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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 9/18/2025.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 11-12 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 13-15 have been added.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Objections
The present amendments obviate the previous claim objections; therefore, these objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
As noted in relation to the Interview of 7/16/2025, Examiner is persuaded that the original disclosure is sufficient to support Claim 5. As such, the 112(a) rejection to Claim 5 is withdrawn.
The present amendments obviate the previous 112(b) rejections; therefore, these rejections are withdrawn.
While the dependency and consequently the overall content of newly claimed Claim 14 differs significantly from that of proposed-amended Claim 14 presented in the Interview of 7/16/2025, the limitation thereof contains the same violation of 112(d) standards pointed out to Applicant in said Interview, thus resulting in the 112(d) rejection below.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s present 101-based arguments are a mere reiteration of those arguments previously advanced and refuted in the Interview of 7/16/2025, and are presently unpersuasive for the same reasons explained therein. Summarily, the “advantages” Applicant describes (e.g., improved user experience; “a passenger seamlessly riding and being charged for a public transport ride without being erroneously charged for a ride not taken”) are abstract in nature rather than technological, and thus do not constitute improvements to a technology as per the standards set forth in at least MPEP 2106.05(a). Further, the functionality cited by Applicant (taking payment from a user only under certain temporal and location-based conditions) is entirely abstract. Abstract ideas (and other judicial exceptions) may neither integrate a claim into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(d)) nor evidence an inventive concept under Step 2B (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.05). While this functionality vaguely effectuated at a high level by “a validation device” (an additional element) and the conditional location is detected by way of “a location transceiver” (another additional element), in the context of this argued functionality and the claims as a whole, these elements constitute no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(f)), and thus does not integrate the claim into a practical application. See the Interview Summary for this Interview for more information.
Regarding the newly articulated wrinkles of this argument that this purported “advantageous effect” is not disclosed in the prior art, Examiner notes that this is not a standard of subject matter eligibility under 101 but rather novelty under 102 and obviousness under 103. As such, this assertion is irrelevant here. Further, this assertion is untrue, at least as per the presently updated rejections and the 102-based explanations below.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 102 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant presently presents further arguments regarding the same placement and functionalities of the beacons and Reymann argued at every stage of prosecution thus far. Examiner notes that this is despite Applicant appearing to finally concede Examiner’s explanations in relation thereto in the Interview of 7/16/2025. The presently presented arguments in relation to this disclosure, even in consideration of the claims as presently amended, are no more persuasive than Applicant’s previous arguments on this topic, and continue to represent mischaracterizations of the content of Reymann as well as unreasonably narrow constructions stemming from leaps in logic not supported by the content of Reymann or what one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would understand it to disclose, as pointed out in previous Office Actions.
As a preliminary note regarding these arguments, Applicant’s contention that the language “[p]articularly, Applicant appears to argue that the ‘validation’ in Reymann does not (and, for some unexplained reason, ‘cannot’) occur based on the detection of the connected device in the access zone” (Applicant’s emphasis) of the previous Office Action somehow “particularly points out that the Examiner is not considering the actual disclosure of Reymann” is both untrue and mischaracterizes this language, which references Applicant’s previously presented argument that “Reymann cannot teach validating access to the access zone for the user once the location of the connected device has been determined in the access zone by decrementing an account specific to the user” (see Remarks of 2/10/2025). That Applicant disagrees with Examiner’s conclusion does not somehow indicate that Examiner is not considering the actual disclosure of Reymann, and given the extensive discussion of the content of Reymann in relation to that quoted statement, Examiner cannot see any reasonable way for Applicant to draw that conclusion. As this erroneous conclusion is clearly antithetical to the statement itself in the context of the supporting content it was made in relation to, Examiner treats this as an ad hominem divorced from any substance or reasonable conclusion that might be drawn therefrom, and as such will not discuss this further.
The substance of Applicant’s argument on this topic is that Examiner’s previous citations and explanations do not establish that the detection of the mobile device and collection of fare would occur when it is determined that the mobile device is in the access area. Applicant first attempts to support this argument by making the following similarly erroneous statement: “[a]ctually, as admitted by the Examiner on page 8 of the Office Action, electromagnetic fields may cross over the gate so that they can locate a user before the gate even if their source/receiving device is located after the gate.” Examiner has reviewed pg. 8 and the entire content of the responses to 101 arguments of the previous Office Action (which pg. 8 falls within), and nowhere therein does Examiner make or even imply this purported crossover, nor does Examiner have any idea where Applicant could have reasonably drawn this conclusion. Further, this assertion of beacon range extension beyond the side of the gate on which the beacon is located is not supported by the actual content of Reymann (as discussed in greater detail below), thus making it clear that despite Applicant’s contention to the contrary, it is Applicant rather than Examiner who fails to consider the actual content of Reymann. As Applicant has now mischaracterized Examiner’s previous statements multiple times in these Remarks, Examiner cautions Applicant against any further mischaracterizations in the future for at least the purpose of maintaining clarity of the record.
In line with previous explanations, Examiner again points to the following language of Paragraph 0029 of Reymann: “The access gate 100 may also include at least one short range radio frequency beacon 106. The short range RF beacon 106 may include at least one receiver or transceiver that is configured to receive credential token broadcasts from user's mobile devices as they approach the gate 100” (Examiner’s emphases). Examiner further notes this disclosure of Paragraph 0023: “An RFID fare collection system may comprise RFID receivers on one side or both sides of a passageway” (Examiner’s emphasis). Examiner yet again notes the content of Fig. 3, which discloses exemplary placements of such short-range beacons both before and after the physical barrier of the access gates (in accordance with the above-quoted language of Paragraph 0023). These pieces of disclosure indicate several possible embodiments of the system of Reymann, wherein one or more short range beacons may be situated before said physical barrier, after said physical barrier, or both. As explained in the previous citations to Reymann as well as in response to previous arguments by Applicant, embodiments wherein one or more short-range beacons are placed after this physical barrier (ie: in what Applicant dubs the “access zone”) would read upon the presently claimed arrangement of elements, and further, as the detection performed by these short-range beacons in an embodiment where they are placed after the physical barrier would detect the user’s “connected device” only once said connected device was present in beyond the physical barrier (ie: in the “access zone”), the RFID-based fare collection would thereby occur “only after the location transceiver located in the access zone receives a location signal from the connected device located in the access zone and the request for access has been pre-validated” as presently claimed. See previous Office Actions for additional explanations of this same disclosure.
Particularly regarding the argued crossing over of beacon detection range to the opposite side of the physical barrier (which, again, was in no way admitted by Examiner in the previous Office Action as asserted by Applicant), this does not comport with the actual content of Reymann. None of the figures which illustrate these respective “electromagnetic fields/detection ranges 314” of these respective short-range beacons 306 are shown as crossing beyond the side of the physical barrier on which they are placed (see Figs. 1-3). Rather, all such illustrations of the detection ranges limit those ranges to the side of the physical barrier on which they are placed. Indeed, the detection range illustrated in Fig. 1 appears to be positioned as extending out away from the gate, explicitly refuting Applicant’s contention and seeming to demonstrate an intent to avoid such a crossover in at least some embodiments disclosed by Reymann. Further, nothing in the paragraphs associated with these figures, nor any other paragraph describing these beacons or the ranges thereof, indicates such a crossover. Rather, it appears to be no more than Applicant’s pure conjecture that these short-range beacons would both have the capability of and particularly be programmed to extend the respective detection ranges thereof beyond the side of the physical barrier upon which they are placed. This conjecture is at best not supported by the actual content of Reymann, if not antithetical thereto.
Regarding the same argued functionality, Applicant takes issue with the use of “may” in in Examiner’s explanatory language provided in the previous citations. These uses of “may” in this explanatory language in no way function in the manner argued by Applicant (ie: as an invocation of inherency, or as otherwise indicating that the disclosure of Reymann does not “teach” the functionality in question), but instead, as noted above, indicate one or more particular embodiments of Reymann which read upon the argued limitation. That not all embodiments disclosed in Reymann would read upon this limitation in no way negates the embodiments which do. As Examiner does not invoke disclosure by way of inherency, Applicant’s citations to MPEP 2112.02 and arguments in relation thereto are irrelevant and will not be discussed further. Rather, as explained yet again above, the disclosure of Reymann as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art teaches the limitation in question in accordance with Applicant’s cited language of MPEP 2131.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments related to the 103 rejections are purely based upon Applicant’s 102 arguments addressed and refuted above. As these 102 arguments are unpersuasive, these 103 arguments are likewise unpersuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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:
“receiving from a calculation module…” of Claims 1 and 12;
“a validation device validates…” of Claims 1, 7, and 12;
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. These terms are interpreted in view of at least Paragraphs 0022, 0042-0043, 0049, and 0067-0068 as published; and Figs. 1, 3, and 4 (essentially, as software executed by the claimed electronic validation system and remote server, respectively). Note that no 112(f) interpretation is necessary for “calculation module” and “set of module(s)” as used in Claim 7 and the dependent claims thereof, as those terms were clearly modified by sufficient structure (ie: in Claim 7, these modules are explicitly tied to the local server and the remote server, respectively) for performing the claimed functions (see, e.g., MPEP 2181).
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.
Claims 7-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7, explicitly drafted as a system claim, contains the following limitation: “wherein only after the location transceiver located in the access zone receives the location signal from the connected device located in the access zone and the request has been pre-validated, a validation device validates the access to the access zone for the user by decrementing an account specific to the user.” This limitation, despite belonging to a system (or “machine”) claim, is drafted as a method step rather than a system component. Examiner notes that this differs from the other newly drafted “wherein…” clauses of Claim 7 in that they further narrow previously disclosed system elements, whereas the above-quoted limitation recites a new step independently. That this step contains a newly claimed system component (ie: “a validation device”) internally does not make this otherwise. This conflicting drafting makes it unclear whether the claim is infringed by the building of this system or use of a method associated with this system, creating an improper hybrid claim. See, e.g., MasterMine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 874 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2017), e.g., “a single claim covering both an apparatus and a method of use of that apparatus is indefinite under [§ 112(b)].” For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “a validation device configured to, only after the location transceiver located in the access zone receives the location signal from the connected device located in the access zone and the request has been pre-validated, validate the access to the access zone for the user by decrementing an account specific to the user.” Claims 8-10 are rejected due to their dependence upon Claim 7.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14 contains the following limitation: “wherein the validation device only decrements the account specific to the user after the public transport vehicle is in motion.” This limitation institutes an additional condition to the limitation “wherein only after the location transceiver located in the access zone receives a location signal from the connected device located in the access zone and the request for access has been pre-validated, a validation device validates the access to the access zone for the user by decrementing an account specific to the user” of Claim 1 (upon which Claim 14 eventually depends). As such, Claim 14 does not properly further narrow Claim 13 (and Claim 1 by further dependency) but rather conflicts with and improperly shifts the scope thereof such that the above-quoted limitation of Claim 1 sometimes occurs as claimed in Claim 1 but sometimes does not.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations of receiving, from an entity located in an approval zone, a request to access the access zone; receiving a pre-validation of the request for accessing the access zone based on satisfying a predetermined condition; receiving a determined location of the entity, wherein the entity is located in the access zone; and wherein only after the location transceiver located in the access zone receives a location signal from the connected device located in the access zone and the request for access has been pre-validated, a validation device validates the access to the access zone for the user by decrementing an account specific to the user, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of receiving, from an entity located in an approval zone, a request to access the access zone; receiving a pre-validation of the request for accessing the access zone based on satisfying a predetermined condition; receiving a determined location of the entity, wherein the entity is located in the access zone; and wherein only after the location transceiver located in the access zone receives a location signal from the connected device located in the access zone and the request for access has been pre-validated, a validation device validates the access to the access zone for the user by decrementing an account specific to the user, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an electronic validation system, a public transportation vehicle, a connected device, a remote server, a calculation module, wherein the access zone is either inside the public transport vehicle or is a location between at least one security portal and the public transport vehicle, wherein the electronic validation system comprises a location transceiver located in the access zone, and a validation system. An electronic validation system, a connected device, a remote server, a calculation module, and a validation system amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). A public transportation vehicle, wherein the access zone is either inside the public transport vehicle or is a location between at least one security portal and the public transport vehicle, and wherein the electronic validation system comprises a location transceiver located in the access zone amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-6, 11, and 13-15, describing various additional limitations to the method of Claim 1, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claim 1 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 2 discloses wherein the method comprises, between the pre-validation step and the determination step, a step of sending a proof of pre-validation to the connected device after said receiving of the pre-validation of the request (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and wherein said determined location of the connected device is determined from at least one location signal comprising the proof of pre-validation, the at least one location signal being received from the connected device (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 3 discloses wherein the request to access the access zone is received in an extended wireless communication mode (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 4 discloses wherein a proof of the pre-validation is generated in response to a comparison of the request for access to a database of rights to travel (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 5 discloses initializing a signal for a procedure is issued towards to the connected device in the approval zone according to a reception wireless communication mode (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception); wherein the determined location of the connected device is determined on the basis of at least one signal (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process) exchanged according to a wireless location communication mode (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception); and the reception and wireless location communication modes being distinct (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 6 discloses wherein the reception and wireless location communication modes each follow a LAN protocol (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 11 discloses receiving from the calculation module, the determined location of the connected device, within at least a location zone, is heading towards one security gate (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use) located in an entry zone (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and transmitting to at least one security gate, when the connected device is within the entry zone, opening instructions to grant access to the user to the access zone (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 13 discloses wherein the access zone is the public transport vehicle (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 14 discloses wherein the validation device only decrements the account specific to the user after the public transport vehicle is in motion (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 15 discloses wherein the access zone is the location between the at least one security portal and the public transport vehicle (additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitations of receiving a request for access to the access zone from an entity in an approval zone; pre-validating the request for access when the request satisfies a predetermined condition; receiving a location signal from the entity in the access zone separate from the approval zone; a determine a location of the connected device; and wherein only after the location transceiver located in the access zone receives the location signal from the connected device located in the access zone and the request has been pre-validated, validating the access to the access zone for the user by decrementing an account specific to the user, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of receiving a request for access to the access zone from an entity in an approval zone; pre-validating the request for access if the request satisfies a predetermined condition; receiving a location signal from the entity in the access zone separate from the approval zone; a determine a location of the connected device; and wherein only after the location transceiver located in the access zone receives the location signal from the connected device located in the access zone and the request has been pre-validated, validating the access to the access zone for the user by decrementing an account specific to the user, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an electronic validation system; a public transport vehicle; a remote server comprising a set of module(s); a connected device; at least one location transceiver; a local server connected to the at least one location transceiver and to the remote server, the local server comprising a calculation module; wherein the access zone is either inside the public transportation vehicle or is a location between at least one security portal and the public transport vehicle; the location transceiver is located in the access zone; and a validation device. An electronic validation system; a remote server comprising a set of module(s); a connected device; at least one location transceiver; a local server connected to the at least one location transceiver and to the remote server, the local server comprising a calculation module; and a validation device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). A public transport vehicle, wherein the access zone is either inside the public transportation vehicle or is a location between at least one security portal and the public transport vehicle, and the location transceiver is located in the access zone amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 8-10, describing various additional limitations to the system of Claim 7, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claim 7 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 8 discloses wherein the access zone is located inside the public transport vehicle (additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 9 discloses wherein the access zone is located between at least one security gate and the public transport vehicle (additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 10 discloses wherein the calculation module is further configured for issuing an opening instruction of the or of one of the security gates following the determination of the location of the connected device in an entry zone and only if the request for access to the access zone has been pre-validated (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations of receiving, from an entity located in an approval zone, a request to access the access zone; receiving a pre-validation of the request for accessing the access zone based on satisfying a predetermined condition; receiving a determined location of the entity, wherein the entity is located in the access zone; receiving a signal indicating the public transport vehicle is in motion; and wherein only after the location transceiver located in the access zone receives a location signal from the connected device located in the access zone, the request for access has been pre-validated, and the public transport vehicle is in motion, validating an access to the access zone for the user, by decrementing an account specific to the user, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of receiving, from an entity located in an approval zone, a request to access the access zone; receiving a pre-validation of the request for accessing the access zone based on satisfying a predetermined condition; receiving a determined location of the entity, wherein the entity is located in the access zone; receiving a signal indicating the public transport vehicle is in motion; and wherein only after the location transceiver located in the access zone receives a location signal from the connected device located in the access zone, the request for access has been pre-validated, and the public transport vehicle is in motion, validating an access to the access zone for the user, by decrementing an account specific to the user, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an electronic validation system, a public transportation vehicle, a connected device, a remote server, a calculation module, an electronic component of the public transport vehicle, wherein the access zone is either inside the public transportation vehicle or is a location between at least one security portal and the public transport vehicle,
wherein the electronic validation system comprises a location transceiver located in the access zone, and a validation system. An electronic validation system, a connected device, a remote server, a calculation module, an electronic component of the public transport vehicle, and a validation system amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). A public transportation vehicle, wherein the access zone is either inside the public transportation vehicle or is a location between at least one security portal and the public transport vehicle, and wherein the electronic validation system comprises a location transceiver located in the access zone amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reymann (PGPub 20180144563) (hereafter, “Reymann”).
Regarding Claim 1, Reymann discloses:
A method for validating an access, for a user, to an access zone to a public transport vehicle, the method being implemented by an electronic validation system (Abstract; ¶ 0003, 0015; Figs. 3, 6; an access gate that controls access to a restricted area, the access gate includes a communications interface having a long range wireless beacon and a short range radio frequency beacon; detect, using the long range beacon, the presence of a mobile device, receive, using the long range beacon, an access credential from the mobile device, and validate the access credential);
receiving, from a connected device located in an approval zone, a request to access the access zone (Abstract; ¶ 0003, 0031, 0044, 0046; Figs. 3-5; an access gate that controls access to a restricted area; receive, using the long range beacon, an access credential from the mobile device; the mobile device may provide the station beacon with the credential, which may then be passed to a back office server for validation);
receiving from a remote server, a pre-validation of the request for accessing the access zone based on satisfying a predetermined condition (Abstract; ¶ 0003, 0031, 0043-0044, 0047; Figs. 3-5; an access gate that controls access to a restricted area; receive, using the long range beacon, an access credential from the mobile device, and validate the access credential; the list of authorized devices are preauthorized by having or being associated with valid credentials; the mobile device may provide the station beacon with the credential, which may then be passed to a back office server for validation);
receiving from a calculation module, a determined location of the connected device, wherein the connected device is located in the access zone (¶ 0023, 0035, 0044-0045; Figs. 3-4; short range beacons, such as RFID receivers, may be placed on one or both sides of a gate (as in Fig. 3) which may be used to detect mobile devices carried by users as they approach and pass through the gates; gate interface; fare gate server, in communication with the back office server, gate beacons (including RFID beacons and receivers); the receiver may calculate an exact distance to the mobile device using the characteristics in combination with the RSSI of the signal between the mobile device and the receiver); and
wherein the access zone is either inside the public transport vehicle or is a location between at least one security portal and the public transport vehicle (¶ 0023, 0029, 0035, 0043, 0047; Figs. 3-5; short range beacons, such as RFID receivers, may be placed on one or both sides of a gate (as in Fig. 3) which may be used to detect mobile devices carried by users as they approach and pass through the gates; RFID readers connected to the fare gate server may be used to collect fares; in embodiments where RFID readers are placed on one side of the gate/passageway, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this leaves only two options: before the gate and after the gate (as in Fig. 3); in embodiments where an RFID reader on one side of the gate is after the gate, the detection of the mobile device and collection of fare occurs when it is determined that the mobile device is in the access area; pre-validation occurs prior to access through the gate being granted);
wherein the electronic validation system comprises a location transceiver located in the access zone (¶ 0023, 0029, 0035, 0043, 0047; Figs. 3-5; short range beacons, such as RFID receivers, may be placed on one or both sides of a gate (as in Fig. 3) which may be used to detect mobile devices carried by users as they approach and pass through the gates; RFID readers connected to the fare gate server may be used to collect fares; in embodiments where RFID readers are placed on one side of the gate/passageway, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this leaves only two options: before the gate and after the gate (as in Fig. 3); in embodiments where an RFID reader on one side of the gate is after the gate, the detection of the mobile device and collection of fare occurs when it is determined that the mobile device is in the access area; pre-validation occurs prior to access through the gate being granted); and
wherein only after the location transceiver located in the access zone receives a location signal from the connected device located in the access zone and the request for access has been pre-validated, a validation d