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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 6-8 of U.S. Patent No. 18/511122. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they all disclose systems and methods for acquiring human face biological information/flight information, determining whether the passenger is a passenger to re-board, detecting a human face installed at a sightseeing area, acquiring the number of people, searching for a tour based on the degree of concentration and flight information and displaying information of the searched for tour on a display device.
Claim Interpretation
112(f) was invoked in claim 1, which was not put on record. Claim 1 recites a biological information acquisition means for acquiring…; a flight information acquisition means for acquiring…; a passenger determination means for determining…; a sightseeing area information acquisition means for detecting…; a tour search means for searching…; and a display control means for displaying… The noted limitations pass the three-prong test:
• (A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" for performing the claimed function;
• (B) the term "means" is modified by functional language, linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for"); and
• (C) the term "means" is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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 1-12 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.
With regard to the present claims 1-12, these claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process, and ultimately, is statutory.
In addition, the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims as a whole recite both “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes”. The claimed invention is a method that allows for access, analysis, update and communication in a travel planning system and tour recommendation, which is a method of managing interactions between people, and making a decision about passenger reboarding and further selection of a tour, which are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer/computer network does not take the claim out of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”/”Mental Processes” grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. The claims merely apply the abstract idea using conventional sensors, image recognition and displays, and thus are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing shipment records update process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Finally, the claims do not recite an inventive concept. The claims recite the automation of a human travel planning decision and even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims recite: “acquiring biological information, performing image recognition to detect human faces, determining a degree of concentration, searching for tours based on multiple criteria, and controlling the display of tour information. However, the specification does not enable the full scope of the claimed functionality without undue experimentation. The specification fails to disclose sufficient detail regarding any algorithms for image recognition and crowd concentration determination, data processing steps for correlating biological information with flight information or decision logic for tour selection and display control. Accordingly, the claims is not supported by an adequate written description and is not enabled.
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 1-12 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.
Claim limitation “means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Throughout the claims, Applicant has included multiple means-plus-function limitations including “”biological information acquisition means”, “flight information acquisition means”, “passenger determination means”, “sightseeing area information acquisition means”, ”tour search means”, and “display control means”. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Since the specification lacks sufficient disclosure of corresponding structure for performing the claimed functions, the scope of the claims cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, the claims are indefinite. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In addition, the claim terms “if the passenger is a reboarding passenger” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the term “if the passenger is a re-boarding passenger” is broad and undefined. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 13, 16, 25, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEFANI (US 20110284627 A1), and further in view of TERAMOTO et al (JP 2021124362 A), and further in view of EHRET, (WO 9000777 A1), and further in view of GLAVAN (AU 2004250643 A1).
As per claim 1, STEFANI ( US 20110284627 A1) discloses:
a biological information acquisition means for acquiring biological information, (STEFANI [0063] It may be envisaged that the system may utilize its communications capabilities to identify passengers using unique identity tokens (NFC, RFID and Biometrics) and access centralized databases to determine unique passenger identification and correlate the passenger to active flight data thus enabling all the features and data displays discussed in the document);
a flight information acquisition means for acquiring flight information corresponding to the acquired biological information from a storage device in which the flight information of the passenger and the biological information of the passenger are stored in association with each other in advance;
(STEFANI, [0063] It may be envisaged that the system may utilize its communications capabilities to identify passengers using unique identity tokens (NFC, RFID and Biometrics) and access centralized databases to determine unique passenger identification and correlate the passenger to active flight data thus enabling all the features and data displays discussed in the document); and
acquiring a number of people detected per visual field of the image capture device as degree of concentration, ([0086] Another embodiment may display the real-time queuing times, obtained from previously mentioned external systems or optionally to integrate delay time estimation capabilities into the Way-Finding platform. The queuing times may be overlaid on all security checkpoints graphically (as depicted in the following figure) on the Way-Finding map thus proving the user the opportunity to utilize the least congested security checkpoint and therefore potentially reducing delay);
STEFANI does not disclose the following limitations, however, TERAMOTO et al discloses:
a tour search means for searching for a tour in which the passenger can participate based on the degree of concentration and the flight information if the passenger is a re-boarding passenger;
(TERAMOTO et al: DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, Para. 19: “In step S3, an information disclosure request is made to the management server 20 requesting the provision of information that contributes to the determination of the departure place, the destination, and the waypoint... The management server 20 refers to the information included in the information disclosure request and the information stored in each of the map database 22B, the environmental information database 22D, the environmental information database 22G, the tourist destination database 22G, and the restaurant database 22H. Extract each candidate for the land and the waypoint. For example, if the user's preference is a family trip, the management server 20 extracts and extracts facilities such as an aquarium, a zoo, or an amusement park from the tourist resort database 22G or the like within an acceptable price range. Narrow down facilities by time conditions such as business hours and upper limit of travel time. Further, the management server 20 refers to the environmental information database 22D, and if the weather forecast on the day of movement is sunny, the destination is an outdoor tourist facility, and if the weather forecast is rainy, the destination is an indoor tourist facility. Candidates for stopovers”);
a display control means for displaying information of the searched-for tour on a display device.
(TERAMOTO et al: DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS, Para. 20: “In step S4, information is provided from the management server 20 to the terminal A. When the information disclosure request in step S3 is made from the terminal B, the information is provided to the terminal B.. In FIG. 4A, the departure point is displayed as an example of a house icon on the map, and the destination and stopover candidates are displayed on the map and in the “recommended” column, respectively. In FIG. 4B, information including moving images of candidate destinations and waypoints selected in FIG. 4A is displayed. Touching the "find more" icon shown in FIG. 4B displays more detailed information about the candidate. Detailed information does not have to be disclosed for all candidates. As an example, as shown in FIG. 4 (A) as "(3) Solving the mystery", although the position on the map is shown, the user is interested in the candidate by intentionally hiding what it is; In FIG. 4B, information including moving images of candidate destinations and waypoints selected in FIG. 4A is displayed”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by TERAMOTO et al in the systems of STEFANI, 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.
STEFANI does not disclose the following, however, EHRET discloses:
acquiring information...of a passenger who has disembarked from an aircraft,; a passenger determination means for determining, based on the acquired flight information, whether the passenger is a passenger who is to re-board an aircraft after disembarking from the aircraft, (EHRET Pg. 52, line 21-Page 53, line 3: (WO 9000777 A1): “Similarly, if an event such as a departure or changing planes happens during the low point of the Circadian.sup.* cycle (2am to 5am, including layover time) and that event is still during the active phase of the previous effective time zone, step 3030 then recommends staying on the previous effective time zone and shifting at the first available time after the event...The rule for a stopover event recommends that for a stopover overnight in a hotel to get the next connection or for a sightseeing tour during the day the traveler should stay on or phase shift to the closest effective time zone);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by EHRET in the systems of STEFANI, 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.
STEFANI does not disclose the following, however, GLAVAN discloses:
a sightseeing area information acquisition means for detecting a human face through image recognition from image data captured by an image capture device installed at a sightseeing area; acquiring biological information, (GLAVAN (AU 2004250643 A1) Description: ”After the traveler's identity has been verified, unique identification indicia is collected from the user. In one embodiment, this involves collecting one or more biometric samples such as...facial scans including facial geometric readings...or any other type of biometric data. Preferably, multiple different biometric samples are obtained to increase the accuracy of the identification. The collected data is stored with other user information such as a passport photo. This recorded enrollment data may be used at a time of travel to enable the user to undergo an automated immigration check-in and clearance process”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by GLAVAN in the systems of STEFANI, 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.
As per claim 2, STEFANI does not disclose the following, however, EHRET discloses:
wherein the tour search means acquires a stay time of the passenger at an airport from the flight information, and determines a tour suitable for the passenger based on the stay time.
(EHRET: Pg. 52, line 21-Page 53, line 3: (WO 9000777 A1): “Similarly, if an event such as a departure or changing planes happens during the low point of the Circadian.sup.* cycle (2am to 5am, including layover time) and that event is still during the active phase of the previous effective time zone, step 3030 then recommends staying on the previous effective time zone and shifting at the first available time after the event...The rule for a stopover event recommends that for a stopover overnight in a hotel to get the next connection or for a sightseeing tour during the day the traveler should stay on or phase shift to the closest effective time zone).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by EHRET in the systems of STEFANI, 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.
As per claim 3, STEFANI does not disclose the following, however, EHRET discloses:
wherein the tour search means acquires a round-trip time between the airport and a tour destination and determines a tour for which a time obtained by subtracting the round-trip time from the stay time is a predetermined value or more, (EHRET Pg. 52, line 21-Page 53, line 3: (WO 9000777 A1): “Similarly, if an event such as a departure or changing planes happens during the low point of the Circadian.sup.* cycle (2am to 5am, including layover time) and that event is still during the active phase of the previous effective time zone, step 3030 then recommends staying on the previous effective time zone and shifting at the first available time after the event...The rule for a stopover event recommends that for a stopover overnight in a hotel to get the next connection or for a sightseeing tour during the day the traveler should stay on or phase shift to the closest effective time zone);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by EHRET in the systems of STEFANI, 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.
As per claim 4, STEFANI does not disclose the following, however, GLAVAN discloses:
wherein the biological information is face image data, (GLAVAN: Description: “In one embodiment, this involves collecting one or more biometric samples such as fingerprints, iris scans, facial scans including facial geometric reading.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by GLAVAN in the systems of STEFANI, 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.
As per claim 5, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 6, please see the rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 7, please see the rejection of claim 3.
As per claim 8, please see the rejection of claim 4.
As per claim 9, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 10, please see the rejection of claim 6.
As per claim 11, please see the rejection of claim 7.
As per claim 12, please see the rejection of claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
January 12, 2026
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628