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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the information indicating the authentication subject is a geometric pattern.” The specification does not describe this limitation in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains to make or use the invention.
Claim 8 recites “ wherein the third display apparatus is a LED tape.” The specification does not describe this limitation in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains to make or use the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kagaya et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0331477).
Consider claim 1. Kagaya et al. discloses an authentication system comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; at least one processor (para. 0051 describes storage storing programs for controller); and a display unit (para. 0055 describes a display device), wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: an image acquisition unit that acquires acquire an image including a face authentication area through which an authentication subject heading toward an entry restricted area passes (paras. 0024-0026 describe capturing image data at passing management area, using a face authentication system), and a face authentication unit that performs perform face authentication on the authentication subject, based on the acquired image (para. 0046 describes performing face authentication on person based on the image data from camera), and the display unit that is disposed at least one of above a head and at feet of the authentication subject (para. 0095 describes displaying the face authentication result image onto the vicinity of the feet of the person), and that displays a result of the face authentication after the authentication subject exits from the face authentication area on the entry restricted area side (para. 0086 describes displaying a result of the face authentication after the person passes through the passage management area).
Consider claim 2. Kagaya et al. discloses the authentication system according to claim 1, wherein the result of the face authentication includes a first result indicating that the authentication subject is permitted to enter the entry restricted area, and a second result indicating that the authentication subject is not permitted to enter the entry restricted area (para. 0037 describes displaying the face authentication result image as shown in fig. 2).
Consider claim 3. Kagaya et al. discloses the authentication system according to claim 1, wherein the display unit displays the result of the face authentication together with information indicating the authentication subject (para. 0095 describes display the face authentication result together with the image captured by camera).
Consider claim 5. Kagaya et al. discloses the authentication system according to claim 1, wherein the display unit displays the result of the face authentication, by changing a display color of a human figure corresponding to the authentication subject, based on the result of the face authentication (para. 0034 describes the face authentication result image may be represented by color).
Consider claim 7. Kagaya et al. discloses the authentication system according claim 1, wherein the display unit includes a third display apparatus disposed at the feet of the authentication subject, and the third display apparatus extends in a direction intersecting with a moving direction of the authentication subject (para. 0095 describes displaying the face authentication result image onto the vicinity of the feet of the person as shown in fig. 7).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected using similar reasoning as corresponding claim 1 above.
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.
Claims 6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagaya et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0331477) in view of Official Notice.
Consider claim 6. Kagaya et al. disclosed all claim limitations as stated above, except wherein the display unit includes a first display apparatus and a second display apparatus, the first display apparatus and the second display apparatus are arranged side by side above the head of the authentication subject, and an imaging unit that images the authentication subject is disposed between the first display apparatus and the second display apparatus.
However, the examiner takes official notice that is it well known in the art to display the result of the face authentication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein the display unit includes a first display apparatus and a second display apparatus, the first display apparatus and the second display apparatus are arranged side by side above the head of the authentication subject, and an imaging unit that images the authentication subject is disposed between the first display apparatus and the second display apparatus, because the disposition of the display unit is matter of design choice. The display unit performs the same function of displaying the result of the face authentication regardless of its location.
Consider claim 9. The authentication system according to claim 7, wherein the display unit includes a fourth display apparatus disposed at the feet of the authentication subject, the third display apparatus extends in a direction intersecting with a moving direction of the authentication subject, and the third display apparatus and the fourth display apparatus are arranged at intervals along the moving direction of the authentication subject.
However, the examiner takes official notice that is it well known in the art to display the result of the face authentication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein the display unit includes a fourth display apparatus disposed at the feet of the authentication subject, the third display apparatus extends in a direction intersecting with a moving direction of the authentication subject, and the third display apparatus and the fourth display apparatus are arranged at intervals along the moving direction of the authentication subject, because the disposition of the display unit is matter of design choice. The display unit performs the same function of displaying the result of the face authentication regardless of its location.
Consider claim 10. Kagaya et al. disclosed all claim limitations as stated above, except wherein the display unit is disposed between the entry restricted area and the face authentication area.
However, the examiner takes official notice that is it well known in the art to display the result of the face authentication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein the display unit is disposed between the entry restricted area and the face authentication area, because the disposition of the display unit is matter of design choice. The display unit performs the same function of displaying the result of the face authentication regardless of its location.
Consider claim 11. Kagaya et al. disclosed all claim limitations as stated above, except wherein the display unit is disposed at a position corresponding to an edge on the side of the entry restricted area of the face authentication area.
However, the examiner takes official notice that is it well known in the art to display the result of the face authentication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein the display unit is disposed at a position corresponding to an edge on the side of the entry restricted area of the face authentication area, because the disposition of the display unit is matter of design choice. The display unit performs the same function of displaying the result of the face authentication regardless of its location.
Consider claim 12. Kagaya et al. disclosed all claim limitations as stated above, except wherein the face authentication area is disposed in front of the entry restricted area in a moving direction of the authentication subject heading toward the entry restricted area.
However, the examiner takes official notice that is it well known in the art to display the result of the face authentication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein the face authentication area is disposed in front of the entry restricted area in a moving direction of the authentication subject heading toward the entry restricted area, because the disposition of the display unit is matter of design choice. The display unit performs the same function of displaying the result of the face authentication regardless of its location.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mishawn N Hunter whose telephone number is (571)272-7635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thai Tran can be reached at 571-272-7382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MISHAWN N. HUNTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights