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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 17 – 18 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 2 – 16 and 19 – 20 were cancelled.
Claims 1, 17 – 18 and 21 - 26 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 18, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant's arguments of rejection under 35 USC § 103 for the pending claims on pages 7 – 9: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 17 – 18 and their dependent claims have been considered, but are unpersuasive. Because the Applicant is focusing on each prior art teaching, rather than focusing on the actual language claimed in each claim limitation and how their corresponding limitation steps are different from the prior art teachings while considering the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim. Thus, the Examiner disagrees since at least the prior art of Luo recognizes and discloses that “the danger information of the security inspection item is determined, that is, whether the security inspection item is a dangerous security inspection item”. Understandably, “some security inspection items are not exactly the same in different inspection scenarios, and whether they are dangerous security inspection items”. For example, “200 ml bottled water can be taken on the train at the railway station security check, but [if] it is taken at the airport security check. It is considered a dangerous security item and is not allowed to be taken on board” (see ¶3, p.8; Luo) which implies that certain “security inspection items” can be permitted to be carried in different scenarios such as into an airplane. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains 35 USC § 103 rejection for these pending claims. Please, refer to the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 section for further details.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1, 17 - 18 and 21 - 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (U.S. Pub No. 20100308108 A1) in view of Luo (WO Pub No. 2019028852 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 17 – 18:
Choi teaches:
a camera; (See Fig. 3 (130) and Fig. 5 (133), refer to ¶0043 for more details.)
a gate; (See Figs. 3 - 4 (120 and 110) and Fig. 5 (135), refer to ¶0036 – 37 for more details.)
a display; (See Fig. 3 (135) and Fig. 5 (135), refer to ¶0047 for more details.)
at least one memory storing first instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to implement the procedure by: acquiring, by the camera installed in the automatic gate device, a biometric datum on a biometric feature of a passenger; (In ¶0043 – 44; Fig. 3 (130, 133, 140 and 160): teaches that an “image capturing device 133 included in the departure automation apparatus 130 captures a face image of the person 45 and generates image bio information” directed to biometric information and given its definition in ¶0049 from Applicant disclosure. Then, the “image bio information” is transmitted along with the “identity read information” and the “bio read information” to the “departure management portion 140”. Further, the “departure management portion 140” includes an “examination confirmation portion 145” (see ¶0054) that “communicates with the immigration system 160” which receives the “fourth result information” that includes the “identity read information read by the passport reader 132” and “image bio information generated by the capturing device 133” (e.g. as “the bio information”) to be registered in its database (see ¶0059).)
retrieving first information indicating one or more items in baggage of the passenger based on a match between the acquired biometric datum and registered biometric datum, (In ¶0095; Fig. 9B (S110 – S111); Fig. 11 (S303 – S305); Fig. 12 (S403): teaches that the “departure automation apparatus 130 checks whether the bearer of the electronic passport 40 has any carry-on items prohibited on the plane (S110), generates check result information including information about a result of the security screening, and transmits the generated information to the departure management portion 140” that further stores it and can also retrieve which is directed to retrieving the first information which is based on a match of the acquired biometric datum. Refer to ¶0045, ¶0115 – 117 and ¶0122 – 123 for more details.)
the first information linking the registered biometric datum and a number of identity document of the passenger with baggage information of the passenger acquired in a departure country: (In ¶0046; Fig. 9B (S110 – S111); Fig. 11 (S303 – S305); Fig. 12 (S403): this limitation is satisfied since the “departure management portion 140 communicates with an airline system 150 to check the check-in of the person 45 and with an immigration system 160 to check the departure examination result” and further “checks the carry-on of prohibited items on the plane and then controls the opening and closing of the exit gate 110” (see ¶0045 and ¶0095 for “check result information” details) which is directed to the first information linking “bio information” (including the reading passport and biometric reading such as face recognition) and baggage information. Refer to ¶0096 wherein the “check result information” for checking any “carry-on items prohibited” and the “first to fourth result information” are taken into consideration reflecting such data linkage to determine if the passenger is “allowed to depart”.)
determining whether to allow the passenger possessing the baggage based on a comparison of the one or more items included in the acquired first information with the acquired information on the one or more restricted items; (In ¶0046; Figs. 3 - 4 and 6 (140); Fig. 9B (S112 – S113); Fig. 10B (S216); Fig. 11 (S305): teaches that the “departure management portion 140 checks whether the electronic passport 40 is forged, the check-in of the person 45, the identity of the person 45, and the result of a departure examination of the person 45, and controls the opening and closing of the exit gate 110 and the entrance gate 120”. Also, in ¶0096 this prior art discloses “departure management portion 140 determines whether the bearer of the electronic passport 40 is allowed to depart based on the first to fourth result information (S112)”. Refer to ¶0105 – 106 and ¶0117 for more details.)
controlling the gate to open or close based on a determination result of the determining whether to allow the passenger possessing the baggage, and, (In ¶0046; Figs. 3 - 4 and 6 (140, 110 and 120); Fig. 9B (S114 – S115); Fig. 10B (S217 – S218); Fig. 11 (S306 – S307): teaches that after “departure management portion 140” checks the information of the corresponding passenger, the system “controls the opening and closing of the exit gate 110 and the entrance gate 120”. For example, “if there is a problem in any of the checking processes regarding the forgery of the electronic passport 40, the check-in of the person 45, the identity of the person 45, and the result of a departure examination of the person 45, the departure management portion 140 controls the entrance gate 120 to be opened.” Also, “the departure management portion 140 further checks the carry-on of prohibited items on the plane and then controls the opening and closing of the exit gate 110.” Refer to ¶0096, ¶0106 and ¶0117 for more details.)
based on a match between the one or more restricted items and the one or more items in the acquired first information, controlling the display to output a procedural instruction regarding a necessary procedure corresponding to the one or more restricted items. (In ¶0047 – 48; Fig. 3 (130 and 135); Fig. 5 (135): teaches that “the departure automation apparatus 130 may further include a guidance output portion 135 that guides the person 45 on actions to perform according to each procedure, by video and/or audio”. Refer to ¶0053 and ¶0118 for more details.)
Choi does not explicitly teach the ability of acquiring information regarding restricted items (e.g. list or policy) designated by an arrival country. Thus, Luo teaches:
acquiring, from a server, information on one or more restricted items designated by an arrival country, the one or more restricted items are permitted to be carried into an airplane; (In ¶4, p.8; Fig. 2 (Step 11): teaches that the system’s “cloud server may invoke a preset comparison algorithm to compare the item identification information and the location information of the security item with a pre-established substance database” that, during the “comparison process” the database is searched based on the “location information” and the “item identification information of the security item”, wherein the “item identification information (such as the item name) of the security item may be found in the dangerous goods directory corresponding to the location information” which is directed to acquiring information on restricted items by an arrival country via a server. Moreover, for the descriptive material of the one or more restricted items being items that are permitted to be carried into an airplane, the Examiner notes that this prior art recognizes and discloses that “the danger information of the security inspection item is determined, that is, whether the security inspection item is a dangerous security inspection item”. Understandably, “some security inspection items are not exactly the same in different inspection scenarios, and whether they are dangerous security inspection items”. For example, “200 ml bottled water can be taken on the train at the railway station security check, but [if] it is taken at the airport security check. It is considered a dangerous security item and is not allowed to be taken on board” (see ¶3, p.8) which implies that certain “security inspection items” can be permitted to be carried in different scenarios such as into an airplane.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi to provide the ability of acquiring information regarding restricted items (e.g. list or policy) designated by an arrival country, as taught by Luo because it would be “obvious to try” to obtain a list of restricted items for an arrival country in order to “determine whether the security article is a dangerous article” considering that “some security inspection items are not exactly the same in different inspection scenarios, and whether they are dangerous security inspection items” in these scenarios such as in a “train” versus an “airport” (¶5 - 6, p.2; Luo).
Regarding claims 21, 23 and 25:
The combination of Choi and Luo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 17 and 18, respectively.
Choi further teaches:
wherein the procedural instruction includes information of a location for the necessary procedure. (In ¶0053; Fig. 3 (130 and 135) and Fig. 5 (135): teaches “guidance output portion 135 guides the passport bearer in the path 55 on actions to perform for each procedure and provides information, by video and/or audio, about a result of the procedure to the passport bearer” wherein the information provided could include any information related to referring the passenger to a specific location in order to examine or inspect the passenger and their luggage by the staff for the necessary procedure. Thus, this descriptive matter recited does not hold patentable weight when interpreted under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation. Also, the system guides “the person 45 to enter the path 55” (see ¶0072) which can also be interpreted as providing a location of the necessary procedure. Refer to ¶0047 – 48 and ¶0118 for more details.)
Regarding claims 22, 24 and 26:
The combination of Choi and Luo, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 17 and 18, respectively.
Choi further teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to implement the procedure by: acquiring the first information linked with the registered biometric datum and the number of the identity document of the passenger per flight. (In ¶0062; Fig. 6 (145, 150 and 160): teaches that “immigration system 160 compares and searches the integrated passenger DB and the criminal DB based on the identity read information received from the examination confirmation portion 145, generates the fourth result information including information about a departure examination result of departure passengers, and transmits the generated fourth result information to the examination confirmation portion 145” wherein the “immigration system” includes identity and bio information “of all users of an airport, including the departing and arriving passengers and the transfer passengers” (see ¶0061).)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brunetti (U.S. Patent No. 6507278 B1) is pertinent because it “relates to the control of movement into and out of secured or access-controlled areas, and more particularly, to a control system to effect movement of airline passengers from a public area of an airport terminal into a secure, controlled area such as a concourse leading to gates by which passengers embark onto an airplane and from which disembarking passengers exit the concourse into the public area.”
Moon-Ho Song (U.S. Pub No. 20090034790 A1) is pertinent because it is “generally relate to methods and systems for providing remote access to baggage scanned images and passenger security information on a global level.”
Mann (U.S. Pub No. 6119096 A) is pertinent because it “relates generally to a financial transaction system and method for providing debit or credit/charge functions and enabling ingress/egress to halls, stadiums, public mass transit networks, and the like using biometric identification procedures.”
Glenn (U.S. Pub No. 20020004695 A1) is pertinent because it “relates generally to aircraft flight data collection and more particularly to collection of data useful in accident and incident investigations.”
Sakaguchi (U.S. Patent No. 11200630 B2) is pertinent because the “present invention intends to provide an information processing apparatus, an information processing method, and a storage medium that can recognize in more detail the status of a user scheduled for boarding.”
Sakaguchi – b (U.S. Patent No. 10963716 B2) is pertinent because “the present invention is to provide an information processing apparatus, an information processing method, and a storage medium that can improve accuracy in comparison of biometrics information.”
Fankhauser (U.S. Patent No. 10403061 B2) is pertinent because it “relates to an apparatus for authenticating a security article and a method for authenticating a security article. More particularly, the present invention relates to any one of determining whether a security article is genuine, determining whether a user of a security article is authorized, and/or identifying such a user. The present invention also relates to border or checkpoint control.”
Yepez (U.S. Pub No. 20130027187 A1) is pertinent because it is “a security kiosk which allows travelers to process themselves through a security checkpoint”.
Audo (U.S. Pub No. 20170004384 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to computers and computer software, and in particular to systems, methods, and computer program products for tracking baggage being transported by a carrier.”
Spitzer (U.S. Patent No. 11443576 B2) is pertinent because it “relates to a system and a method for controlling baggage according to the preamble of the independent patent claims.”
Ziegler (U.S. Pub No. 20160075449 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to a baggage handling system for an airport”.
Chen (U.S. Patent No. 10810437 B2) is pertinent because it “relates to a field of security check of objects, and more particularly to a security check system and method for identifying an object of interest among multiple objects.”
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Ivonnemary Rivera Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-6158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/IVONNEMARY RIVERA GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626