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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 are currently pending in application 18/899,148.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/27/2024, 6/25/2025, and 10/24/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea.
Claims 1-6 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea), without providing a practical application, and without providing significantly more.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1,
Claims 1-4 are directed toward an apparatus (system). Claim 5 is directed toward a process (method). Claim 6 is directed toward a computer program product having computer-readable tangible storage media (article of manufacture). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
Claims 1-6 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 5 and 6 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of identity verification.
Regarding independent claims 1, 5 and 6, the underlined limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
An information processing method comprising:
acquiring user information related to a user traveling from a first country to a second country until the user arrives in the second country and reaches an immigration examination site; [Abstract Idea: Collecting and transmitting data (pre-arrival data collection)]
acquiring an image of status of acquisition of the user information of the user; [Abstract Idea: Gathering observational information (image capturing)]
determining whether or not the user is impersonated based on an analysis result of the image; and [Abstract Idea: Comparing data to determine a result (impersonation detection)]
providing the user information for an immigration examination of the second country. [Abstract Idea: Presenting or communicating data (reporting/outputting)]
As the underlined claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 5 and 6 are directed to the abstract idea of Mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)); and Certain methods of organizing human activity (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)).
Dependent claims 2-4 provide further details to the abstract idea of claims 1, 5 and 6 regarding the received data, therefore, these claims include mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activities for similar reasons provided above for claims 1, 5 and 6.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
Claims 1-6 fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “information processing apparatus”, a “non-transitory storage medium”, a “computer”, a “memory”, and a “processor(s)”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant’s claimed invention. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Examples where the Courts have found selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated to be insignificant extra-solution activity include selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Applicant’s limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits. Dependent claims 2-4 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B,
Claims 1-6 fail to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “information processing apparatus”, a “non-transitory storage medium”, a “computer”, a “memory”, and a “processor(s)”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 2-4 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 5 and 6 respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 5 and 6; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits. The addition of another abstract concept to the limitations of the claims does not render the claim other than abstract. Under the Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (PEG 2019), it specifically states that narrowing an abstract idea of claims do not resolve the claims of being "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements in the dependent claims only serve to further limit the abstract idea utilizing the computer components as a tool and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-6 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vemury (US 2022/0383438 A1).
As per independent Claims 1 and 5-6, Vemury discloses an information processing apparatus comprising (An information processing method comprising; A non-transitory storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to perform): a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions (See at least Fig.6, Hardware and software used to process identification data) to:
acquire user information related to a user traveling from a first country to a second country until the user arrives in the second country and reaches an immigration examination site (See at least Para 0061, “For example, a traveler inputs his/her travel information via a smartphone 106 during flight, and then joins the local environment of the system upon entering a portion of the terminal corresponding to the predetermined area 102.”; See also Para 0049) ;
acquire an image of status of acquisition of the user information of the user (See at least Para 0084, “In embodiments, the front end system 204 is constructed to receive or collect biometric information from included touchpoints and other biometric capture devices, such as a camera that is included in or associated with the predetermined area such as the local environment 202, e.g., a camera included in a port-of-entry hall. This is represented as a biometric module 228, which comprises a combination of hardware and software that is capable of receiving or obtaining biometric information or information derived or otherwise obtained from biometric information.”; Para 0054, “… a user may implement a smartphone to take a self-portrait, commonly known as a “selfie,” that is communicated by a smartphone in conjunction with his/her biographic information to establish/at least partially establish that the biographic information originated with a particular individual and that the particular individual is physically present in the local environment.”);
determine whether or not the user is impersonated based on an analysis result of the image (See at least Para 0085, “In embodiments, the biometric module 228 is constructed to compare captured biometric information or information derived from the biometric information with reference information (e.g., a gallery of biometric information from facial images or multi-modal information, e.g., fingerprint, iris) to match and/or exclude an individual associated with the captured biometric information from being associated with an identity to which it was compared and referenced to, e.g., a hash of an image of Charles Winter's face is associated with his biographic information. For example, the biometric module 228 compares a hash/digital signature of a facial image captured on a jet way with a gallery of digital signatures (facial) of anticipated passengers for a particular flight.”; Para 0094, “For example, prior to finally determining that an individual does not match an asserted identity, the biometric module 228 polls other biometric collection devices for biometric information that can be used in identification. For example, before finally rejecting Mr. Winters, the biometric module 228 polls other biometric collection devices (e.g., port-of-entry gallery cameras or a biometric sever on behalf of the biometric collection devices) to obtain facial images of Charles for comparison in an attempt to meet the predetermined threshold, rather than issuing a final rejection/negative final determination based solely or primarily on information from a biometric information collection device in or associated with the touchpoint.; See also Para 0027-0028); and
provide the user information for an immigration examination of the second country (See at least Fig.3, Notify Outcome; See also Para 0029).
As per Claim 2, Vemury discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to acquire the user information before the user arrives in the second country (See at least Para 0061).
As per Claim 3, Vemury discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to acquire the user information when the user is in a moving body bound for the second country (See at least Para 0061, Information gathered in flight).
As per Claim 4, Vemury discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to acquire the user information after a departure examination in the first country (See at least Para 0061, Information gathered in flight).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. The Examiner suggests the applicant review all of these documents before submitting any amendments.
Takata et al. (US 2013/0013527 A1) – Immigration control system - See at least Figs.12-14; and Para 0103, “The immigration server 10 transmits the fingerprint and facial information obtained in S216, the checked biometric information watch list update serial number (2000) included in the immigration history received in S202, and a watch list matching request to the personal identification server 30 (S218). The personal identification server 30 compares the received data, with the data with numbers larger than the checked update serial number received from the immigration server 10. Then, the personal identification server 30 responds to the immigration server 10 with the result (S220). The immigration server 10 transmits the result to the simplified immigration client terminal 70 (S222). Then, the simplified immigration client terminal 70 displays the received result (S224).”
Huruli et al. (US 2015/0193898 A1) – See at least Fig.4, Online forms validation with passport information.
Rodriguez et al. (US 2024/0020493 A1) - See at least Para 0175, “The data item may for instance be a visual image of the entity. For a human entity, this may be a photo of their face which captured from, or which is known to match, an identification photograph from a real-world identification document such as a passport or driving licence. This may be captured using a camera and/or wireless (NFC, Bluetooth etc.) technology if a suitable electronic chip is embedded in the document. The other entity can verify that the user is who they say they are by visually comparing the user's actual face with that in the published profile. Other data items such the user's name, data of birth, nationality etc. from the identity document may also be received and stored in the profile. Multiple profiles may be created for a user, which may be unique but nonetheless share some data items. For example, a basic profile may have only one data item (e.g. photo), and additional profile(s) may have the photo plus varying degrees of addition user data (name, name and date of birth, name and date of birth and nationality etc.).”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
April 28, 2026
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights