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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 7, and 8 are amended. Claim 9 is added. Claims 1-9 are pending in this application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,087,111, claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,308,743, and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,699,502.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims is substantially similar and recites similar limitations. It is because the claims in the continuation application are broader than the ones in the patent applications, In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982).
For example, claim 1 of the present application recites “capture” and “display” steps which are similar to the patented claim 1. Furthermore, the cited patents has more limitations, thereby encompassing the present application's limitations.
Therefore, claim 1 of the present invention is broader than claim 1 of the patented applications.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa, US 2006/0262187 in view of Parrish et al., US 2017/0046808.
Regarding claim 1, Takizawa discloses an information processing apparatus (figs. 1-2; para 0036-0037; an entrance and exit management apparatus) comprising:
a first camera configured to capture a first face image of a user moving toward the information processing apparatus (figs. 1-2, elements 11/12; para 0036-0037; cameras 11 and 12 capture face images of a pedestrian walking toward the entrance and exit gate);
a display configured to display a determination result whether or not the first face image captured by the first camera and registered face information match (fig. 12, elements S19 and S21; para 0037 and 0090-0091; At this time, the entrance and exist management apparatus extracts characteristic information from the face images captured by the cameras 11 and 12, and compares the extracted characteristic information with dictionary entries which have been registered in advance, thereby determining whether or not the pedestrian M has been registered in advance. Then, in the case where the determination result is that the pedestrian M has been registered in advance, the entrance and exit management apparatus opens the door 3 of the entrance and exit target area 2. In the case where it is determined that identification has succeeded (i.e., compares the extracted characteristic information with dictionary entries which have been registered in advance), a message "Identification OK, you may pass through gate" is displayed via the face identification display module 21. On the other hand, in the case where, it is determined that identification has failed, the control module displays for a predetermined period of time a message "identification NG" via the face identification display module 21); and
a door control unit configured to open an exit gate door that is in a closed state in accordance with a determination result regarding (fig. 12, element S19; para 0037 and 0090; the entrance and exist management apparatus extracts characteristic information from the face images captured by the cameras 11 and 12, and compares the extracted characteristic information with dictionary entries which have been registered in advance, thereby determining whether or not the pedestrian M has been registered in advance. Then, in the case where the determination result is that the pedestrian M has been registered in advance, the entrance and exit management apparatus opens the door 3 of the entrance and exit target area 2).
Takizawa discloses claim 1 as enumerated above, but Takizawa does not explicitly disclose declaration information as claimed.
However, Parrish discloses the customs/border compliance system 216 could flag any traveler who provided or failed to provide certain declarations. The customs/border compliance system 216 could also perform image matching to verify that a traveler's recently-captured image or biometric data matches a preexisting picture or expected biometric data of the traveler. The method 1280 includes obtaining traveler information from a kiosk, a portable device, or both at step 1282. This could include, for example, an application server obtaining passport information, photos, biometric data, and declaration answers from a kiosk, a portable device of a traveler, or both (figs. 12A and 12C; para 0037 and 0108).
Therefore, taking the combined disclosures of Takizawa and Parrish as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the customs/border compliance system 216 could flag any traveler who provided or failed to provide certain declarations. The customs/border compliance system 216 could also perform image matching to verify that a traveler's recently-captured image or biometric data matches a preexisting picture or expected biometric data of the traveler. The method 1280 includes obtaining traveler information from a kiosk, a portable device, or both at step 1282. This could include, for example, an application server obtaining passport information, photos, biometric data, and declaration answers from a kiosk, a portable device of a traveler, or both as taught by Parrish into the invention of Takizawa for the purpose of opening an egress point of the customs/border enforcement area for the traveler in response to determining that the disposition code or the information associated with the disposition code indicates that the traveler is allowed to pass the customs/border enforcement area (Parrish: claim 23).
Regarding claim 2, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Takizawa in the combination further disclose wherein the display is further configured to display information instructing the user to stop (fig. 2; para 0050 and 0060).
Regarding claim 3, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Takizawa in the combination further disclose wherein the display is further configured to display information instructing the user to look at the display based on a direction of a face of the user or a line of sight of the user (para 0040 and 0043).
Regarding claim 5, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Takizawa in the combination further disclose wherein the display is further configured to make a sound (para 0073).
Regarding claim 6, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Takizawa in the combination further disclose comprising a second camera configured to capture a second face image of the user within a range of a shorter capturing distance than the first camera (figs. 1-2, element 18; para 0040) when the first face image and the registered face information do not match (para 0055-0056; a case in which the pedestrian M fails in face identification while the pedestrian approaches the door 3 (e.g., using the first face image taken by cameras 11 and 12, and then, restarts face identification in detail while stopping in front of the face identification display module 21 (i.e., using images taken with a short distance camera 18)).
Regarding claim 7, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 1 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 8, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 1 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 9, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Parrish in the combination further disclose wherein the declaration information is information necessary for customs declaration (figs. 12A and 12C; para 0037 and 0108).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takizawa, US 2006/0262187 in view of Parrish et al., US 2017/0046808 and further in view of Zheng et al, US 2018/0048641.
Regarding claim 4, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, Takizawa and Parrish in the combination do not explicitly disclose wherein the display is further configured to display information instructing the user to put off a wearing item as claimed.
However, Zheng discloses the device provides an instruction for the user to remove eye glasses, or other vision aid equipment on the face, in order to record a video in real time (para 0128).
Therefore, taking the combined disclosures of Takizawa, Parrish, and Zheng as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the device provides an instruction for the user to remove eye glasses, or other vision aid equipment on the face, in order to record a video in real time as taught by Zheng into the inventions of Takizawa and Parrish for the benefit of helping the user provide the authentication input without difficulty (Zheng: para 0128).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 VAN D HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)270-1937. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-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, Stephen R Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/VAN D HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights