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 .
Prosecution Reopened
In view of the Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Request filed on December 23, 2205, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/FONYA M LONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-11, 13-17, and 19 are pending and rejected hereinbelow.
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.
3. Claims 1-11, 13-17, and 19 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.
4. Claims 1-11, 13-17, and 19 are directed to an information management system, which is considered an observation and evaluation. Observations and Evaluations fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Concept performed in the human mind/mental processes). The claims are also directed to verifying identity and could also be considered certain methods of organizing human activity (including personal behaviors). A concept considered to be certain methods of organizing human activity falls within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
5. Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, Claims 1-11 and 13 are directed to an apparatus, claim 14 is directed to a process, claim 15 is directed to a computer-readable storage medium, claims 16, 17, and 19 are directed to a machine. Accordingly, the claims fall within the four statutory categories of inventions (apparatus, process, and a machine) and will be further analyzed under step 2 of the Alice/Mayo framework:
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding representative independent claims 1, 14, 15, and 16, the claim sets forth an apparatus, a method, a computer-readable storage medium, and a system, respectively, comprising:
acquire an image of a participant participating in an event;
extract a face image from the acquired image;
acquire identification information assigned of the participant;
perform feature extraction on the face image to estimate attribute information indicating an attribute of the participant; and
perform two-dimensional coding on the identification information and the attribute information of the participant for the participant.
The above-recited limitations set forth an arrangement where an image of a participant is acquired and attribute information about the participant is estimated. This arrangement amounts to both an observation (acquiring an image) and an evaluation (outputting attribute information based on the image). Such concepts have been considered ineligible mental processes by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Further, these actions, when considered both individually and as a whole are directed to actions that facilitate acquiring information/data with regard to an attribute of a participant (verifying identity). This arrangement amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
The independent claims (claims 1, 14, 15, and 16) do recite additional limitations:
At least one processor
Generate a quick-response (QR) code
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
A reception apparatus
A camera
A printer
An information processing apparatus
A viewing apparatus
A scanner
A computing device
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“At least one processor”, “to generate a quick-response (QR) code”, “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “A reception apparatus”, “A camera”, “A printer”, “An information processing apparatus”, “A viewing apparatus”, “A scanner”, “A computing device”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (acquiring, extracting, performing, coding, and printing). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 33, 131, and 133 indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and 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 abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and 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 abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 14-16 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Dependent claims
Each of the steps of the dependent claims 2-12 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claim 1 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements already analyzed in the expected manner.
For example, Claim 2 sets forth:
wherein the quick-response (QR) code is outputable to a printer.
While the claim does set forth the additional limitation of “the quick-response (QR) code is outputable to a printer”, this recitation is similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19
Claim 19 sets forth:
scans the QR code on the one card and decode the QR code to obtain the identification information and the attribute information of the participant.
Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea verifying identity of a participant which is akin to managing personal behaviors, which is certain methods of organizing human activity. While the claim does set forth the additional limitation of “a viewing apparatus including a scanner and a computing device comprising at least one second processor, wherein the scanner”, and “wherein the at least one second processor is configured to”, this recitation is similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claimed process is not directed to an abstract idea under either a mental process or a method of organizing human activity, that the claims provide a concrete technical solution to real-world privacy and security concerns and that the specific arrangement and interaction of these technical components, as recited in Claim 1, were neither routine nor conventional at the time of the claimed invention.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds the claims recite concepts which are now described in the 2019 PEG as a mental process. The steps of the claim limitations outlined above in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection are comprised of generic computer elements to perform an existing business process. Examiner finds the claims recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea without reciting any improvements to a technology, technological process or computer-related technology. Regarding, the steps that Applicant points to (generation of a QR code) are merely narrowing the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which has been found to be ineffective to render an abstract idea eligible. As written, the claims are merely directed to facial recognition, then once the image is verified to estimate attribute information, it presents a QR code for the user that stores the attribute information. Looking at an image of a person, determining an attribute from the image and assigning the attribute a two-dimensional code is still a mental process and can also be directed to certain methos of organizing human activity. The structural elements of the present application (i.e. At least one processor, To generate a QR code, A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, A reception apparatus, A camera, A printer, An information processing apparatus, A viewing apparatus, A scanner, A computing device, etc.) are used as tools to perform an existing business process and does not improve upon a technology, technological field or computer-related technology.
Questions of preemption are inherent in the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (incorporated in the 2014 IEG as Steps 2A and 2B), and are resolved by using this framework to distinguish between preemptive claims, and "those that integrate the building blocks into something more…the latter pose no comparable risk of pre-emption, and therefore remain eligible". This framework found that the claims do tie up the exception. (See the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). (Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The claims do not recite any unconventional computer functions. The structural elements as claimed are for mere convenience and the recited claim elements constitute a mental process and a method of organizing human activity, which are still considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG. As a result, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, and the claims are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is silent on any computer operation and specific technological implementation that would move the claim beyond a general link to a technological environment.
Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
B. Applicant further argues that claim 19 is not categorized as a mere mental process.
In response, Examine respectfully disagrees. Claim 19 sets forth: scans the QR code on the one card and decode the QR code to obtain the identification information and the attribute information of the participant.
Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea verifying identity of a participant which is akin to managing personal behaviors, which is certain methods of organizing human activity. While the claim does set forth the additional limitation of “a viewing apparatus including a scanner and a computing device comprising at least one second processor, wherein the scanner”, and “wherein the at least one second processor is configured to”, this recitation is similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Method and system for targeted marketing by leveraging video-based demographic insights (US 7267277 B2) teaches a computer processes customer image data, transaction data, and attributes relating to the customer image data and transaction data, to correlate extracted demographic data to transaction data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amber A. Misiaszek whose telephone number is (571) 270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4, every other Friday Off.
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, Fonya Long can be reached on 5712705096. 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: httos://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https:/Awww.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.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights