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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the action filed on 12/19/2025.
Claims 1, 5, and 11-12 are currently amended. Claims 13 is new. Claims 1-13 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and corresponding amendments filed on 11/20/2025 on pages 6-9, under REMARKS with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 claim rejections to claims 1-12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections to the claims have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2008/0192993 A1.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2014/0079300 A1 to WOLFER et al. (hereinafter “WOLFER”) in view of US 2008/0192993 A1 to ALLEN (hereinafter “ALLEN”).
As per claim 1, WOLFER discloses an information processing device comprising: a memory storing instructions (a fingerprint capture system adapted to process fingerprint and identity information comprising an image storage unit 3 and the storage unit comprises instructions to compare fingerprint scans with reference scans; abstract; fig 1-2; paragraphs [0030], [0066], [0121]); and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: acquire hand images of a subject (an image processing unit to execute image processing instructions in order to capture fingerprint hand image scans of a user by using a capture surface 11 to image the finger prints of a user’s four fingers of the respective hand; fig 2; paragraphs [0066], [0074-0075]); determine based on the hand images whether or not the subject is placing index fingers on a fingerprint scanning device (the system is adapted to determine if fingers 12 are placed properly on capture surface 11 as seen in figs 3a-4a and further the system is adapted to via the image processing unit 2 check whether or not the position of the fingers 12 is correct; figs 3a -4a; paragraphs [0072], [0078-0080]). WOLFER fails to disclose before the fingerprint scanning device scans fingerprints of the subject; output an alert in a case where the subject places fingers other than the index fingers on the fingerprint scanning device; and acquire the fingerprints of the subject using the fingerprint scanning device in a case where the subject places each index finger on the fingerprint scanning device.
ALLEN discloses before the fingerprint scanning device scans fingerprints of the subject (before the scanner scans the index finger of the subject a tactile response is given in order to ensure the finger is placed properly and will not result in a false rejection based on improper finger placement, wherein the particular finger is the index finger of the subject/user; abstract; fig 1; paragraphs [0006-0007], [0009-0010], [0035-0036], [0044]); output an alert in a case where the subject places fingers other than the index fingers on the fingerprint scanning device (in a case where a false rejection due to improper index finger placement on the scanner surface occurs the device is adapted to send alerts via tactile responses based on the finger placement producing a false rejection; abstract; fig 1; paragraphs [0006-0007], [0009-0010], [0035-0036], [0044]); and acquire the fingerprints of the subject using the fingerprint scanning device in a case where the subject places each index finger on the fingerprint scanning device (if no false rejection is detected the device is adapted to scan the index finger prints of the subject which placed the respective index finger comprising the finger prints on the scanner surface; abstract; fig 1; paragraphs [0006-0007], [0009-0010], [0035-0036], [0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify WOLFER to have an alert in a case where the subject places fingers other than the index fingers on the fingerprint scanning device and acquiring the finger print scan in a case where the index fingers are placed on the scanner of ALLEN reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a tactile feedback response as the alert for an improperly placed index finger wherein the tactile response is easier for a user to notice the finger placement was incorrect if the user may have been distracted by other events occurring within the environment as suggested by ALLEN paragraph [0044]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ALLEN with WOLFER to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
As per claim 2, WOLFER in view of ALLEN discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. Modified WOLFER further discloses wherein the processor displays an image including the hand images and a message on a display section (as seen in figs 3a-4a the display screen displays an image of the user’s finger position as well as a guidance message and images on the display screen; fig 1, 2, and 3a-4a; paragraph [0086]).
As per claim 3, WOLFER in view of ALLEN discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. Modified WOLFER further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to display a hand guide which represents a state where the index fingers are correctly placed on the fingerprint scanning device by superimposing on the hand images, in addition to displaying the hand images on a display section (as seen in figs 3a-4a the display screen displays an image of the users finger position as well as a guidance message and images on the display screen to guide the user to position the fingers 12 in the correct position by providing illustration 3.13, the absent finger 12 can also be indicated in a blinking manner outlined in dashes or in a different color than the present fingers 12, or the arrow 47 in illustrations 3.11 or3.12 is superposed on the display unit 4 as a blinking arrow 47 to emphasize the request; abstract; fig 1, 2, 3a-4a; paragraphs [0082-0084]).
As per claim 11, WOLFER discloses an information processing method (an image processing unit to execute image processing instructions to perform a method in order to capture fingerprint hand image scans of a user by using a capture surface 11 to image the finger prints of a user’s four fingers of the respective hand; abstract; figs 1-2; paragraphs [0066-0071]), comprising: acquiring hand images of a subject (using the capture unit 1 in combination with capture surface 11 an image scan of the users hand and particularly the finger prints of the hand are captured; figs 2-4a; paragraph [0071]); determining based on the hand images whether or not the subject is placing index fingers on a fingerprint scanning device (the system is adapted to determine if fingers 12 are placed properly on capture surface 11 as seen in figs 3a-4a and further the system is adapted to via the image processing unit 2 check whether or not the position of the fingers 12 is correct; figs 3a -4a; paragraphs [0072], [0078-0080], [0100]). WOLFER fails to disclose before the fingerprint scanning device scans fingerprints of the subject; outputting an alert in a case where the subject places fingers other than the index fingers on the fingerprint scanning device; and acquiring the fingerprints of the subject using the fingerprint scanning device in a case where the subject places each index finger on the fingerprint scanning device.
ALLEN discloses before the fingerprint scanning device scans fingerprints of the subject (before the scanner scans the index finger of the subject a tactile response is given in order to ensure the finger is placed properly and will not result in a false rejection based on improper finger placement; abstract; fig 1; paragraphs [0006-0007], [0009-0010], [0035-0036], [0044]); outputting an alert in a case where the subject places fingers other than the index fingers on the fingerprint scanning device (in a case where a false rejection due to improper finger placement on the scanner surface occurs the device is adapted to send alerts via tactile responses based on the finger placement producing a false rejection; abstract; fig 1; paragraphs [0006-0007], [0009-0010], [0035-0036], [0044]); and acquiring the fingerprints of the subject using the fingerprint scanning device in a case where the subject places each index finger on the fingerprint scanning device (if no false rejection is detected the device is adapted to scan the index finger prints of the subject which placed the respective index finger comprising the finger prints on the scanner surface; abstract; fig 1; paragraphs [0006-0007], [0009-0010], [0035-0036], [0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify WOLFER to have outputting an alert in a case where the subject places fingers other than the index fingers on the fingerprint scanning device of ALLEN reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a tactile feedback response as the alert for an improperly placed index finger wherein the tactile response is easier for a user to notice the finger placement was incorrect if the user may have been distracted by other events occurring within the environment as suggested by ALLEN paragraph [0044]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ALLEN with WOLFER to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
As per claim 12, WOLFER discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program (a fingerprint capture system adapted to process fingerprint and identity information comprising an image storage unit 3 and the storage unit comprises instructions to compare fingerprint scans with reference scans; abstract; fig 1-2; paragraphs [0030], [0066] [0121]), the program causing a computer to perform a process comprising (an image processing unit to execute image processing instructions in order to capture fingerprint hand image scans of a user by using a capture surface 11 to image the finger prints of a user’s four fingers of the respective hand; fig 2; paragraphs [0066], [0074-0075]): acquiring hand images of a subject (using the capture unit 1 in combination with capture surface 11 an image scan of the users hand and particularly the finger prints of the hand are captured; figs 2-4a; paragraph [0071]); determining based on the hand images whether or not the subject is placing index fingers on a fingerprint scanning device (the system is adapted to determine if fingers 12 are placed properly on capture surface 11 as seen in figs 3a-4a and further the system is adapted to via the image processing unit 2 check whether or not the position of the fingers 12 is correct; figs 3a -4a; paragraphs [0072], [0078-0080], [0100]). WOLFER fails to disclose before the fingerprint scanning device scans fingerprints of the subject; outputting an alert in a case where the subject places fingers other than the index fingers on the fingerprint scanning device; and acquiring the fingerprints of the subject using the fingerprint scanning device in a case where the subject places each index finger on the fingerprint scanning device.
ALLEN discloses before the fingerprint scanning device scans fingerprints of the subject (before the scanner scans the index finger of the subject a tactile response is given in order to ensure the finger is placed properly and will not result in a false rejection based on improper finger placement; abstract; fig 1; paragraphs [0006-0007], [0009-0010], [0035-0036], [0044]); outputting an alert in a case where the subject places fingers other than the index fingers on the fingerprint scanning device (in a case where a false rejection due to improper finger placement on the scanner surface occurs the device is adapted to send alerts via tactile responses based on the finger placement producing a false rejection; abstract; fig 1; paragraphs [0006-0007], [0009-0010], [0035-0036], [0044]); and acquiring the fingerprints of the subject using the fingerprint scanning device in a case where the subject places each index finger on the fingerprint scanning device (if no false rejection is detected the device is adapted to scan the index finger prints of the subject which placed the respective index finger comprising the finger prints on the scanner surface; abstract; fig 1; paragraphs [0006-0007], [0009-0010], [0035-0036], [0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify WOLFER to have outputting an alert in a case where the subject places fingers other than the index fingers on the fingerprint scanning device of ALLEN reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a tactile feedback response as the alert for an improperly placed index finger wherein the tactile response is easier for a user to notice the finger placement was incorrect if the user may have been distracted by other events occurring within the environment as suggested by ALLEN paragraph [0044]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ALLEN with WOLFER to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
As per claim 13, WOLFER discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. WOLFER fails to disclose wherein the alert is related to detecting an irregularity committed by the subject with respect to placement of the index fingers.
ALLEN discloses wherein the alert is related to detecting an irregularity committed by the subject with respect to placement of the index fingers (in a case where a false rejection due to improper finger placement on the scanner surface occurs the device is adapted to send alerts via tactile responses based on the finger placement producing a false rejection; abstract; fig 1; paragraphs [0006-0007], [0009-0010], [0035-0036], [0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify WOLFER to have wherein the alert is related to detecting an irregularity committed by the subject with respect to placement of the index fingers of ALLEN reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a tactile feedback response as the alert for an improperly placed index finger wherein the tactile response is easier for a user to notice the finger placement was incorrect if the user may have been distracted by other events occurring within the environment as suggested by ALLEN paragraph [0044]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ALLEN with WOLFER to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Claims 4-5, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2014/0079300 A1 to WOLFER et al. (hereinafter “WOLFER”) in view of US 2008/0192993 A1 to ALLEN (hereinafter “ALLEN”) in further view of US 2013/0215275 A1 to BERINI et al. (hereinafter “BERINI”).
As per claim 4, WOLFER in view of ALLEN discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. Modified WOLFER fails to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to acquire passport information by using a passport reading device, wherein when a passport is being placed on the passport reading device after the processor reads the passport information from the passport, the alert means outputs a misplacement alert for prompting to have the passport that is on the passport reading device.
BERINI discloses wherein the processor is further configured to acquire passport information by using a passport reading device (kiosk 100 is adapted to was used to capture and ascertain the authenticity of an enrollee's driver's license and passport; paragraphs [0105], [0122]), wherein when a passport is being placed on the passport reading device after the processor reads the passport information from the passport (a pass port reader is used to read passport information; paragraphs [0122], [0223-0224], [0231]), the alert means outputs a misplacement alert for prompting to have the passport that is on the passport reading device (kiosk 100 is equipped with additional security features, wherein each operator must have an appropriate smartcard of a specific size and dimension to fit the reader properly in order to access the internal components of the kiosk 100 if only a key is inserted into the lock 160 or 162, and no smartcard (ID/passport) with appropriate access level is inserted into the smartcard reader 120, an alarm will sound; paragraphs [0083-0085], [0091], [0099]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify WOLFER to have wherein the processor is further configured to acquire passport information by using a passport reading device of BERINI reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide increased safter and security and alert an alarm to notify users of an unauthorized access attempt with an un authorized card as suggested by BERINI paragraph [0099]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine BERINI with modified WOLFER to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
As per claim 5, WOLFER in view of ALLEN in further view of BERINI discloses the information processing device according to claim 4. Modified WOLFER fails to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to perform a facial recognition of the subject after the passport information is read by the processor, wherein the processor acquires fingerprints of the subject subsequent to the facial recognition, and the processor displays the misplacement alert after the facial recognition ends and after the fingerprints are acquired.
BERINI discloses wherein the processor is further configured to perform a facial recognition of the subject after the passport information is read by the processor (facial images are captured of the user in order to perform facial recognition to determine an approved user; paragraphs [0065], [0071], [0105]), wherein the processor acquires fingerprints of the subject subsequent to the facial recognition (in the listed steps the finger print scans are captured after (subsequently) to the facial recognition steps described in para 0105 and the method listed in the paragraph; paragraphs [0058], [0063], [0105]), and the processor displays the misplacement alert after the facial recognition ends and after the fingerprints are acquired (if the smart card containing ID and passport information is of the wrong size to fit in the smart card reader an alarm will be sound; paragraph [0099]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify WOLFER to have the processor is further configured to perform a facial recognition of the subject after the passport information is read by the processor and if placement is improper provides a misplacement alert of BERINI reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide increased safter and security and alert an alarm to notify users of an unauthorized access attempt with an un authorized card as suggested by BERINI paragraph [0099]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine BERINI with modified WOLFER to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
As per claim 9, WOLFER in view of ALLEN discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. Modified WOLFER fails to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to capture images of the subject; and determine a height of a face of the subject and a height of an elbow based on the captured images, and adjust a height of the fingerprint scanning device based on the height of the elbow in addition to adjusting a height of a facial recognition camera based on the height of the face.
BERINI discloses wherein the processor is further configured to capture images of the subject (the system is adapted to capture images of the user including facial images; paragraph [0052]); and determine a height of a face of the subject and a height of an elbow based on the captured images (the system is height adjustable and will be adjusted to the facial height of the user as desired, the system can further be adjusted to any desirable height for the fingerprinting process; paragraphs [0054-0055]), and adjust a height of the fingerprint scanning device based on the height of the elbow in addition to adjusting a height of a facial recognition camera based on the height of the face (the system is height adjustable and will be adjusted to the facial height of the user as desired, the system can further be adjusted to any desirable height for the fingerprinting process; paragraphs [0054-0055], [0068]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify WOLFER to have provided adjustable height inputs for the facial scan and finger print scanning steps of BERINI reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide height adjustments for the variety of tests to be ran and allowing users of any height to use the machine easily after adjustment to the desired heights of which a plurality of heights are provided as suggested by BERINI paragraph [0055]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine BERINI with WOLFER to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
As per claim 10, WOLFER in view of ALLEN discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. Modified WOLFER fails to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to capture images of the subject; and acquire a facial image of the subject and perform a facial recognition after the processor acquires passport information of the subject, wherein the processor omits acquiring of the facial image after the passport information is acquired, when the facial image that satisfies a certain reference is acquired by the capturing means during acquiring of the passport information.
BERINI discloses wherein the processor is further configured to capture images of the subject (the system is adapted to capture images of the user including facial images; paragraph [0052]); and acquire a facial image of the subject and perform a facial recognition after the processor acquires passport information of the subject (the facial image is used to perform facial recognition processes based on the user that approached the kiosk and input a smart card passport/ID; paragraphs [0052], [0055-0056], [0065]), wherein the processor omits acquiring of the facial image after the passport information is acquired(the enrollee prompted using audio and/or visual prompts to produce a smartcard which is inserted into a slot 122 of the smartcard reader 120 the enrollee may be issued a smartcard or another credential that binds the enrollee's identity to the smartcard or another credential immediately after undergoing an enrollment identification session and enrolling the necessary biometrics such as face recognition, iris(es), fingerprint(s), etc. and capturing the required breeder documents such as, state identification card, birth certificate, passport etc. the biometric enrollment process may take place separately from the credential issuance and after issuance the enrollee is issued the smartcard or another credential that is bound to the enrollee's identity after the enrollment session and the smart card may be presented in order to access the kiosk omitting the facial recognition procedure after enrolment; paragraphs [0052], [0055-0056]), when the facial image that satisfies a certain reference is acquired by the capturing means during acquiring of the passport information (the facial recognition is performed by identifying specific facial features to a user and saving those features to the user/enrollee profile; paragraph [0071], [0105]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify WOLFER to have racial recognition is performed using a previously captured reference image of BERINI reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide increased safter and security and alert an alarm to notify users of an unauthorized access attempt with an un authorized card as suggested by BERINI paragraph [0099]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine BERINI with WOLFER to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2014/0079300 A1 to WOLFER et al. (hereinafter “WOLFER”) in view of US 2008/0192993 A1 to ALLEN (hereinafter “ALLEN”) in further view of WO 2016/028142 A1 to ARIFF (hereinafter “ARIFF”).
As per claim 6, WOLFER in view of ALLEN discloses the information processing device according to claim 1. Modified WOLFER fails to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to acquire passport information by using a passport reading device; and display information for guiding to a next destination for the subject based on the passport information.
ARIFF discloses , wherein the processor is further configured to acquire passport information by using a passport reading device (a user traveling to a travel destination has passport information such as identity and destination information read by the computing system 10; paragraphs [0042-0046); and display information for guiding to a next destination for the subject based on the passport information (the system 10 is adapted to display visual instructions for reading by the traveler so that the traveler can be guided through the necessary verification actions for the destination country; paragraphs [0061], [0073], [0088], [0098-0099]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify WOLFER to have providing display information for guiding to a next destination for the subject based on the passport information of ARIFF reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide visual instructions to the traveler for arriving in a destination country as suggested by ARIFF at paragraph [0061]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ARIFF with WOLFER to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2014/0079300 A1 to WOLFER et al. (hereinafter “WOLFER”) in view of US 2008/0192993 A1 to ALLEN (hereinafter “ALLEN”) in further view of WO 2016/028142 A1 to ARIFF (hereinafter “ARIFF”) in further view of US 2009/0083850 A1 to FADELL et al. (hereinafter “FADELL’).
As per claim 7, WOLFER in view of ALLEN in further view of ARIFF discloses the information processing device according to claim 6. Modified WOLFER fails to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to project information on a floor near the information processing device, wherein the processor projects the information for guiding to the next destination on the floor by using a projector.
FADELL discloses wherein the processor is further configured to project information on a floor near the information processing device, wherein the processor projects the information for guiding to the next destination on the floor by using a projector (display circuitry 110 includes a projection system for projecting system information onto a movable display or projection surface remote from device 100 acting as a video projector wherein the surface would be the floor; paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify WOLFER to have the ability to project information on the floor of FADELL reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a projector within device 100 to allow for projection of information onto any surface including a floor as suggested by FADELL paragraph [0037]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine FADELL with modified WOLFER to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
As per claim 8, WOLFER in view of ALLEN in further view of ARIFF in further view of FADELL discloses the information processing device according to claim 7. Modified WOLFER fails to disclose wherein the processor projects the information for guiding to the next destination in a language that is determined based on the passport information.
ARIFF discloses wherein the processor projects the information for guiding to the next destination in a language that is determined based on the passport information (the system 10 is adapted to display visual instructions for reading by the traveler so that the traveler can be guided through the necessary verification actions for the destination country in the traveler’s natural language; paragraphs [0047], [0061]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify WOLFER to have the information for guiding to the next destination in a language that is determined based on the passport information of ARIFF reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide visual instructions to the traveler for arriving in a destination country in the traveler’s natural language as suggested by ARIFF at paragraph [0061]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine ARIFF with modified WOLFER to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN JACOB DHOOGE whose telephone number is (571) 270-0999. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached on (571) 270-5183. 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.
/Devin Dhooge/
USPTO Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2677
/ANDREW W BEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2677