DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Due to communications filed 4/16/26, the following is a final office action. Claims 1-3, 5 and 9, are amended. Claims 1-12 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows.
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/appy/applving
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 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 independent claims 1, 5 and 9, these claims recites a judicial exception. Under Step 2A, Prong Once, the claims recite the abstract idea of evaluating passenger information and crowd information to determine and recommend a tour for a passenger including collecting data, analyzing the data according to rules and thresholds, and presenting the result. Such activities constitute mental processes and methods of organizing human activity. 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.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements, including a processor, memory, storage device, image capture devices, and display device, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These elements merely gather data, perform the abstract analysis, and display the resulting recommendation using generic computer technology. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not recite an inventive concept because the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than a well-understood, routine and conventional computer components performing their ordinary functions of acquiring, processing, storing and displaying information. Finally, the claims do not recite an inventive concept. Therefore, 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.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8 and 10-12 are also directed to same grouping of mental processes and methods of organizing human activity.
The additional elements of the information processing apparatus in claims 2-4; processors in claims 2 ad 3; information processing apparatus in claims 6-8; face image data in claim 8; non-transitory computer readable recording medium of claims 10-12; face image data of claim 12, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has requested holding the Double Patenting Rejection in abeyance until allowance. The obviousness-type double patenting rejection is maintained. Applicant’s request to defer consideration thereof is acknowledged. Resolution of the rejection may be postponed until the claims are otherwise allowable.
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments/remarks, filed 4/16/26, with respect to the Claim Interpretation rejection, the 35 USC 112 rejections and the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Claim Interpretation rejection, the 35 USC 112 rejection and 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-12 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to the 101 rejection under Step 2A, Applicant argues that the claims recite “a first image capture device installed at an arrival gate of an airport”, and “based on real-time information captured using camera installed at the sightseeing area”. However, Examiner disagrees that this language overcomes the 101 rejection. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive. These limitations merely recite particular sources of information used in performing the abstract idea. The claim remains directed to collecting information regarding passenger and crowd conditions, analyzing the information to determine tour eligibility, and displaying a recommendation. The recited image capture deices are used in their ordinary capacity to gather data and do not reflect an improvement to image capture technology, image recognition technology, computer functionality, or another technology. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Furthermore, according to Applicant, claim 1 is patent eligible under prong two of the revised Step 2A because the claim integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application of dynamic tour recommendation using real-time factors, and specifically: a first image capture device installed at an arrival gate of an airport, and a second image capture device installed at a sightseeing area, image recognition-based face detection and counting, degree of concentration determination, round-trip calculation, and threshold-based tour filtering, technical interaction between two physically distinct capture devices. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application is not persuasive. The elements described are used to collect information and perform the claimed analysis for the purpose of generating a tour recommendation. The claim does not recite an improvement to image capture devices, image recognition technology, face detection technology, computer functionality, or another technological field. Rather, the additional elements merely gather and analyze information used in the abstract decision-making process. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With regard to Step 2B, Applicant argues that the specific combination of elements as recited by claim 1: two distinct image capture devices at different physical locations, image recognition-based face counting for congestion determination, threshold-based tour filtering combined with round-trip time calculation amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea and are not generic or conventional, but rather represent a specific technical configuration for managing transit passenger tour recommendations at airports. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements mentioned by Applicant, are recited at a high level of generality and perform their ordinary and expected functions. Viewed individually and as an ordered combination, these elements merely implement the abstract idea of evaluating passenger and crowd information to recommend a tour. The claim does not recite a technological improvement to image processing, facial recognition, airport systems, computer functionality or another technical field. Therefore, the claim does not include a inventive concept sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Instead, the claim merely recites using conventional computer technology to collect information from multiple sources, analyze the information according to rules, and present a recommendation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. 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.
June 3, 2026
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights