DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response and amendments received on 11 December 2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 11, and 21 have been amended.
Claims 4-10, 14-20, and 24-30 are cancelled.
Claims 2-3, 12-13, and 22-23 are original / previously presented.
Claims 1-3, 11-13, and 21-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-3, 11-13, and 21-23, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-3, 11-13, and 21-23 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection (Ho in view of Judge in view of Barakat).
Priority
This application 18/873,369 filed on 10 December 2024 is a national stage entry of PCT/JP2022/026464 filed on 1 July 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 10 December 2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 11-12, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2016/0042357 A1 to Ho in view of US patent application publication 2016/0379141 A1 to Judge et al. in view of US patent application publication 2018/0174078 A1 to Barakat.
Claim 1:
Ho, as shown, teaches the following:
A ticket checking system comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (Ho ¶[0056-58] details memory for code and programs); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (Ho ¶[0055], ¶[0058] details processors and computers to implement the software, code, and programs) to:
determine, by face authentication, a person (Ho Fig 5, ¶[0050-52] details using facial recognition for transit fare transactions, accessing control points or gates; the biometric identifier / facial scan is compared to biometric identifiers of users that are associated with the fare media to verify the user and a transit account for authorization);
control a gate of a ticket barrier of transportation to move between an open position and a closed position based on the face authentication (Ho Fig 5, ¶[0021], ¶[0050-52] details controlling a transit access gate, using facial recognition for transit fare transactions, the biometric identifier / facial scan is compared to biometric identifiers of users that are associated with the fare media to verify the user and a transit account for authorization, and the authorization causes accessing control points or gates or physical barriers of the infrastructure to be moved to permit the authenticated user to access the system);
perform settlement processing of a fare for the determined person based on the person passing through the gate of the ticket barrier (Ho Fig 5, ¶[0028-29], ¶[0052-53] details determining during authorization that the identified user has already purchased fare or that a user has sufficient funds in their account or with a payment medium stored on their account to permit the user to access the transit, the account is for a transaction requested during the user’s interaction with the transaction device (i.e. ticket barrier), sending the authorization message, and moving the physical barrier of the transaction device; and storing purchase history in the transit account);
With respect to the following:
transmit, to a terminal of the determined person, a notification screen including information indicating utilization details of the transportation and options to either agree to the utilization details or request a refund; and
Ho, as shown in Fig 1-3, ¶[0023], ¶[0029], ¶[0052] details a mobile terminal (media) of the determined person (transit user), and transmitting an authentication message regarding the transit to a transaction device or other system infrastructure including a physical barrier, but does not explicitly state (1) transmitting to a terminal of the person, a notification screen including information indicating utilization details of the transportation and (2) options to either agree to the utilization details or request a refund.
Regarding (1) transmitting to a terminal of the person, a notification screen including information indicating utilization details of the transportation, Judge teaches this part of the limitation, determining a registered user with a mobile device, and sending data regarding the user’s transit journey to their mobile device as a text message or an in-app message (i.e. notification screen), which may include starting and ending points / transit route / journey / travel times / data concerning processed payment (Judge Fig 3, ¶[0096], ¶[0138]). Ho and Judge are analogous inventions in the field of transportation and service transaction management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include transmitting, to a terminal of the determined person, information indicating that the transportation has been utilized as taught by Judge with the teachings of Ho, with the motivation of “automatically detecting, tracking, and validating transit journeys by utilizing the advancements in mobile technologies” (Judge ¶[0007]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include transmitting to a terminal of the person, a notification screen including information indicating utilization details of the transportation as taught by Judge in the system of Ho, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding (2) transmitting to a terminal of the person, a notification screen including information indicating utilization details and options to either agree to the utilization details or request a refund, Barakat teaches this remaining part of the limitation viewing service transaction history and receiving notifications when the service is completed on a customer’s computer such as a portable computing device (i.e. notification screen including information indicating utilization details); sending and receiving notifications, confirmations, and feedback, including receiving a completion notice when services have been performed, and then a user acknowledges completion of the process and/or receipt of the services (i.e. options to agree to the utilization details); and providing customers with a “Get Fare Review” button to submit in case they encounter a technical issues that results in an incorrect fare, i.e. requesting a refund (Barakat Fig 2, Fig 8, ¶[0047], ¶[0054-56], ¶[0059], ¶[0080], ¶[0092]). Ho, Judge, and Barakat are analogous inventions in the field of service transaction management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include transmitting to a terminal of the person, a notification screen including information indicating utilization details and options to either agree to the utilization details or request a refund as taught by Barakat with the teachings of Ho in view of Judge, with the motivation to aid customers “in case they encountered a technical issue that results in an incorrect fare “(Barakat ¶[0080]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include transmitting to a terminal of the person, a notification screen including information indicating utilization details and options to either agree to the utilization details or request a refund as taught by Barakat in the system of Ho in view of Judge, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Barakat (of Ho in view of Judge in view of Barakat) also teaches the following:
execute refund processing for the settled fare in a case where a request of the refund is acquired from the terminal (Barakat Fig 8, ¶[0080], ¶[0111] details processing a refund after the customer submits a ‘Get Fare Review’ action in some cases including when the customer did not show up).
Ho, Judge, and Barakat are analogous inventions in the field of service transaction management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include execute refund processing for the settled fare in a case where a request of the refund is acquired from the terminal as taught by Barakat with the teachings of Ho in view of Judge (in view of Barakat), with the motivation to aid customers “in case they encountered a technical issue that results in an incorrect fare “(Barakat ¶[0080]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include execute refund processing for the settled fare in a case where a request of the refund is acquired from the terminal as taught by Barakat in the system of Ho in view of Judge (in view of Barakat), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 2:
Ho in view of Judge in view of Barakat, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Ho also teaches the following:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to
narrow down, by use of position information of a user of the transportation, a person for whom the face authentication is to be performed (Ho Fig 4-5, ¶[0026-29], ¶[0050-51] details receiving indication that the media / user device is within a detection range nearby of the transaction device to populate a list of identifiers associated with the media, the lists are used to select which biometric indicators to retrieve to compare with the received biometrics identifiers to authenticate the users, the biometric may incorporate facial recognition), and
perform face authentication processing regarding the narrowed-down person (Ho Fig 5, ¶[0029], ¶[0051-52] details performing biometric facial recognition using the list-selected biometric identifiers).
Claim 11:
Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 2 and therefore claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 2.
Claim 21:
Claim 21 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore claim 21 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
Claim 22:
Claim 22 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 2 and therefore claim 22 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 2.
Claims 3, 13, and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2016/0042357 A1 to Ho in view of US patent application publication 2016/0379141 A1 to Judge et al. in view of US patent application publication 2018/0174078 A1 to Barakat, as applied to claims 1 / 11 / 21 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2022/0012323 A1 to Moriwaki et al.
Claim 3:
Ho in view of Judge in view of Barakat, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein master face information used for the face authentication or determination information linked to the master authentication information is stored in a storage unit in relation to presence or absence of commuter pass information of the person, and,
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, in a case where the commuter pass information of the person determined by the face authentication is absent in the storage unit, or in a case where it is decided based on the commuter pass information that the getting-on of the person is outside a section of a commuter pass, execute settlement processing of the fare.
Ho, as shown in ¶[0026], ¶[0028] details an account database linked to an identifier database, where the account database stores transit account data including user information / media identifiers / one-time use tokens / other information associated with accounts, and the identifier database stores the biometric identifiers which may incorporate facial recognition that are associated with each registered user of the system, and ¶[0024] details the media of the user may include a smart card; but does not explicitly state the presence of absence of commuter pass information of the person; and in a case where the commuter pass information of the person determined by the face authentication is absent in the storage unit, or in a case where it is decided based on the commuter pass information that the getting-on of the person is outside a section of a commuter pass, execute settlement processing of the fare. However, Moriwaki teaches these limitations, with the server device storing corresponding records regarding registered user data (name), authentication data (face images), settlement data (credit card number), and commuter pass data (regular use of transportation, section, expiration date) (Moriwaki Fig 2, Fig 18, ¶[0043], ¶[0111-1116]); and when it is determined that the commuter pass has expired (i.e. absent) boarding is rejected and paying by cash is requested, and when it is determined that the user is outside the section indicated in the commuter pass data, settlement is performed to charge a normal fare for the section outside the section indicated in the commuter pass data (Moriwaki ¶[0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein master face information used for the face authentication or determination information linked to the master authentication information is stored in a storage unit in relation to presence or absence of commuter pass information of the person, and, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, in a case where the commuter pass information of the person determined by the face authentication is absent in the storage unit, or in a case where it is decided based on the commuter pass information that the getting-on of the person is outside a section of a commuter pass, execute settlement processing of the fare as taught by Moriwaki with the teachings of Ho in view of Judge in view of Barakat, with the motivation of “thereby enhancing convenience” (Moriwaki ¶[0119]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein master face information used for the face authentication or determination information linked to the master authentication information is stored in a storage unit in relation to presence or absence of commuter pass information of the person, and, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to, in a case where the commuter pass information of the person determined by the face authentication is absent in the storage unit, or in a case where it is decided based on the commuter pass information that the getting-on of the person is outside a section of a commuter pass, execute settlement processing of the fare as taught by Moriwaki in the system of Ho in view of Judge in view of Barakat, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 13:
Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 3 and therefore claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 3.
Claim 23:
Claim 23 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 3 and therefore claim 23 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 3.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US patent application publication 2022/0188954 A1 to Callaghan et al. details an identity management system and method, and includes a security checkpoint and automated gate barrier which uses facial recognition to allow travelers to pass through the gate at an airport, and once the traveler’s face is validated the gate is opened permitting the traveler to exit the gate and continue with their journey (Callaghan Fig 4 ¶[0064-65]).
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 BRIAN TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
BRIAN TALLMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628