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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-9 are pending for examination in this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 4, 6 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Regarding claim 4, there is a missing punctuation at end of line 4.
Regarding claim 6, the order of the words “in case the distinguishing information is identification information that be able to identify the target” does not make sense and can be interpreted as being indefinite.
Regarding claim 7, the order of the words “in case the distinguishing information is identification information that be able to identify the target” does not make sense and can be interpreted as being indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-6, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagaya (Kagaya; JP 2023002510).
As per claim 1, Kagaya teaches an information processing apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions (one or more memories to store data/instructions; see e.g. para. [0100]); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (see e.g. para. [0102]) to:
track a first target and a second target included in a first group (a camera for at least temporality tracking a first person and a second person to determine if they belong to a group; see e.g. para. [0103]); and
control to allow the first target and the second target to enter a predetermined area in case an authentication of the first target is successful (group action authority is updated to individual action authority, see e.g. para. [0104] [i.e. the whole group is authenticated if one member of the group is authenticated], wherein the actions may include entering and exiting a specific space; see e.g. para. [0023]).
Even though Kagaya does not explicitly teach to restrict the group in case authentication of one member is unsuccessful, a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the reference, would also have recognized the desirability of improved method(s) – improving safety/security. The disclosed reference teaches that authenticating one member of a group is one of a finite number of methods known to be useful for safety/security. Furthermore, the reference teaches methods of improving safety/security would reasonably have been expected to be applicable to the disclosed system. The reference also inherently discloses to one of ordinary skill in the art that combining a known method (all members’ authentication to authenticate the whole group) to make the access control system does not affect the properties of the system. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the method of authenticating all members of a group in an attempt to provide an improved safety/security, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. In turn, because the method as claimed (control to restrict the first target and the second target to enter a predetermined area in case an authentication of the first target is unsuccessful) has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious to make the system/method.
As per claim 2, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 as taught by Kagaya, wherein the predetermined area is an area where an entry of a target that has unsuccessful authentication is restricted (as discussed earlier, entry and/or exit from a specific space or area is retracted or allowed; see e.g. para. [0023]), in case the authentication of the first target is unsuccessful and a third target, who is a target different from the first target and is not included in the first group, the at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: restrict the entry of the first target to the predetermined area; and does not restrict the entry of the third target to the predetermined area (it would have been obvious to restrict or allow entry of the group without hindering any other individuals or groups entering and/or exiting the space because it can defeat the purpose of grating automatic authority if security personnel have to intervene every time access is restricted for a group).
As per claim 4, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 as taught by Kagaya, wherein the at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to receive an input of association information indicating an association between a group and a target included in the group (see e.g. para. [0026-27]) track the first target and the second target included in the first group based on the association information (see e.g. para. [0038-39]).
As per claim 5, the information processing apparatus according to claim 4 as taught by Kagaya, wherein the at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to receive the association information that associates information for distinguishing the group with distinguishing information for distinguishing the target (group association information for distinguishing a group with distinguishing information, i.e. acting together for more than a certain period of time based on photographed data; see e.g. para. [0044] and [0088]).
As per claim 6, The information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to authenticate the target by matching biometric information of the target with registered information (see e.g. para. [0002]); and in case the distinguishing information is identification information that be able to identify the target, match the biometric information of the target with the registered information corresponding to the identification information (it would be obvious that a distinguishing information, i.e. facial data, that can be used to identify a target, wherein the input facial data is matched with stored data; see e.g. para. [0002-3] and [0007]. However, any other feature can be used to compare with stored data, i.e. iris, gait, ear shape, nose shape and so forth).
As per claim 8, it is interpreted and rejected as claim 1.
As per claim 9, A non-transitory recording medium on which a computer program that allows a computer to execute the information processing method according to claim 8 is recorded (one or more non-transitory computer readable mediums as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1, see e.g. para. [0013] and [0100], to store and run a program which can carry out the method of claim 8).
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagaya in view of Maeno et al. (Maeno; US 2023/0401915) and further in view of Irie et al. (Irie; US Patent No. 12,169,990).
As per claim 3, the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 as taught by Kagaya. Even though Kagaya teaches authenticating a group of person as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1, Kayaga does not explicitly teach to control an entry of a target into the predetermined area from a passage having a width allowing movements of two targets aligned in a direction different from a moving direction, wherein the passage is one of a plurality of passages provided.
Maeno, however, teaches controlling an entry of a target into a predetermined area from a passage having a width allowing movements of two targets aligned in a direction different from a moving direction (a plurality of persons can be identified and authenticated at once, see e.g. para. [0060], which means the door or portal width is at least two persons wide). Kagaya and Maeno are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of crowd management while maintaining safety/security.
Kagaya and Maeno do not teach that the passage is one of a plurality of passages provided.
Irie teaches a plurality of passages, see e.g. FIG. 2, wherein the passage can be one of the plurality of passages.
Kagaya, Maeno and Irie are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of faster crowd management while maintaining safety/security.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD ADNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10AM-6PM.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUHAMMAD ADNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights