CTNF 18/730,863 CTNF 101323 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4 of Claim 1, ‘determines’ should read ‘determine’. In line 7 of Claim 1, ‘whose the user type’ should read ‘whose user type’. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4 of Claim 5, ‘determines’ should read ‘determine’ . Appropriate correction is required. Information Disclosure Statement The three information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on July 22, 2024, October 3, 2024 and April 25, 2025, have been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes (concepts performed in a human mind, including as an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and/or mathematical concepts and calculations). The server apparatus of Claim 1, the system of Claim 12, and the method of Claim 13 disclose a method of identifying users from video footage, which ca be performed in the human mind as a judgement. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory). According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if: STEP 1 : the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or STEP 2 : the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: STEP 2A (PRONG 1) : Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? STEP 2A (PRONG 2) : Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? STEP 2B : Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the independent claims 1, 12, and 13 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below: STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES . Claims 1, 12, and 13 are directed to a server apparatus, system, and method for identifying users, respectively. STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea ? YES , the claims are directed toward a mental processes and/or mathematical concepts (i.e. abstract idea). With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas: Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Claims 1, 12, and 13 comprise mental processes and/or mathematical concepts that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea. Regarding Claims 1, 12 and 13, the limitations recite: determines/determining a user type of at least one or more users the user type regarding a method of procedure to be proceeded with at an authentication terminal, who appear in images that forms the video (the step of identifying a user falls into the ‘mental processes’ grouping of abstract ideas because identifying users from images can be performed in the human mind as an observation) , and tracks/tracking a user who’s the user type is determined using a video received from the camera device as a target person to be tracked (the step of tracking a user falls into the ‘mental processes’ grouping of abstract ideas because identifying users can be performed in the human mind as an observation) . These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person could mentally identify a user from video data, and then track the user using observation. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a server comprising a memory and processor does not take the limitations out of the mental process and/or mathematical concepts groupings. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application ? NO , the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application: an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application: an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claims 1, 12, and 13 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Independent Claim 1 discloses: 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: (generic computer components), receives a video (insignificant pre-solution extra activity of gathering data) , from a camera device (generic computer components) , notify an external device of the user type of the target person to be tracked who appears in the video received from the camera device (insignificant post-solution extra activity of displaying data on a generic computer component) . Independent Claim 12 discloses the additional limitations of: A system, comprising: a camera device; and a server apparatus, (generic computer components), receives a video (insignificant pre-solution extra activity of gathering data) , wherein the server apparatus comprises: at least one memory storing a set of instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the set of instructions to (generic computer components) , receiving a video (insignificant pre-solution extra activity of gathering data on a generic computer component) , from a camera device (generic computer components) , notify an external device of the user type of the target person to be tracked who appears in the video received from the camera device (insignificant post-solution extra activity of displaying data) . Independent Claim 13 discloses the additional limitations of: A control method of a server apparatus, the control method comprising, (generic computer components), receiving a video (insignificant pre-solution extra activity of gathering data) , from a camera device (generic computer components) , notifying an external device of the user type of the target person to be tracked who appears in the video received from the camera device (insignificant post-solution extra activity of displaying data on a generic computer component) . These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements: adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present. Claims 1, 12, and 13 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a generic computer elements are routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers. Thus, since Claims 1, 12, and 13 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that Claims 1, 12, and 13 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101 . If the dependent claim falls under the mental processes grouping, use this: Regarding Claim 2 : the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s) “the user type in the video received from the camera device and transmits the video in which the user type is reflected to the external device” falls into insignificant post-solution extra activity of displaying data, and thus fails to integrate the mental process into a practical application. If the dependent claim falls under the mathematical concept grouping, use this: Regarding Claim 3 : the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s) “reflects the user type in the video received from the camera device by a method that enables a person to visually distinguish the user type” falls into insignificant post-solution extra activity of displaying data. Regarding Claim 4 : the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s) “determines, as the user type, whether the user is a registered person in system who can proceed with the procedure at the authentication terminal using biometric authentication by registering biometric information of the user with the system, or whether a non-registered person in system who cannot proceed with the procedures at the authentication terminal using the biometric authentication” can be done by a person through observation. Regarding Claim 5 : the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s) “determines, as the user type, whether the user is a registered person permitted to pass through who is successfully authenticated at the authentication terminal, or whether the user is a registered person not permitted to pass through who fails to authenticate at the authentication terminal when the user is the registered person in system” can be done by a person through observation. Regarding Claim 6 : the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s) “reflects information regarding a location where the registered person not permitted to pass through will be determined to be successfully authenticated in the video received from the camera device” falls into insignificant post-solution extra activity of displaying data, and thus fails to integrate the mental process into a practical application. Regarding Claim 7 : the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s) “makes the user type visually distinguishable by a person by using a color of a frame set around a face area of the target person to be tracked in the images that forms the video” falls into insignificant post-solution extra activity of displaying data, and thus fails to integrate the mental process into a practical application. Regarding Claim 8 : the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s) “wherein the external device is a display device installed at a procedure area where the authentication terminal is installed” ” falls into insignificant post-solution extra activity of displaying data, and thus fails to integrate the mental process into a practical application. Furthermore, the ‘external device’ is a generic computer component. Regarding Claim 10 : the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s) “database that stores biometric information of the user” is a generic computer component. Furthermore, the limitation of “determines the user type by a matching processing using biometric information extracted from the image and the biometric information stored in the database” can be performed in the human mind as an observation. Regarding Claim 11 : the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s) “wherein the biometric information is a face image or feature value extracted from the face image” merely expands on the type of biometric data discussed in Claim 10. Furthermore, a person may observer an image of a person and compare the image to another image to determine if both images are of the same person. Regarding Claim 9 : the additional limitations “wherein the external device is a terminal possessed by a staff member who provides the user with guidance regarding the procedure at the authentication terminal” are NOT directed toward an abstract idea since it recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of guiding users at an authentication terminal, and add significantly more that the judicial exception. Therefore, Claim 9 is NOT directed to an abstract idea and therefore is/are not rejected under 35 USC 101 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase et al. (JP Pat No 6819916B1), hereinafter Kawase, in view of Daisaku (JP Pub No 2007303239A), hereinafter Daisaku . As to Claim 1 , Kawase teaches a server apparatus (see Fig. 1, management server 10) , comprising: at least one memory (see Fig. 1, Read Only Memory 103) storing a set of instructions (see paragraph [0047], “ The ROM 103 includes a non-volatile storage medium, and stores necessary information such as a program used for the operation of the management server 10 ”); and at least one processor (see Fig. 1, Central Processing Unit 101) configured to execute the set of instructions to: receive a video from a camera device (see paragraph [0044], “ The camera 80 sequentially transmits the captured images to the management server 10 ”, and see paragraph [0049], “ The display apparatus 106 is a liquid-crystal display, an OLED ( Organic Light Emitting Diode ) display, or the like that displays moving images ”), determines a user type of at least one or more users, the user type regarding a method of procedure to be proceeded with at an authentication terminal (see paragraph [0033], “ The guide unit 15 guides the user U to a procedure place corresponding to the first method (biometric authentication method) when the collation unit 14 determines that the user U is a registrant , and generates guide information to a procedure place corresponding to the second method (authentication method other than biometric authentication) when the collation unit 14 determines that the user U is not a registrant ”, where the user type is either ‘registrant’ who can continue with biometric authentication, or a ‘non-registrant’ who cannot continue with biometric authentication), who appear in images that forms the video (see paragraph [0062], “ Next, when the management server 10 receives the target face image and the collation request from the signage terminals 70, the management server 10 collates the target face imag e”), and notifying an external device of the user type of the user (see paragraph [0068], “ In step S108, when receiving the guide information from the management server 10, the signage terminals 70 display the guide information on the screen of the display apparatus 706 ”, and Fig. 9 and Fig.10 , where the user type is shown on the display). Kawase fails to teach tracking a user whose user type is determined using a video received from the camera device as a target person to be tracked and notifying an external device of the user type of the target person to be tracked who appears in the video received from the camera device. However, in an analogous art, Daisaku teaches determining a user type from a video (see paragraph [0059], “ A label after labeling is performed for each person extracted in a certain frame of the video of the tracking camera 101 ", and see paragraph [0061], “ Information such as whether or not each tracking person has been authenticated and whether the authentication result is OK or NG is recorded as an "authentication state". In FIG. 5 c, "OK" indicates that the person has been authenticated and the entry is OK, "NG" indicates that the person has been authenticated and the entry is NG, "YET" indicates that the person has not been authenticated and the entry is NG, and "OFF" indicates that the person of the ID has not been confirmed yet ”, where OK, NG, YET, and OFF are user types), tracking the different types of users in the video (see paragraph [0050], “ In the tracking device 100 , a process of detecting a person or tracking a detected person is performed based on an input image from the tracking camera 101. In the tracking processing, the processing can be performed using the information extracted by the detection processing unit 103 as necessary ”), and notifying an external device of the user type of the target person to be tracked who appears in the video received from the camera device (see paragraph [0100], “ a device that notifies an operator, records an image , generates a warning, or locks the entrance / exit in a case where a person whose entry is detected is not authenticated ”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the user tracking system taught by Daisaku with the user identification system taught by Kawase. The motivation for doing so would be to reduce the chance of unauthorized users entering a restricted area. Daisaku teaches in paragraph [0045], “ The tracking camera 101 detects and tracks a person around the door 300. The tracking device 100 detects whether or not the person is about to enter the room based on the approaching state of the person to the vicinity of the door 300 . If the person attempting to enter the room has been authenticated, the door 300 is unlocked, but if the person attempting to enter the room has not been authenticated or if the person attempting to enter the room has been authenticated as a person who is not permitted to enter the room, the door 300 remains locked. As a result, it is possible to deny entry of a person other than the specific person. ” Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the tracking system taught by Daisaku with the teachings of Kawase in order to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 1. As to Claim 2 , Kawase in view of Daisaku teaches the user type in the video received from the camera device and transmits the video in which the user type is reflected to the external device (see Kawase, paragraph [0049], “ The display apparatus 106 is a liquid-crystal display, an OLED ( Organic Light Emitting Diode ) display, or the like that displays moving images , still images, characters, and the like, and is used to present information to a user ”, and see Kawase, paragraph [0074], “ In FIG. 11, a plurality of users U3 to U6 are included in the screen, and arrows U3 to U6 indicating procedure places for each person are superimposed and displayed in the detection regions of the face images of the respective users A3 to A6 ”, where the arrows reflect the user type regarding authentication. As to Claim 3 , Kawase in view of Daisaku teaches reflects the user type in the video received from the camera device by a method that enables a person to visually distinguish the user type (see paragraph [0074], “ In FIG. 11, a plurality of users U3 to U6 are included in the screen, and arrows U3 to U6 indicating procedure places for each person are superimposed and displayed in the detection regions of the face images of the respective users A3 to A6 ”, where the arrows visually reflect the user type regarding authentication). As to Claim 4 , Kawase in view of Daisaku teaches determining as the user type, whether the user is a registered person in system who can proceed with the procedure at the authentication terminal using biometric authentication (see Kawase, paragraph [0033], “ The guide unit 15 guides the user U to a procedure place corresponding to the first method (biometric authentication method) when the collation unit 14 determines that the user U is a registrant ”) by registering biometric information of the user with the system (see Kawase, paragraph [0021], “ In the present embodiment, the phrase "matching" means that the matching score indicating the degree of similarity between the biometric information of the user U and the registered biometric information of the registrant is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold ”) or whether a non-registered person in system who cannot proceed with the procedures at the authentication terminal using the biometric authentication (see Kawase, paragraph [0033], “ The guide unit 15 …generates guide information to a procedure place corresponding to the second method (authentication method other than biometric authentication) when the collation unit 14 determines that the user U is not a registrant ” ). As to Claim 5 , Kawase fails to teach determining as the user type, whether the user is a registered person permitted to pass through who is successfully authenticated at the authentication terminal, or whether the user is a registered person not permitted to pass through who fails to authenticate at the authentication terminal when the user is the registered person in system. However, Daisaku teaches that registered uses may be successfully authenticated and permitted to pass through, and registered users may not be permitted to pass through (see paragraph [0053], “ As an example of another operation, it is conceivable to apply for the use of the conference room together with the user list and the use time in advance, and to allow only the applied person to enter the conference roo m. In this case , the person permitted to enter the room may be extracted from all the registered persons based on the current time ”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the authentication and entrance taught by Daisaku with the user identification taught by Kawase. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent unauthorized users from entering restricted areas (see Daisaku paragraph [0045]). Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the authentication at entry/exits taught by Daisaku with the identification method taught by Kawase in order to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 5. As to Claim 8 , Kawase in view of Daisaku teaches wherein the external device is a display device installed at a procedure area where the authentication terminal is installed (see Kawase, paragraph [0096], “ For example, in the case of an airport facility, the present invention can be applied to a procedure area such as a passport control, an immigration site, or a customs inspection site ”, and see paragraph [0043], “ The signage terminals 70 are installed in a security inspection site (touch point P3) and a passport control (touch point P4). The signage terminal 70 is a display terminal that displays information for guiding a procedure place ”). As to Claim 10 , Kawase in view of Daisaku teaches further comprising a database that stores biometric information of the user (see Kawase, paragraph [0091], “ As described above, the information-processing system 1 (management server 10) according to the present embodiment collates the face image (biological information) acquired from the customer U with the plurality of registered face images (registered biological information) registered in the customer information DB11b ”, where DB11b is a database), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to determine the user type by a matching processing using biometric information extracted from the image and the biometric information stored in the database (see Kawase, paragraph [0021], “In the present embodiment, the phrase "matching" means that the matching score indicating the degree of similarity between the biometric information of the user U and the registered biometric information of the registrant is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold ”). As to Claim 11 , Kawase in view of Daisaku teaches wherein the biometric information is a face image or feature value extracted from the face image (see Kawase, paragraph [0022], “ The registered face image may be registered in a procedure work performed first among a series of procedure works performed at the time of departure. It is preferable that the registered face image is registered based on consent from the user U and deleted at a predetermined timing. The feature amount is a value extracted from the biometric information (registered face image) ”). As to Claim 12 , Kawase in view of Daisaku teaches a system (see Kawase, paragraph [0010], “ FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example of an overall configuration of an information processing system ”), comprising: a camera device (see Kawase, Fig. 1, camera 101, and see Daisaku, Fig. 1, tracking camera 101 ); a server apparatus (see Kawase, Fig. 1, management server 10) , comprising: at least one memory (see Kawase , Fig. 1, ROM 103) storing a set of instructions; and at least one processor (see Kawase, Fig. 1, CPU 101) configured to execute the set of instructions to: perform the same steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are analogous to that of Claim 1. As to Claim 13 , Kawase in view of Daisaku teaches a control method of a server apparatus (see Kawase, Fig. 1, management server 10), the control method comprising the same steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are analogous to that of Claim 1 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase et al. (JP Pat No 6819916B1), hereinafter Kawase, in view of Daisaku (JP Pub No 2007303239A), hereinafter Daisaku, and further in view of Hiramoto et al. (WO Pub No 2021029046A1), hereinafter Hiramoto . As to Claim 6 , Kawase in view of Daisaku fails to explicitly teach that the external device reflects information regarding a location where the registered person not permitted to pass through will be determined to be successfully authenticated in the video received from the camera device. However, in an analogous art, Hiramoto teaches outputting a video captured (see paragraph [0041], “ The display device 207 is a liquid crystal display device, an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display device, or the like and used for display of a moving image ”), which can include information regarding a location where the registered person not permitted to pass through will be determined to be successfully authenticated (see paragraph [0149], “ Further, an instruction message that instructs the staff member S to guide the passenger E to a correct waiting lane corresponding to the priority of the passenger E (“There is a passenger waiting in a wrong waiting lane (No. 1). Please guide the passenger to the correct waiting lane (No. 3)”) is displayed in the lower side region in the screen ”, and see corresponding Fig. 24, and where lane 3 is the lane where the user will be correctly authenticated). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the location correction taught by Hiramoto with the identification and tracking system taught by Kawase in view of Daisaku. The motivation for doing so would be to increase the efficiency of boarding. Hiramoto teaches in paragraph [0192], “ Accordingly, a procedure at a boarding gate can be efficiently performed ”. Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the location correction taught by Hiramoto with the teachings of Kawase and Daisaku in order to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 6. As to Claim 9 , Kawase in view of Daisaku teaches herein the external device is a terminal possessed by a staff member who provides the user with guidance regarding the procedure at the authentication terminal. However, Hiramoto teaches an external device which is possessed by a staff member (see paragraph [0022], “ The operation terminal 70 is a terminal apparatus used by the staff member S for its operation. One example of the operation terminal 70 may be a personal computer, a tablet terminal, a smartphone, or the like but not limited thereto. The operation terminal 70 receives information transmitted from the management server 10 and displays the information on a screen ”), who provides the user with guidance regarding the procedure at the authentication terminal (see paragraph [0149], “ Further, an instruction message that instructs the staff member S to guide the passenger E to a correct waiting lane corresponding to the priority of the passenger E (“There is a passenger waiting in a wrong waiting lane (No. 1) ”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the external devices possessed by staff members taught by Hiramoto with the identification and tracking system taught by Kawase and Daisaku. The motivation for doing so would be to better guide uses and thus increase the efficiency of boarding (see Hiramoto, paragraph [0228]). Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the external device taught by Hiramoto with the teachings of Kawase and Daisaku in order to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 9 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase et al. (JP Pat No 6819916B1), hereinafter Kawase, in view of Daisaku (JP Pub No 2007303239A), hereinafter Daisaku, and further in view of Fernandez et al. (US Pub No 20220189001) hereinafter, Fernandez . As to Claim 7 , Kawase in view of Daisaku fails to teach that the external device makes the user type visually distinguishable by a person by using a color of a frame set around a face area of the target person to be tracked in the images that forms the video. Kawase teaches using frames around the face areas of users (see Fig. 11, where a frame is placed the face of each user), but fails to teach that the color of the frames between the different types of users is different. However, in an analogous art of image analysis, Fernandez teaches that different color boxes may be used to identify different types of objects [0105], “ For example, the module may produce a bounded rectangular box overlapping the identified feature in the first image. The bounded boxes may be produced for each rail feature and can be color coded, so that each type of feature is easily recognizable .”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the color coded bounding boxes taught by Fernandez with the identification and tracking system taught by of Kawase and Daisaku. The motivation for doing so would be to make the different types of users easily recognizable (see Fernandez, paragraph [0105]). Fernandez teaches in paragraph [0105]. Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Fernandez with the teachings of Kawase and Daisaku in order to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 7 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Miwa et al. (JP 6195331) teaches a method of determining a type of user, and tracking users throughout an area. Miwa further teaches gathering face images as biometric information. Yojiro (JP 2018109935) teaches a method of determining a user type through obtaining a facial image of a user. Yojiro additionally teaches an external device installed at an authentication terminal. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOUMYA THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00. 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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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. /S.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2664 /JENNIFER MEHMOOD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/730,863 Page 2 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/730,863 Page 3 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/730,863 Page 4 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/730,863 Page 5 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/730,863 Page 6 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/730,863 Page 7 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/730,863 Page 8 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/730,863 Page 9 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/730,863 Page 10 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/730,863 Page 11 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/730,863 Page 12 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/730,863 Page 13 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/730,863 Page 14 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/730,863 Page 15 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/730,863 Page 16 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/730,863 Page 17 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/730,863 Page 18 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/730,863 Page 19 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/730,863 Page 20 Art Unit: 2664 Application/Control Number: 18/730,863 Page 21 Art Unit: 2664
Prosecution Insights