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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species Ia and IIa (claims 48-53, 56-60 and 64-67) in the reply filed on 6/3/2026 and the interview on 6/24/2026 is acknowledged. In view of claim 57, the species election with respect to Group II is hereby withdrawn. As such, claims 61 and 62 will be examined (total claims examined: claims 48-53 and 56-67).
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims are not directed to independent and distinct inventions but instead drawn to a single inventive concept with patentably indistinct variations (species) that share common structural and functional features. This is not found persuasive because single inventive concepts are with respect to Lack of Unity practice of 35 U.S.C. 371 National Stage applications, in addition to restriction practice for design patent applications (e.g. see MPEP 1893.03(d) and 1504.05), which this application is neither. The species listed are considered patentably distinct species due to their mutually exclusive characteristics. Each variant has mutually exclusive subject matter found in the language of the claims, and that searching for each and every variant would be undue burden since each implementation of the different species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). Accordingly, it is still seen that the search and the examination of all of the species would indeed place an undue burden on the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 54, 55, 62 and 63 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/3/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/9/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The use of the term “QR code”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. (e.g. QR code®).
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
In the event that a registered mark is a "symbol or device" depicted in a drawing, either the brief description of the drawing or the detailed description of the drawing should specify that the "symbol or device" is a registered mark of Company X. The owner of a mark may be identified in the specification. (e.g. QR code is a registered mark of Denso Wave Incorporated). See MPEP 608.01(v).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Throughout the specification, the specification recites “Digital Travel Credential (DTC)” (para [0072], [0076]-[0078] and “digital travel credentials (DTD)” (para [0012], [0051]). It is not clear as to the difference between these two digital travel credentials. The specification should differentiate these two digital travel credentials, e.g. a first digital travel credential and a second digital travel credential or differentiate the two types of digital travel credentials, with their corresponding acronym.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 50, 56, 60 and 66 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 50 recites “digital travel credentials (DTD)”. It is uncertain if the applicant intended the acronym to be DTC. Since the specification recites both acronyms with respect to Digital Travel Credential, it is not certain which of the two digital travel credentials the applicant is referring to.
Claims 56 and 60 recite “QR code”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; and furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. (e.g. QR code®).
Claim 56 recites “a database for storing the information associated with the passenger journey, travel authorisation outcome and travel authorisation document in a database”. Suggested language is “a database for storing the information associated with the passenger journey, travel authorisation outcome and travel authorisation document” to remove the redundancy of “in a database”.
Claims 56, 60, 66 contain an acronym (e.g. GUID, SMS), however do not provide the full names. If the applicant is to claim the acronym, the full name should be referenced at least once within the claims in parentheses.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 50, 56, 57, 60, 62 and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 50 recites the limitation “the passenger-related information”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what passenger-related information the applicant is referring to. It is noted claim 48 recites “information associated with the passenger journey”. Therefore, it is not clear if the applicant intends the passenger-related information to be the information related to the passenger journey. Please clarify. It is noted that information related to a passenger journey (e.g. information related to the journey) is not equivalent to passenger-related information (e.g. information related to the passenger).
Claims 56 and 60 recite the limitation “the stored passenger-related information”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what stored passenger-related information the applicant is referring to. It is noted claims 48 and 58 recite “information associated with the passenger journey”. Therefore, it is not clear if the applicant intends the passenger-related information to be the information related to the passenger journey. Please clarify. It is noted that information related to a passenger journey (e.g. information related to the journey) is not equivalent to passenger-related information (e.g. information related to the passenger).
Claim 57 recites “an optical character recognition (OCR) system for obtaining the passenger-related information from one or more travel identity documents associated with the passenger, the system further comprising a Near Field Communications (NFC) system for obtaining the passenger-related information from one or more travel identity documents associated with the passenger”. It is not clear if these two “one or more travel identity documents” are the same, or different from one another. Please clarify. If the same, proper antecedent basis is needed. Suggested language is “an optical character recognition (OCR) system for obtaining the passenger-related information from one or more travel identity documents associated with the passenger, the system further comprising a Near Field Communications (NFC) system for obtaining the passenger-related information from the one or more travel identity documents associated with the passenger”. If they are different, the two “one or more travel identity documents” needs to be differentiated better and suggested language is ““an optical character recognition (OCR) system for obtaining the passenger-related information from one or more travel identity documents associated with the passenger, the system further comprising a Near Field Communications (NFC) system for obtaining the passenger-related information from another one or more travel identity documents associated with the passenger”.
Claims 62 and 63 recite the limitation “the passenger-related information”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what stored passenger-related information the applicant is referring to. It is noted claim 58 recites “information associated with the passenger journey”. Therefore, it is not clear if the applicant intends the passenger-related information to be the information related to the passenger journey. Please clarify. It is noted that information related to a passenger journey (e.g. information related to the journey) is not equivalent to passenger-related information (e.g. information related to the passenger).
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.
Claim(s) 48, 49, 58 and 62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sardesai (IN 3135MU2015) in view of Patil (WO 2019/034991).
With respect to claims 48 and 58, Sardesai discloses a system for authorising a passenger journey from an origin country to a destination country, the system comprising:
a memory for storing computer readable code (pg. 14, lines 7-21); and
a processor operatively coupled to the memory (pg. 14, lines 7-21), the processor configured to:
issue a set of predetermined questions relating to the passenger journey to a passenger before travelling to the destination country (pg. 16, line 11 – pg. 17, line 10); and
receive information associated with the passenger journey (pg. 16, line 11 – pg. 17, line 10); and
and issue a travel authorisation document to the passenger making the passenger journey (pg. 11, line 3 – pg. 12, line 5).
Sardesai fails to expressly disclose calculate a score associated with the passenger journey by comparing the information associated with the passenger journey to one or more risk parameters; compare the calculated score to a predetermined threshold value to determine a travel authorisation outcome; and issue the travel authorisation document to the passenger making the passenger journey based on the travel authorisation outcome.
Patil teaches it is well known in the art to calculate a score associated with a passenger journey by comparing information associated with the passenger journey to one or more risk parameters; compare the calculated score to a predetermined threshold value to determine a travel authorisation outcome; and issue the travel authorisation document to the passenger making the passenger journey based on the travel authorisation outcome (pg. 10, line 22 – pg. 11, line 6, pg. 11, lines 22-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate a score associated with the passenger journey by comparing the information associated with the passenger journey to one or more risk parameters; compare the calculated score to a predetermined threshold value to determine a travel authorisation outcome; and issue, based on the travel authorisation outcome, a travel authorisation document to the passenger making the passenger journey, in order to grant or reject the request for travel documentation based on additional parameters for increased security.
The method is inherent to the system.
With respect to claim 49, the modified Sardesai addresses all the limitations of claim 48, and further discloses the use of a mobile device (personal computer or cellphone) (Sardesai: pg. 20, lines 6-7).
The modified Sardesai fails to expressly disclose the mobile device includes a memory for storing computer readable code, the processor coupled to the memory, a display and a receiver.
Sardesai teaches the mobile device is a personal computer or a cell phone, and Patil teaches a system that includes a memory for storing computer readable code, the processor coupled to the memory, a display and a receiver, wherein the system is a mobile based application for processing visa applications (Sardesai: pg. 20, lines 6-7; Patil: pg. 7, line 1 – pg. 8, line 13, pg. 9, lines 11-24). Additionally, it is well known in the art for a personal computer and a cellphone to include a memory for storing computer readable code, a processor coupled to the memory, a display and a receiver – the examiner takes official notice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mobile device to include memory for storing computer readable code, the processor coupled to the memory, a display and a receiver, in order to collect scanned documents and/or to process visa applications.
With respect to claim 62, the modified Sardesai discloses obtaining, via an optical character recognition (OCR) system, passenger-related information from one or more travel identify documents associated with the passenger journey (Patil: pg. 9, line 14 – pg. 10, line 9)
Claim(s) 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sardesai modified by Patil as applied to claim 48 above, and further in view of Vellaisamy et al. (WO 2022060213) (cited in IDS).
With respect to claim 52, the modified Sardesai addresses all the limitations of claim 48.
However, the modified Sardesai fails to expressly disclose the predetermined questions are a set of configurable questions related to the health, customs and/or immigration status of the passenger.
Vellaisamy et al. teaches it is well known in the art for predetermined questions to be a set of configurable questions related to the health of the passenger (pg. 18, lines 23-33; Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the predetermined questions to be a set of configurable questions related to the health of the passenger, in order to provide a health declaration.
Claim(s) 48, 49, 51-53, 58, 59, 61, 62 and 65-67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vellaisamy et al. in view of “How biometrics can help airlines take off again” article (cited in IDS).
With respect to claims 48 and 58, Vellaisamy et al. discloses a system for authorising a passenger journey from an origin country to a destination country, the system comprising:
a memory for storing computer readable code (pg. 29, line 24 – pg. 30, line 20); and
a processor operatively coupled to the memory, the processor configured to (pg. 31, line 22 – pg. 31, line 30):
issue a set of predetermined questions relating to the passenger journey to a passenger before travelling to the destination country (pg. 16, lines 11-27; pg. 18, lines 23-33; Figs. 6 and 11);
receive information associated with the passenger journey (pg. 16, lines 11-27pg. 18, lines 23-33; Figs. 6 and 11);
calculate a score associated with the passenger journey by comparing the information associated with the passenger journey to one or more risk parameters (pg. 18, lines 23-33; Fig. 11).
Vellaisamy et al. fails to expressly disclose comparing the calculated score to a predetermined threshold value to determine a travel authorisation outcome; and issuing based on the travel authorisation outcome, a travel authorisation document to the passenger making the passenger.
Vellaisamy et al. discloses comparing the calculated score to a predetermined threshold value to determine a health risk assessment (pg. 18, lines 23-33; Fig. 11). The “How biometrics can help airlines take off again” article teaches it is well known in the art to determine a travel authorisation outcome based on a health risk (determine a passenger’s health risk to deny or permit entry into a country) (pg. 11). The article additionally teaches issuing, based on the travel authorisation outcome, a travel authorisation document to the passenger making the passenger journey (Figs. 9, 15, 16 and 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare the calculated score to a predetermined threshold value to determine a travel authorisation outcome; and to issue based on the travel authorisation outcome, a travel authorisation document to the passenger making the passenger, in order to predictably deny or permit entry into a country based on a passenger’s health risk and to issue an “OK to travel status” that the passenger can share for contactless travel.
The method is inherent to the system.
With respect to claim 49, the modified Vellaisamy et al. addresses all the limitations of claim 48.
However, the modified Vellaisamy et al. fails to expressly disclose a mobile device includes a memory for storing computer readable code, the processor coupled to the memory, a display and a receiver.
Vellaisamy et al. discloses the traveler is using a mobile app to complete the method (Vellaisamy: pg. 24, lines 1-5). In order to use a mobile app, the mobile app would necessarily be on a mobile device. It is well known in the art for a mobile device to include a memory to include a memory for storing computer readable code, and a processor coupled to the memory, a display and a receiver – the examiner takes official notice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a mobile device to have a memory for storing computer readable code, the processor coupled to the memory, a display and a receiver, in order to predictably run the mobile app and enter desired information into the mobile app.
With respect to claims 51 and 59, the modified Vellaisamy et al. addresses all the limitations of claims 48 and 58.
However, the modified Vellaisamy et al. fails to expressly disclose authorising the passenger journey if the calculated score is less than the predetermined threshold value.
Nevertheless, the How biometrics can help airlines take off again” article teaches permitting or denying entry into a country based on a passenger’s health risk, and additionally illustrates an “OK to travel” status based on test/vaccine certificate meeting regulations (Figs. 5 and 9), thus presumably having a low risk health status.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to authorise the passenger journey if the calculated score is less than the predetermined threshold value, in order to authorize a passenger journey when the passenger’s health risk is low.
With respect to claim 52, the modified Vellaisamy et al. discloses the predetermined questions are a set of configurable questions related to a health of the passenger (Vellaisamy: pg. 16, lines 18-20; pg. 18, lines 23-29).
With respect to claim 53, the modified Vellaisamy et al. addresses all the limitations of claim 48, and further discloses the travel authorisation document is a health declaration for determining whether the passenger is medically suitable for travel (Vellaisamy: pg. 16, lines 18-27; pg. 18, lines 23-34; article: pg. 11).
However the modified Vellaisamy et al. fails to expressly disclose the information associated with the health declaration is anonymised, wherein the information associated with the health declaration is deleted after a predetermined interval of time, and wherein the information associated with the passenger journey includes one or more of passenger-related information, information associated with one or more health tests, information associated with one or more recent vaccinations, information associated with symptoms indicative of one or more diseases, and information associated with one or more pre-existing health conditions.
The article teaches it is well known in the art for information associated with a health declaration (travel pass providing an “OK to travel” status) to be anonymized (uses ‘Decentralized Technology’ where there is no central database holding passenger information), wherein the information associated with the health declaration is deleted after a predetermined interval of time (passenger can delete their data anytime on their app), and wherein the information associated with the passenger journey includes one or more of passenger-related information, information associated with one or more health tests, information associated with one or more recent vaccinations, information associated with symptoms indicative of one or more diseases, and information associated with one or more pre-existing health conditions (test/vaccine certificate) (Figs. 9 and 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information associated with the health declaration to be anonymised, wherein the information associated with the health declaration is deleted after a predetermined interval of time, and wherein the information associated with the passenger journey includes one or more of passenger-related information, information associated with one or more health tests, information associated with one or more recent vaccinations, information associated with symptoms indicative of one or more diseases, and information associated with one or more pre-existing health conditions, in order to permit travel based on information associated with vaccination/test results meeting regulations while providing high level data privacy and security.
With respect to claim 61, the modified Vellaisamy et al. discloses obtaining via a mobile application, the information associated with the passenger journey (Vellaisamy: pg. 23, line 31 – pg. 24, line 5; pg. 15, lines 22-30; pg. 16, line 29 – pg. 17, line 10).
With respect to claim 62, the modified Vellaisamy et al. discloses obtaining, via an optical character recognition (OCR) system, passenger-related information from one or more travel identify documents associated with the passenger journey (Vellaisamy: pg. 23, line 31 – pg. 24, line 5; pg. 15, lines 22-30; pg. 16, line 29 – pg. 17, line 10).
With respect to claim 65, the modified Vellaisamy et al. discloses obtaining, via one or more external systems, the information associated with the passenger journey, the one or more external systems including a passenger name record (PNR), check in system, flight information system, or a health declaration system (integrated with airline systems via advance passenger processing (APP) to hold off issuing a boarding pass and to prevent unwell passengers going to the airport in the first place) (article: pg. 11).
With respect to claim 66, the modified Vellaisamy et al. discloses the travel authorisation document is transmitted via a mobile application, email, SMS, or other suitable means of communication (article: pgs. 5 and 8).
With respect to claim 67, the modified Vellaisamy et al. discloses authenticating the passenger using a personal identification number (PIN) and/or biometric data associated with the passenger, and further comprising associating the PIN and/or biometric data with a token associated with the passenger journey (article: pg. 9).
Claim(s) 50 and 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vellaisamy et al. modified by the “How biometrics can help airlines take off again” article as applied to claims 48 and 58 above, and further in view of “IATA Travel Pass” article.
With respect to claim 50 and 64, the modified Vellaisamy et al. addresses all the limitations of claims 48 and 58.
However, the modified Vellaisamy et al. fails to expressly disclose the inclusion of passenger-related information that includes one or more images of the passenger's face, wherein the one more images include live images or video of the passenger's face, and further comprising a passenger profile based on the passenger-related information, the passenger profile including one or more of passport data, live face image data, and digital travel credentials (DTD).
“IATA Travel Pass” article teaches it is well known in the art to include passenger-related information that includes one or more images of the passenger's face, wherein the one more images include live images or video of the passenger's face, and further comprising a passenger profile based on the passenger-related information, the passenger profile including one or more of passport data (passport details), live face image data (selfie), and digital travel credentials (DTC) (pg. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include passenger-related information that includes one or more images of the passenger's face, wherein the one more images include live images or video of the passenger's face, and further comprising a passenger profile based on the passenger-related information, the passenger profile including one or more of passport data, live face image data, and digital travel credentials, in order to provide sufficient data for the passenger to digitally share with to appropriate personnel/agency for travel.
Claim(s) 56 and 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vellaisamy et al. modified by the “How biometrics can help airlines take off again” article as applied to claims 48 and 58 above, and further in view of “IATA Travel Pass” (ICAO ACCRPG) article, “Travel Agent FAQs IATA Travel Pass” article and Krasko et al. (US 2017/000444).
With respect to claims 56 and 60, the modified Vellaisamy et al. addresses all the limitations of claims 48 and 58, and further discloses a token associated with the passenger journey, the token configured to allow a user to access at least part of the stored passenger-related information and travel authorisation outcome (“How biometrics can help airlines take off again”: pg. 9)
However, the modified Vellaisamy et al. fails to expressly disclose a database for storing the information associated with the passenger journey, travel authorisation outcome and travel authorisation document, the token is a QR code® or a reference number, and wherein the stored passenger-journey information and travel authorisation outcome associated with the passenger journey are assigned a unique global unique identifier (GUID).
“Travel Agent FAQs IATA Travel Pass” article teaches it is well known in the art to store information associated with the passenger journey, travel authorisation outcome and travel authorisation document in a database (on passenger’s mobile device) (pgs. 1, 2 and 5). ““How biometrics can help airlines take off again” discloses the passenger sharing a QR code associated with a passenger journey (Fig. 9) and ICAO ACCPRG “IATA Travel Pass” article illustrates an example of a QR code® associated with a passenger journey to be shared (pg. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a database to store information associated with the passenger journey, travel authorisation outcome and travel authorisation document in order to allow the desired information to be stored on a passenger’s phone. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the token to be a QR code® in order to allow a passenger to contactless share desired information (e.g. information associated with the passenger journey, travel authorisation outcome and/or travel authorisation document)
The combined teachings of the modified Vellaisamy et al., “Travel Agent FAQs IATA Travel Pass” article and ICAO ACCPRG “IATA Travel Pass” article disclose the invention set forth above. However, they fail to expressly disclose the stored passenger-journey information and travel authorisation outcome associated with the passenger journey are assigned a unique global unique identifier (GUID).
Krasko et al. teaches it is well known in the art for stored passenger-journey information to be assigned a unique global unique identifier (GUID) ([0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stored passenger-journey information and travel authorisation outcome associated with the passenger journey to be assigned a unique global unique identifier in order to link a record containing GUID with desired information relating to the passenger and their itinerary.
Claim(s) 57 and 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vellaisamy et al. modified by the “How biometrics can help airlines take off again” article as applied to claim 48 and 58 above, and further in view of Wolf et al. (DE 102013203669) (see translation).
With respect to claims 57 and 63, the modified Vellaisamy et al. addresses all the limitations of claims 48 and 58, and further discloses obtaining via a mobile application, the information associated with the passenger journey, and obtaining, via an optical character recognition (OCR) system, passenger-related information from one or more travel identify documents associated with the passenger journey (Vellaisamy: pg. 23, line 31 – pg. 24, line 5; pg. 15, lines 22-30; pg. 16, line 29 – pg. 17, line 10). The modified Vellaisamy et al. further discloses a check-in system configured to prevent the passenger from checking in for the journey if authorisation for the passenger journey is denied (hold off issuing a boarding pass and prevent unwell passengers going to the airport in the first place) (article pg. 11).
However, the modified Vellaisamy et al. fails to expressly disclose obtaining, via a Near Field Communication (NFC) system, passenger-related information from one or more travel identity documents associated with the passenger; and the system further comprising a check-in system configured to prevent the passenger from checking in for the journey if authorisation for the passenger journey is denied.
It is well known in the art to obtain, via a Near Field Communication (NFC) system, passenger-related information from one or more travel identity documents associated with the passenger, as taught by Wolf et al. (pg. 3, 1st para; pg. 6, 2nd para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain, via a Near Field Communication (NFC) system, passenger-related information from one or more travel identity documents associated with the passenger, in order to contactlessly obtain data from a passport that has an NFC chip.
The modified Vellaisamy et al. discloses the invention set forth above, however fails to expressly disclose a check-in system configured to prevent the passenger from checking in for the journey if authorisation for the passenger journey is denied.
Telephone/Fax Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUEZU ELLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 6:30 pm EST.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at (571) 272-3689. 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.
/SUEZU ELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights