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
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 09/16/2025.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 3 has been canceled.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2 and 9 of Remarks, filed 09/16/2025, with respect to the specification objections have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. The objections to the title and paragraph [0047] have been withdrawn, but the specification still does not provide antecedent basis for walking at a predetermined speed. Accordingly, the objection for failing to provide antecedent basis for claimed subject matter has been maintained below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10 of Remarks, filed 09/16/2025, with respect to the Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejections of claims 1-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has filed an accepted Terminal Disclaimer. The Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejections of claims 1-9 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10 of Remarks, filed 09/16/2025, with respect to the objections to claims 1, 4, and 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 1, 4, and 7 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10 of Remarks, filed 09/16/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 9 to depend from claim 7, which provides sufficient antecedent basis for the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 9. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12 of Remarks, filed 09/16/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-9 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-9 have been maintained.
Particularly, Applicant argues on pages 10-11 that the claims recite the following 4 allegedly technical features that preclude the claims from reciting a judicial exception: “1) Processing for acquiring biometric information (such as facial images); 2) A memory structure for storing biometric information in association with flight information; 3) Calculating required time based on walking speed; and 4) Automatic generation and display of departure gates, meeting places, and route maps” (Page 11 Remarks). Examiner respectfully finds these arguments to be unpersuasive. Regarding the “Processing for acquiring biometric information (such as facial images)”, claim 1 recites “acquire biological information of a passenger who has disembarked from an aircraft… wherein the biological information comprises passenger face image data captured when the passenger views the display device” (emphasis added). Under broadest reasonable interpretation of “face image data”, the claim recites the obtaining of information such as eye color, hair color, hair style, and other qualitative data that could also be determined by a human looking at the face of another person. The claims do not recite technical processing for acquiring this biometric information that would preclude the claim from falling into an abstract idea. Regarding the memory structure for storing biometric information in association with flight information, this structure covers a data table in which the qualitative facial data discussed previously fall into respective columns that correspond to flight information such as a flight number. As claimed, this storage of biometric and flight information does not preclude the claims from falling into an abstract idea. Regarding the calculating a required time based on walking speed, Examiner notes that this calculation covers division (distance divided by a walking speed) that can be done mentally or with the aid of a pen and paper, which falls under Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.B. Finally, regarding the automatic generation and display of departure gates, meeting places, and route maps, the display/presentation of this information is presenting the information resulting from the abstract idea. While the “automatic” nature of the display and generation of the information may fall into the additional elements of claim eligibility analysis, the displaying of information does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea merely because the claims recite the display being performed by “a display device” as in claim 1.
Even after considering the newly added limitations to the independent claims, as a whole with the previously recited claims, the amended claims still recite a Mental Process and Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. Eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
On pages 11-12, Applicant argues that the following three features allegedly integrate any judicial exception into a practical application: “1) Authentication based on facial images acquired by sensors, and extraction of flight information; 2) Calculation of available time and mapping to candidate facilities within the airport; and 3) Real-time display of route maps (location, destination, meeting places, etc.)” (Pages 11-12 of Remarks). Regarding the authenticating based on facial images and extracting flight information, Examiner notes that the claimed invention does not recite authenticating persons based on facial images, instead reciting the obtaining face image data of passengers that covers qualitative data as discussed above. The extracting of flight information covers looking up information in a data table using the qualitative data as discussed above. While the obtaining of the face image data is captured when viewing a display device, this at most amounts to the use of a generic camera in its ordinary capacity as a tool to obtain the information needed to perform the abstract idea. The extraction of flight information from the “storage device” of the claim similarly amounts to the use of a generic computing device/memory in its ordinary capacity to perform the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Regarding the calculation of available time and mapping to candidate facilities within the airport, as discussed above this calculation covers calculations that can be performed in the human mind or by hand. Performing these calculations using a processor is also using a generic computing component in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform the abstract calculations instead of doing the calculations by hand. Similarly, route mapping in real-time using a processor and a display device is using generic computing components as tools to perform the display of information to the passenger.
Even when taken together, these elements, in combination with elements not specifically argued by Applicant, still amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing components. Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments that the claimed invention integrates its judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner also notes that the MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) citation above also states that mere instructions to apply an exception also fails to amount to significantly more than a judicial exception at step 2B. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments that the claimed invention is patent eligible are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-14 of Remarks, filed 09/16/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-9 have been fully considered but are either not persuasive or moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claims 1-2 and 4-9 still stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant argues on page 12-13 that Beaven, Trelin, and Anderson do not teach the citation from claim 1 on page 13. However, the citation provided by Applicant recites subject matter (for example, scheduling either a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) data transmission or a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) data transmission) that is not recited in any of the claims nor in Applicant’s disclosure. Applicant’s arguments that the cited references do not teach this limitation are moot, as the argued limitations and subject matter do not appear in the claimed invention.
Applicant argues on page 14 that none of the references of Beaven, Trelin, and Anderson allegedly teach “processing for determining whether a passenger is a transit passenger based on the location where a facial image is captured”. Examiner is interpreting this argument as referencing the last two paragraphs of the independent claims. Beaven [0064]-[0065] teaches identifying a user is not a re-boarding passenger by determining that the destination of the passenger’s boarding pass is the airport where the device of Beaven is installed via a comparison of boarding pass and airport information. Therefore, Applicant’s argument regarding the determining a destination is the airport where the device is installed is not persuasive. Regarding the remainder of the last two paragraphs of the independent claims, Faith et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20170308909, hereafter known as Faith) is used to teach the limitations.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are either not persuasive or moot. Claims 1-2 and 4-9 still stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Priority
Examiner notes that the limitation of “a time required to arrive at the location when walking at a predetermined speed” (emphasis added) has an effective filing date of 10/25/24. This limitation was not supported in the disclosure of parent application 17/634,380 or the PCT application PCT/JP2020/010951 which the instant application claims priority to. Therefore, while the limitation is supported as an originally filed claim of present application 18/926,475, the earliest priority date that can be given to the limitation is application 18/926,475’s filing date of 10/25/24.
As all of claims 1-2 and 4-9 contain the limitation of “a time required to arrive at the location when walking at a predetermined speed”, claims 1-2 and 4-9 have an effective filing date of 10/25/24.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 1, 4, and 7 all recite the limitation “a time required to arrive at the location when walking at a predetermined speed” (emphasis added). While paragraph [0040] of Applicant’s specification recites “the time required when walking at a general speed” (emphasis added), the specification does not recite a “predetermined” speed that is recited in the claims.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that claim 4 is a method claim containing a contingent limitation. MPEP 2111.04 II. states “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “acquiring a re-boarding time from disembarkation to re-boarding based on the flight information in a case where the passenger is a re-boarding passenger”. This limitation is a contingent limitation because the passenger could be determined to be a passenger who is not to re-board an aircraft. Therefore, a re-boarding time would not be acquired, and the following limitations of claim 4, “determining an activity to perform before re-boarding, which is to be suggested to the passenger, and displaying the generated information about the activity on a display device, wherein the information about the activity comprises current location of the passenger, meeting place of the activity, place regarding re-boarding, time required when walking at a predetermined speed, and a route map”, would also not be required to be performed. Accordingly, as all of these limitations of claim 4 are not required to be performed if the passenger is determined to not be re-boarding an aircraft, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 4 does not require the above mentioned limitations.
Additionally in claim 4, only one of the following limitations is required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim: “wherein in a case where the flight information comprises a stopover of the passenger, and the airport at which the display device is installed is the stopover, the passenger who has disembarked from the aircraft is determined to be a transit passenger” and “wherein in a case where the flight information does not include a stopover of the passenger, or where the flight information comprises a destination of the passenger and the airport is the destination, the passenger who has disembarked from the aircraft is determined to not be a transit passenger”. Only one of these claim limitations is required under BRI of the claim because the passenger can be either a transit passenger or not a transit passenger.
Furthermore, method claim 5 recites the limitations “generating information regarding re-boarding based on the flight information if the passenger is a re-boarding passenger, wherein, when performing display on the display device, the determined information regarding re-boarding is displayed on the display device”. As these limitations introduced in claim 5 are contingent on the passenger being a re-boarding passenger and would not be performed in the case in which the passenger is not a reboarding passenger, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 5 does not include these limitations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 5 is therefore the same as that of claim 4.
MPEP 2111.04 II. further states “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.” Examiner notes that claims 1-2 are apparatus/machine claims and claims 7-8 are product/manufacture claims. Therefore, while the same contingent limitations appear in claims 1-2 and 7-8 as those discussed above in claims 4-5, the broadest reasonable interpretation of both claims 1-2 and 7-8 require all of the disclosed limitations to be taught.
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 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite suggesting activities to an airline passenger during a layover.
As an initial matter, claims 1-2 fall into at least the machine category of statutory subject matter. Claims 4-6 fall into at least the process category of statutory subject matter. Finally, claims 7-9 fall into at least the manufacture category of statutory subject matter. Therefore, all claims fall into at least one of the statutory categories. Eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
In claim 1, the limitation of “acquire biological information of a passenger who has disembarked from an aircraft”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “acquire flight information corresponding to the acquired biological information from a storage device in which the biological information of the passenger and the flight information of the passenger are stored in association with each other in advance; 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; acquire a re-boarding time from disembarkation to re-boarding based on the flight information if the passenger is a re-boarding passenger; determine an activity to perform before re-boarding, which is to be suggested to the passenger, based on the re-boarding time, and generate information about the activity, if the passenger is a re-boarding passenger; and display the generated information about the activity on a display device, wherein the information about the activity comprises current location of the passenger, meeting place of the activity, place regarding re-boarding, time required when walking at a predetermined speed, and a route map, wherein the biological information comprises passenger face image data captured when the passenger views the display device, wherein in a case where the flight information comprises a stopover of the passenger, and the airport at which the display device is installed is the stopover, the passenger who has disembarked from the aircraft is determined to be a transit passenger, and wherein in a case where the flight information does not include a stopover of the passenger, or where the flight information comprises a destination of the passenger and the airport is the destination, the passenger who has disembarked from the aircraft is determined to not be a transit passenger”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the concept of suggesting activities to an airline passenger during a layover which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Acquire biological information of a passenger who has disembarked from an aircraft; acquire flight information corresponding to the acquired biological information in which the biological information of the passenger and the flight information of the passenger are stored in association with each other in advance; 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; acquire a re-boarding time from disembarkation to re-boarding based on the flight information if the passenger is a re-boarding passenger; determine an activity to perform before re-boarding, which is to be suggested to the passenger, based on the re-boarding time, and generate information about the activity, if the passenger is a re-boarding passenger; and display the generated information about the activity, wherein the information about the activity comprises current location of the passenger, meeting place of the activity, place regarding re-boarding, time required when walking at a predetermined speed, and a route map, wherein the biological information comprises passenger face image data, wherein in a case where the flight information comprises a stopover of the passenger, and the airport at which the display device is installed is the stopover, the passenger who has disembarked from the aircraft is determined to be a transit passenger, and wherein in a case where the flight information does not include a stopover of the passenger, or where the flight information comprises a destination of the passenger and the airport is the destination, the passenger who has disembarked from the aircraft is determined to not be a transit passenger all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an information processing apparatus, at least one memory storing instructions, at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, a storage device, a display device, and capturing face image data of the passenger when the passenger views the display device. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an information processing apparatus, at least one memory storing instructions, at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, a storage device, a display device, and capturing face image data of the passenger when the passenger views the display device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
In claim 4, the limitations of “An information processing method comprising: acquiring biological information of a passenger who has disembarked from an aircraft; acquiring flight information corresponding to the acquired biological information from a storage device in which the biological information of the passenger and the flight information of the passenger are stored in association with each other”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a storage device,” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “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; acquiring a re-boarding time from disembarkation to re-boarding based on the flight information in a case where the passenger is a re-boarding passenger; determining an activity to perform before re-boarding, which is to be suggested to the passenger, and generating information about the activity, if the passenger is a re-boarding passenger; and displaying the generated information about the activity on a display device, wherein the information about the activity comprises current location of the passenger, meeting place of the activity, place regarding re-boarding, time required when walking at a predetermined speed, and a route map, wherein the biological information comprises passenger face image data captured when the passenger views the display device, wherein in a case where the flight information comprises a stopover of the passenger, and the airport at which the display device is installed is the stopover, the passenger who has disembarked from the aircraft is determined to be a transit passenger, and wherein in a case where the flight information does not include a stopover of the passenger, or where the flight information comprises a destination of the passenger and the airport is the destination, the passenger who has disembarked from the aircraft is determined to not be a transit passenger”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 4 recites the concept of suggesting activities to an airline passenger during a layover which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. An information processing method comprising: acquiring biological information of a passenger who has disembarked from an aircraft; acquiring flight information corresponding to the acquired biological information in which the biological information of the passenger and the flight information of the passenger are stored in association with each other; 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; acquiring a re-boarding time from disembarkation to re-boarding based on the flight information in a case where the passenger is a re-boarding passenger; determining an activity to perform before re-boarding, which is to be suggested to the passenger, and generating information about the activity, if the passenger is a re-boarding passenger; and displaying the generated information about the activity, wherein the information about the activity comprises current location of the passenger, meeting place of the activity, place regarding re-boarding, time required when walking at a predetermined speed, and a route map, wherein the biological information comprises passenger face image data, wherein in a case where the flight information comprises a stopover of the passenger, and the airport at which the display device is installed is the stopover, the passenger who has disembarked from the aircraft is determined to be a transit passenger, and wherein in a case where the flight information does not include a stopover of the passenger, or where the flight information comprises a destination of the passenger and the airport is the destination, the passenger who has disembarked from the aircraft is determined to not be a transit passenger all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a storage device, a display device, and capturing face image data of the passenger when the passenger views the display device. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a storage device, a display device, and capturing face image data of the passenger when the passenger views the display device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 further limits the abstract idea of claim 4 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 4 above this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 further limits the abstract idea of claim 4 while introducing the additional element of capturing the face of the passenger looking at the display device. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of capturing the face of the passenger looking at the display device is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 4 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In claim 7, the limitation of “acquiring biological information of a passenger who has disembarked from an aircraft”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “A non-transitory computer readable recording medium including a program recorded thereon, the program including instructions that cause a computer to carry out,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “acquiring flight information corresponding to the acquired biological information from a storage device in which the biological information of the passenger and the flight information of the passenger are stored in association with each other; 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; acquiring a re-boarding time from disembarkation to re-boarding based on the flight information if the passenger is a re-boarding passenger; determining an activity to perform before re-boarding, which is to be suggested to the passenger, and generating information about the activity, if the passenger is a re-boarding passenger; and displaying the generated information about the activity on a display device, wherein the information about the activity comprises current location of the passenger, meeting place of the activity, place regarding re-boarding, time required when walking at a predetermined speed, and a route map, wherein the biological information comprises passenger face image data captured when the passenger views the display device, wherein in a case where the flight information comprises a stopover of the passenger, and the airport at which the display device is installed is the stopover, the passenger who has disembarked from the aircraft is determined to be a transit passenger, and wherein in a case where the flight information does not include a stopover of the passenger, or where the flight information comprises a destination of the passenger and the airport is the destination, the passenger who has disembarked from the aircraft is determined to not be a transit passenger”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 7 recites the concept of suggesting activities to an airline passenger during a layover which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Instructions to carry out: acquiring biological information of a passenger who has disembarked from an aircraft; acquiring flight information corresponding to the acquired biological information in which the biological information of the passenger and the flight information of the passenger are stored in association with each other; 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; acquiring a re-boarding time from disembarkation to re-boarding based on the flight information if the passenger is a re-boarding passenger; determining an activity to perform before re-boarding, which is to be suggested to the passenger, and generating information about the activity, if the passenger is a re-boarding passenger; and displaying the generated information about the activity, wherein the information about the activity comprises current location of the passenger, meeting place of the activity, place regarding re-boarding, time required when walking at a predetermined speed, and a route map, wherein the biological information comprises passenger face image data, wherein in a case where the flight information comprises a stopover of the passenger, and the airport at which the display device is installed is the stopover, the passenger who has disembarked from the aircraft is determined to be a transit passenger, and wherein in a case where the flight information does not include a stopover of the passenger, or where the flight information comprises a destination of the passenger and the airport is the destination, the passenger who has disembarked from the aircraft is determined to not be a transit passenger all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable recording medium including a program recorded thereon, the program including instructions, a computer, a storage device, a display device, and capturing face image data of the passenger when the passenger views the display device. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable recording medium including a program recorded thereon, the program including instructions, a computer, a storage device, a display device, and capturing face image data of the passenger when the passenger views the display device amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 further limits the abstract idea of claim 7 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 7 above this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 further limits the abstract idea of claim 7 while introducing the additional element of capturing the face of the passenger looking at the display device. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of capturing the face of the passenger looking at the display device is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 7 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaven et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0351470, hereafter known as Beaven) in view of Faith et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0308909, hereafter known as Faith), Anderson et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0330294, hereafter known as Anderson), and Trelin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,534,956; hereafter known as Trelin).
Regarding claim 1, Beaven teaches:
An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (see Fig. 7 smart sign 102 and [0119] "Memory 704 may include one or more various types of non-volatile and/or volatile storage technologies...Memory 704 may be utilized to store information, including computer-readable instructions that are utilized by processor 722 to perform actions, including at least some embodiments described herein" and [0118] "Processor 722 includes one or more processing devices that execute instructions to perform actions, including at least some embodiments described herein. In various embodiments, the processor 722 may include one or more central processing units (CPUs)" for the smart sign having a processor executing instructions stored in memory)
acquire information of a passenger who has disembarked from an aircraft (see [0082] "The mobile communication device may be broadcasting the device-specific information itself or it may be broadcasting its identifier such that the smart sign can respond to the mobile communication device" and [0093] "the smart sign may receive a mobile communication device identifier from each mobile communication device that it communicates with and store it while the mobile communication device is within the proximity of the smart sign" for receiving an identifier of the passenger. See [0064] "the smart sign determines the second user's flight has landed" for determining that a passenger was on a flight that landed)
acquire flight information corresponding to the acquired (see [0060] "the smart sign detects that a first mobile communication device in its proximity and obtains first device-specific information from the first mobile communication device. For example, assume the first device-specific information includes boarding pass information" and [0082] for the identifier of the passenger mobile communication device. See [0128] "Memory 754 may have stored thereon various programs 756 and device-specific information 758...The device-specific information 758 includes information, settings, or parameters about the mobile communication device 108, programs 756, or other stored information about a user of the mobile communication device 108" for acquiring a passenger's flight information from the user device's memory in which the identifier of the mobile device and the user's flight information are stored together)
determine, based on the acquired flight information, whether the passenger is a passenger who is to (see [0042] "The smart sign may receive the boarding pass information for the user from his mobile communication device. The smart sign can look up the gate information associated with the flight information in the boarding pass" and [0060] "assume the first device-specific information includes boarding pass information...By comparing this information to known information about the airport, the smart sign determines the gate of departure for the first user's flight" for determining the passenger is to board an aircraft based on acquired boarding pass information matching departure gate information of the airport where the smart sign is located. See [0064] “by comparing this information to known information about the airport, the smart sign determines the second user's flight has landed" for determining that the airport is not a departure location for the boarding pass information of a second user)
acquire a (see [0108] “the smart sign may generate a new content window showing information about the gate, such as departure time and status”)
determine an activity to perform before (see Fig. 3A and [0042] "The smart sign then displays the location of the gate on the map and fastest route to the gate from the smart sign, i.e., the user's current location, such as is illustrated in FIG. 3A. The smart sign might also receive information from the mobile communication device that the mobile communication device has the Coffee_A application installed and can share information. The smart sign can determine where there is a Coffee_A location in the airport terminal, and if there is a location, the map can be updated to include an icon showing where the coffeehouse is in the terminal" for visiting a coffee shop being a suggested activity before boarding and displaying a current location of the passenger as the star on Fig. 3A, coffee shop location 312a as the meeting place of the activity, a boarding gate 314, and a route 308 from the current location to the boarding gate)
and display the generated information about the activity on a display device, wherein the information about the activity comprises current location of the passenger, meeting place of the activity, place regarding re-boarding, (see [0042] "The smart sign then displays the location of the gate on the map and fastest route to the gate from the smart sign, i.e., the user's current location, such as is illustrated in FIG. 3A. The smart sign might also receive information from the mobile communication device that the mobile communication device has the Coffee_A application installed and can share information. The smart sign can determine where there is a Coffee_A location in the airport terminal, and if there is a location, the map can be updated to include an icon showing where the coffeehouse is in the terminal" for displaying a gate information upon determining the user has a departing flight)
and wherein in a case where (see [0064] “the smart sign obtains second device-specific information from the second mobile communication device. For example, assume the second device-specific information includes boarding pass information , an indication that the applications for Coffee_A and Food_M are installed on the second mobile communication device, and the second mobile communication device is storing rental car confirmation information. Again, by comparing this information to known information about the airport, the smart sign determines the second user's flight has landed and also determines the baggage claim number, identifies a Coffee_A location in the airport, identifies a Food_M location in the airport, and identifies the location of the rental-car-company desk in the airport” and [0065] “The second-user content window 304 includes at least some of the second user-specific content for the second user, such as items-of-interest list 320, information 324 identifying the baggage claim number and the arrow symbol indicating where the gate is located, and a key 322 illustrating the symbol used for route 334 from the second user's current location to the baggage claim” for comparing flight information to the airport information and determining that the passenger is not to reboard a plane and instead go to baggage claim and a rental car counter)
As discussed above, Beaven teaches the smart sign acquiring information regarding a passenger via communication with a device of the passenger. Beaven also teaches determining whether a user has a departing flight from an airport or whether the user has arrived at their destination airport as discussed above. However, Beaven does not explicitly teach acquiring biological information of the passenger comprising face image data captured when the passenger views the display device and then acquiring flight information corresponding to the acquired biological information from a storage device in which the biological information of the passenger and the flight information of the passenger are stored in association with each other in advance. While Beaven teaches determining whether users have arrived at their destination or have a departing plane to catch, Beaven also does not explicitly teach the passengers identified as those who are re-boarding an aircraft after disembarking from an aircraft, determining a re-boarding time from disembarkation to re-boarding, and display the time required when walking at predetermined speed for an activity based on re-boarding time to perform before re-boarding. Finally, while Beaven teaches determining passengers whose destination matches the airport at which the device is installed as not being re-boarding passengers, Beaven does not explicitly teach determining a passenger is a transit passenger when the flight information comprises a stopover airport matching the airport where the device is installed and determining a passenger is not a transit passenger when the flight information does not include a stopover. However, Faith teaches:
acquire biological information of a passenger who has disembarked from an aircraft (see [0140] “appliance 110 (and/or cloud 120) may be used in an airport environment to record individuals in an airport terminal, individuals entering and exiting a plane, and the like” for recording a person exiting a plane. See [0122] for extracting facial data from the recording)
acquire flight