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 .
Application # 18/377,548 was filed on 10/6/2023.
Claims 1-21 are subject to examination.
An IDS filed on 10/6/2023, 10/30/2023 has been fully considered and entered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “device configured to display…that device being configured to identify…” in claim 8. With respect to device configured to identify and device configured to display, in Fig. 1 element 2.7, Paragraph 97, 99, 112 wherein Fig. 1 shows the device structure which is phone, and provides flowchart in Fig. 1 as well as Paragraphs 72-113.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
With respect to claim 8, Claim limitation “an entry barrier configured to selectively… barrier being configured to only allow… ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification of the current application including diagrams/figures do not teach/recite proper corresponding structure for entry barrier to selectively disallow or allow passage of a person and barrier being configured to only allow a user to access the restricted area. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glazer et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2021/0349980 (hereinafter Glazer) in view of Song et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2020/0311736 (hereinafter Song)
With respect to claim 1, Glazer teaches an allocation or not allocating a flag to a user which can be in turn be used to enable access by that user to a restricted area, the method comprising:
-calculating a predicted score (i.e. high score) for the user (Paragraph 47, 51)
-storing the predicted score in a database (i.e. storing high score in the biometric database) (Paragraph 14, 88, 47-48, 51);
-calculating an eligibility score (i.e. matching score) for the user based on the predicted score (i.e. high score) and an event coefficient (i.e. comparing matching score to high score from the 1st biometric feature for access bank) (Paragraph 55, 52, 14)and
-if the eligibility score meets or exceeds a pre-determined threshold score, allocating a positive flag to the user in the database (i.e. grant access code/non-restricted access)(Paragraph 67-68, 54), otherwise allocating a negative flag to the user in the database (i.e. deny access or restricted access)(Paragraph 55).
Glazer does not explicitly teach using a pre-determined machine learning methodology.
Song teaches calculating a predicted score for the user using a pre-determined machine learning methodology (Paragraph 243, 251, 255, 327). It should have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Song’s teaching in Glazer’s teaching to come up with calculating score using predetermined machine learning methodology. The motivation for doing so would be to produce an intelligent alert based different scenarios and machine learning model to alert the authorities or appropriate personnel to take corrective action.
With respect to claim 2, Glazer and Song teaches the allocation method according to claim 1, but Glazer further teaches comprising: for a user having a positive flag in the database, providing a prompt to enable the user to purchase access permission to a restricted area (i.e. providing non-restricted access) (Paragraph 51, 54-55)
With respect to claim 3, Glazer and Song teaches the allocation method according to claim 1, but Glazer further teaches wherein the predicted score is in the range between zero to 100 (i.e. 10)(Paragraph 51)
With respect to claim 4, Glazer and Song teaches the allocation method according to claim 1, but Song further teaches wherein the predetermined machine learning methodology is configured to assess patterns within user preferences of a large number of users (Paragraph 90-91, 93, 243, 250)
With respect to claim 5, Glazer and Song teaches a user method by which a user interacts with the allocation method according to claim, but Glazer further teaches the user method comprising: the user accesses an online web application from a device in the user’s possession (Paragraph 4-5); the user can create a user account if the user does not already have one (Paragraph 4-5); the user is subsequently stored in the database (Paragraph 60-61); the user account can comprise information including a name of the user (i.e. personal information), email address (personal information), contact details, age, interests, relevant locations (Paragraph 3, 76); the user must provide at least one biometric sample, which can be a face scan, fingerprint or another biometric sample (Paragraph 60-61); the biometric sample is subsequently stored in the database (Paragraph 60-61)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glazer et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2021/0349980 (hereinafter Glazer) in view of Song et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2020/0311736 (hereinafter Song) in view of McLaughlin et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2012/0324542 (hereinafter in McLaughlin)
With respect to claim 6, Glazer and Song teaches a purchase method by which a user with a positive flag interacts with the allocation method according to claim 1, but do not explicitly teach the purchase method comprising: for a user with a positive flag, the user can elect to purchase access permission to a restricted area or can elect to not purchase access permission to a restricted area; if the user elects to purchase access permission to a restricted area, payment is taken and details of the purchase are stored in the database.
McLaughlin teaches purchase method comprising: for a user with a positive flag, the user can elect to purchase access permission to a restricted area (i.e. purchase an access ticket to an attraction)(Paragraph 152) or can elect to not purchase access permission to a restricted area; if the user elects to purchase access permission to a restricted area, payment is taken and details of the purchase are stored in the database (Paragraph 200, 233, 152-154). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement McLaughlin’s teaching in Glazer and Song’s teaching to come up with purchasing access permission to a restricted area and payment is taken and details of the purchase stored in the database. The motivation for doing so would be to allow only dues paying users access to the restricted area, and also provide seamless service if the user was going to make additional purchase by storing credit card details for future purchases.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glazer et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2021/0349980 (hereinafter Glazer) in view of Attar et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0372541 (hereinafter in Attar)
With respect to claim 7, Glazer teaches a validation method by which a user with access permission is validated at a particular point in time before entry into a restricted area, comprising:
-the user is prompted to provide a contemporaneous biometric sample (i.e. appropriate sensor is actuated to sense a specified biometric characteristic of the requestor), which can be a face scan, fingerprint or another biometric sample (i.e. fingerprint) (Paragraph 53, 50, 52);
-the contemporaneous biometric sample is compared with the user’s biometric sample stored in the database (i.e. appropriate sensor is actuated to sense a specified biometric characteristic of the requestor and to compare it with the biometric characteristic of the requestor stored during the enrollment phase) (Paragraph 53)
-if the contemporaneous biometric sample matches the user’s biometric sample stored in the database, a positive match flag is returned for the user (i.e. grant access), and an access permission code (i.e. grant access code) is transmitted to the user (i.e. grant access code/non-restricted access)(Paragraph 67-68, 54)
-if the contemporaneous biometric sample does not match the user’s biometric sample stored in the database, a negative match flag is returned for the user and no access permission code is transmitted to the user (i.e. deny access or restricted access)(Paragraph 55).
Glazer teaches user with access permission, but Glazer does not explicitly teach user with a purchased access permission.
Attar teaches validation method by which a user with a purchased access permission (i.e. purchasing a ticket/boarding pass ticket) is validated at a particular point in time before entry into a restricted area (Paragraph 23, 15-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Attar’s teaching in Glazer’s teaching to come up with having user with a purchased access permission is validated a particular point in time before entry into a restricted area. The motivation for doing so would be to stop unpaid and unauthorized individuals from entering restricted area and also stopping unpaid and/or unauthorized individual from taking transportation services.
Claim(s) 8-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Attar et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0372541 (hereinafter in Attar) in view of Glazer et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2021/0349980 (hereinafter Glazer)
With respect to claim 8, Attar teaches an apparatus for controlling access to a restricted area so that only pre-authorized persons are allowed to access the restricted area (Paragraph 17-18) the apparatus comprising an entry barrier configured to selectively disallow or allow passage of a person into a restricted area (Paragraph 19), a reader of encoded data (i.e. scanning device) in communication with the entry barrier (i.e. access gate includes at least one scanning device) (Paragraph 16-18), the reader (i.e. scanning device) being configured to receive the encoded data (i.e. biometric data) from a device (i.e. digital camera) configured to display encoded data (i.e. scanning device is used to scan/capture individual’s biometrics. A digital camera at the registration desk is the scanning device. Examiner would also like to point to point Fig.1 of the Attar reference which shows scanning device at the access gate and digital camera at the registration desk which captures biometrics of the individual) (Paragraph 16, 22), that device being configured to identify a user (i.e. passenger) of the device (Paragraph 17) and to compare the identity of the user to a pre-allocated identity of a person who has been approved for entry into the restricted area to determine a match or non-match (i.e. remote compares the entrant biometric data against authentic biometric data for each of the user accounts in order to identify a matching account and comparing the boarding pass data of the matching account to the gate itinerary with remoter server to determine match)(Paragraph 17-18), the barrier being configured to only allow a user to access the restricted area on determination of an identification match (i.e. if match, then confirmation notification is sent to the access gate in order to grant passage for the entrant individual through the access date)(Paragraph 17-18), and wherein identification of the user of the device and the comparison with the pre-allocated identity are carried out within a pre-determined time period (i.e. departure time and specifically matching timeframe requirement) before the suitable encoded data is read by the reader (Paragraph 21-22).
Although Attar teaches that device being configured to identify a user (i.e. passenger) of the device (Paragraph 17) and to compare the identity of the user to a pre-allocated identity of a person who has been approved for entry into the restricted area to determine a match or non-match (i.e. remote compares the entrant biometric data against authentic biometric data for each of the user accounts in order to identify a matching account and comparing the boarding pass data of the matching account to the gate itinerary with remoter server to determine match)(Paragraph 17-18), but does not explicitly show non-match. Glazer further teaches compare the identity of the user to a pre-allocated identity of a person who has been approved for entry into the restricted area to determine a match or non-match(Paragraph 67-68, 54-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to implement Glazer’s teaching in Attar’s teaching to come up with comparing the identity of the user to a pre-allocated identity of a person who has been approved for entry into the restricted area to determine a match or non-match. The motivation for doing so would be provide entry to restricted area to only paid and authorized individuals and to stop unpaid and unauthorized individuals from entering restricted area and also stopping unpaid and/or unauthorized individual from taking transportation services.
With respect to claim 9, Attar and Glazer teaches a method for controlling access by the apparatus according to claim 8 to a restricted area so that only authorized persons area allowed to access the restricted area (Paragraphs 17-19), comprising comparing the identity of a user of the device configured to display encoded data with a pre-allocated identity of a person who has been approved for entry into the restricted area( i.e. remote compares the entrant biometric data against authentic biometric data for each of the user accounts in order to identify a matching account and comparing the boarding pass data of the matching account to the gate itinerary with remoter server to determine match)(Paragraph 17-18), wherein the method determines a match or a non-match the method comprising: identifying the user of the device by effecting hardware (i.e. camera) and software features (i.e. biometric data) of the device (Paragraphs 15, 16, 22); accessing a database containing information on the identities of persons allowed to enter the restricted area (Paragraph 17-19); comparing the identity of the user of the device with the identities of persons allowed to enter the restricted area and determining whether the user is so allowed (i.e. remote compares the entrant biometric data against authentic biometric data for each of the user accounts in order to identify a matching account and comparing the boarding pass data of the matching account to the gate itinerary with remoter server to determine match)(Paragraph 17-18); and returning a result of match or a non-match (Paragraph 17, 20-21), accordingly.
With respect to claim 10, Attar and Glazer teach the method accordingly to claim 9, but Attar comprising an allocation process for inserting into the database suitable information related to the identities of persons allowed to enter the restricted area, to provide the pre-allocated identities (Paragraph 14, 16-17).
With respect to claim 11, Attar and Glazer teaches the allocation method according to claim 10, but Attar further teaches wherein the allocation process comprises enumerating access permissions (Paragraph 18), categorizing the access permissions into at least one category based on at least one characteristic of the access permissions (i.e. allowed or error) (Paragraph 18-19), enumerating the number of potential users who might wish to have access permission (Paragraph 14-15), and offering access permission to a number of users according to one or more allocation criteria (Paragraphs 18-19).
With respect to claim 12, Attar and Glazer teaches the method according to claim 10, but Attar further teaches wherein the allocation process comprises an eligibility step of determining an eligibility status so that a Boolean status of "eligible" or "not eligible" is determined (i.e. allowed or error), wherein the eligibility step comprises comparing one or more access permission characteristics with allocation criteria and returning a status of "eligible" only if one or more essential characteristics are met by the relevant allocation criteria (Paragraph 17-18)
With respect to claim 13, Attar and Glazer teaches the method according to claim 12, but Attar further teaches eligibility step returns a status of "eligible" only if all of the essential characteristics are met by the relevant allocation criteria (Paragraphs 17-18).
With respect to claim 14, Attar and Glazer teaches the method according to claim 12, but Glazer further teaches wherein the allocation process further comprises a scoring step of determining an eligibility score (Paragraph 67-68, 54), for users for whom an eligibility status of "eligible" is determined, wherein the scoring step comprises applying one or more pre-determined coefficients to the allocation criteria of a user to generate a weighted result and adding together the weighted results to provide an eligibility score (Paragraph 67-68, 54)
With respect to claim 15, Attar and Glazer teaches the method according to claim 14, but Glazer further teaches wherein the allocation comprises an offer step, wherein a user is allocated one or more access permissions in accordance with their eligibility score and number of available access permissions of a particular category (i.e. grant access code/non-restricted access)(Paragraph 67-68, 54),
With respect to claim 16, Attar and Glazer teaches the method according to claim 10, but Attar further teaches wherein the allocation process comprises a confirmation step comprising communicating to a user a number of access permissions and their category or categories and requesting that the user confirms acceptance of the number of access permissions and their category or categories (Paragraph 14-19)
With respect to claim 17, Attar and Glazer teaches the method according to claim 16, but Attar further teaches wherein the confirmation step must be completed within a pre-determined time period (i.e. departure time and specifically matching timeframe requirement)(Paragraph 21-22)
With respect to claim 18, Attar and Glazer teaches the method according to claim 10, but Glazer further teaches wherein the confirmation step comprises requesting a suitable payment from the user (Paragraph 88)
With respect to claim 19, Attar and Glazer teaches the method according to claim 10, but Attar further teaches wherein the allocation process comprises a reservation step, wherein after one or more preceding steps of the allocation process have been completed, one or more access permissions are flagged as reserved (Paragraphs 22-24)
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Attar et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0372541 (hereinafter in Attar) in view of Glazer et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2021/0349980 (hereinafter Glazer) further in view of Armstrong et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2019/0206231 (hereinafter Armstrong)
With respect to claim 20, Attar and Glazer teaches the method according to claim 10, but fails to further teaches further comprising a de-allocation process for removing from the database suitable information relating to the identities of persons allowed to enter the restricted area, to remove the pre-allocated identities. Armstrong teaches a de-allocation process for removing from the database suitable information relating to the identities of persons allowed to enter the restricted area, to remove the pre-allocated identities (Paragraph 103). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Armstrong’s teaching in Attar and Glazer’s teaching to come up with having de-allocation process for removing from the database suitable information relating to the identities of the person allowed to enter restricted area. The motivation for doing so would be to correct previously allocated permission or non-permission and update the database with current access and identities.
With respect to claim 21, Attar, Glazer and Armstrong teaches the method according to claim 20, but Armstrong further teaches wherein the de-allocation comprises flagging an access permission which was previously flagged as reserved so that it is subsequently flagged as available (Paragraphs 103).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A). Frew et al. WO 2017/0178816 which teaches about an access authentication method comprising authenticating user account, establishing account holder verification.
B). Bostick et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2017/0132647 which teaches about event attendee origin prediction and impact analysis.
C). Scarborough et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2015/020341.
D). Subramanian et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2022/0051807
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DHAIRYA A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5809. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached at 571-272-5863. 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.
DHAIRYA A. PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2453
/DHAIRYA A PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453