DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soukup et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0280008) in view of Everson et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0100108).
Regarding claim 1, Soukup teaches an authentication method comprising: unique information of the gate terminal to a local face recognition server [Para. 36 “identify a gaming device associated with the imaging device location ID”]; a step in which the local face recognition server requests user authentication data to a main face recognition server [Para. 43 “transmit the generated user facial recognition image data”]; a step in which the main face recognition server extracts user face image data matching the identification information of the user terminal from an entire database (fig. 1 units 8A, and 7A) in response to the request of the local face recognition server (fig. 1 units 8B, and 7B) and transmits the user face image data to the local face recognition server [Para. 43-44; fig. 31 and related description]; a step in which the local face recognition server generates a real-time database of a specific area (in a chart database; fig. 8-9) using the user face image data [Para. 44; fig. 31 and related description]; and a step in which the gate terminal obtains real-time user face image data (video image) and controls user access (to gaming device) on the basis of an authentication result obtained by comparing the real-time user face image data and the data included in the real-time database of the local face recognition server [Para. 42; fig. 31, and related description].
however, Soukup doesn’t explicitly teach a step in which a gate terminal obtains identification information of a user terminal.
Everson teaches a step in which a gate terminal obtains identification information of a user terminal [Para. 111-112]; analyze the credential and unlock the access gate [Para. 111-112]; and which the gate terminal transmits the identification information of the user terminal [Para. 111-12].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Soukup to include image device location ID, feature as taught by Everson; because the modification enables the system to improve secured identification of a user at a gate by using a mobile device’s BLE credentials instead of physical cards thereby streamlining access control.
Regarding claim 2, Soukup in view of Everson teaches all claim limitation as stated above. Furthermore, Everson teaches wherein the step in which a gate terminal obtains identification information of a user terminal comprises: a step in which, when the user terminal and the gate terminal are within a predetermined distance, the user terminal transmits a BLE signal and transmits the identification information of the user terminal to the gate terminal [Para. 111 and 148 “when the mobile device 114 is within a close proximity to the edge device 118, a tap on the mobile device 114 informs the mobile application to transmit the credential to the edge device 118”].
Regarding claim 3, Soukup in view of Everson teaches all claim limitation as stated above. Furthermore, Everson teaches wherein the step in which a gate terminal obtains identification information of a user terminal comprises: a step in which, when the user terminal and the gate terminal are within a predetermined distance, the gate terminal transmits a BLE signal and obtains the identification information of the user terminal [Para. 133].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Soukup to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Everson; because the modification enables the system to improve secured identification of a user at a gate by using a mobile device’s BLE credentials instead of physical cards thereby streamlining access control.
Regarding claim 5 Soukup teaches wherein the unique information of the gate terminal includes location information and getting-on/getting-off information of the gate terminal [Para. 42 “The edge facial recognition server cluster 8B then transmits the notification signal including the face ID included in the identified current user biometric record and the imaging device location ID to the casino management server 18, upon identifying a matching current user biometric record. The casino management server 18 then uses the face ID included in the identified current user biometric record to identify the known user account record”].
Regarding claim 7, Soukup teaches wherein the step in which the local face recognition server requests user authentication data to a main face recognition server comprises: a step in which the local face recognition server transmits the unique information of the gate terminal and the identification information of the user terminal to the main face recognition server [Para. 39, 41, and 42]; and a step in which the main face recognition server inquires user information corresponding to the identification information of the user terminal [Para. 39, 41, and 42].
Regarding claim 8, Soukup teaches wherein the step in which the local face recognition server generates a real-time database of a specific area using the user face image data comprises: a step in which, each time the local face recognition server receives the user face image data matching the identification information of the user terminal extracted from the main face recognition server, the local face recognition server updates the real-time database of the specific area [Para. 39 and 42-46].
Regarding claim 9, Soukup teaches wherein the step in which the local face recognition server generates a real-time database of a specific area using the user face image data comprises: a step in which, when a preset time elapses after the local face recognition server receives the user face image data matching the identification information of the user terminal extracted from the main face recognition server, the local face recognition server deletes the received user face image data from the real-time database of the specific area [Para. 40].
Regarding claim 10, Soukup teaches wherein the step in which the gate terminal controls user access on the basis of an authentication result obtained by comparing the real-time user face image data and the data included in the real-time database of the local face recognition server comprises: a step in which respective templates are generated using the user face image data stored in the real-time database of the local face recognition server and real-time user face image data obtained through a camera of the gate terminal and similarity of both the templates is calculated by comparing the two templates [Para. 41 and 42].
Regarding claims 13, Soukup teaches wherein the step in which the gate terminal obtains real-time user face image data comprises: a step in which, by driving a camera of a gate terminal most adjacent to the user terminal among gate terminals provided in a gate system, the user's face image is photographed [Para. 46].
Regarding claim 14, Soukup teaches wherein the step in which the gate terminal is controlled on the basis of an authentication result comprises: i step in which, when an authentication result is an authentication success, use history data including at least one of the identification information of the user terminal, the unique information of the gate terminal, an authentication result, time information and getting on and off information is generated, and is transmitted to the main face recognition server [Para. 42 and 44].
Claims 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soukup et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0280008) in view of Everson et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0100108) further view Shinto (Patent No. US 9721405).
Regarding claim 4, Everson teaches mobile BLE access credential funcation as the user’s identification to the reader/controller [Para. 130 and 135].
However, Soukup in view of Everson doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitation.
Shinto teaches wherein the identification information of the user terminal includes universally unique identifier (UUID) information capable of specifying the user [Col. 2 line 63 – Col. 3 line 8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Soukup in view Everson to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Shinto; because the modification enables the system with robust keying of user records.
Regarding claim 6, Everson teaches a step in which a user corresponding to the user terminal is registered, before the step in which a gate terminal obtains identification information of a user terminal, wherein the step in which a user corresponding to the user terminal is registered comprises: a step in which the user terminal requests user registration to the main face recognition server [Para. 45, and 51]; a step in which the main face recognition server requests user information input by inquiring whether the user is registered [Para. 45, and 51].
However, Soukup in view of Everson doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitation.
Shinto (Patent No. US 9,721,405) teaches a step in which, when user information is inputted to the user terminal, a UUID corresponding to the user information is generated in the main face recognition server; and a step in which the generated UUID is transmitted to the user terminal [Col. 2 line 63 – Col. 3 line 8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Soukup in view Everson to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Shinto; because the modification enables the system with robust keying of user records.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soukup et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0280008) in view of Everson et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0100108) further view Stern et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0157384).
Regarding claim 11, Soukup in view Everson doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
Stern teaches a step in which, as a result of comparing the real-time user face image data with the real-time database generated by the local face recognition server, when similarity of both data is equal to or greater than a preset value, it is determined that 'access is permitted [Para. 16 “Thus, one or more thresholds may be established so that a confidence level may be established based on biometric data/biometric template(s) comparison(s)”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Soukup in view Everson to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Stern; because the modification enables the system to provide accuracy control and granting access when the score is greater than threshold.
Regarding claim 12, Soukup in view Everson doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
Stern teaches a step in which, as a result of comparing the real-time user face image data with the real-time database generated by the local face recognition server, when similarity of both data is le s than a preset value, it is determined that 'access is not permitted' [Para. 16, 32, and 36].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Soukup in view Everson to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Stern; because the modification enables the system to provide accuracy control and granting access when the score is greater than threshold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-7 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, O’Neal Mistry can be reached on 313-446-4912. 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 800-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666