive the … information for the transmitted boarding pass information from the airline server, (airline forms a string from the received information: [0057]-[0058])
generate the token based on a further criteria of a case in which the … information of the user as part of the boarding pass information included in the token issuance request matches the … information received from the airline server. (the string is used to generate DVF (i.e., token): [0057]-[0058])
Cahn, Yuchi Rose and Sehr do not explicitly teach receiving passport information from airline. However, “passport information” is merely a term for naming the received information and a prior art which teaches generating a token based on information received from a server reads on the claim.
With respect to claim 4, Cahn, Yuchi Rose and Sehr teach the limitations of claim 3.
Moreover, Yuchi teach:
determine whether the … information of the user included in the token issuance request matches the … information received from the …server, using information other than a name. (matching code request with registered information: Page 6 last paragraph – page 7 paragraph 4)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate authentication management by generating a token and using biometric authentication, as taught by Yuchi , into the passenger identity verification of Cahn, in order to automate authentication process to reduce operation burden on the service provider while confirming passenger identity. (Yuchi : Abstract, Page 1, last paragraph)
With respect to claim 6, Cahn, Yuchi Rose and Sehr teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Cahn teaches:
determine validity of a passport…(passport verification ([0051])
generate the token based on a determination that the boarding pass information and the passport information are consistent and a determination the passport is valid. (if data matches a DVF (i.e., token) is computed: [0051])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “presented at a terminal” indicates non-functional descriptive material and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claim 7, Cahn, and Yuchi teach the limitations of claim 6.
Moreover, Cahn teaches:
determine validity of a passport…(passport verification ([0051])
In addition, Yuchi teach:
determining whether a person who has presented the passport at the terminal and a person who has received issuance of the passport presented at the terminal are a same person. (matching registered biometric information with the information received at the time of code issuance: Page 2, Description section, paragraph 4 “the user registers his/her biometric information…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate authentication management by generating a token and using biometric authentication, as taught by Yuchi , into the passenger identity verification of Cahn, in order to automate authentication process to reduce operation burden on the service provider while confirming passenger identity. (Yuchi : Abstract, Page 1, last paragraph)
The examiner notes that the claim recitation: “…a person who has presented the passport at the terminal and a person who has received issuance of the passport presented at the terminal …,” indicate non-functional descriptive material because they merely describe a person. The claim recitation does not further limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claim 8, Cahn, and Yuchi teach the limitations of claim 6.
Moreover, Cahn teaches:
determine validity of a passport…(passport verification ([0051])
In addition, Yuchi et al teach:
a token issuance request includes member number (i.e., passport number), encryption keys (i.e. boarding pass information) and biometric information of the user (image data), (Page 6 paragraphs 4-7)
determine the validity … by one-to-one collation using the biometric information of the user included in the token issuance request and biometric information received. (biometric matching process: Page 4 paragraph 4, page 7 paragraphs 3-4, Page 17 paragraph 1)
With respect to claim 9, Cahn, Yuchi Rose and Sehr teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Yuchi teach:
transmit a response to the a token issuance request… at a terminal . (Page 17 last paragraph)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate authentication management by generating a token and using biometric authentication, as taught by Yuchi , into the passenger identity verification of Cahn, in order to automate authentication process to reduce operation burden on the service provider while confirming passenger identity. (Yuchi : Abstract, Page 1, last paragraph)
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “including the boarding pass information and the passport information,” indicates non-functional descriptive material and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim.
With respect to claim 14, Cahn, Yuchi Rose and Sehr teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover Cahn teaches:
a first determination of determining whether the boarding pass information and the passport information of the user are consistent, (determine if boarding pass is genuine and matches with passport: [0048], [0051])
the first determination being a determination regarding the consistency between the boarding pass information and the passport information of the user, (determine if boarding pass is genuine and matches with passport: [0048], [0051])
In addition, Sehr teaches:
perform a second determination of determining whether the passport information of the user and a registered passport information acquired at a time of reserving an airline ticket are consistent, (verify authenticity of passport card: [0061], [0069], [0079], [0101])
the second determination being a determination regarding the validity of the passport information of the user, (verify authenticity of passport card: [0061], [0069], [0079], [0101])
and in response to confirmation of the consistency between the boarding pass information and the passport information and the validity of the passport information of the user by the first determination being valid and the second determination being valid, generate the token in further consideration of the confirmation of the consistency. (an access control field (i.e., token) comprises authenticity codes to validate the passenger card (passport validity), digital signatures to confirm the legitimate cardholder, and authorization codes (confirmation of consistency): [0060]-[0063])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the gate control system using passport authentication and passenger identification, as taught by Sehr, into the passenger identity verification of Cahn and Yuchi , in order to allow or block passengers through a gate based on authentication using a token (access control field).
With respect to claim 15, Cahn, Yuchi Rose and Sehr teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Yuchi teaches:
control the camera to capture the biometric information in response to a condition, (authentication control unit controls camera to be activated in response to an authentication code issuance request: Page 6 paragraphs 4-5)
Yuchi does not explicitly teach: in response to the boarding pass information being consistent with the passport information, however, the conditional activation of the camera is taught by Yuchi reads on the claim recitation because the authentication control unit is capable to activate the camera based on a given condition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate authentication management by generating a token and using biometric authentication, as taught by Yuchi , into the passenger identity verification of Cahn, in order to generate the token and enable verification of a user identity based on the token and biometric data and control a gate based on authentication. (Yuchi : Abstract, Page 1, last paragraph)
With respect to claim 16, Cahn, Yuchi Rose and Sehr teach the limitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Yuchi teaches:
terminate the valid period of the token in response to completion of the boarding procedure. (invalidating a ticket: Page 17 paragraph 6)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate authentication management by generating a token and using biometric authentication, as taught by Yuchi , into the passenger identity verification of Cahn, in order to generate the token and enable verification of a user identity based on the token and biometric data and control a gate based on authentication. (Yuchi : Abstract, Page 1, last paragraph)
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahn, in view of Yuchi, Rose and Sehr, further in view of Sakaguchi (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0042812)
With respect to claim 5, Cahn, Yuchi Rose and Sehr teach the limitations of claim 3.
Moreover, Cahn teaches:
passport information…(passport verification ([0051])
In addition, Yuchi teach:
determines whether the … information of the user included in the token issuance request matches the … information received from the server…( matching code request with registered information: Page 6 last paragraph – page 7 paragraph 4, Page 6 paragraphs 4-7)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate authentication management by generating a token and using biometric authentication, as taught by Yuchi , into the passenger identity verification of Cahn, in order to automate authentication process to reduce operation burden on the service provider while confirming passenger identity. (Yuchi : Abstract, Page 1, last paragraph)
Cahn, Yuchi Rose and Sehr do not explicitly teach a passport number and an issuing country.
However, Sakaguchi teach using passport number and an issuing country. ([0060])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate using passport number and issuing country as verification data, as taught by Sakaguchi into the passenger identity verification of Cahn, Yuchi Rose and Sehr, in order to use various types of identity information for passenger authentication. (Sakaguchi : Abstract, [0003])
With respect to claim 13, Cahn, Yuchi Rose and Sehr teach the limitations of claim 3.
Cahn, Yuchi Rose and Sehr do not explicitly teach; however, Sakaguchi teach:
delete a token ID associated with the token of the user in response to the user passing through the gate. (user information is deleted after boarding is completed: [0186], [0306], [0318], [0352])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate using passport number and issuing country as verification data, as taught by Sakaguchi into the passenger identity verification of Cahn, Yuchi Rose and Sehr, in order to use various types of identity information for passenger authentication. (Sakaguchi : Abstract, [0003])
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahn, in view of Yuchi, Rose and Sehr, further in view of Endo (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0272151.)
With respect to claim 17, Cahn, Yuchi Rose and Sehr teach the limitations of claim 1.
Cahn, Yuchi, Rose and Sehr do not explicitly teach; however, Endo teaches:
perform the boarding procedure by:
determining whether the user is permitted to pass an entry of a safety inspection area; (safety inspection: [0035]-[0038], [0045])
performing departure inspection after determining the user is permitted to pass to the entry of the safety inspection area; ([0038], [0047])
determining whether the user is permitted to board a vehicle following performing the departure inspection. ([0037]-[0039], [0045]-[0047])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the boarding procedure, as taught by Endo , into the passenger identity verification of Cahn, Yuchi, Rose and Sehr, in order to ensure a high level of security. (Endo: Abstract, [0006])
The examiner notes that the limitations of claim 17 merely describe boarding procedure as known not only by one skilled in the art, but by any person ever taken a commercial flight. However, for the purpose of compact prosecution, a rejection under the prior art is provided.
With respect to claim 18, Cahn, Yuchi Rose, Sehr and Endo teach the limitations of claim 17.
Moreover, Endo teaches:
perform the boarding procedure by checking baggage of the user for loading onto the vehicle. ([0053])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the boarding procedure, as taught by Endo , into the passenger identity verification of Cahn, Yuchi, Rose and Sehr, in order ensure a high level of security. (Endo: Abstract, [0006])
The examiner notes that the claim recitation “for loading…” indicates intended use of the checking baggage and therefore does not further limit the scope of the claim.
The examiner further notes that the limitations of claim 18 merely describe boarding procedure as known not only by one skilled in the art, but by any person ever taken a commercial flight. However, for the purpose of compact prosecution, a rejection under the prior art is provided.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Modi (US 2019/0394040) teaches invalidating a token after it is used.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMA ASGARI whose telephone number is (571)272-2037. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571)272-7575. 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.
/SIMA ASGARI/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights