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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are pending in this office action.
Applicant’s arguments, filed December 22, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ariff (WO 2016/028142).
Regarding claim 1, Ariff teaches a modular identity verification system, comprising: an agent interface module (AIM) that interacts with at least one traveler interface module (TIM) (paragraph 0035 and 0071); and one or more processors operatively coupled to memory having computer instructions which when executed by the one or more processors causes the one or more processors to perform the functions characterized by (paragraph 0032): arrayed parallel processing at the AIM enabling a single agent to concurrently manage and process traveler biometric inputs and credential inputs received in parallel from a plurality of TIM including the at least one TIM and from a second TIM (fig. 1 and 6, multiple booths interacting with agent interface server); and visual signaling indicating system indicating a status to an agent and at least a waiting passenger (paragraph 0079 and 0086).
Regarding claim 2, Ariff teaches wherein the visual signaling indicating system comprises an elevated light producing a green light indicating to the waiting passenger to proceed towards the TIM or a red light indicating to the waiting passenger to continue to wait (paragraph 0079).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Ariff teaches wherein the agent interface module further comprises a transparent or translucent shield separating the agent interface module from the traveler interface module (fig. 6, shields).
Regarding claim 4, Ariff teaches wherein the agent interface module further comprises a display presenting processed inputs in parallel from two or more traveler interface modules (paragraph 0085).
Regarding claim 5, Ariff teaches wherein the travel interface module comprises a single document-scanning surface for scanning multiple forms of credentials including phone displays, identity cards, and passports (paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 6, Ariff teaches wherein the agent interface module further comprises a hot-swappable battery system enabling continued usage without wired power (paragraph 0085, the monitoring station could be mobile as devices become smaller).
Regarding claim 7, Ariff teaches wherein the agent interface module further comprises a dedicated agent-facing document scanner that scans multiple forms of credentials (paragraph 0085, a monitoring station, like those commonly used in airports, have document scanners local to the agent so they don’t have to move from their station to help a customer).
Regarding claim 8, Ariff teaches wherein the agent interface module is co-located in modular fashion with one, two, or three traveler interface modules (fig. 6.).
Regarding claim 9, Ariff teaches wherein the agent interface module is co-located in modular fashion with two or more traveler interface modules (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Ariff teaches wherein the agent interface module has its own processor or processors and the traveler interface modules has its own processor or processors for at least face tracking, capture, and recognition and for document scanning (paragraph 0085, monitoring station has controls).
Regarding claim 11, Ariff teaches wherein the agent interface module physically resides separate from one or more traveler interface modules and yet is enabled to process inputs in parallel from two or more traveler interface modules (fig. 6, 78 separate from booths).
Regarding claim 12, Ariff teaches a modular identity verification system, comprising: at least one traveler interface module (TIM) having one or more processors operatively coupled to memory having computer instructions for at least biometric capture and recognition and for document scanning (paragraph 0071); and an agent interface module (AIM) having one or more processors independent of the one or more processors of the TIM and configured to receive and process inputs in parallel from a plurality of TIMs, wherein the one or more processors are operatively coupled to memory having computer instructions which when executed by the one or more processors causes the one or more processors to perform the functions characterized by (paragraph 0035): arrayed parallel processing of traveler biometric inputs and credential inputs from the at least one TIM and from a second TIM (fig. 1 and 6, multiple booths interacting with agent interface server).
Regarding claim 13, Ariff teaches further comprising a visual signaling indicating system that indicates a status to an agent and at least a waiting traveler (paragraph 0079).
Regarding claim 14, Ariff teaches wherein the agent interface module further comprises a transparent or translucent shield separating the agent interface module from the traveler interface module (fig. 6, shields).
Regarding claim 15, Ariff teaches wherein the travel interface module comprises a single document-scanning surface for scanning multiple forms of credentials including phone displays, identity cards, and passports and the agent interface module separately comprises a single document-scanning surface for scanning multiple forms of credentials including phone displays, identity cards, and passports (paragraph 0051).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Ariff does not teach arrayed parallel supervisor processing at the AIM enabling a single agent to concurrently manage and process traveler biometric and credential inputs received in parallel from a plurality of TIMs.
Regarding applicant’s argument, examiner disagrees. In paragraph 0032, Ariff teaches “server includes one or more data processing apparatus, either acting individually or as a distributed computing network, discretely or in combination with other components.” For such a network to function as a single “system” (paragraph 0035), it must manage multiple requests from different kiosks or gates concurrently. Paragraph 0010, 0037, 0070, and 0075 show “arrayed” hardware as side-by-side structures via the check-in counter assemblies. Paragraph 0067 teaches that each biometric panel houses its own suitable microcontroller, which means they function as independent agents. If two travelers are at two different gates, their respective microcontrollers are processing their biometric data parallel to one another. Additionally in paragraph 0035, “the server 12 can comprise a plurality of software, middleware or firmware modules or components that are executed on various devices connected to the network 14.” By executing modules no various devices simultaneously, the system acts concurrently on the data generated by the multiple travelers using the kiosks and gates at that moment.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRANDON HOFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3863. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached on (571)272-6798. 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.
/BRANDON HOFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights