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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10-22, 24-25, 27-28, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saito et al. (US 2017/0070501 A1, hereinafter refers Saito).
Regarding claim 1, Saito discloses an information processing apparatus comprising:
an acquisition unit that requires first biometric information on a user (Fig. 2, 13, el. 12, el. 102, para. 40, to take a first image of the user);
and a display unit that displays second guidance information urging the user to register second biometric information by capturing the second biometric information (Fig. 5, Fig. 13, el. 112, the display [el. 405] is to guide user to register by inputting image [el. 502]) and by reading a medium including third biometric information when user determined not to be registrant [Fig. 5, authentication failed] based on a matching result of matching the first biometric information registered biometric information on a registrant (Fig. 12, Fig. 13, el. 121 to capture a third biometric information [el. 122-123], para. 124-125).
Regarding claim 2, Saito discloses wherein when the user is determined to be the registrant, the display unit displays first guidance information for guiding the user to a procedure place corresponding to a first scheme in which identity verification is performed by automated procedures using biometric authentication (Fig. 5, Fig. 6, el. 604).
Regarding claim 3, Saito discloses wherein when the user is determined not to be the registrant ([Fig. 5, authentication failed]), the display unit displays the second guidance information urging the user to register the second biometric information by biometric authentication between the second biometric information and the third biometric information (Fig. 5, Fig. 13, el. 112, the display [el. 405] is to guide user to register by inputting image [el. 502], Fig. 12, Fig. 13, el. 121 to capture a third biometric information [el. 122-123], para. 124-125).
Regarding claim 4, Saito discloses wherein when the user is determined not to be the registrant (Fig. 5, authentication failed), the display unit displays the second guidance information urging the user to register (Fig. 5, el. 502, to register by inputting image) the third biometric information by biometric authentication between the second biometric information and the third biometric information (Fig. 6, el. S604, Fig. 12, Fig. 13, el. 121 to capture a third biometric information [el. 122-123], para. 124-125)).
Regarding claim 5, Saito discloses wherein the medium is a passport carried by the user (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 6, Saito discloses wherein the first biometric information, the second biometric information and the third biometric information are face images (Fig. 13, el. 102, el. 112, el. 122).
Regarding claim 7, Saito discloses wherein, at a procedure place where the user is able to select the first scheme, or a second scheme of performing identity verification by face to face, when the first scheme is selected, the procedure is automatically performed based on a result of a matching process between new biometric information on the user acquired at the procedure place and the registered biometric information (Fig. 13, el. 115, el. 124, person authenticating, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, el. S605).
Regarding claim 9, Saito discloses wherein when the face image is detected from a captured image in which the procedure place is captured, the display unit displays a screen that superimposes and displays the first guidance information or the second guidance information on a detected region of the face image in the captured image (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Saito discloses wherein the display unit displays the procedure place corresponding to attribute information on the user associated with the registered biometric information to the user (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Saito discloses wherein the procedure at the procedure place includes an inspection procedure performed on the user during travel in an airport (para. 105).
Regarding claim 13, Saito discloses wherein the inspection procedure includes at least one of a security inspection procedure, a departure inspection procedure, an immigration procedure, and a custom inspection procedure (para. 105, the inspection procedure at the airport).
Regarding claim 15, the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, the instant claim is analyzed with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, Saito discloses wherein the input unit registers the second biometric information as the registered biometric information based on a result of new biometric authentication between the second biometric information and the third biometric information (Fig. 3, Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 20, the instant claim is analyzed with respect claim 5.
Regarding claim 21, the instant claim is analyzed with respect claim 6.
Regarding claim 22, the instant claim is analyzed with respect claim 7.
Regarding claim 24, Saito discloses wherein the display unit causes a display terminal to display the first biometric information or the second biometric information (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 25, the instant claim is analyzed with respect claim 9.
Regarding claim 27, the instant claim is analyzed with respect claim 11.
Regarding claim 28, the instant claim is analyzed with respect claim 12.
Regarding claim 29, the instant claim is analyzed with respect claim 13.
Regarding claim 31, the instant claim is analyzed with respect claim 1.
Regarding claim 32, the instant claim is analyzed with respect claim 1.
Regarding claim 33, the instant claim is analyzed with respect claim 1.
Regarding claim 34, the instant claim is analyzed with respect claim 1.
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.
Claims 8 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Tagawa et al. (US 2020/0118375 A1, hereinafter refers of Tagawa).
Regarding claim 8, Saito discloses all limitation of claim 7,
Saito does not explicitly disclose wherein in the second scheme, the procedure at the procedure place is performed based on the medium carried by the user in a state where the user and a staff member face each other;
Tagawa teaches wherein in the second scheme, the procedure at the procedure place is performed based on the medium carried by the user in a state where the user and a staff member face each other (para. 134, the customer office faces the user);
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention to modify Saito to include Tagawa in order to more accurately inspect a user’s identity.
Regarding claim 23, the instant claim is analyzed with respect claim 8.
Claims 10 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Hiromoto (WO 2021/029047 A1)
Regarding claim 10, Saito discloses all limitation of claim 7,
Saito does not explicitly disclose the number of users who completed the procedure by using the first scheme and the number of users who completed the procedure by using the second scheme in the procedure place (para. 123-126);
Hiromoto does not explicitly disclose an add-up unit that adds up and outputs each of the number of users who completed the procedure by using the first scheme and the number of users who completed the procedure by using the second scheme in the procedure place (a counter to add the number of passenger);
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before to modify Saito to include Hiromoto in order to accurately count the number of passenger going through the gate.
Regarding claim 26, the instant claim is analyzed with respect claim 10.
Claims 14 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0189455 A1, hereinafter refers as Lee)
Regarding claim 14, the Saito discloses all limitation of claim 7,
Saito does not explicitly disclose wherein the procedure at the procedure place includes a payment procedure performed on the user who purchases an item in a shop or the user who receives a service;
Lee teaches wherein the procedure at the procedure place includes a payment procedure performed on the user who purchases an item in a shop or the user who receives a service (para. 49, the user to buy items from Free Duty shops);
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before to modify Saito to include Lee in order to allow the airport to generate an additional revenues.
Regarding claim 30, the instant claim is analyzed with respect claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAI Y CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5679. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM -4:30 PM.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/CAI Y CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425