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.
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 and fraud detection.
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, the user information including a face image and a fingerprint image of the user acquired in parallel or at least within a specified time; [Abstract Idea: Collecting and transmitting data (pre-arrival data collection)]
acquiring an image of status of acquisition of the user information of the user the image including a kiosk terminal captured while the kiosk terminal acquires the user information; [Abstract Idea: Observing or recording a data collection event]
determining whether or not the user is impersonated based on an analysis result of the image; and [Abstract Idea: Mental process or basic comparison that a human could perform - Comparing data to determine a result (impersonation detection)]
providing the user information for an immigration examination of the second country. [Abstract Idea: Data transmission or communication]
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”, a “kiosk”, 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”, a “kiosk”, 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, the user information including a face image and a fingerprint image of the user acquired in parallel or at least within a specified time [multi-modal data collection/ combination - sensors collect raw signals from multiple biometric traits at the same time or one after another] (See at least Para 0023, “In a border control environment, this can include collecting biometric and biographic information (which may include travel information) and merging the information into a record for the transaction. In the immediately preceding example, a trusted device [kiosk] provides the biometric information, while the non-trusted device [mobile device] is used to provide biographic/travel information, although other scenarios are contemplated.”; Para 0028, “The threshold applied to the information may vary based on timeframe, location, algorithm efficiency, random application (e.g., based on a computer implemented algorithm that attempts to randomize what threshold it applies), based on a characteristic of the individual or a characteristic associated with the individual being screened (e.g., recently obtained a passport), based on one or more characteristics of one or more individuals being excluded, and so forth.”; 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.”; Para 0070, “Other suitable biometric information collection devices include but are not limited to scanners (e.g., an iris, fingerprint, palm print, facial scanner) or other types of detectors that can be included with or used in place of a camera. Other biometric information that can be collected includes a fingerprint image, an iris scan, a body scan, and/or actions associated with behavioral traits, voice pattern, walking gait, and other such biologically identifiable traits. The image capture device is operable to capture biometric information. For example, a user implements a camera in a kiosk-type touchpoint to capture an image of his/her face for inclusion with user biographical information.”; 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.”; See also Para 0049; Para 0062, Border Control Screening; Para 0063-0065 and Para 0067-0069, TouchPoint/ Kiosk Description and Biometric Collection; Para 0071) ;
acquire an image of status of acquisition of the user information of the user the image including a kiosk terminal captured while the kiosk terminal acquires the user information (See at least Para 0071, “A local environment 102 may include a variety of hardware and hardware configurations. Some biometric information collection devices (e.g., cameras) may be dispersed at locations within the local environment, e.g., on a jet bridge leading to an aircraft. These biometric information collection devices in embodiments are communicatively coupled to the front end system 104, coupled to a dedicated resource (e.g., a biometric information server) that operates on behalf of the front end system, central resource, or so forth. In some instances, such biometric collection devices may interact with the touchpoint (either directly or indirectly, e.g., via a front end system) to function as a unit. An example of the foregoing is that a facial image collected by a surveillance camera in a hall containing the touchpoint 114 is used for biometric identification by the system (e.g., the touchpoint, biometric service (e.g., server), front end system, central resource). Such an arrangement can be used to augment information captured by the touchpoint 114. For example, a camera in the hall is used to capture a user's profile to augment a frontal facial image captured by the touchpoint or to ensure only one individual interacts with the touchpoint at a time.”; 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, “… the user still may be required to submit biometric information (facial image, fingerprint, iris scan) via a trusted device such as a touchpoint as part of an overall screening process..”; See also Para 0057-0058, Data input Constraints);
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
send the user information via a network 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/30/2026, with respect to Claims 1-6, have been considered but are not persuasive. The claimed limitations are found in the prior art as stated/mapped in the rejection above. The rejection will remain as FINAL, based on the rejection above.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The Applicant has made the argument that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter.8
However, while the Applicant's claims are directed to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter (Step 1), the claims fail to recite limitations that are “significantly more” than an abstract idea (Step 2a-2b).
The claim limitations (under their broadest reasonable interpretation) recite Certain methods of organizing human activity, Mathematical concepts, and/or Mental processes as defined in the guidance set forth in the 2019 Memorandum. This is so because the claimed limitations recite steps that involve a matching process between obtained user data, and steps that a person can perform in his mind or with the aid of pen and paper. See In re BRCA1 & BCR A 2 — Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litig., 11A F.3d 755, 763 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (concluding that comparing information and making determinations based on the comparisons is an “abstract mental process.”). Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claims recite a judicial exception of a Mental process, Mathematical concepts, and/or Certain methods of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, having determined that claims recite a judicial exception, analysis under the Memorandum turns now to determining whether there are “additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.” See Memorandum (Step 2A, prong 2), see also MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application within the meaning defined in the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines, Examiner notes the following. While the computer technology does make the steps more easily performed, in principle, the steps can be performed without such computer and the notion of ‘practicality’ is not evidenced. ‘Practicality’ is based on whether the invention demonstrates:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The claims are simply directed to an abstract idea (searching, correlating, and transmitting/ displaying data based on saved rules and characteristics) with additional generic computer elements, because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, and because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Finally, the examination proceeds to evaluating whether the claims add specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Memorandum (Step 2B). The claims do not add specific limitations beyond what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The Examiner therefore maintains the 35 USC 101 rejections.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are addressed in the rejection above.
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, especially the following:
Takata et al. (WO 2012053242 A1) – See Pg.3 of English Translation, “In the third embodiment, ID information and multi-modal biometric information are already acquired in the system configuration of FIGS. 12 and 14, and ID information and estimated arrival date and time are acquired and registered for a registered passenger before entering the country. An example is shown in which ID information and multi-modal biometric information are obtained and collated again, and simple immigration is performed.”
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.
September 8, 2026
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights