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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8 October 2024 and 14 November 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11, and 12 have been amended.
Claims 2, 6, and 10 have been cancelled.
Claims 13-15 have been added.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, and 11-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant's Remarks
Objection to the Specification
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 10, filed 21 July 2025, with respect to the objection of the specification, have been fully considered, and are persuasive, in view of the amendments to the specification. Therefore, the objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 10-14, filed 21 July 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the claims of the current application do not recite and are not directed to an abstract idea because the claimed features provide a very practical application of efficiently notifying a targeted user, therefore, the claims as a whole integrates the recited actions into a practical application of improved electronic monitoring and notification of a specific passenger at an airport.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application, such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technical field, as considered below in view of MPEP 2106. In particular, an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology. Applicant’s improvement in this case is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technological field.
The following are examples of eligible subject matter based on technological improvements: see, e.g., McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315 ("The claimed process uses a combined order of specific rules that renders information into a specific format that is then used and applied to create desired results: a sequence of synchronized, animated characters."); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding patent eligible a claim drawn to a behavior-based virus scan that protects against viruses that have been "cosmetically modified to avoid detection by code-matching virus scans"); Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1330, 1333 (discussing patent eligible claims directed to "an innovative logical model for a computer database" that included a self-referential table allowing for greater flexibility in configuring databases, faster searching, and more effective storage); CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (explaining that the claims at issue focus on a specific means for improving cardiac monitoring technology; they are not "directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery" (quoting McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314)).
In contrast, the claims of the current application are similar to gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result (TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48), wherein the courts have indicated not to be sufficient to show an improvement to technology.
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Instead, the claims recite the following additional elements: ‘at least one memory storing instructions’, ‘at least one processor’, ‘a storage device’, ‘an electronic terminal’, ‘a non-transitory computer readable recording medium’ and ‘a computer’. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 15-16, filed 21 July 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, have been fully considered, and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-9, and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 9 recite(s) a system and series of steps for notifying a person of a predicted exit time of a passenger, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to managing personal interactions between people and/or commercial or legal interactions. These concepts are grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity.
The limitation(s) of, ‘receive a signal…at a first touch point…’; ‘acquire a first face image of a first person based on the signal…’; ‘retrieve a user identifier of the first person…’; ‘update a current movement status of the first person through the departure airport or the arrival airport…’; ‘predict an arrival time when the first person will leave an arrival gate…’; ‘transmit a notification…’, as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘at least one memory storing instructions’, ‘at least one processor’, ‘a storage device’, ‘an electronic terminal’, ‘a non-transitory computer readable recording medium’ and ‘a computer’. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Additionally, the claims recite the additional elements of ‘a first camera’ and ‘a plurality of cameras’. These limitation are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering identifying data for later use), and amount to mere tools for data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data gathering was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The ‘first camera’ and ‘plurality of cameras’ are considered to be a well‐understood, routine, and conventional element previously known to the industry. The specification describes the cameras as equipment used to capture information such as an image of the face of the passenger (¶ [0023]), with no additional technical details on the operation of the elements. Thus, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) Well- Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity). Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 7, 8, and 11-15 further recite(s) the system and series of steps for notifying a person of a predicted exit time of a passenger, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to managing personal interactions between people and/or commercial or legal interactions. These concepts are grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
As stated above, the additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the claims recite(s) the additional elements of receiving, transmitting, and storing data. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving, transmitting, and storing data), and amount to mere data transmission and data storage, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. As detailed in MPEP 2106, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the reception and transmission of data was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The generic functions of receiving and transmitting data are considered to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, because the functions can be summarized as the generic computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network. This is similar to how ‘using the Internet to gather data’ was found to be a well-known, routine, and conventional function in the decision of Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Elements That the Courts Have Recognized as Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity in Particular Fields). Thus, these elements amount to well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, which does not add significantly more, and therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept, and therefore, the claim(s) is/are not eligible.
The generic functions of storing received data in memory are considered to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, because the functions can be summarized as the generic computer functions of storing and retrieving information in memory. This is similar to how storing and retrieving information in memory was found to be a well-known, routine, and conventional function in the decision of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Elements That the Courts Have Recognized as Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity in Particular Fields). Thus, these elements amount to well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, which does not add significantly more, and therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept, and therefore, the claim(s) is/are not eligible.
As analyzed above in step 2A prong 1 and prong 2, the limitations as an ordered combination, are merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. In addition, the claims do not improve functionality of a computer or improve any other technology. Thus, claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, and 11-15 are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
The subject matter of claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, and 11-15 is not taught by the cited prior art and is considered novel/non-obvious. However, claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, and 11-15 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as described above.
The closest prior art of record is Trelin (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20200342217), Jaffe (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20190340544), Marks (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20130261956), Hayase (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20190050631), Watanabe (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20210342966).
The cited prior art, taken either individually or in combination, fails to teach or suggest updating a current movement status of a first person through the departure airport or the arrival airport based on a face image received from a camera, predicting an arrival time when the first person will leave an arrival gate at the arrival airport based on an average time associated with each of the plurality of touch points at the arrival airport, and transmitting a notification to an electronic terminal of a second person waiting to meet the first person at the arrival airport.
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 WAYNE S MURRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached on (571) 272-4602. 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628