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 .
Amendment
2. Receipt is acknowledged of the Amendment filed June 4, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demere et al (2008/0179397), hereinafter Demere in view of Brown et al (2003/0061303), hereinafter Brown.
With respect to claims 1, 9, and 10, Demere teaches managing device configured to manage entry into an amusement facility (paragraph 0060 – method of managing entry to a retailer location), the managing device comprising: an entry database configured to store entry record data generated based on an identity verification document of a user when the user enters the amusement facility (paragraph 0060 - at each of its locations, the retailer may post an identification document reader to read identification documents of persons as they enter the store); a membership database configured to store member data of the user that is input when the user is registered as a member (paragraph 0060 – upon joining as a member, the retailer can read identifying indicia from a new customer’s identification document and store that information in a central database); a checking unit configured to check the entry record data and the member data against each other; (paragraph 0060 – once the identification document reader reads the identifying indicia from the identification document, it is compared to the stored information and the customer is verified as one who may enter.); and a notification unit configured to notify the user of certain information when the checking results in unsuccessful verification (paragraph 0060 - if the comparison reveals no matching stored information, then the customer is denied entry to the retailer’s location.). The customer being denied entry is considered to be the notification.
Demere fails to teach the entry database being maintained on a memory.
With respect to claims 1, 9, and 10, Brown teaches in paragraphs 0071 and 0079, generating and storing in a visitor database 722, to collect information on visitor attendance at different park events.
In view of Brown’s teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to maintain Demere’s entry database on a memory as is taught by Brown. As Brown discusses, one would be motivated to maintain an entry database on a memory in order to collect information on visitor attendance as well as data indicating time of visits which provides operational and business benefits, including staffing, capacity management, security, etc.
5. Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demere in combination with Brown and in further view of Ingles (9,842,370).
Demere’s teachings in combination with the teachings of Brown are discussed above, including the most limitations of claim 8. With respect to claim 2, The combination however fails to specifically teach the managing device, wherein the certain information includes a message prompting registration as a member or updating of the member data. With respect to claim 8, the combination fails to teach the system configured not to permit login to the amusement machine in the amusement facility when the checking results in unsuccessful verification.
With respect to claim 2, Ingles teaches in column 16 line 66 – column 17, line 21, a member database which attempts to verify and authenticate the user. If the user provided incorrect or insufficient identification information, the system may reattempt to authenticate the member token. Further, the signal will indicate a failed verification and authentication. The verification and authentication result is sent to the user interface and the result is rendered and displayed. If the verification and authentication failed, the user may be provided with additional opportunities to correct or modify the entered login information at display. Alternatively, display may prompt the user to call or otherwise contact his or her insurance provider to remedy any errors, inconsistencies, or any other deficiencies that may prevent the user from verifying and authenticating his or her insurance membership. In an additional embodiment, display may prompt the user to provide his or her insurance information in order to register an online account with the eyewear provider.
In view of Ingles’ teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include in the next step of Demere’s process, when the customer is denied entry to the retail location, the option of allowing the user to either update information or register as a member as is taught by Ingles. One would be motivated to include the step in order to ultimately secure more members in order to increase attendance to the retail location.
With respect to claim 8, Ingles teaches in column 17, lines 21-24, that the system will not allow the user to access any insurance information or product and pricing information until his or her account has been verified and authenticated.
In view of Ingles’ teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include in the next step of Demere’s process, when the customer is denied entry to the retail location, to not allow access to certain aspects of the retail location (equivalent to an amusement machine) when the checking is unsuccessful. One would be motivated to not allow full access as a matter of security.
6. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demere in combination with Brown and in further view of Slutzky et al (2018/0053202), hereinafter Slutzky.
Demere’s teachings in combination with Brown are discussed above, including in claim 3, wherein the member data includes a member identifier. Regarding claim 5, there is no action taken.
The combination however fails to specifically teach the managing device comprising a managing unit configured to register the member identifier of the user as member data information in the entry record data, when the checking results in successful verification and similarly fails to teach the managing device, wherein, when the checking results in successful verification, the managing unit further registers, as a status in the member data, information that the user is staying in the facility.
With respect to claims 3-5, Slutzky teaches in paragraphs 0003 and 0025, tracking member attendance in real time and keeping track of every entry.
In view of Slutzky’ teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to track the member’s attendance as is taught by Slutzky. One would be motivated to include member tracking in order to obtain data about the member as well as provide rewards for the member (Slutzky, paragraph 0025), which encourages attendance.
7. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demere in combination with Brown and Slutzky and in further view of Garcia et al (2018/0109838), hereinafter Garcia.
Demere’s teachings in combination with the teachings of Brown and Slutzky are discussed above. It is noted that although Demere is directed towards a retail location and Slutzky is directed towards a gym, the concept of member verification, tracking, and access applies to any location. Furthermore, once given access to the location, the concept of access levels can be applied to any type of establishment. The combination of Demere, Brown, and Slutzky fail to teach allowing a level of access depending on member status.
With respect to claim 6, Garcia teaches in paragraph 0028, a system to determine if the user is a current member of the exercise facility and if so, sign the user into the exercise facility. Additionally, this would allow the Communication Control System to determine the level of membership of the user. For example, the user may only be allowed to use certain exercise machines or view certain television channels. The Communication Control System may then allow the user to only use certain exercise machines or only have access to certain entertainment channels based on their membership status/level.
In view of Garcia’ teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to in Demere’s membership access system, restrict or allow access to specific access levels (specifically machines – re Ingles, which includes a gym location) depending on the member’s status as is taught by Garcia. One would be motivated to restrict or allow access to a specific machine based status or purposes of either safety or encouraging a member to purchase a different membership level.
8. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demere in combination with Brown and in further view of Babcock et al (2021/0241627), hereinafter Babcock.
Demere’s teachings in combination with the teachings of Brown are discussed above. The combination however fails to specifically teach the managing device, wherein the entry record data includes an entry time at which the user enters the amusement facility, a time limit indicating a maximum duration of stay, and warning times at which the user is notified that the time limit is approaching and further fails to teach a clocking unit configured to measure a duration of stay of the user in the amusement facility, wherein the notification unit is configured to notify the user of a remaining time before a time limit for staying in the amusement facility when the duration of stay reaches a predetermined warning time.
With respect to claim 11, Babcock teaches the managing device, wherein the entry record data includes an entry time at which the user enters the amusement facility (paragraph 0008 teaches when the vehicle enters the parking facility; paragraph 0009 teaches recording in memory a time that the vehicle ID request is made, corresponding to the vehicle’s entry into the parking facility, paragraph 0035 further teaches storing and communicating the time of entry), a time limit indicating a maximum duration of stay (paragraph 0003 teaches a maximum time period, paragraph 0009 teaches an expiration time, and paragraph 0047 teaches an expiration of time), and warning times at which the user is notified that the time limit is approaching (paragraph 0044 teaches sending notification messages when the parking time is approaching the purchased amount of time).
With respect to claim 12, Babcock teaches the managing device, further comprising a clocking unit configured to measure a duration of stay of the user in the amusement facility (paragraphs 0009, 0035, 0036, 0047: determining the expiration time based on the recorded time of entry, therefore time is measured) , wherein the notification unit is configured to notify the user of a remaining time before a time limit for staying in the amusement facility when the duration of stay reaches a predetermined warning time (paragraph 0047 teaches the number of minutes remaining).
In view of Babcock’s teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the time limit monitoring and notification techniques taught by Babcock, in the managing device taught by Demere in combination with Brown. One would be motivated to include the monitoring in order to notify users before expiration of an authorized period of stay, thereby improving management of user occupancy within the facility.
9. Claims 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demere in combination with Brown and Ingles and in further view of Babcock.
Demere’s teachings in combination with the teachings of Brown and Ingles are discussed above. The combination however fails to specifically teach the managing device, wherein the entry record data includes an entry time at which the user enters the amusement facility, a time limit indicating a maximum duration of stay, and warning times at which the user is notified that the time limit is approaching and further fails to teach a clocking unit configured to measure a duration of stay of the user in the amusement facility, wherein the notification unit is configured to notify the user of a remaining time before a time limit for staying in the amusement facility when the duration of stay reaches a predetermined warning time.
With respect to claims 15, and 19, Babcock teaches the managing device, wherein the entry record data includes an entry time at which the user enters the amusement facility (paragraph 0008 teaches when the vehicle enters the parking facility; paragraph 0009 teaches recording in memory a time that the vehicle ID request is made, corresponding to the vehicle’s entry into the parking facility, paragraph 0035 further teaches storing and communicating the time of entry), a time limit indicating a maximum duration of stay (paragraph 0003 teaches a maximum time period, paragraph 0009 teaches an expiration time, and paragraph 0047 teaches an expiration of time), and warning times at which the user is notified that the time limit is approaching (paragraph 0044 teaches sending notification messages when the parking time is approaching the purchased amount of time).
With respect to claim 16, Babcock teaches the managing device, further comprising a clocking unit configured to measure a duration of stay of the user in the amusement facility (paragraphs 0009, 0035, 0036, 0047: determining the expiration time based on the recorded time of entry, therefore time is measured) , wherein the notification unit is configured to notify the user of a remaining time before a time limit for staying in the amusement facility when the duration of stay reaches a predetermined warning time (paragraph 0047 teaches the number of minutes remaining).
In view of Babcock’s teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the time limit monitoring and notification techniques taught by Babcock, in the managing device taught by Demere in combination with Brown. One would be motivated to include the monitoring in order to notify users before expiration of an authorized period of stay, thereby improving management of user occupancy within the facility.
10. Claims 13, 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demere in combination with Brown and in further view of Derker et al (2008/0154623), hereinafter Derker.
Demere’s teachings in combination with the teachings of Brown are discussed above. The combination however fails to specifically teach the managing device, wherein the entry record data includes a times-of-entry limit indicating a number of times the user is permitted to enter the amusement facility during a predetermined period or wherein the entry record data includes historical entry information indicating a number of times the user has entered the amusement facility during a predetermined period.
With respect to claim 13, Derker teaches the managing device, wherein the entry record data includes a times-of-entry limit indicating a number of times the user is permitted to enter the amusement facility (paragraph 0051 teaches a ticket database including ticket information records associated with a ticket. The ticket information records store admission related information for use by the access management system; paragraph 0031 teaches a ticket that stores or is associated with the number of admissions the ticket holder is entitled to; storing an indication as to how many admissions are associated with a given ticket) during a predetermined period (paragraph 0056 teaches displaying the number of remaining entrances allowed, paragraph 0020 teaches, during a predetermined period.)
With respect to claims 14, 18, and 20, Derker teaches the managing device, wherein the entry record data includes historical entry information indicating a number of times the user has entered the amusement facility during a predetermined period (paragraph 0051, ticket database storing ticket information; how many admissions with the ticket have been used; whether the ticket purchaser has been admitted: by calculating the remaining allowed entries, historical entry information is clearly recorded).
In view of Derker’s teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the admission accounting techniques taught by Derker into the combine system of Demere and Brown. One would be motivated to include the admission accounting techniques in order to maintain accurate admission records, including authorized admissions and admissions already used, thereby enabling the system to determine whether additional admissions remain available and to prevent entry once the authorized number of admissions has been exhausted.
11. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demere in combination with Brown and Ingles and in further view of Derker.
Demere’s teachings in combination with the teachings of Brown and Ingles are discussed above. The combination however fails to specifically teach the managing device, wherein the entry record data includes historical entry information indicating a number of times the user has entered the amusement facility during a predetermined period.
With respect to claim 17, Derker teaches the managing device, wherein the entry record data includes historical entry information indicating a number of times the user has entered the amusement facility during a predetermined period (paragraph 0051, ticket database storing ticket information; how many admissions with the ticket have been used; whether the ticket purchaser has been admitted: by calculating the remaining allowed entries, historical entry information is clearly recorded).
In view of Derker’s teachings, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the admission accounting techniques taught by Derker into the combine system of Demere, Brown, and Ingles. One would be motivated to include the admission accounting techniques in order to maintain accurate admission records, including authorized admissions and admissions already used, thereby enabling the system to determine whether additional admissions remain available and to prevent entry once the authorized number of admissions has been exhausted.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the newly relief upon prior art references being used in the current rejection. Additionally, it is noted that although the dependent claims are stated in the arguments, there are no specific arguments to respond to, as the application only states, the Office fails to apply the prior art in a manner sufficient to cure the deficiencies of the initial prior art reference.
Conclusion
13. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allyson N. Trail whose telephone number is (571) 272-2406. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7:30AM to 4:00PM Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael G. Lee, can be reached on (571) 272-2398. The fax phone number for this Group is (571) 273-8300.
Communications via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used by the applicant and should be addressed to [allyson.trail@uspto.gov].
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ALLYSON N TRAIL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights