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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-6, 9-10, 13-14 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamza (US 2004/0240711 A1) in view of Svenson et al. (US 2021/0307621 A1) and Kellem et al. (US 5,845,692).
Regarding claims 1-3, Hamza discloses a method performed by a computer (e.g. Fig. 3 & [0004] & claim 1), a system (e.g. Figs. 1-3 & Abstract) and a non-transitory storage medium (e.g. [0042]) storing a program executable by a computer to perform the method, comprising:
a first imaging unit (e.g. Fig. 3: 305) configured to capture an image of a user moving along a first movement path (e.g. Figs. 1-3: 110, 120);
an authentication unit (e.g. Fig. 3: 300) configured to perform biometric authentication based on the image of the user captured by the first imaging unit;
a guiding unit configured to guide a target for which the biometric authentication has succeeded to a second movement path (e.g. Fig. 1 & [0014]: the person is directed to lane 130 to a gate if a match is found) and guide a target for which the biometric authentication has failed to a third movement path based on an authentication result of the authentication unit (e.g. Fig. 1 & [0015]: the person is directed to lane 140 to manual check-in if a match is not found).
Hamza fails to disclose, but Svenson teaches a second imaging unit configured to capture an image of the user moving along the third movement path, wherein the authentication unit performs the biometric authentication based on the image of the user captured by the second imaging unit (e.g. [0521]: check-in staff using facial photo acquired by monitoring device to verify/authenticate the person).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teachings of Hamza with the teachings of Svenson to utilize check-in staff and facial recognition device together to authenticate an identity of a person so as to improve authentication accuracy since machine might not be able to authenticate a person if the captured image is not detail enough to capture sufficient facial characteristic of the person.
Hamza fails to disclose, but Kellem teaches performing guidance display on a display device (e.g. Figs. 1-3: 11, 12, 16a, 16b, 41a, 41b & col 8 lines 57-65: display along with door system guiding authenticated and unauthenticated people to different routes).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hamza with the teachings of Kellem to provide clear guidance to people with visual display.
In addition, Hamza discloses the first movement path includes a first portion (e.g. Fig. 1: portion between 110 and station 304) in which the user is photographed (e.g. Fig. 1a: 114) and a second portion through which the user passes after being photographed (e.g. Figs 1-3: portion between station 304 and 130).
Although not explicitly, it would be obvious that Hamza discloses the face verification result will be displayed to user (e.g. Fig. 3: scan station 304) so as to allow user to proceed to gates or proceed to manual check-in for further verification (e.g. Fig. 3); thus, Hamza discloses the relative location of the first imaging unit (e.g. Fig. 3: 305), a range in which the user is photographed (e.g. Figs. 1-3: 120) and a display device (e.g. Fig. 3: 304).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the display device in a position closer to the first imaging unit than a range in which the user is photographed, since applicant does not disclosed having a display device in a particular claimed location have any advantage or solve any particular issue, and it appears the invention would perform equally well with the display device being positioned in any position that is convenient for user or desirable to use with an application of the display device, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claims 4-6, Hamza and Svenson in combination discloses based on a result of the biometric authentication performed based on the image of the user moving along the third movement path, captured by the second imaging unit (check-in staff of Hamza in Fig. 1 using facial recognition device, as suggested by Svenson in [0521], to authenticate a target user that fails the first authentication, and determine whether the user is allowed or declined to proceed to the gates), a target for which the biometric authentication has succeeded is guided to a fourth movement path (e.g. the path to the gates when the check-in staff allowed the user to proceed to the gates as shown in Fig. 1 of Hamza), and a target for which the biometric authentication has failed is guided to a fifth movement path (e.g. it would be obvious to one skilled in the art that the user would be directed to exit the check-in area as shown in Fig. 1 of Hamza and be guided to outside other than the gates, and that would be considered as “fifth movement path”).
Regarding claims 9, 13 and 17, Hamza discloses an exit of the fifth movement path (e.g. Fig. 1: fifth movement path corresponds to failed authentication in manual check-in) is connected to a region different in management state from exits of the second movement path (e.g. Fig. 1: 130) and the fourth movement path (e.g. Fig. 1: fourth movement path corresponds to successful authentication in manual check-in, and both second movement path and fourth movement direct passenger to gates/boarding area, and unsuccessful authentication in manual check-in would not direct passenger to gates/boarding area).
Regarding claim 10, 14 and 18, discloses exits of the second movement path and fourth movement path are connected to each other after the user leaves (e.g. second movement path corresponds to 130 of Fig. 1 and fourth movement path corresponds to successful authentication in manual check-in; both second movement path and fourth movement direct passenger to gates/boarding area).
Claim(s) 7-8, 11-12 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamza (US 2004/0240711 A1) in view of Svenson et al. (US 2021/0307621 A1) and Kellem et al. (US 5,845,692) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Mann et al. (US 6,119,096).
Regarding claims 7-8, 11-12 and 15-16, Hamza disclose the biometric authentication includes matching of an image including a face of the user (e.g. Fig. 3: 300), but fails to disclose using an image including an iris of the user.
However, Mann teaches it is known to utilize features of facial image and iris of the eye to identify an identity of a person (e.g. Fig. 1A: 108, 112 & col 5 lines 3-7).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize iris of an eye to identify an identity of a person since matching facial feature and/or iris characteristic are known alternative for biometric authentication, and the modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art since it is merely simple substitutions of one known technique with another according to KSR.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Rejections regarding claims 1-3, 9-10, 13-14 and 17-18 have been updated in view of amendments, claims 4-6 are unpatentable since they are dependent on claims 1-3, and claims 7-8, 11-12 and 15-16 have been rejected in view of new ground of rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3693. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. 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.
/KAM WAN MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688