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 10/10/24, the following is a non-final first office action. Claims 1-12 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows. The previous rejection has been modified to reflect claim amendments.
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.
Claim 1, 2, 4, 5, 10-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3, 5-8 of copending Application No. 18/511122 (reference application). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Furthermore, claim 3 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of application 18/511122 in view of TERAMOTO et al (JP 2021124362 A); claims 6-7 with respect to claims 1-2 of application 18/511122 in view of HISAMOTO (WO 2021144890 A1); and claims 8-9 with respect to claims 1-2 of application 18/511122 in view of YUAN (CN 111325559 A).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both set of claims disclose systems and methods for determining, based on both flight and biological passenger information whether the passenger is to re-board an aircraft, and selecting a tour that the passenger can participate in based on the sightseeing area, and flight information for the re-boarding passenger.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 (l.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With regard to the present claims 1-10, these claims recite an apparatus which is a machine; claim 11, is a method/process and therefore ultimately, is statutory; and claim 12 is a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is an article of manufacture.
In addition, the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims as a whole recite a method of Organizing Human Activity. The claimed invention is a method that allows for access, analysis, update and communication of electronic records concerning travel planning and tour selection, which is an example of human travel planning and coordination. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer/computer network does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of accessing, analyzing, updating and communicating of electronic records concerning travel planning and tour selection in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing 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. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of accessing, analyzing, updating and communicating information concerning travel planning and tour selection in a computer environment. Thus, 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EHRET et al (WO 9000777 A1), and further in view of TERAMOTO et al (JP 2021124362 A).
As per claim 1, EHRET et al discloses:
at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, (Page 4, lines 22-24: The preferred embodiment of the present invention includes a programmed general purpose computer);
acquire biological information of a passenger who has disembarked from an aircraft;
Page 52, line 21-Page 53, line 3: “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. In step 3040 the B.T.F.W.B.D.T. becomes Aday (arrival day) or sometimes Aday+1 (arrival day +1) depending on the timing of the flight. An individual has a nominal 16 hour active phase each day with a small dawn or dusk phase (of 1 or 2 hours) on each end of the active phase. It is task related and the glossary should be consulted under the discussion of the normal-efficient-active-phase range. 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. Execution then returns to the B.T.F.W.B.D.T. subroutine”;
acquire 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; (Page 4, lines 13-27: “The present invention incorporates an expanded and integrated theory of Chronobiology and Circadian Regulatory Biology into a rule-based computer system. The computer system provides consistent recommendations in response to a traveler's itinerary...and personal preferences for sleep times and meal times, despite the interrupted environment of trans-time zone jet travel, with stops, layovers, plane changes, etc. The preferred embodiment of the present invention includes a programmed general purpose computer, an input keyboard, a cursor positioning input device, an output display terminal and printer, and databases of time zone, daylight savings information, and flight information”; Page 1 line 29-Page 12, line 18: “Figure 4 is an illustration of a Travel Information input display screen. This screen is used for the input, modification and display of specific flight data. Choosing one trip leg at a time, the operator inputs the specific flight data consistent with the Itinerary using actual flight data from an OAG database. For example, in Figure 4 the departure location (SFO) already provided by the operator in Step 2 is displayed in display area 400. The exact time of departure is entered in display area 405. The airline identification "UA" is entered in display area 410, the flight number "126" in display area 415, the destination "ORD" in display area 420, the date of departure is entered in display area 425, and the time of arrival "1459" in display area 430. Specific flight information for additional connecting flights are input in sequential display areas such as display area 435. All connecting flights are entered so that the system can account for interruptions in sleep, such as would be caused by the need to change flights. This information is provided manually in the preferred embodiment, however in an alternative embodiment the information could be provided electronically from an electronic database of flight information. In this alternative embodiment the system could be adapted so as to recommend specific available flights based on chronobiology rules and the key event data”);
determine, 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 et al (WO 9000777 A1): Pg 52, line 211-Pg 53, line 2: “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...for a sightseeing tour during the day the traveler should stay on or phase shift to the closest effective time zone”).
Ehret does not teach the limitations below. However, TERAMOTO et al (JP 2021124362 A) teaches:
acquire sightseeing area information regarding a sightseeing area of a tour and weather
information of the sightseeing area of the tour, (TERAMOTO et al (JP 2021124362 A): The plan database 22F stores the route search information set by using the mobile information terminal 30 or the navigation device 32 as described later. The tourist spot database 22G stores information such as tourist spots, tourist facilities, and congestion status of tourist facilities; In step S5, the plan is created on the terminal for which the information is provided. To create a plan, select a point of interest to the user from the...waypoint candidates shown in FIG. 4 (A), and confirm the detailed information of the selected point as shown in FIG. 4 (B). If you want to make the point a... waypoint, touch the "Go here" icon to select it. Hereinafter, similarly, the...plurality of waypoints are set by confirming the detailed information of the...candidate waypoints shown in FIG. 4A and touching the "go here" icon. can do. After setting the...waypoints, the navigation function of terminal A (or terminal B) determines the route from the departure point to the...waypoints and calculates the recommended departure time according to the destination. And the plan creation is completed;
search for tours in which the passenger can participate based on the sightseeing area information and the flight information if the passenger is a re-boarding passenger, and select a tour from searched tours using the weather information, (The management server 20 collects various information from the mobile information terminal 30, the navigation device 32, and the information server 42, and manages the collected information as a database. The information server 42 provides map information, weather information, sunrise / sunset time information, and information related to public transportation such as timetables to the management server 20 via the network 40. The information server 42 includes a plurality of servers, for example, one server provides map information, another server provides environmental information such as weather information and sunrise / sunset time information, and another server provides information such as public traffic information. Alternatively, tourist information and the like are provided to the management server 20; In step S22, the management server 20 detects that the positions of the terminal A and the terminal B have approached the destination via the stopover set in the plan. FIG. 6A is a schematic view showing an example of a screen displayed on the terminal A and the terminal B immediately before reaching the destination via all the waypoints. As shown in FIG. 6A, a check mark stamp is attached to the waypoint, and as an example, an icon indicating the destination aquarium is displayed without the stamp; When the arrival near the destination is detected in step S22, the management server 20 transmits the recommended tour course to the terminal A and the terminal B in step S23. FIG. 6B is a schematic diagram showing an example of a recommended tour course displayed on the terminal A and the terminal B. As shown in FIG. 6B, the recommended tour course is configured so that the outline of the tour course, the presence or absence of the remaining ticket, the reservation of the tour, etc. can be made);
a display control means for displaying information of the searched-for tour on a display
device, (When the arrival near the destination is detected in step S22, the management server 20 transmits the recommended tour course to the terminal A and the terminal B in step S23. FIG. 6B is a schematic diagram showing an example of a recommended tour course displayed on the terminal A and the terminal B).
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 EHRET et al, 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, EHRET et al does not disclose:
wherein the sightseeing area information is a degree of congestion of a sightseeing area
of the tour.
However, TERAMOTO et al discloses: (“The tourist spot database 22G stores information such as tourist spots, tourist facilities, and congestion status of tourist facilities. The restaurant database 22H stores information such as the restaurant and the congestion status of the restaurant”).
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 EHRET et al, 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, EHRET et al does not disclose: The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the degree of congestion is a degree of concentration of people at the
sightseeing area of the tour.
However, TERAMOTO et al discloses: The tourist spot database 22G stores information such as tourist spots, tourist facilities, and congestion status of tourist facilities.
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 EHRET et al, 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 11, this claim discloses limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 12, this claim discloses limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EHRET et al (WO 9000777 A1), and further in view of TERAMOTO et al (JP 2021124362 A), and in further view of HISAMOTO (WO 2021144890 A1).
As per claim 4, EHRET et al does not disclose: wherein the degree of congestion is the number of people detected per viewing field of an image capture device installed at the sightseeing area by detecting faces of people through image recognition based on image data captured by the image capture device.
However, HISAMOTO (WO 2021144890 A1) discloses: “Specifically, as shown in FIG. 3, "sightseeing spot information" and "store information" are "basic information" such as name, location, average staying time, opening (business) time, congestion status, image, and detailed information. Contains information that represents (explanation, etc.). Further, the "sightseeing spot information" and the "store information" include the "current situation" which is information indicating the current congestion situation of the tourist spot and the store. In addition, "sightseeing spot information" and "store information" include information representing the characteristics and environment of the user that the tourist spot or store "targets". In other words, in the "target" column of "sightseeing spot information" and "store information", the user's characteristics such as the age group and preference of the user suitable for the corresponding tourist spot or store, the number of accompanying persons, etc., and the visit and use Includes environmental information such as seasons and weather suitable for sightseeing”).
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 , HISAMOTO in the systems of EHRET et al, 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, EHRET et al does not disclose:
wherein the degree of congestion is the number of people per predetermined area, which
is judged by a person.
However, HISAMOTO (WO 2021144890 A1) discloses: “Specifically, as shown in FIG. 3, "sightseeing spot information" and "store information" are "basic information" such as name, location, average staying time, opening (business) time, congestion status, image, and detailed information. Contains information that represents (explanation, etc.). Further, the "sightseeing spot information" and the "store information" include the "current situation" which is information indicating the current congestion situation of the tourist spot and the store. In addition, "sightseeing spot information" and "store information" include information representing the characteristics and environment of the user that the tourist spot or store "targets". In other words, in the "target" column of "sightseeing spot information" and "store information", the user's characteristics such as the age group and preference of the user suitable for the corresponding tourist spot or store, the number of accompanying persons, etc., and the visit and use Includes environmental information such as seasons and weather suitable for sightseeing”; “Also, in the above, the user U is allowed to select a tourist spot, etc., but it is not always necessary to select it. For example, when only one tourist spot or the like corresponding to the user information is extracted, the schedule generation unit 12 may automatically generate an action schedule including the tourist spot or the like, or may include the user information in the user information. When a plurality of corresponding tourist spots are extracted, an action schedule incorporating some of these may be automatically generated”.
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 , HISAMOTO in the systems of EHRET et al, 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 6, EHRET et al does not disclose:
wherein the degree of congestion is the number of people participating in the tour.
However, HISAMOTO (WO 2021144890 A1) discloses: Specifically, as shown in FIG. 3, "sightseeing spot information" and "store information" are "basic information" such as name, location, average staying time, opening (business) time, congestion status, image, and detailed information. Contains information that represents (explanation, etc.). Further, the "sightseeing spot information" and the "store information" include the "current situation" which is information indicating the current congestion situation of the tourist spot and the store. In addition, "sightseeing spot information" and "store information" include information representing the characteristics and environment of the user that the tourist spot or store "targets". In other words, in the "target" column of "sightseeing spot information" and "store information", the user's characteristics such as the age group and preference of the user suitable for the corresponding tourist spot or store, the number of accompanying persons, etc., and the visit and use Includes environmental information such as seasons and weather suitable for sightseeing.
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 , HISAMOTO in the systems of EHRET et al, 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 7, EHRET et al does not disclose:
wherein the degree of congestion is the number of people participating in tours for
which a sightseeing area is the same.
However, HISAMOTO (WO 2021144890 A1) discloses: Specifically, as shown in FIG. 3, "sightseeing spot information" and "store information" are "basic information" such as name, location, average staying time, opening (business) time, congestion status, image, and detailed information. Contains information that represents (explanation, etc.). Further, the "sightseeing spot information" and the "store information" include the "current situation" which is information indicating the current congestion situation of the tourist spot and the store. In addition, "sightseeing spot information" and "store information" include information representing the characteristics and environment of the user that the tourist spot or store "targets". In other words, in the "target" column of "sightseeing spot information" and "store information", the user's characteristics such as the age group and preference of the user suitable for the corresponding tourist spot or store, the number of accompanying persons, etc., and the visit and use Includes environmental information such as seasons and weather suitable for sightseeing.
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 , HISAMOTO in the systems of EHRET et al, 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.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EHRET et al (WO 9000777 A1), and further in view of TERAMOTO et al (JP 2021124362 A), and in further view of YUAN (CN 111325559 A).
As per claim 8, EHRET et al does not disclose: wherein the degree of congestion is the number of payments performed through face recognition at an airport or the sightseeing area.
However, YUAN (CN 111325559 A) discloses: (Abstract: The invention claims a control method for payment and payment control system applied to bus, the method comprising detecting the bus arrival station, the station device obtains the target human face data sent by identification device corresponding to the bus, and judging whether the target face data is matched with some face data of human face data in the set of predetermined; when matching, determining the public identifier of the bus, and the background server sends deduction prompting; the background server receives the fee deduction prompt, and prompting bus identification comprises determining the cost needed by the payment according to the deduction. deducting charge from the account of the user. Therefore, the riding experience implementing the invention can improve passenger payment efficiency of bus, so as to improve the loading efficiency of the passenger, so as to reduce the occurrence of traffic congestion).
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 , YUAN in the systems of EHRET et al, 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 9, EHRET et al does not disclose: wherein the degree of congestion is the number of instances of face recognition performed at the sightseeing area.
However, YUAN (CN 111325559 A) discloses: (Abstract The invention claims a control method for payment and payment control system applied to bus, the method comprising detecting the bus arrival station, the station device obtains the target human face data sent by identification device corresponding to the bus, and judging whether the target face data is matched with some face data of human face data in the set of predetermined; when matching, determining the public identifier of the bus, and the background server sends deduction prompting; the background server receives the fee deduction prompt, and prompting bus identification comprises determining the cost needed by the payment according to the deduction. deducting charge from the account of the user. Therefore, the riding experience implementing the invention can improve passenger payment efficiency of bus, so as to improve the loading efficiency of the passenger, so as to reduce the occurrence of traffic congestion).
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 , YUAN in the systems of EHRET et al, 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 10, EHRET et al does not disclose: wherein the biological information is face image data.
However, YUAN (CN 111325559 A) discloses: (Abstract: The invention claims a control method for payment and payment control system applied to bus, the method comprising detecting the bus arrival station, the station device obtains the target human face data sent by identification device corresponding to the bus, and judging whether the target face data is matched with some face data of human face data in the set of predetermined; when matching, determining the public identifier of the bus, and the background server sends deduction prompting; the background server receives the fee deduction prompt, and prompting bus identification comprises determining the cost needed by the payment according to the deduction. deducting charge from the account of the user. Therefore, the riding experience implementing the invention can improve passenger payment efficiency of bus, so as to improve the loading efficiency of the passenger, so as to reduce the occurrence of traffic congestion).
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 , YUAN in the systems of EHRET et al, 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.
Prior Art Considered
The following art has been considered by the Examiner, however has not been cited in the current Office action:
SEO (KR 101735724 B1)
(JP 3816756 B2)
(JP 2001524294 A)
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 22, 2026
/Akiba K Robinson/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit