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 1-13 have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on PCT/JP2022001304 filed on 1/17/22.
Information Disclosure Statement
The examiner reviewed IDS document(s) received on 6/25/24, 8/6/24 and 9/2/25, carefully considering the art cited within the document(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically, claims 1 and 12-13 requires
“…method of a server apparatus
that stores biometric information of at least one or more users
who plan to use a hotel,
the control method comprising:
“receiving an authentication request including biometric information of a person to be authenticated
from an authentication terminal
that is managed by an affiliated business operator
that has a partnership relationship with the hotel;
identifying the person to be authenticated among the at least one or more users
by a matching processing using the biometric information
included in the authentication request and
the stored biometric information; and
providing a hotel user with a reward
related to the affiliated business operator
when the identified person to be authenticated
is the hotel user
who will use the hotel after a predetermined time
based on the time of processing the authentication request
who used the hotel before a predetermined time or
based on the time of processing the authentication request.”
The examiner is unable to follow the required limitations. The claims relate to a user who plan to use hotel but then a reward is provided to a hotel user that already uses the hotel (how is the hotel user a user that is yet to use the hotel) especially, since these limitations are within the context of the user that will use the hotel after or before time of processing authentication request, where the authentication is of a person to be authenticated based on the stored biometric information that are of users that plan (in the future) to use a hotel.
The claims to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and unable to clearly establish the metes and bounds of the claims.
Claims 2-11 are rejected based on their dependencies.
Although claims are read in light of the specification, the claims should stand on their own. As such, claims should clearly articulate applicant’s invention (meaning/scope of the claims) in such manner that they are readily understood to a reader.
1. A system comprising:
a server apparatus that
stores biometric information of at least one or more users who plan to use a hotel; and
an authentication terminal that
is managed by an affiliated business operator that has a partnership relationship with the hotel, and
transmits an authentication request including biometric information of a person to be authenticated to the server apparatus,
wherein the server apparatus
identifies the person to be authenticated among the at least one or more users
by a matching processing using the biometric information included in the authentication request and the stored biometric information, and
provides a hotel user with a reward related to the affiliated business operator
when the identified person to be authenticated is the hotel user
who will use the hotel after a predetermined time
based on a time of processing the authentication request or
who used the hotel before a predetermined time
based on the time of processing the authentication request.
At the time of authentication, a user
plans to use the hotel in the future
used the hotel in the past
A place sends a req to auth.usr
Hotel auth.usr and provides rewards
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 706.02(l)(1) and § 706.02(l)(2).
Claim(s) x-x and xxx is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over XXX in view of XXXX.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to XXXX given the benefit of XXXX.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to XXXX. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to XXXX.
1. A system comprising:
a server apparatus that
stores biometric information of at least one or more users who plan to use a hotel; and
an authentication terminal that
is managed by an affiliated business operator that has a partnership relationship with the hotel, and
transmits an authentication request including biometric information of a person to be authenticated to the server apparatus,
wherein the server apparatus
identifies the person to be authenticated among the at least one or more users
by a matching processing using the biometric information included in the authentication request and the stored biometric information, and
provides a hotel user with a reward related to the affiliated business operator
when the identified person to be authenticated is the hotel user
who will use the hotel after a predetermined time
based on a time of processing the authentication request or
who used the hotel before a predetermined time
based on the time of processing the authentication request.
At the time of authentication, a user
plans to use the hotel in the future
used the hotel in the past
A place sends a req to auth.usr
Hotel auth.usr and provides rewards
2. The system according to claim 1, wherein the server apparatus changes the reward provided to the hotel user in accordance with a function of the authentication terminal.
3. The system according to claim 2, wherein the authentication terminal transmits to the server apparatus the authentication request including a terminal function ID for identifying a function assigned to the authentication terminal and biometric information of the person to be authenticated, and wherein the server apparatus identifies the function of the authentication terminal based on the terminal function ID and provides the reward to the hotel user in accordance with the identified function.
4. The system according to claim 1, wherein the server apparatus stores the biometric information of the at least one or more users and reservation information regarding a reservation of the hotel, and determine the reward provided to the hotel user based on the reservation information of the identified person to be authenticated.
5. The system according to claim 1, wherein the hotel user a guest of the hotel or a user of a facility of the hotel.
6. The system according to claim 1, wherein the server apparatus provides the hotel user with a discount on price to be paid by the hotel user to the affiliated business operator as the reward.
7. The system according to claim 1, wherein the server apparatus provides the hotel user with a delivery service for a product purchased by the hotel user at the affiliated business operator as the reward.
8. The system according to claim 1, wherein the server apparatus provides the hotel user with free use of a facility of the affiliated business operator as the reward.
9. The system according to claim 1, wherein the server apparatus provides the hotel user with the reward that allows the hotel user to use a parking lot managed by the affiliated business operator with priority.
10. The system according to claim 1, wherein the server apparatus provides the hotel user with the reward of a taxi pick-up whose destination is the hotel.
11. The system according to claim 1, wherein the biometric information is a face image or a feature value generated from the face image.
12. A server apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing a set of instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the set of instructions to: store biometric information of at least one or more users who plan to use a hotel; receive an authentication request including biometric information of a person to be authenticated from an authentication terminal that is managed by an affiliated business operator that has a partnership relationship with the hotel; and identify the person to be authenticated among the at least one or more users by a matching processing using the biometric information included in the authentication request and the stored biometric information, and provides a hotel user with a reward related to the affiliated business operator when the identified person to be authenticated is the hotel user who will use the hotel after a predetermined time based on the time of processing the authentication request or who used the hotel before a predetermined time based on the time of processing the authentication request.
13. A control method of a server apparatus that stores biometric information of at least one or more users who plan to use a hotel, the control method comprising: receiving an authentication request including biometric information of a person to be authenticated from an authentication terminal that is managed by an affiliated business operator that has a partnership relationship with the hotel; identifying the person to be authenticated among the at least one or more users by a matching processing using the biometric information included in the authentication request and the stored biometric information; and providing a hotel user with a reward related to the affiliated business operator when the identified person to be authenticated is the hotel user who will use the hotel after a predetermined time based on the time of processing the authentication request or who used the hotel before a predetermined time based on the time of processing the authentication request.
Success
Both inventions: xxx and xxx are security (?) invention, both pertain to the field of xxx and both … Thus, the advantages of the systems of xxx and xxx could have been easily combinable with more than reasonable expectations of success.
Meaningless recitation
Lastly, it is noted that using a particular type/name for the class in the Gong’s as modified invention would not affect the functionality of the invention, thus would not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in the terms of patentability. Thus, this descriptive material does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in the terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed.Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Ngee does not expressly disclose the first and second devices additionally sending the identities of the first and second trusted authorities. However these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and do not alter the method disclosed by AAPA, Menezes in view of Ngee (i.e., the descriptive material does affect generating the keys and communication between the devices). Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add additionally type of data, e.g. the identity of the first and the second trusted authorities because such data does not alter how the generating keys and communication between devices, and because the subjective interpretation of the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Reference A does not expressly show the collected data including a name, age, gender, occupation, income, e-mail address and products purchased. Reference A further does not expressly show the letter e-mailed to the customers having instructions on how to win an award.
However these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. The collecting and e-mailing steps would be performed the same regardless of the data. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., XXX) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims XXX are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Poltorak whose telephone number is (571) 272-3840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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).
/PIOTR POLTORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433