DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response and amendments filed on 29 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, 3-5, 7-8, 10-13 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 9 are cancelled.
Claim 6 is original / previously presented.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous objection to the specification, the Applicant has successfully amended the title, and accordingly the objection is rescinded.
Regarding the previous objection of claim 8, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claim, and accordingly the objection is rescinded. However, note that amendments have prompted a different objection to claim 8.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 2 and 9, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-13 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “Without conceding the merit of the current rejections, independent claims 1, 8, and 13 have been amended to include the features, ‘acquiring biometric information from a camera,’ generating a first feature vector representing the biometric information based on the biometric information using a learning model trained by CNN (Convolutional Neutral Network)’, and ‘performing a matching process using the first feature vector and a second feature vector representing the stored biometric information’. None of these processes can be performed in the human mind, nor are they methods of organizing human activity. Moreover, generating a feature vector using a learning model trained by CNN enables accurate matching processing, which in turn presents a practical implementation of any alleged abstract idea recited in the claims” (Remarks pg. 10). Examiner disagrees. First, generating a first feature vector representing the biometric information and performing a matching process using the first feature vector and a second feature vector representing the stored biometric information are certain methods of organizing human activities. These represent human activities of managing personal behavior (i.e. a person generates a feature vector that represents the biometric information and a person compares a first feature vector and a second feature vector to identify a match). Second, reciting acquiring biometric information from a camera, and using a learning model trained by CNN are additional elements that are recited at a high level of detail that do not provide a practical application. The acquiring limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent matching / determining), and amounts to the extra-solution activity of data gathering, and the use of the processor / server, camera (generic computer, general computer component) here are only being used as a tool in the acquiring, and these features are not indicative of integration into a practical application. The claimed ‘using a learning model trained by CNN’ does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. machine learning, CNN), noting there are no particular technical details regarding the steps involved to train the machine learning algorithm, or in the machine learning algorithm itself more than using computers as a tool with a standard machine-learning approach (e.g. CNN), and as such does not provide integration into a practical application. Hence, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 2, 5, 9, and 12, 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, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection (Nakahira in view of Yamaguchi in view of Todasco).
Priority
The application 18/904,241 filed on 2 October 2024 claims priority from Japan application JP2023-182330 filed on 24 October 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 2 October 2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Specification
The amendment to the written specification dated 29 December 2025 (application title) has been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8:
Claims 8 and 13 include the limitation “based on determining that check in to the hotel of the identified visitor is impossible, transmit, by the server apparatus, a signal including a first message…” which includes a configured instruction (e.g. transmit) instead of an active method step (e.g. transmitting). The Office recommends amending ‘transmit’ to ‘transmitting’ for clarity of the method (e.g. based on determining that check in to the hotel of the identified visitor is impossible, transmitting, by the server apparatus, a signal including a first message…).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3-7:
Claim 1 (and its dependent claims 3-7) are rejected as indefinite. The limitation “generate a first feature vector representing the biometric information based on the biometric information using a learning model trained by CNN” is/are indefinite because it is unclear whether using a learning model is referencing ‘generate a first feature vector’ (i.e. using a learning model to generate a first feature vector) or the second instance of ‘the biometric information’ (i.e. using a learning model to get the biometric information). For the purpose of this examination, using a learning model shall be interpreted as referring to the second instance of the biometric information (e.g. the biometric information using a learning model trained by CNN), which aligns with the Applicant specification ¶[0106] that discusses extracting a face image from the image data by using a learning model learned by a CNN.
Claims 8, 10-12:
Claim 8 (and its dependent claims 10-12) are rejected as indefinite. The limitation “generating, by the server apparatus, a first feature vector representing the biometric information based on the biometric information using a learning model trained by CNN” is/are indefinite because it is unclear whether using a learning model is referencing ‘generating a first feature vector’ (i.e. using a learning model to generate a first feature vector) or the second instance of ‘the biometric information’ (i.e. using a learning model to get the biometric information). For the purpose of this examination, using a learning model shall be interpreted as referring to the second instance of the biometric information (e.g. the biometric information using a learning model trained by CNN), which aligns with the Applicant specification ¶[0106] that discusses extracting a face image from the image data by using a learning model learned by a CNN.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is rejected as indefinite. The limitation “generating, by the server apparatus, a first feature vector representing the biometric information based on the biometric information using a learning model trained by CNN” is/are indefinite because it is unclear whether using a learning model is referencing ‘generating a first feature vector’ (i.e. using a learning model to generate a first feature vector) or the second instance of ‘the biometric information’ (i.e. using a learning model to get the biometric information). For the purpose of this examination, using a learning model shall be interpreted as referring to the second instance of the biometric information (e.g. the biometric information using a learning model trained by CNN), which aligns with the Applicant specification ¶[0106] that discusses extracting a face image from the image data by using a learning model learned by a CNN.
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, 3-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-13:
Step 1:
Claims 1, 3-7 recite a server; claims 8, 10-12 recite a method; and claim 13 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage device. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-13 recite an abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 8, and 13 recite generating a first feature vector representing the biometric information based on the biometric information; identifying the visitor from among the plurality of reservation holders of hotel stay by performing a matching processing using the first feature vector and a second feature vector representing the stored biometric information, and determining whether or not the identified visitor is allowed to check in to the hotel based on the reservation information of the identified visitor; based on the identified visitor being allowed to check in, setting the identified visitor as a hotel guest; notifying the hotel guest of a guest room number assigned to the hotel guest; and based on determining that check in to the hotel of the identified visitor is impossible, transmit, a first message regarding a time period during which the visitor can check in to the hotel and a second message regarding an employee of the hotel. The claims as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities
First, the limitations of generating a first feature vector representing the biometric information based on the biometric information; identifying the visitor from among the plurality of reservation holders of hotel stay by performing a matching processing using the first feature vector and a second feature vector representing the stored biometric information, and determining whether or not the identified visitor is allowed to check in to the hotel based on the reservation information of the identified visitor; based on the identified visitor being allowed to check in, setting the identified visitor as a hotel guest; notifying the hotel guest of a guest room number assigned to the hotel guest; and based on determining that check in to the hotel of the identified visitor is impossible, transmit a first message regarding a time period during which the visitor can check in to the hotel and a second message regarding an employee of the hotel are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions. For example, commercial or legal interactions includes determining whether or not the visitor is allowed to check in…, based on the identified visitor being allowed to check in setting the identifiers visitor as a hotel guest…, notifying the hotel guest of a room number…, determining that check in to the hotel of the identified visitor is impossible, transmit a first message regarding a time period which the visitor can check in…; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes generating a first feature vector…, identifying the visitor among the reservation holders…, matching the biometric information…, determining whether or not the visitor is allowed to check in…, based on the identified visitor being allowed to check in setting the identifiers visitor as a hotel guest…, notifying the hotel guest of a room number…, determining that check in to the hotel of the identified visitor is impossible, transmit a first message regarding a time period which the visitor can check in…; and following rules or instructions includes generating a first feature vector…, identifying the visitor among the reservation holders…, matching the biometric information…, determining whether or not the visitor is allowed to check in…, based on the identified visitor being allowed to check in setting the identifiers visitor as a hotel guest…, notifying the hotel guest of a room number, determining that check in to the hotel of the identified visitor is impossible, transmit a first message regarding a time period which the visitor can check in… . The presence of generic / general computer components such as a server / server apparatus, memory, processor, learning model (a program, per Applicant specification ¶[0143-145]), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program, computer, terminal possessed by a hotel guest does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims 1, 3-8, and 10-13 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. server / server apparatus, memory, processor, learning model (learning model (a program, per Applicant specification ¶[0143-145]), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program, computer, terminal possessed by a hotel guest are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform manual processes. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of biometric information in the limitations does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. biometrics), and as such does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). Hence, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of storing and its step of storing biometric information and reservation information for each of a plurality of reservation holders of a hotel stay is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data for subsequent matching / determining), and amounts to mere storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the processor / server (generic computer) is only being used as a tool in the storing, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding storing more than using computers as a tool to perform in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to store data). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of acquiring and its step of acquiring biometric information of a visitor who has visited a hotel from a camera installed in the hotel are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent matching / determining), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the processor / server, camera (generic computer, general computer component) is only being used as a tool in the acquiring, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding acquiring more than using computers as a tool to perform in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data, to gather image data). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of the learning model trained by CNN in the limitations (e.g. generating, by the server apparatus, a first feature vector representing the biometric information based on the biometric information using a learning model trained by CNN (Convolutional Neural Network)) does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. machine learning, CNN), and as such does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). There are no particular technical details regarding the steps involved to train the machine learning algorithm, or in the steps of the machine learning algorithm itself more than using computers as a tool (i.e. apply it) with a standard machine-learning approach (e.g. CNN). Hence, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of transmitting a signal / displaying and its step of transmit a signal… the signal being configured to cause the first and the second messages to be displayed on a display installed in the hotel are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting / outputting data regarding results of the determining), and amounts to mere transmitting data / outputting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the processor / server, signal, display installed in the hotel (generic computers, general computer components) are only being used as a tool in the transmitting and displaying, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding transmitting and displaying more than using computers as a tool to perform in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data, to output data). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the step of setting (e.g. based on the identified visitor being allowed to check in, set the identified visitor as a hotel guest) is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of recording data associated with the determining), and also amounts to mere electronic record keeping, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the server / processor (generic computer) is only being used as a tool in the setting, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding setting more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (i.e. to record information). Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the step of notifying (e.g. notifying a terminal possessed by the hotel guest of a guest room number assigned to the hotel guest) is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting / outputting data associated with the determining), and also amounts to mere transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the server / processor and terminal (generic computers) are only being used as a tool in the notifying, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding notifying more than using computers as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data). Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (server / server apparatus, memory, processor, learning model (learning model (a program, per Applicant specification ¶[0143-145]), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program, computer, terminal possessed by a hotel guest), generally linked to a technology / field of use (biometrics, machine learning / CNN); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities (data gathering, data storage / record keeping, transmitting data). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a server, memory, processor, learning model (learning model (a program, per Applicant specification ¶[0143-145]), non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, program, computer, terminal possessed by a hotel guest to perform generating a first feature vector…, identifying the visitor among the reservation holders…, matching the biometric information…, determining whether or not the visitor is allowed to check in…, based on the identified visitor being allowed to check in setting the identifiers visitor as a hotel guest…, notifying the hotel guest of a room number…, determining that check in to the hotel of the identified visitor is impossible, transmit a first message regarding a time period which the visitor can check in… amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic / general purpose computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element regarding biometric information does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. biometrics). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification background ¶[0002-6] describing the additional element using biometrics in the hotel industry for checking-in as existing technology, and also ¶[0032] describing biometric information such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the storing are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data for subsequent matching / determining), and amount to mere storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. server / processor) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these storing steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data storage) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0014], ¶[0159] describing the additional element of a storing means for storing biometric information and reservation information at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the acquiring are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent identifying / matching), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computers (i.e. server / processor, camera) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer and computer component as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these acquiring steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), using a telephone for image transmission (TLI Communications), electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document (Content Extraction). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0014], ¶[0021], ¶[0032], ¶[0105], ¶[0159] describing the additional element of acquiring biometric information from a visitor from an acquiring means, and acquiring an image from a camera of a visitor at the entrance of a hotel at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element regarding the learning model trained by CNN does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. machine learning, CNN). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(h). There are no particular claimed details regarding the algorithm steps involved to train the learning model, or the steps in implementing the learning model algorithm more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (i.e. generating a first feature vector representing the biometric information) associated with a standard machine learning approach (e.g. CNN). Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification ¶[0106] omitting details about using and training a learning model learned by CNN because it is an existing technology “Note that a detailed description will be omitted since existing technology can be used for the face image extraction processing by the biometric information acquisition unit 403. For example, the biometric information acquisition unit 403 may extract a face image (a face area) from the image data by using a learning model learned by a CNN (Convolutional Neural Network)” at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Also note that Applicant specification ¶[0071] also states that details are omitted about generating feature values because this is an existing technology “Note that since an existing technology can be used to generate the feature values by the reservation management unit 302, a detailed description thereof will be omitted. For example, the reservation management unit 302 extracts eyes, nose, mouth, and so on as feature points from the face image”. Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the transmitting a signal / displaying are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting / outputting data regarding results of the determining), and amounts to mere transmitting data / outputting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computers (i.e. server / processor, signal, display installed in the hotel) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer and computer component as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these transmitting and displaying steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. transmitting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Applicant’s specification Fig 18, ¶[0127-129] describing the additional element of transmitting a message to the signage when it is determined that a visitor is not allowed to check in, and displaying the message that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the setting are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of recording data associated with the determining), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of electronic record keeping, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. server / processor) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these setting steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. record keeping) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the notifying are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting / outputting data associated with the determining), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of transmitting data, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. server / processor, terminal) in these steps merely represents using generic / general purpose computers as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these notifying steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. transmitting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), using a telephone for image transmission (TLI Communications), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claims represent a generic implementation of organizing human activities ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers, generally ‘applied’ to a field of use, and using general computer components in extra-solution capacities such as data gathering / data storage / transmitting data. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to identify a guest for check in), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. biometrics, machine learning / CNN), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims do not improve biometrics technology. The claims are more directed towards improving a commercial / business / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually, both with respect to the independent claims 1, 8, 13, and further considering the addition of dependent claims 3-7, and 10-12 . Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). Hence, the ordered combination of elements does not provide significantly more. With respect to the dependent claims:
Dependent claims 3 and 10: The limitation notifying the terminal possessed by the hotel guest of a digital key of the guest room assigned to the hotel guest together with the guest room number is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (commercial interactions, managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the processor and terminal possessed by the hotel guest are a computers / computer components recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. The recitation of a digital key is recited at a high level of detail and no more than a general linkage to a field of use / technology (i.e. keyless entry). Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification ¶[0023-26] describing the additional element of each door may be unlocked with a digital key and unlocking a door with the digital key is ‘obvious to those skilled in the art and is different from the purpose of the present application’ at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims and the claims above, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4 and 11: The limitation determining whether or not the identified visitor is allowed to check in based on a check-in of the identified visitor being incomplete is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (commercial interactions, managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the processor / server apparatus is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims and the claims above, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5 and 12: The limitation (claim 5) wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to, based on the hotel guest checking out, perform a control related to invalidating the digital key; (claim 12) invalidating, by the server apparatus, the digital key notified to the hotel guest who has checked out when the hotel guest checks out is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the processor / server apparatus is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. The recitation of a digital key is recited at a high level of detail and no more than a general linkage to a field of use / technology (i.e. keyless entry). Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification ¶[0023-26] describing the additional element of each door may be unlocked with a digital key and unlocking a door with the digital key is ‘obvious to those skilled in the art and is different from the purpose of the present application’, and ¶[0118] regarding invalidating a digital key at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims and the claims above, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6: The limitation wherein the digital key is used to determine whether or not an elevator can be used is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of a digital key is recited at a high level of detail and no more than a general linkage to a field of use / technology (i.e. keyless entry). Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification ¶[0023-26] describing the additional element of each door may be unlocked with a digital key and unlocking a door with the digital key is ‘obvious to those skilled in the art and is different from the purpose of the present application’, and ¶[0132] regarding using a digital key to board an elevator at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims and the claims above, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7: The limitation wherein the camera is incorporated into a signage installed in the hotel or is a surveillance camera represents an additional element that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Further limiting the device as a surveillance camera still represents a general computer component performing in its ordinary capacity (i.e. a camera capturing / receiving data), which does not provide a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification ¶[0129-131] describing the additional element of the device including a surveillance camera at the entrance of a hotel at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1, 8, 13, and the dependent claims 3-7, 10-12 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-8, and 10-13 are ineligible.
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, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2022/0172218 A1 to Nakahira in view of World Intellectual Property Organization application publication WO 2022/070252 A1 to Yamaguchi et al. in view of US patent application publication 2015/0348049 A1 to Todasco et al.
Claim 1:
Nakahira, as shown, teaches the following:
A server apparatus, comprising:
at least one memory storing a set of instructions (Nakahira ¶[0063-65], ¶[0269] details a computer readable medium, memory and a program); and
at least one processor configured to execute the set of instructions (Nakahira ¶[0065] details the CPU executing the program) to:
store biometric information and reservation information for each of a plurality of reservation holders of a hotel stay (Nakahira Fig 27, ¶[0206], ¶[0215], ¶[0217] details storing face image data and the name for the users / guests as identity information with reservation information for a hotel arrival date / departure date / room reservation, and there are N number of stored face images for reservations in the guest database);
acquire biometric information of a visitor who has visited a hotel from a camera installed in the hotel (Nakahira Fig 29, ¶[0216] details the pre-authentication device constantly / periodically photographing (i.e. camera) the vicinity of the entrance of the hotel and determining the face of the passerby people in the captured images);
Nakahira does not explicitly state, but Yamaguchi teaches the following:
generate a first feature vector representing the biometric information based on the biometric information using a learning model trained by CNN (Convolutional Neural Network) (Yamaguchi pg. 5 ¶2 beginning “The authentication server 10 that has acquired…”, pg. 5 ¶4-7 beginning “After completing the user registration using the user registration application…”, pg. 8 ¶1 beginning “Since the existing technology can be used for the face image detection process…” details generating a feature amount (feature vector) from a face image of the user when the user visits a hotel, and the face image is extracted from the image data by using a learning model learned by CNN convolutional neural network);
identify the visitor from among the plurality of reservation holders of a hotel stay by performing a matching processing using the first feature vector and a second feature vector representing the stored biometric information (Yamaguchi pg. 5 ¶2 beginning “The authentication server 10 that has acquired the face image generates a feature amount (feature vector)…”, pg. 5 ¶4-8 beginning “After completing the user registration using the user registration application…” details the authentication server executes a collation process using the feature amount included in the authentication request (i.e. first feature vector) and the feature amount registered in the authentication database (i.e. second feature vector)), and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate a first feature vector representing the biometric information based on the biometric information using a learning model trained by CNN (Convolutional Neural Network); and identify the visitor from among the plurality of reservation holders of a hotel stay by performing a matching processing using the first feature vector and a second feature vector representing the stored biometric information as taught by Yamaguchi with the teachings of Nakahira, with the motivation to further the “spread of the service using the biometrics information” (Yamaguchi pg. 2 ¶7 beginning “As mentioned above, services using biometric authentication…”). 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 generating a first feature vector representing the biometric information based on the biometric information using a learning model trained by CNN (Convolutional Neural Network); and identifying the visitor from among the plurality of reservation holders of a hotel stay by performing a matching processing using the first feature vector and a second feature vector representing the stored biometric information as taught by Yamaguchi in the system of Nakahira, 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).
Nakahira (in view of Yamaguchi) also teaches the following:
determine whether or not the identified visitor is allowed to check in to the hotel based on the reservation information of the identified visitor (Nakahira Fig 29-30, ¶[0215-218], ¶[0222] details determining if there is a match of the guest of the day from the information in the central DB with a reservation, and if there is a match then the pre-authentication device transmits the detection information of the person registered to the management server to change their status from null to OFF);
based on the identified visitor being allowed to check in, set the identified visitor as a hotel guest (Nakahira Fig 29-30, ¶[0219-222], details upon receiving detection information of the person having a reservation from the pre-authentication device the management server updates the guest DB and central database and changes the entrance passing status flag in the guest DB from null to OFF (i.e. a guest allowed to check in), and send information to the front terminal regarding check-in);
Nakahira does not explicitly state, but Todasco teaches the following:
notify a terminal possessed by the hotel guest of a guest room number assigned to the hotel guest (Todasco ¶[0020], ¶[0076] details providing the room number to the user’s device without the user having to wait in line); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include notifying a terminal possessed by the hotel guest of a guest room number assigned to the hotel guest as taught by Todasco with the teachings of Nakahira in view of Yamaguchi, with the motivation to solve the problem that “the hotel is often unaware of the user’s arrival time, departure time, combings and goings, and it can therefore be difficult for the hotel to avoid potential or actual guest inconveniences”, and “facilitating hospitality services” (Todasco ¶[0003-4]). 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 notifying a terminal possessed by the hotel guest of a guest room number assigned to the hotel guest as taught by Todasco in the system of Nakahira in view of Yamaguchi, 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).
With respect to the following:
based on determining that check in to the hotel of the identified visitor is impossible, transmit a signal including a first message regarding a time period during which the visitor can check in to the hotel and a second message regarding an employee of the hotel, the signal being configured to cause the first and the second messages to be displayed on a display installed in the hotel.
Nakahira, as shown in ¶[0205], ¶[0228] details determining that as a result of the comparison that there is no matching for the user, and the front terminal notifies the staff that the identify verification of the user has failed (i.e. determining that check in to hotel the identified visitor is impossible), and the front terminal is installed at the front desk of the hotel (i.e. …messages to be displayed on a display installed in the hotel); but does not explicitly state based on determining that check in to the hotel of the identified visitor is impossible, transmit a signal including a first message regarding a time period during which the visitor can check in to the hotel and a second message regarding an employee of the hotel, the signal being configured to cause the first and the second messages to be displayed. However, Todasco teaches this remaining limitation upon arrival of the guest presenting messages when the guest’s room is not ready including an estimated time that the room will be ready (i.e. first message regarding a time period during which the visitor can check in) and a reason the room is not ready (e.g. currently being cleaned, not yet check-in time) (i.e. second message regarding an employee of the hotel), and staff members accessing laptop computers associated with housekeeping and information associated with guest rooms (Todasco Fig 4, ¶[0059], ¶[0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include based on determining that check in to the hotel of the identified visitor is impossible, transmit a signal including a first message regarding a time period during which the visitor can check in to the hotel and a second message regarding an employee of the hotel, the signal being configured to cause the first and the second messages to be displayed on a display as taught by Todasco with the teachings of Nakahira in view of Yamaguchi (in view of Todasco), with the motivation to solve the problem that “the hotel is often unaware of the user’s arrival time, departure time, combings and goings, and it can therefore be difficult for the hotel to avoid potential or actual guest inconveniences”, and “facilitating hospitality services” (Todasco ¶[0003-4]). 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 based on determining that check in to the hotel of the identified visitor is impossible, transmit a signal including a first message regarding a time period during which the visitor can check in to the hotel and a second message regarding an employee of the hotel, the signal being configured to cause the first and the second messages to be displayed on a display as taught by Todasco in the system of Nakahira in view of Yamaguchi (in view of Todasco), 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 3:
Nakahira in view of Yamaguchi in view of Todasco, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Todasco also teaches the following:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to notify the terminal possessed by the hotel guest of a digital key of the guest room assigned to the hotel guest together with the guest room number (Todasco ¶[0077], ¶[0081] details informing the guest on their mobile phone that they can access the guest room and unlock the room with their mobile phone as a key, along with a room number and any other welcome information / arrival information when the user arrives).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include to notify the terminal possessed by the hotel guest of a digital key of the guest room assigned to the hotel guest together with the guest room number as taught by Todasco with the teachings of Nakahira in view of Yamaguchi (in view of Todasco), with the motivation of “facilitating hospitality services” (Todasco ¶[0003-4]). 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 to notify the terminal possessed by the hotel guest of a digital key of the guest room assigned to the hotel guest together with the guest room number as taught by Todasco in the system of Nakahira in view of Yamaguchi (in view of in view of Todasco), 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 7:
Nakahira in view of Yamaguchi in view of Todasco, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Nakahira also teaches the following:
wherein the camera is incorporated into a signage installed in the hotel or is a surveillance camera (Nakahira ¶[0071], ¶[0216], ¶[0346] details constantly or periodically photographing visitors at the entrance of the hotel to determine their face in the images, a monitoring camera, and a digital camera that captures the face of the user).
Claim 8:
Claim 8 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore claim 8 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
Claim 10:
Claim 10 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 3 and therefore claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 3.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2022/0172218 A1 to Nakahira in view of World Intellectual Property Organization application publication WO 2022/070252 A1 to Yamaguchi et al. in view of US patent application publication 2015/0348049 A1 to Todasco et al., as applied to claims 3 and 10, and further in view of US patent application publication 2016/0005248 A1 to Aase.
Claim 4:
Nakahira in view of Yamaguchi in view of Todasco, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 3. With respect to the following:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to determine whether or not the identified visitor is allowed to check in based on a check-in of the identified visitor being incomplete.
Nakahira, as shown in Fig 29-30, ¶[0214-226], ¶[0228] details extracting the guest records of the day (i.e. a time based criteria) from the central DB which are used to compare the detected passerby (identified visitors) and determine whether to change their status flag to OFF and send to check-in, i.e. determining whether the identified visitor is allowed to check in; and determining there is no matching in the comparison and notifying that the identity verification has failed (and follows a ‘notify’ procedure), but does not explicitly state determining whether or not the identified visitor is allowed to check in when a check-in of the identified visitor is incomplete. However, Aase teaches this limitation, detecting a first entry of a guest; and verifying during user authentication that both a time based criteria (e.g. a time prior to check-in or at the guest’s anticipated check-in) and an event based criteria (e.g. connected to a network) must be satisfied in order to continue and deliver the key (for check in), and if one criteria is answered negatively (i.e. check-in criteria is incomplete) then the access control server will instead continue to monitor events / time / triggers until the query is answered affirmatively at which time the key can then be issued (Aase Fig 4, Fig 9, ¶[0063-65], claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determine whether or not the identified visitor is allowed to check in based on a check-in of the identified visitor being incomplete as taught by Aase with the teachings of Nakahira in view of Yamaguchi in view of Todasco, with the motivation of “secure distribution of electronic keys” or “some other contactless delivery mechanism… and determines whether to grant access or not” (Aase ¶[0011], ¶[0014]). 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 determine whether or not the identified visitor is allowed to check in based on a check-in of the identified visitor being incomplete as taught by Aase in the system of Nakahira in view of Yamaguchi in view of Todasco, 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 11:
Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 4 and therefore claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 4.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2022/0172218 A1 to Nakahira in view of World Intellectual Property Organization application publication WO 2022/070252 A1 to Yamaguchi et al. in view of US patent application publication 2015/0348049 A1 to Todasco et al., as applied to claim 3, and further in view of US patent application publication 2023/0049228 A1 to Talonen et al.
Claim 6:
Nakahira in view of Yamaguchi in view of Todasco, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 3. Nakahira does not explicitly state, but Talonen teaches the following:
wherein the digital key is used to determine whether or not an elevator can be used (Talonen Fig 6D, ¶[0003], ¶[0018-20], ¶[0043], ¶[0054] details access control based elevator calls may be based on using keycards, tags, and/or biometrics; or QR codes / symbols, pin code on a mobile device; and may be implemented with hotels).
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 the digital key is used to determine whether or not an elevator can be used as taught by Talonen with the teachings of Nakahira in view of Yamaguchi in view of Todasco, with the motivation “to allow only authorized users to travel to one or more destination floors” (Talonen ¶[0043]). 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 the digital key is used to determine whether or not an elevator can be used as taught by Talonen in the system of Nakahira in view of Yamaguchi in view of Todasco, 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).
Novelty / Non-Obviousness
Claims 5 and 12 are not rejected under 35 USC 102 or 35 USC 103. The Examiner knows of no art which teaches or suggests the features collectively recited in claim 5 (which includes all claimed features in the claims which claim 5 is dependent on), and similarly recited in claim 12 (which includes all claimed features in the claims which claim 12 is dependent on). The following reference(s) teach the additional individual features in the limitations of claims 5 and 12, however the Examiner has determined it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine these references in combination with the previously applied references (e.g. claims 4 and 11: Nakahira in view of Yamaguchi in view of Todasco in view of Aase) to render claims 5 and 12 obvious.
Claims 5 and 12:
at least one memory storing a set of instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the set of instructions to:
store biometric information and reservation information for each of a plurality of reservation holders of a hotel stay;
acquire biometric information of a visitor who has visited a hotel from a camera installed in the hotel;
generate a first feature vector representing the biometric information based on the biometric information using a learning model trained by CNN (Convolutional Neural Network);
identify the visitor from among the plurality of reservation holders of a hotel stay by performing a matching processing using the first feature vector and a second feature vector representing the stored biometric information, and
determine whether or not the identified visitor is allowed to check in to the hotel based on the reservation information of the identified visitor;
based on the identified visitor being allowed to check in, set the identified visitor as a hotel guest;
notify a terminal possessed by the hotel guest of a guest room number assigned to the hotel guest; and
based on determining that check in to the hotel of the identified visitor is impossible, transmit a signal including a first message regarding a time period during which the visitor can check in to the hotel and a second message regarding an employee of the hotel, the signal being configured to cause the first and the second messages to be displayed on a display installed in the hotel;
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to notify the terminal possessed by the hotel guest of a digital key of the guest room assigned to the hotel guest together with the guest room number;
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to determine whether or not the identified visitor is allowed to check in based on a check-in of the identified visitor being incomplete;
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to, based on the hotel guest checking out, perform a control related to invalidating the digital key.
The prior art of Shahidzadeh (11,096,059 B1) details the key is activated only for the length of the stay of the user, and at the end of their stay the key is removed from the user entity device (Shahidzadeh col 28 ln 4-14).
The prior art of Brondrup (US 7,315,823 B2) details responding to a check-out request by remotely invalidating / deactivating the corresponding electronic key for a door lock; and also invalidating the electronic key if the reservation period associated with the electronic key has expired (Brondrup Fig 4, col 6 ln 8-31, claim1, claim 5, claim 10).
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
Prosecution Insights