DETAILED ACTION
Amendments submitted on June 3, 2026 for Application No. 18/376087 are presented for examination by the examiner.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 .
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, found at http:/www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax, which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Applicant is also encouraged to contact the Examiner for an Interview, should the Applicant determine that clarifying and further illustrating the distinguishing features of the instant application may further the prosecution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 3, 2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks applicant argues:
I) On page 8, Applicant argues that the previous Claim Objections and 35 USC 112 Rejections should be withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous Claim Objections and 35 USC 112 Rejections; therefore, they have been withdrawn.
II) On page 8, Applicant argues that the Double Patenting Rejection should be withdrawn.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Both the Instant Application and U.S. Patent No. 11816195 are drawn towards acquiring a first history information that a procedure was performed using biometric authentication and second history information that the procedure was performed by reading a medium and outputting various data regarding the history informations during the boarding of a passenger in an airport. The limitation of outputting the number of registrations can be found in claims 2-3 of US 11816195 and the acquiring of attribute information of the passenger can be found in claim 3 of US 11816195. Therefore, the Double Patenting Rejection still stands.
III) On pages 8-10, Applicant argues that the previous 35 USC 101 Rejection should be withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment and remarks are considered as persuasive; therefore, the 35 USC 101 Rejection has been withdrawn.
IV) On pages 10-11, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach “output, for each of the attribute information, a number of registrations of the registered biometric information for each of the procedure areas, and where the device is provided in a procedure area of the procedure areas”.
The Examiner would initially note that the “where” in “where the device is provided…” has been struck through. Please see additional remarks in the 35 USC 112 section below.
The Examiner disagrees and in no way concedes nor subscribes to Applicant's summarization or distillation of the art of record. It has been held "All of the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968).
Hale, paragraphs 101-110, teaches authenticating a passenger using biometric authentication and a pass such as a ticket or smart card. Hale, paragraphs 101-110, further teaches that there are multiple procedure areas in the airport. For example, the user can scan their ticket and biometrics at a first validator 32 and receive a pass from media distributer 38 that grants the user access to the passenger checkpoint 22 at an assigned time (as shown in paragraphs 101-107). Later, at the assigned time, the user can obtain access to the passenger checkpoint 22 by scanning the pass and biometrics at second validator 34 (as shown in paragraphs 108-110). Hale, paragraphs 8 and 76, further teaches performing the authentication in various checkpoints/locations throughout the airport.
Therefore, Hale teaches having multiple procedure areas that are used to authenticate the passengers using both a pass/medium and biometric authentication. However, Hale does not specifically teach “acquire information of a device that acquired registered biometric information …” i.e. storing the authentication information.
Takagi, Figures 5 and 8A and associated texts, teaches storing authentication information such as date, user name, IP address of user (user/device location), authentication method, and success/failure, in an authentication log. Takagi, Figure 5, teaches that the authentication log stores authentication information for a plurality of users. Therefore, Takagi teaches authenticating multiple users using multiple authentication methods at multiple locations and storing this information in an authentication log. Takagi, paragraph 15, also teaches having a processor to execute instructions stored in a memory.
Therefore, Takagi teaches storing the authentication information in an authentication log. Takagi also teaches storing the user name and user IP address which can be considered as user attribute information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Takagi with the teachings of Hale. Hale teaches authenticating a user prior to allowing the user to board an airplane. Takagi teaches creating an authentication log to store the results of each authentication transaction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have improved upon the invention of Hale by adding the authentication log for the purpose of storing the authentication transaction results along with other authentication information in order to maintain a history for record keeping as well as to allow the log to be checked in the event of an error.
Therefore, the combination of Hale in view of Takagi teaches authenticating passengers at an airport and storing the related authentication information in an authentication log. However, Hale in view of Takagi does not specifically teach “output the number of …” i.e. outputting the various stored data.
W3Schools, pages 1-26, teaches performing various operations and queries on a database/table and outputting the results of those operations. This can include selecting data from the database based on a set of conditions as shown on pages 7-9. For example, in the combination of references, the query could select a list of users that authenticated in a certain area or using a certain authentication method. W3Schools also teaches counting the number of rows in the database/log that match a criteria as shown on pages 20-22. For example, in the combination of references, counting the number of users that authenticated in a certain area using a certain authentication method.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of W3Schools with the teachings of Hale in view of Takagi. Hale in view of Takagi teaches authenticating a user prior to allowing the user to board an airplane as well as creating an authentication log/table to store the results of each authentication transaction. W3Schools teaches performing various operations on a database/table and outputting the results of those operations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have improved upon the invention of Hale in view of Takagi by adding the teachings of W3Schools for the purpose of querying the authentication log to output specific data that is needed by a user or administrator.
Therefore, the combination of Hale in view of Takagi and W3Schools teaches authenticating passengers at an airport, storing the related authentication information in an authentication log, and performing and outputting the results of various queries on the data stored in the authentication log. Therefore, the combination of the cited prior art does teach the claim limitation in question.
It has been held that a publication is good for all it teaches to persons of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1992). A reference is good for all it teaches. In re Meinhardt, 392 F.2d 273, 280 (CCPA 1968). Finally, it is well established that a reference is good for all it fairly teaches a person having ordinary skill in the art, even when the teaching is a cursory mention. E.g., In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11816195. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are drawn towards acquiring a first history information that a procedure was performed using biometric authentication and second history information that the procedure was performed by reading a medium and outputting various data regarding the history informations during the boarding of a passenger in an airport. The limitation of outputting the number of registrations can be found in claims 2-3 of US 11816195 and the acquiring of attribute information of the passenger can be found in claim 3 of US 11816195.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 14, and 15 recite “the device is provided”, which, based on Applicant’s remarks, should be “where the device is provided”. Additionally, it is unclear if this is referring to the location of the device or something else. The Examiner would suggest to amend to recite “output … a location of the device where the device is location in a procedure area of the procedure areas” if the claim is intended to output the device location.
Claims 2-13 are rejected for the same reasons as cited above and for being dependent on a previously rejected base claim.
The examiner has cited particular examples of 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections above. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant check the claims for further 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections in the event that it was inadvertently missed by the examiner to advance prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-15 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hale et al. (US 2005/0065834) hereinafter referred to as Hale in view of EP 2151786 hereinafter referred to as Takagi and further in view of NPL “SQL Tutorial” hereinafter referred to as W3Schools.
As per claims 1, 14, and 15, Hale discloses An information processing apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to (Hale, paragraphs 117-118, teaches a processor. Hale, paragraph 20, teaches a wireless device which would include a processor and a memory. Hale, paragraph 88, teaches the validators containing a display for displaying wait times. Hale, paragraphs 101-110, teaches the validators containing a card-reader, a keypad, and performing biometric authentication of a passenger. Therefore, the validators must contain a processor and a memory.):
… a device that acquired registered biometric information to be used for biometric authentication in a procedure related to boarding of a passenger in an airport, and, for each of a plurality of procedure areas in the airport, first history information indicating that the procedure related to boarding of the passenger was performed with the biometric authentication and second history information indicating that the procedure was performed with reading of a medium; and … registrations of the registered biometric information for each procedure area where the device is provided (Hale, paragraphs 101-110, teaches authenticating a passenger using biometric authentication and a pass such as a ticket or smart card. Hale, paragraphs 101-110, further teaches that there are multiple procedure areas in the airport. For example, the user can scan their ticket and biometrics at a first validator 32 and receive a pass from media distributer 38 that grants the user access to the passenger checkpoint 22 at an assigned time (as shown in paragraphs 101-107). Later, at the assigned time, the user can obtain access to the passenger checkpoint 22 by scanning the pass and biometrics at second validator 34 (as shown in paragraphs 108-110). Hale, paragraphs 8 and 76, further teaches performing the authentication in various checkpoints/locations throughout the airport. Therefore, Hale teaches having multiple procedure areas that are used to authenticate the passengers such as the first validator 32 and the second validator 34. Hale, in various sections such as abstract and paragraphs 6, 8, 14-17, 19, 26, 33-34, etc…, teaches authenticating multiple passengers to board the plane (e.g. acquiring multiple registrations of biometric information from multiple passengers).)
However, Hale does not specifically teach “acquire information of a device that acquired registered biometric information …” i.e. storing the authentication information.
Takagi discloses acquire information of a device that acquired registered biometric information to be used for biometric authentication … ; acquire attribute information of the passenger associated with the first history information or the second history information; [and] registrations of the registered biometric information for each procedure area where the device is provided (Takagi, Figures 5 and 8A and associated texts, teaches storing authentication information such as date, user name, IP address of user (user/device location), authentication method, and success/failure, in an authentication log. Takagi, Figure 5, teaches that the authentication log stores authentication information for a plurality of users. Therefore, Takagi teaches authenticating multiple users using multiple authentication methods at multiple locations and storing this information in an authentication log. Takagi, paragraph 15, also teaches having a processor to execute instructions stored in a memory. Takagi teaches storing the user name and user IP address which can be considered as user attribute data.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Takagi with the teachings of Hale. Hale teaches authenticating a user prior to allowing the user to board an airplane. Takagi teaches creating an authentication log to store the results of each authentication transaction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have improved upon the invention of Hale by adding the authentication log for the purpose of storing the authentication transaction results along with other authentication information in order to maintain a history for record keeping as well as to allow the log to be checked in the event of an error.
However, Hale in view of Takagi does not specifically teach “output the number of …”.
W3Schools discloses output [data] … (W3Schools, pages 1-26, teaches performing various operations and queries on a database/table and outputting the results of those operations. This can include selecting data from the database based on a set of conditions as shown on pages 7-9. For example, in the combination of references, the query could select a list of users that authenticated in a certain area or using a certain authentication method. W3Schools also teaches counting the number of rows in the database/log that match a criteria as shown on pages 20-22. For example, in the combination of references, counting the number of users that authenticated in a certain area using a certain authentication method.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of W3Schools with the teachings of Hale in view of Takagi. Hale in view of Takagi teaches authenticating a user prior to allowing the user to board an airplane as well as creating an authentication log/table to store the results of each authentication transaction. W3Schools teaches performing various operations on a database/table and outputting the results of those operations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have improved upon the invention of Hale in view of Takagi by adding the teachings of W3Schools for the purpose of querying the authentication log to output specific data that is needed by a user or administrator.
Claim 14 recites the additional limitation of “An information processing method …” (As shown above, Hale teaches performing a method to authentication a passenger to board an airplane.)
Claim 15 recites the additional limitation of “A non-transitory storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to perform … ” (As shown above, Hale and Takagi teach a processor and memory storing instructions to be executed in order to perform a method to authentication a passenger to board an airplane.)
As per claim 2, Hale in view of Takagi and W3Schools discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: output information related to a change in the number of registrations (Hale, paragraphs 101-110, teaches authenticating passengers at an airport. Takagi, Figures 5 and 8A, teaches storing authentication information in a log. W3School, entire document, teaches outputting information from a database/log. Therefore, the combination of references teaches outputting authentication information for passengers from the authentication log. Outputting the information at different times would show the change in the number of authentications.)
As per claim 3, Hale in view of Takagi and W3Schools discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire a token ID corresponding to the registered biometric information; acquire the attribute information of the passenger associated with the acquired token ID by referring to a database that stores the attribute information and the token ID in association; and output the number of registrations for each attribute information (Hale, paragraphs 101-110, teaches authenticating passengers at an airport. Takagi, Figures 5 and 8A, teaches storing authentication information in a log. W3School, entire document, teaches outputting information from a database/log. Therefore, the combination of references teaches outputting authentication information (such as the number of authentications) for passengers from the authentication log. Takagi, Figures 5 and 8A, teaches storing authentication information such as date, user name, IP address of user (user/device location), authentication method, and success/failure, in the authentication log.)
As per claim 4, Hale in view of Takagi and W3Schools discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire the first history information; and output a usage rate of the biometric authentication in the procedure area based on the first history information and the second history information for each of the procedure areas (Hale, paragraphs 101-110, teaches authenticating passengers at an airport. Takagi, Figures 5 and 8A, teaches storing authentication information, such as the authentication method, in the authentication log. W3School, entire document, teaches outputting information from a database/log. Therefore, the combination of references teaches outputting authentication information (such as a count of the authentications using biometric information) for passengers from the authentication log.)
As per claim 5, Hale in view of Takagi and W3Schools discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: detect, based on the token ID, the procedure area for which the first history information on the passenger is absent out of the procedure areas (Hale, paragraphs 101-110, teaches authenticating a passenger using biometric authentication and a pass such as a ticket or smart card. Hale, paragraphs 42, 104, 109, and 136-137, teaches that the pass given to the user will include a barcode to later be scanned to provide access to the airplane. Hale, paragraphs 8 and 76, also teaches performing the authentications in various checkpoints/locations throughout the airport. Takagi, Figures 5 and 8A and associated texts, also teaches storing administration numbers which is an identifier/token for each specific transaction. W3Schools teaches performing various operations, such as determining which authentication methods are used at which specific IP addresses (as in Takagi), on a database/table and outputting the results of those operations. Therefore, the combination of references teaches performing various operations on the authentication log and outputting the results of those operations.)
As per claim 6, Hale in view of Takagi and W3Schools discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the first history information includes terminal IDs of terminals used in the biometric authentication and process results of the biometric authentication, and wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: aggregate and output the process results for each of the terminal IDs (Hale, paragraphs 101-110, teaches authenticating passengers at an airport. Takagi, Figures 3, 5 and 8A, teaches storing authentication information, such as the IP address, the authentication method and the success/failure of the authentication, in the authentication log. W3School, entire document, teaches outputting information from a database/log. Therefore, the combination of references teaches outputting authentication information (such as the authentication results for each terminal location) for passengers from the authentication log.)
As per claim 7, Hale in view of Takagi and W3Schools discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: detect a terminal, of the terminals, in which an authentication success rate is less than a predetermined threshold based on the process results for each of the terminal IDs (Hale, paragraphs 101-110, teaches authenticating passengers at an airport. Takagi, Figures 3, 5 and 8A, teaches storing authentication information, such as the IP address, the authentication method and the success/failure of the authentication, in the authentication log. W3School, entire document, teaches outputting information from a database/log. Therefore, the combination of references teaches outputting authentication information (such as the authentication results for each terminal location) for passengers from the authentication log. The Examiner would note that the threshold could be 0% (all failures) or 100% (all successes).)
As per claim 8, Hale in view of Takagi and W3Schools discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the first history information and the second history information further include information on arrangement places of the terminals in the airport, and wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: aggregate and output the process results for each of the arrangement places (Hale, paragraphs 101-110, teaches authenticating passengers at an airport. Takagi, Figures 3, 5 and 8A, teaches storing authentication information, such as the IP address, the authentication method and the success/failure of the authentication, in the authentication log. W3School, entire document, teaches outputting information from a database/log. Therefore, the combination of references teaches outputting authentication information (such as the authentication results for each terminal location) for passengers from the authentication log.)
As per claim 9, Hale in view of Takagi and W3Schools discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: output information on an arrangement place in which average authentication accuracy obtained by averaging authentication accuracy of the biometric authentication for each of the arrangement places is less than a predetermined threshold (Hale, paragraphs 101-110, teaches authenticating passengers at an airport. Takagi, Figures 3, 5 and 8A, teaches storing authentication information, such as the IP address, the authentication method and the success/failure of the authentication, in the authentication log. W3School, entire document, teaches outputting information from a database/log. Therefore, the combination of references teaches outputting authentication information (such as the authentication results for each terminal location) for passengers from the authentication log. The Examiner would note that the threshold could be 0% (all failures) or 100% (all successes).)
As per claim 10, Hale in view of Takagi and W3Schools discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: output a predicted processing time to perform the procedure based on a learning model in which a relationship of a number of passengers in a predetermined period, a number of installations of the terminals, and a required time for the procedure is learned in advance (Hale, paragraphs 11, 85-87, and 97-99, teaches outputting the current wait time based on an algorithm and a number of factors.)
As per claim 11, Hale in view of Takagi and W3Schools discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: output information to facilitate a change of the number of installations when the predicted processing time exceeds a predetermined threshold (Hale, paragraphs 155-157, teaches that if the wait time is long the system adjusts the number of passengers allowed in each queue.)
As per claim 12, Hale in view of Takagi and W3Schools discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: output different types of statistics analysis results based on the first history information and the second history information in a dashboard (Hale, paragraphs 101-110, teaches authenticating passengers at an airport by reading their ticket or pass (medium) and by performing biometric authentication. Takagi, Figures 3, 5 and 8A, teaches storing authentication information such as date, user name, IP address of user (user/device location), authentication method, and success/failure, in an authentication log. W3School, entire document, teaches outputting information from a database/log. Therefore, the combination of references teaches outputting authentication information (using SQL queries) for passengers from the authentication log.)
As per claim 13, Hale in view of Takagi and W3Schools discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire the first history information and the second history information for each of the procedure areas when a plurality of procedures, including the procedure, for boarding of passengers are carried out sequentially in one of the procedure areas in the airport; and output changes in a number of passengers and a ratio of passengers who used the biometric authentication for the procedure during a predetermined period based on the first history information and the second history information (Hale, paragraphs 101-110, teaches authenticating passengers at an airport by reading their ticket or pass (medium) and performing biometric authentication. Hale, paragraphs 101-110, further teaches that there are multiple procedure areas in the airport. For example, the user can scan their ticket and biometrics at a first validator 32 and receive a pass from media distributer 38 that grants the user access to the passenger checkpoint 22 at an assigned time (as shown in paragraphs 101-107). Later, at the assigned time, the user can obtain access to the passenger checkpoint 22 by scanning the pass and biometrics at second validator 34 (as shown in paragraphs 108-110). Hale, paragraphs 8 and 76, further teaches performing the authentication in various checkpoints/locations throughout the airport. Therefore, Hale teaches having multiple procedure areas that are used to authenticate the passengers such as the first validator 32 and the second validator 34. Hale, in various sections such as abstract and paragraphs 6, 8, 14-17, 19, 26, 33-34, etc…, teaches authenticating multiple passengers to board the plane. Therefore, Hale teaches a sequential authentication in two stages at first validator 32 and then later at passenger checkpoint 22. Takagi, Figures 3, 5 and 8A, teaches storing authentication information such as date, user name, IP address of user (user/device location), authentication method, and success/failure, in an authentication log. W3School, entire document, teaches outputting information from a database/log. Therefore, the combination of references teaches outputting authentication information (such as number of passengers who used biometric authentication) for passengers from the authentication log.)
Related Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes:
Hu (US 2019/0361697) – teaches storing an authentication log in order to perform queries on the log.
Urmanov (US 2018/0069896) – teaches that a user attribute can include a user name, IP address and timestamp.
Fujishima (US 2016/00337385) – teaches an authentication log.
Takagi (US 2012/0331479) – teaches an authentication log.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B KING whose telephone number is (571)270-7310. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM EST.
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached on 5712728878. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/John B King/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498
Prosecution Insights