DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed 31 October 2025.
Claims 1 and 14-15 have been amended.
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 28 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection under the Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank Int’l be withdrawn; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees for a plurality of reasons. As an initial note, the arguments are not compliant under 37 CFR 1.111(b) as they amount to a mere allegation of patent eligibility. The Examiner notes that in order to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims must be directed towards a patent eligible concept, which, the instant claims are not directed. Contrary to Applicants’ assertion that the claims are integrated into a practical application, the Examiner notes that the claims are not directed to a practical application of the concept. The claims do not result in improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. They do not effect a particular treatment for a disease. They are not applied with or by a particular machine. They do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. And they are not applied in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception (i.e., performing biometric authentication of travelers) to a particular technological environment (i.e., with the use of computers or computing components). Here, again as noted in the previous rejection, the at least one processor, sever device, computer, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Specifically the claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or invoking computers as tools by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recitation of the “terminal” is/are only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This argument appears to be whether or not the use of computer or computing components for increased speed and efficiency integrates the claims into a practical application; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted)). The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, this argument is not persuasive and the rejection not overcome.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the prior art have been fully considered and addressed in the updated rejection below, as necessitated by amendments.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by the Applicants in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in the Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). The Examiner asserts that the Applicants only argue that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
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 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to a process (an act, or series of acts or steps), a machine (a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), and a manufacture (an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1). However, the claim(s) recite(s) performing biometric authentication of travelers which is an abstract idea of a mental process as well as the organization of human activities.
The limitations of “perform biometric authentication using the biometric information of the person to be authenticated and biometric information of each of a plurality of users registered in advance,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as well as organizing human activities--fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components (Step 2A Prong 1). That is, other than reciting “at least one processor configured to,” (or “A system comprising: a terminal; and a server device according to claim1, the server device being connected to the terminal” in claim 9 or “A method for controlling a server device, comprising: by a computer” in claim 14 or “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer mounted on a server device to execute:” in claim 15) nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or from the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. For example, but for the “at least one processor configured to,” (or “A system comprising: a terminal; and a server device according to claim1, the server device being connected to the terminal” in claim 9 or “A method for controlling a server device, comprising: by a computer” in claim 14 or “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer mounted on a server device to execute:” in claim 15) language, “perform/performing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually comparing a user or travelers biometrics such as observing their face and mentally comparing it to a document such as a passport or identification card in order to make some sort of judgement which is a mental process as well as a commercial or legal interaction (TSA/security officers collecting data and following procedures for screening). However, if possible, the Examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, the limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process, while some of the limitations may be performed as organizing human activities after certain limitations are performed, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES). Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two). The “acquire” and “transmit” steps are simply insignificant data gathering and post solution output activities. Next, the claim only recites one additional element – using at least one processor, sever device, computer, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to perform the steps. The at least one processor, sever device, computer, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Specifically the claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or invoking computers as tools by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recitation of the “terminal” is/are only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, even when considered as a whole (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claim does not include a combination of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2), the combination of additional elements of using at least one processor, sever device, computer, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Reevaluating here in step 2B, the “acquire” and “transmit” step(s) which are insignificant extrasolution activities are also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that the mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as is here). Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim. As such, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, even when considered as a whole (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 2, 5-8 and 10-13 recites the additional limitations further limiting how the data and how the data is used (i.e. the biometrics and other data) which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 9, 14, and 15, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 3-4 recites the additional limitations further including a mathematical concept (scoring/thresholds) which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 9, 14, and 15, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 1-15 are therefore not eligible subject matter, even when considered as a whole.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vemury (US PG Pub. 2017/0032485) and further in view of Maher (US PG Pub. 2021/0019851).
As per claims 1, 9, 14, and 15, Vemury discloses a server, method for controlling a server device, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer mounted on a server device to execute: device comprising: at least one processor configured to (processor, Vemury ¶61 and ¶98; computer storage media/memory, ¶130):
acquire biometric information of a person to be authenticated from a terminal (In this scenario, for the purpose of explanation only, an individual 226 is being screened as part of his vacation to the U.S. The individual 226 will also be screened as part of exiting as described, illustrated as 230. For the purpose of this example, the individual (Jan) is an in-scope, he will be screened according to predetermined processes. As illustrated, the individual inputs biographic information to, for example, a collection device 232 configured to collect biographic and/or biometric information associated with the person. Example collection devices include, but are not limited to, kiosks, mobile telephones/smartphones, laptops, computing systems (operated by one or more of airlines, travel facilities, a governmental entities, law enforcement), a wearable computing system, an access control device, combinations thereof, and so on, Vemury ¶57; see also ¶76 discussing different types of biometrics and collections thereof);
perform biometric authentication using the biometric information of the person to be authenticated and biometric information of each of a plurality of users registered in advance (validate biometric inputs, Vemury ¶70-¶73; build a list from the flight manifest, comparisons, ¶154-¶155; For example, a facial image being captured for review process 634, is obtained by a camera or an image collection device for an electronic gate when a traveler seeks to enter or exit a country. It should be appreciated that the same, substantially the same, or different thresholds, algorithms, etc. can be used for matching in comparison to those used in enrollment. For example, threshold quality (block 614a) is set to a higher level due to a heightened security status or other criterion than that applied at enrollment or a preceding point in time, ¶220); and
transmit authentication result information with respect to a successful authentication person who has succeeded in the biometric authentication to a staff terminal, the authentication result information including a registered face image and an acquired face image, the registered face image being registered biometric information and being a basis for successful biometric authentication, the acquired face image being the biometric information of the person to be authenticated acquired from the terminal (For instance, responsive to an initial review, the system can provide visual or audible instructions recommending additional screening provide or a suggestion in a notification. Although the individual can be directly notified, e.g., by a kiosk system, in other instances the information is communicated to customs officials (via a computer system) for one or more of a departure country 120, an intermediate country through which the individual will pass, or to customs officials for the destination country, e.g., to a computer system configured to support customs officials for the destination country that are physically located in the departure country. The foregoing situations and protocols will be discussed herein below and/or apparent based on the following descriptions, Vemury ¶47; image of a person’s face, ¶62 and ¶65; for inclusion in custom information to be sent to an intermediate, ¶76; The system 202 can be configured to access a variety of information sources in response to an initial review. Information from additional sources can be used as the basis of the review. For example, responsive to a determination that the individual has a criminal history, the system access a third party database, e.g., state criminal records, to determine whether to implement additional precautions or procedures, e.g., additional or more intrusive screening, e.g., heighten screening of physical objects associated with the individual. What procedures or combinations of procedures are to be use may be stored in a database that dynamically selects based on available information, e.g., in a name record, other databases, accessible from a third party. In the foregoing instance, the system in response to the review obtains additional information and bases its review at least partially on that information, ¶87; physical access control, ¶91),
wherein the acquired face image and the registered face image are displayed side by side on the staff terminal (image of a person’s face, Vemury ¶62 and ¶65).
While Vemury discloses the ability to have an image quality assessment (Vemury ¶200); Vemury does not expressly disclose does not expressly disclose wherein the acquired face image and the registered face image are displayed side by side on the staff terminal, only if the biometric authentication is successful.
However, Maher teaches wherein the acquired face image and the registered face image are displayed side by side on the staff terminal, only if the biometric authentication is successful (Step 306 is an optional validation and/or review. For example, a customs module on a mobile device is configured to validate and/or perform an initial review to determine whether data entered in a text box is valid (e.g., numbers are entered into a zip code text box) and pass review (e.g., five numeric digits correspond to an actual zip code). As illustrated, several outcomes can occur. Example outcomes include valid and/or passed review (an affirmative outcome); not valid and/or did not pass review (a negative outcome, generally illustrated as 308); or ambiguous (e.g., more information is to be requested or some vetting/review was not wholly successful, generally illustrated as 310). An example of the latter situation is a situation in which, for example, a zip code text box is valid (includes numbers), but the numbers do not correspond to a recognized code. In scenarios that result in a not-affirmative outcome, e.g., not valid, no pass, or ambiguous outcomes, a record can be generated that notes the determination (non-validation or review failure), stores relevant data, and so forth. An alert, an error message, or a message that facilitates corrective action can be displayed by the output module 120 on the mobile device, Maher ¶103).
Both the Vemury and Maher references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with identify verification of travelers. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Maher’s mobile customs information review in Vemury’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a traveler management system that is able to more efficiently review traveler information and identification.
The motivation being that delays can occur as travelers complete documents, move through customs areas, and meet with a customs official. While delays may be expected to some extent, a large number of factors can compound customs review delays, which in-turn may lead to traveler dissatisfaction that may even result in a negative perception (Maher ¶5).
As per claim 2, Vemury and Maher disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Vemury further discloses wherein the at least one processor transmits the biometric information of the successful authentication person and the information regarding a flight to the terminal when a predetermined condition is satisfied (threshold score to be achieved to pass validation, Vemury ¶73; physical access control, ¶91).
As per claim 3, Vemury and Maher disclose as shown above with respect to claim 2. Vemury further discloses wherein the at least one processor unit calculates a similarity between the biometric information of the person to be authenticated and the biometric information of each of the plurality of users registered in advance, and in a case where a similarity having a largest value among a plurality of the calculated similarities is larger than a first threshold and smaller than a second threshold, transmits the biometric information of the successful authentication person and the information regarding the flight to the terminal (The matching module 218 can be configured to operate in a variety of modes that are accessed responsive to user input, e.g., a system manager configures the system to implement a higher accuracy level in comparison to standard operation or dynamically based on a variety of information factors. The central resource 234, for example, supports a GUI that is configured to accept user input to increase the matching module's certainty level, such as during a time of heightened security in comparison to normal operation. In the preceding instance to increase accuracy, the matching module 218 matches additional information to increase certainty. In other embodiments, different information or additional information can be used to increase certainty. For example, instead of performing a “standard” biometric match, that yields ninety-two percent (92%) certainty, the matching module performs a more in-depth review that increases accuracy to ninety-eight percent (98%) by matching more factors, matching to a greater degree of accuracy, combinations thereof and so forth, Vemury ¶104).
As per claim 4, Vemury and Maher disclose as shown above with respect to claim 2. Vemury further discloses wherein the at least one processor calculates a similarity between the biometric information of the person to be authenticated and the biometric information of each of the plurality of users registered in advance, calculates a difference between a first similarity having a largest value and a second similarity having a second largest value among a plurality of the calculated similarities, and in a case where the calculated difference is smaller than a predetermined threshold, transmits the biometric information of the successful authentication person and the information regarding the flight to the terminal (The matching module 218 can be configured to operate in a variety of modes that are accessed responsive to user input, e.g., a system manager configures the system to implement a higher accuracy level in comparison to standard operation or dynamically based on a variety of information factors. The central resource 234, for example, supports a GUI that is configured to accept user input to increase the matching module's certainty level, such as during a time of heightened security in comparison to normal operation. In the preceding instance to increase accuracy, the matching module 218 matches additional information to increase certainty. In other embodiments, different information or additional information can be used to increase certainty. For example, instead of performing a “standard” biometric match, that yields ninety-two percent (92%) certainty, the matching module performs a more in-depth review that increases accuracy to ninety-eight percent (98%) by matching more factors, matching to a greater degree of accuracy, combinations thereof and so forth, Vemury ¶104).
As per claim 5, Vemury and Maher disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Vemury further discloses wherein the at least one processor transmits personal information of the successful authentication person to the terminal together with the biometric information of the successful authentication person and the information regarding a flight (In some embodiments, confirmation of an individual's identity is performed by displaying an image, such as a picture of a person's face captured upon entry, and permitting a customs official to perform a comparison. In other examples, biometric information, a portion of biometric information captured at entry and exit are compared to determine a match exists. As should be apparent, biometric information can comprise a result of biometric information or identification. For example, the central resource uses a biometric signature that is indicative of biometric information to make the determination, e.g., confirm the person exiting is indeed that in the record, Vemury ¶119).
As per claim 6, Vemury and Maher disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Vemury further discloses wherein the information regarding a flight includes at least one of information regarding an airline, information regarding a destination airport, a flight number of a passenger aircraft, and a departure time (manifest, Vemury ¶154-¶155; information regarding final manifest, ¶190; airline reservation, ¶34-¶35; additional travel information, ¶59-¶60).
