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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of an amendment to the claims of application #19244155 received on 9/3/2025. Claims 7, 11, 15, 22-23 and 26-28 are cancelled. Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-21 and 24-25 are amended. Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-21 and 24-25 are pending. All pending claims are considered and examined.
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.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Higashi (US 20220055222 A1; cited by Applicant IDS).
Regarding claim 24, Higashi discloses (Fig. 3) a guide robot control device comprising: a freestanding kiosk having a front side and a rear side, the kiosk comprising: a body for housing one or more internal components of the kiosk; a display on the front side of a top portion of the kiosk (¶93); and wherein the kiosk is provided with at least two wheels for transporting the kiosk (¶87-¶88).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Looze et al. (US 9877602 B2; cited by Applicant IDS).
Regarding claim 25, Looze discloses (Fig. 12) a modular check-in and baggage handling system and method comprising: a freestanding kiosk having a front side and a rear side, the kiosk comprising: a body for housing one or more internal components of the kiosk; a first display on the front side of a top portion of the kiosk; a second display on the rear side of the top portion of the kiosk; and wherein the second display is movable between a first position in which it is proximate a kiosk body and a second position in which it is spaced away from kiosk body (col. 7, lines 12-25; Fig. 12).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 17-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Looze in view of Levitan et al. (CA 2681684 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Looze discloses:
a body 100 for housing one or more internal components of the kiosk (col. 5, line 65 – col. 6, line 5);
a first display on the front side of a top portion of the kiosk (col. 7, lines 12-25 or col. 12, lines 33-53); and
a second display on the rear side of the top portion of the kiosk (col. 7, lines 12-25 or col. 12, lines 33-53);
wherein the second display is movable between a first position in which it is proximate a kiosk body and a second position in which it is spaced away from kiosk body (col. 7, lines 12-25).
Looze does not explicitly disclose wherein the kiosk is provided with at least two wheels for transporting the kiosk.
Levitan discloses (Fig. 1) a terminal comprising: Different user inputs can be provided and the video display screen 12 can also be a touch screen (page 4). The rear perspective view of Figure 2 shows caster wheels 40 and 42 provided at the base rear edge and a tilt handle 44 projecting from the rear portion of the game terminal. The handle 44 allows a user to tilt the terminal towards him and allows movement of the terminal using the castor wheels 40 and 42 (page 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to provide the kiosk display of Looze with the transport wheels of Levitan in order to assist in facilitating movement of the terminal (Levitan: page 5).
Regarding claim 3, Looze modified by Levitan teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the kiosk is an interactive kiosk (Looze: col. 12, lines 33-53 – touch screen).
Regarding claim 5, Looze modified by Levitan teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the second display is a touch display (Looze: col. 12, lines 33-53 – touch screen; in this case, the first display is the one in Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 6, Looze modified by Levitan teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the second display faces in a rearward direction of the kiosk (Looze: col. 7, lines 12-25 or col. 12, lines 33-53); and wherein the kiosk further comprises a base at a bottom portion of the kiosk body, and wherein the wheels of the kiosk are at a rear of the base (Levitan: Page 5, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Looze modified by Levitan teaches the apparatus of claim 6 above and further teaches wherein the base of the kiosk is substantially flat (Levitan: Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Looze modified by Levitan teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the kiosk further comprises one or more dispensing means (Looze: col. 12, lines 42-53).
Regarding claim 18, Looze modified by Levitan teaches the apparatus of claim 17 above and further teaches wherein the one or more dispensing means comprises one or more of: a boarding pass printer, a bag tag printer, and a receipt printer (Looze: col. 12, lines 42-53).
Regarding claim 19, Looze modified by Levitan teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the kiosk further comprises one or more of: a document scanner; payment means; a card reader (Looze: col. 5, lines 58-62); a near filed communication (NFC) reader; a barcode reader (Looze: col. 14, lines 56-64); a lighting device such as a light emitting diode (LED) (Looze: col. 16, lines 2-9; light emitting diode); and selection buttons (Looze: col. 6, lines 11-14).
