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
This office action is in response to communication filed 3/30/26.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claim 1,3-5,7,9,13,15.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2,5-8,11-14, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacy US Patent Application Publication 20210304858 in view of Chen US Patent Application Publication 20230222856 and further in view of Klein et al. US Patent 11,151,820.
Regarding claim 1, Lacy teaches a passage permit device comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (paragraph 052), and at
least one processor (104) configured to execute the instructions to;
acquire image data including a user's face image captured by a predetermined imaging device (paragraph 049);
cause an authentication device configured to store facial feature information about the user to perform face authentication on the image data (paragraph 050-052,056);
acquire, if the face authentication is successful, proof information about the user subjected to the face authentication from a first storage device configured to store the proof information related to measures taken the user to prevent from being infected (vaccination status, paragraph 047,050). Lacy teaches determine whether or not to permit the user to pass based on the proof information associated with the user (paragraph 041, 050,051) and output a result of the determination to a predetermined terminal device corresponding to the imaging device (paragraph 069,072). Lacy is silent on teaching the limitation of acquire, if the face authentication is successful, information about a destination of the user subjected to the face authentication from a second storage device configured to store the information about the destination of the user. Chen et al. in an analogous art teaches acquire, if the face authentication is successful, information about a destination of the user subjected to the face authentication from a second storage device configured to store the information about the destination of the user (based on the user facial image, the database containing the user profile is access and the user profile indicate the specific room, floor and other temporal access restriction the user is subjected, paragraph 041-042,051-055 fig.3). Chen teaches accepting a condition set according to the destination of the user, the condition being a condition used for determining a passage permission (051-055); determining whether or not to permit the user to pass based on the proof information associated with the user and the set condition (paragraph 055-056) and outputting a result of the determination to a predetermined terminal device corresponding to the imaging device (paragraph 047). Lacy in view of Chen is silent on teaching a first condition is set as the condition in a case in which the destination of the user is a first destination, and a second condition is set as the condition in a case in which the destination of the user is a second destination different from the first destination, and the first condition and the second condition require different information to be included in the proof information in order to permit the user to pass. Klein in an analogous art teaches a first condition is set as the condition in a case in which the destination of the user is a first destination, and a second condition is set as the condition in a case in which the destination of the user is a second destination different from the first destination, and the first condition and the second condition require different information to be included in the proof information in order to permit the user to pass (col. 3 lines 18-34)..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Lacy as disclosed by Chen because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Lacy by restricting access and further increasing the security of the building. The modification disclosed by Klein further improve the system of Lacy in view of Chen by providing a more adaptable system that can modify the access credential requirement based on the application environment.
Regarding claim 2, Lacy teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to acquire effective period information about an effective period of an antibody proof or a vaccination proof included in the proof information, and determine whether or not to permit the user to pass based on the effective period information (certification is determined to be expired after a period of time and the certification indicate that a person is vaccinated for a particular disease and inherently include the acquiring of the effective period for the vaccination, paragraph 05, 048).
Regarding claim 5, Lacy teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to acquire the proof information generated by a medical institution (the certification status is provided, paragraph 070-072).
Regarding claim 6, Lacy teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to acquire, in addition to the proof information, activity history information about an activity history of the user, and make the determination based on the activity history, the proof information, and the set condition (the historical information is represented by the medical tests the user has taken and the results, paragraph 050).
Regarding claim 7, Lacy teaches a passage permit method performed by a computer, the passage permit method comprising:
acquiring image data including a user's face image captured by a predetermined imaging device (paragraph 049);
causing an authentication device configured to store facial feature information about the user to perform face authentication on the image data (paragraph 050-052,056);
acquiring, if the face authentication is successful, proof information about the user subjected to the face authentication from a storage device configured to store the proof information related to measures taken the user to prevent from being infected (paragraph 047,050). Lacy teaches determine whether or not to permit the user to pass based on the proof information associated with the user (paragraph 041, 050,051) and output a result of the determination to a predetermined terminal device corresponding to the imaging device (paragraph 069,072). Lacy is silent on teaching the limitation of acquire, if the face authentication is successful, information about a destination of the user subjected to the face authentication from a second storage device configured to store the information about the destination of the user. Chen et al. in an analogous art teaches acquire, if the face authentication is successful, information about a destination of the user subjected to the face authentication from a second storage device configured to store the information about the destination of the user (based on the user facial image, the database containing the user profile is access and the user profile indicate the specific room, floor and other temporal access restriction the user is subjected, paragraph 041-042,051-056, fig.3). Chen teaches accepting a condition set according to the destination of the user, the condition being a condition used for determining a passage permission (051-055); determining whether or not to permit the user to pass based on the proof information associated with the user and the set condition (paragraph 055-056) and outputting a result of the determination to a predetermined terminal device corresponding to the imaging device (paragraph 047). Lacy in view of Chen is silent on teaching a first condition is set as the condition in a case in which the destination of the user is a first destination, and a second condition is set as the condition in a case in which the destination of the user is a second destination different from the first destination, and the first condition and the second condition require different information to be included in the proof information in order to permit the user to pass. Klein in an analogous art teaches a first condition is set as the condition in a case in which the destination of the user is a first destination, and a second condition is set as the condition in a case in which the destination of the user is a second destination different from the first destination, and the first condition and the second condition require different information to be included in the proof information in order to permit the user to pass (col. 3 lines 18-34)..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Lacy as disclosed by Chen because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Lacy by restricting access and further increasing the security of the building. The modification disclosed by Klein further improve the system of Lacy in view of Chen by providing a more adaptable system that can modify the access credential requirement based on the application environment.
Regarding claim 8, Lacy teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to acquire effective period information about an effective period of an antibody proof or a vaccination proof included in the proof information, and determine whether or not to permit the user to pass based on the effective period information (certification is determined to be expired after a period of time and the certification indicate that a person is vaccinated for a particular disease and inherently include the acquiring of the effective period for the vaccination, paragraph 05, 048).
Regarding claim 11, Lacy teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instruction to acquire the proof information generated by a medical institution (the certification status is provided, paragraph 070-072).
Regarding claim 12, Lacy teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to acquire, in addition to the proof information, activity history information about an activity history of the user, and make the determination based on the activity history, the proof information, and the set condition (the historical information is represented by the medical tests the user has taken and the results, paragraph 050).
Regarding claim 13, Lacy teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a passage permission program for causing a computer to perform:
processing of acquiring image data including a user's face image captured by a predetermined imaging device (paragraph 049);
processing of causing an authentication device configured to store facial feature information about the user to perform face authentication on the image data (paragraph 050-052,056);
processing of acquiring, if the face authentication is successful, proof information about the user subjected to the face authentication from a first storage device configured to store the proof information related to measures taken the user to prevent from being infected (vaccination status, paragraph 047,050). and output a result of the determination to a predetermined terminal device corresponding to the imaging device (paragraph 069,072). Lacy is silent on teaching the limitation of acquire, if the face authentication is successful, information about a destination of the user subjected to the face authentication from a second storage device configured to store the information about the destination of the user. Chen et al. in an analogous art teaches acquire, if the face authentication is successful, information about a destination of the user subjected to the face authentication from a second storage device configured to store the information about the destination of the user (based on the user facial image, the database containing the user profile is access and the user profile indicate the specific room, floor and other temporal access restriction the user is subjected, paragraph 041-042,051-055 fig.3). Chen teaches accepting a condition set according to the destination of the user, the condition being a condition used for determining a passage permission (051-055); determining whether or not to permit the user to pass based on the proof information associated with the user and the set condition (paragraph 055-056) and outputting a result of the determination to a predetermined terminal device corresponding to the imaging device (paragraph 047). Lacy in view of Chen is silent on teaching a first condition is set as the condition in a case in which the destination of the user is a first destination, and a second condition is set as the condition in a case in which the destination of the user is a second destination different from the first destination, and the first condition and the second condition require different information to be included in the proof information in order to permit the user to pass. Klein in an analogous art teaches a first condition is set as the condition in a case in which the destination of the user is a first destination, and a second condition is set as the condition in a case in which the destination of the user is a second destination different from the first destination, and the first condition and the second condition require different information to be included in the proof information in order to permit the user to pass (col. 3 lines 18-34)..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Lacy as disclosed by Chen because such modification represents an improvement over the system of Lacy by restricting access and further increasing the security of the building. The modification disclosed by Klein further improve the system of Lacy in view of Chen by providing a more adaptable system that can modify the access credential requirement based on the application environment.
Regarding claim 14, Lacy teaches the passage permission program further causes the computer to perform: processing of acquiring effective period information about an effective period of an antibody proof or a vaccination proof included in the proof information, and processing of determining whether or not to permit the user to pass based on the effective period information and the set condition (certification is determined to be expired after a period of time and the certification indicate that a person is vaccinated for a particular disease and inherently include the acquiring of the effective period for the vaccination, paragraph 05, 048).
.
Regarding claim 17, Lacy teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instruction to acquire the proof information generated by a medical institution (the certification status is provided, paragraph 070-072).
Regarding claim 18, Lacy teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to acquire, in addition to the proof information, activity history information about an activity history of the user, and make the determination based on the activity history, the proof information, and the set condition (the historical information is represented by the medical tests the user has taken and the results, paragraph 050).
Claim(s) 3-4,8-9 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacy US Patent Application Publication 20210304858 in view of Chen US Patent Application Publication 20230222856 in view of Klein et al. US Patent 11,151,820 and further in view of LJung et al. US Patent Application Publication 20210233340.
Regarding claim 3, Lacy is silent on teaching at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine that, if the effective period is shorter than a preset period, a warning that the effective period is shorter than the preset period is sent, and output the warning together with the result of the determination. LJung et al. teaches an access control system using a time limited credential (effective time period) and the determination is made if the attempted access fall within a valid time window and a visual feedback is provided to provide an indication of the result of the user authentication (paragraph 045, 053-054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Lacy in view of Chen in view of Klein as disclosed by LJung et al. because determine that, if the effective period is shorter than a preset period represents the determination if the time of access is within the valid time window in order to further limit access to the secured area and further increasing the security of the controlled area.
Regarding claim 4, Lacy teaches outputting the user vaccination status (paragraph 037,045), the vaccination status provide the warning for urging vaccination.
Regarding claim 8, Lacy is silent on teaching at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine that, if the effective period is shorter than a preset period, a warning that the effective period is shorter than the preset period is sent, and output the warning together with the result of the determination. LJung et al. teaches an access control system using a time limited credential (effective time period) and the determination is made if the attempted access fall within a valid time window and a visual feedback is provided to provide an indication of the result of the user authentication (paragraph 045, 053-054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Lacy in view of Chen in view of Klein as disclosed by LJung et al. because determine that, if the effective period is shorter than a preset period represents the determination if the time of access is within the valid time window in order to further limit access to the secured area and further increasing the security of the controlled area.
Regarding claim 9, Lacy teaches outputting the user vaccination status (paragraph 037,045), the vaccination status provide the warning for urging vaccination.
Regarding claim 15, Lacy is silent on teaching at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine that, if the effective period is shorter than a preset period, a warning that the effective period is shorter than the preset period is sent, and output the warning together with the result of the determination. LJung et al. teaches an access control system using a time limited credential (effective time period) and the determination is made if the attempted access fall within a valid time window and a visual feedback is provided to provide an indication of the result of the user authentication (paragraph 045, 053-054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Lacy in view of Chen in view of Kline as disclosed by LJung et al. because determine that, if the effective period is shorter than a preset period represents the determination if the time of access is within the valid time window in order to further limit access to the secured area and further increasing the security of the controlled area.
Regarding claim 16, Lacy teaches outputting the user vaccination status (paragraph 037,045), the vaccination status provide the warning for urging vaccination.
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 VERNAL U BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on 571 270 1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VERNAL U BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686 T
Prosecution Insights