As per claim 7, Vemury discloses as shown above with respect to claim 1. Vemury further discloses further comprising: a first database configured to store the biometric information of each of the plurality of users and a token ID issued to each of the plurality of users in association with each other; and a second database configured to store the token ID issued to each of the plurality of users and business information of each of the plurality of users in association with each other, wherein the second database stores at least information regarding a flight as the business information (database for reservation system [106], Vemury ¶35; identity token associated with reservation, ¶40; manifest database [114], ¶36).
As per claim 8, Vemury and Maher disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Vemury further discloses wherein the biometric information is a face image or a feature amount extracted from the face image (For example, the biometric module includes a quality algorithm to determine if a facial image is of sufficient quality to be used for matching. In some instances, the biometric module may select from multiple images to determine which, if any, is of sufficient quality to be used, Vemury ¶71; facial dimensions, ¶101; key facial features, ¶128).
As per claim 10, Vemury and Maher disclose as shown above with respect to claim 9. Vemury further discloses wherein the terminal performs display including the biometric information of the successful authentication person and the information regarding a flight (screen individuals, allowed to pass/board, Vemury ¶174).
As per claim 11, Vemury and Maher disclose as shown above with respect to claim 10. Vemury further discloses wherein the terminal acquires whether the successful authentication person confirms that no different person acceptance has occurred based on the displayed biometric information and information regarding the flight (Matching an individual exiting a country to his or her entry record is important as it is the last point at which the person is physically within that country's jurisdiction. For example, inadvertently confusing two individuals with the same name can create inconsistent records, raise issues when the later to exit person attempts to leave the country. Other scenarios that highlight the importance of maintaining accurate records include a person attempting to illegally use another person's identity or switching identities, e.g., using travel documents with different identities to enter and leave the country. In other examples, individuals may surgically alter his/her appearance for benign reasons or to permit him or her to improperly use biographic information, such as a stolen passport, Vemury ¶30; entry and exit records, ¶117; The individual may provide information directly or indirectly, e.g., to the workstation or to the official for entry. An example of the former situation is the individual providing information by typing it into the system 202 or capturing an iris scan or picture of his/her face. Examples of the latter situation include a customs official inputting information on the individual's behalf, the individual scanning a bar code, or the like. For example upon reaching a kiosk, an individual scans his ticket and/or passport to provide biographic, biometric, and/or travel information when exiting the country. Using the unique identifier and/or information, the system 202 matches the individual/the information for the individual to a record, e.g., a name record with information collected when the person entered the country. The central resource 234 supporting this effort may, for instance, attempt to identify the record based on the unique identifier before attempting and/or confirming the identified record is the correct one based on matching information associated with the exit event and the individual with corresponding information from the entry record. For example, the central resource 234 checks biographic, biometric, travel information in an effort to determine to a predetermined level of certainty that the individual is indeed that reflected in the record, ¶118).
As per claim 12, Vemury and Maher disclose as shown above with respect to claim 9. Vemury further discloses wherein, in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied, the at least one processor of the server device notifies the terminal that the predetermined condition is satisfied, together with the biometric information of the successful authentication person and the information regarding a flight (screen individuals, allowed to pass/board, Vemury ¶174).
As per claim 13, Vemury and Maher disclose as shown above with respect to claim 12. Vemury further discloses wherein the terminal changes a display mode including the biometric information of the successful authentication person and the information regarding the flight according to whether the predetermined condition is satisfied ([0119] In some embodiments, confirmation of an individual's identity is performed by displaying an image, such as a picture of a person's face captured upon entry, and permitting a customs official to perform a comparison. In other examples, biometric information, a portion of biometric information captured at entry and exit are compared to determine a match exists. As should be apparent, biometric information can comprise a result of biometric information or identification. For example, the central resource uses a biometric signature that is indicative of biometric information to make the determination, e.g., confirm the person exiting is indeed that in the record, Vemury ¶119).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW B WHITAKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-
automated- interview-request-air-form
/ANDREW B WHITAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629