Regarding claim 21, Looze modified by Levitan teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the kiosk body has a substantially constant cross sectional shape along a height of the kiosk body (Looze: Fig. 1; Levitan: Fig. 1).
Looze modified by Levitan as applied to claim 1 does not explicitly teach wherein the height of the kiosk body is at least six times greater than a width or depth of the kiosk body; and wherein the height of the kiosk is at least four times greater than the width and length of a base.
Levitan further teaches: This audio output system is provided between the intermediate portion 8 and the upper portion 10. This position is generally at the user's head height and as such provides effective audio output (Levitan: pg. 5, lines 8-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the kiosk body of Looze modified by Levitan as applied to claim 1 with the kiosk body of Levitan, where the form factor approximates the size of an average user and would therefore be about a height of six times greater than a width or depth, in order to use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Looze modified by Levitan in view of Rahemtulla (US 6487068 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Looze modified by Levitan teaches the apparatus of claim 3 above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the kiosk further comprises a control unit configured to modify an output of the first display based on user input to the second display.
Rahemtulla teaches (Fig. 4) computer displays comprising: By mounting the screen on the outside surface, the display is easily viewed by third parties. The PC may be mounted on a counter top, in which case the embodiment of FIGS. 3 & 4 is especially useful for touchscreen EPOS (electronic point of sale). In either configuration the display may be used as an interactive customer display system. Embodiments of the invention may be used in environments such as hotel rooms in which case terminals may be pole or wall mounted to give combined TV/PC/Internet touchscreen facilities. Alternatively, the display may be used as a customer service screen (col. 3, lines 22-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the first display of Looze modified by Levitan as a display for third parties while the other display is for customer interaction as taught by Rahemtulla in order to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, Looze modified by Levitan and Rahemtulla teaches the apparatus of claim 4 above and further teaches wherein the kiosk further comprises a front facing camera (Looze: col. 16, lines 17-19 - counter module 100 or an equipment module 200, may comprise a camera for photographing a passenger).
Claim(s) 2, 9-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Looze modified by Levitan in view of Lanier (US 7626569 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Looze modified by Levitan teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above but does not explicitly teach wherein when the second display is in the second position, the second display is at a distance of between 200 millimetres and 300 millimetres from the kiosk body.
Lanier teaches (Fig. 1) a movable audio/video communication interface system comprising: FIG. 10 shows how the display assembly 1002 on the end of the robotic arm 1004 is automatically moved or swiveled 1006 to maintain the head in a desired center of the viewing/sensing range rather than by moving the arm (col. 6, lines 20-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the second display of Looze modified by Levitan as mounted on a movable arm as taught by Lanier, where the movement is expected to accommodate a range of height of users heads and would therefore be expected to have a total range of two feet and thus a radial arm length of about one foot, in order to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results of allowing users to assert a preferred interface.
Regarding claim 9, Looze modified by Levitan teaches the apparatus of claim 6 above but does not explicitly teach wherein the kiosk body extends at an angle relative to a ground, such that, in use, the top portion of the kiosk body is closer to a passenger than the bottom portion of the kiosk body.
Lanier teaches (Fig. 1) a movable audio/video communication interface system comprising: Each system includes a computer 108 connected to a computer controlled robotics arm 110. The arm 110 is a conventional robotics arm that has multiple degrees of freedom (with effectively 6 degrees of freedom in the end attachment) allowing the display to tilt, swivel, move up, down, away, toward, right, left, etc. The arm also includes the conventional feedback systems that indicate the position and attitude of the arm so that the direction that the display is "facing" is known. The arm 110 holds a visual display 112, such as a flat panel display, to which are attached (an array of) audio speakers 114, visual sensors 116, illumination sources 118 such as LEDs, and an audio sensor 120, such as a microphone array allowing sound direction to be determined (Lanier: col. 4, lines 1-14). FIG. 10 shows how the display assembly 1002 on the end of the robotic arm 1004 is automatically moved or swiveled 1006 to maintain the head in a desired center of the viewing/sensing range rather than by moving the arm (col. 6, lines 20-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the second display of Looze modified by Levitan as mounted on a movable arm as taught by Lanier, which will position the display (and therefore the top portion of the kiosk) closer to the user and also therefore makes the kiosk generally angled, in order to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results of allowing users to assert a preferred interface.
Regarding claim 10, Looze modified by Levitan teaches the apparatus of claim 1 above and further teaches wherein a centre of gravity of the kiosk is in a bottom half of the kiosk (Looze: Fig. 12).
Looze modified by Levitan does not explicitly disclose wherein the second display is connected to an upper portion of the kiosk body by an articulated arm.
Lanier teaches (Fig. 1) a movable audio/video communication interface system comprising: Each system includes a computer 108 connected to a computer controlled robotics arm 110. The arm 110 is a conventional robotics arm that has multiple degrees of freedom (with effectively 6 degrees of freedom in the end attachment) allowing the display to tilt, swivel, move up, down, away, toward, right, left, etc. The arm also includes the conventional feedback systems that indicate the position and attitude of the arm so that the direction that the display is "facing" is known. The arm 110 holds a visual display 112, such as a flat panel display, to which are attached (an array of) audio speakers 114, visual sensors 116, illumination sources 118 such as LEDs, and an audio sensor 120, such as a microphone array allowing sound direction to be determined (Lanier: col. 4, lines 1-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the second display of Looze modified by Levitan as mounted on a movable arm as taught by Lanier in order to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results of allowing users to assert a preferred interface.
Regarding claim 12, Looze modified by Levitan and Lanier teaches the apparatus of claim 10 above and further teaches wherein the articulated arm has at least two degrees of freedom, preferably the articulated arm has at least three degrees of freedom, most preferably the articulated arm has four degrees of freedom (Lanier: col. 4, lines 1-14).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Looze modified by Levitan in view of Wei et al. (US 20230299574 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Looze modified by Levitan teaches the apparatus of claim 14 above and further teaches wherein the kiosk body defines an internal compartment and wherein the kiosk further comprises a power supply unit disposed in a bottom portion of the internal compartment of the kiosk body (Looze: col. 11, lines 3-12).
Looze modified by Levitan does not explicitly disclose: wherein the kiosk complies with a Static Stability Test (8.6.2.2) and/or a Relocation Stability Test (8.6.3) and/or a Glass Slide Test (8.6.4) and/or a Horizontal Force Test (8.6.5) of IEC 62368-1:2014 (2nd edition).
Wei teaches a power supply device comprising: the power supply device complies with an overload test of IEC 62368-1:2018 of international safety standards (claim 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the power supply of Looze modified by Levitan in a manner that satisfies IEC 62368 as taught by Wei and meeting other additional standards outlined in order to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Looze modified by Levitan in view of Crowley et al. (US 20080012699 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Looze modified by Levitan teaches the apparatus of claim 14 above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a control unit is configured to extract data from photographic or video imagery captured by a camera to verify an identity of a passenger.
Crowley teaches (Fig. 1) a passenger screening system comprising: a facial image recognition system and/or a voice recognition system in order to verify the identity of the passenger (¶32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the identification and airport check-in kiosk of Looze modified by Levitan with the facial image recognition of Crowley as an addition means of identification as a use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Regarding claim 20, Looze modified by Levitan teaches the apparatus of claim 19 above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the lighting device comprises one or more light sources for illuminating a face of a passenger.
Crowley teaches: The exemplary iris scan device 44 also includes a light imaging apparatus 48 to generate an image of the iris and/or pupil (¶31). A facial image recognition system and/or a voice recognition system in order to verify the identity of the passenger (¶32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the identification and airport check-in kiosk of Looze modified by Levitan with the facial image recognition of Crowley as an addition means of identification, utilizing the known lighting devices, as a use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Birgeoglu et al. (US 9600026 B2) discloses terminals with movable screens (Fig. 17; Fig. 48).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN C LY whose telephone number is (571)270-7898. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/TOAN C LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876