DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after February 4, 2020, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgements
The amendment filed on 06/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 are pending. Claims 1-9 have been examined.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claim Objections
Applicant' s amendments to claim 7 have overcome the previous claim objections. Accordingly, the previous objections to claim 7 are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant traverses the rejections. Applicant contends, under Step 2A Prong 1, the claim features of claim 1 are not directed to abstract ideas of certain methods of organizing human activities and mental processes with cited sections of MPEP 2111, 2106, and paragraphs [0002]-[0005], [0116], [0192]-[0194], [0201], [0202], [0207], [0222], [0223] of applicant’s specifications.
Examiner notes, however, that the amended claim 1, as representative, continues to recite an abstract idea of security check of passenger with companion. Specifically, the claim recites “(a) determining whether a passenger has a companion based on boarding reservation information of the passenger,” “(b) searching for the passenger in a captured image captured…” “(c) detecting another person along with the passenger from the captured images in which the passenger appears;” and “(d) if another person along with the passenger is not detected from the captured image or if another person along with the passenger is detected from the captured image but the another person is different from the companion, displaying an instruction to ask the passenger about the companion,” which, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity“ grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP §2106.04 (a)) because the claim recites a process involving looking up boarding reservation information for a passenger travelling with a companion, searching captured image for the passenger and the companion, and providing instructions to ask the passenger about the companion, which is a commercial or legal interactions because they recite agreements in the form of contracts, sales activities or behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as they recite following rules or instructions. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II) Additionally, the claim recites concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations and judgments. In particular, the limitations, “determining whether a passenger has a companion based on boarding reservation information of the passenger;” “searching for the passenger in a captured image…;” “detecting another person along with the passenger from the captured image in which the passenger appears;” and “if another person along with the passenger is not detected from the captured image or if another person along with the passenger is detected from the captured image but the another person is different from the companion,” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, characterize collection, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, which falls within the mental processes category of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) Accordingly the claim is abstract idea because merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination any less abstract.an instruction to ask the passenger about the companion. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claim does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when analyzed under step 2B. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform(s) the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of security check of passenger with companion. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)
Applicant' s amendments to claim 2 have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b). Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102
Applicant contends that prior art, Manasseh et al. (US 2005/0128304A1) does not teach features in context of “if another personal along with the passenger is detected from the captured image but the another person is different from the companion.” Examiner notes, however, that the amended claim 1 recites “(d) if another person along with the passenger is not detected from the captured image or if another person along with the passenger is detected from the captured image but the another person is different from the companion, displaying an instruction to ask the passenger about the companion.” Manaseeh teaches the limitations by disclosing that agents or officers would receive notifications, processed information analyzed showing a particular discrepancy with the traveler supplied information, providing instructions from a supervisor or law enforcement agencies (see at least paragraph [0035]), and the analysis may also identify the surrounding of the traveler, such as whether he is traveling with a companion and whether such person has left the travel or continues to travel (see at least paragraph [0031]).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
In the instance case, claims 1-3 are directed to an apparatus (i.e. product), claims 4-6 are directed to a method (i.e. process), and claims 7-9 are directed to a non-transitory storage medium storing a program (i.e. manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent Claims 1, 4, 7
Step 2A Prong One
The claims recite (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea of security check of passenger with companion. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
(a) determining whether a passenger has a companion based on boarding reservation information of the passenger;
(b) searching for the passenger in a captured image captured by cameras;
(c) detecting another person along with the passenger from the captured images in which the passenger appears; and
(d) if another person along with the passenger is not detected from the captured image or if another person along with the passenger is detected from the captured image but the another person is different from the companion, displaying an instruction to ask the passenger about the companion.
More specifically, but for the additional elements, the claims under its broadest reasonable interpretation recite limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the claims recite a process involving looking up boarding reservation information for a passenger travelling with a companion, searching captured image for the passenger and the companion, and providing instructions to ask the passenger about the companion, which is a commercial or legal interactions. Additionally, the claim recites concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations and judgments. In particular, the limitations, “determining whether a passenger has a companion based on boarding reservation information of the passenger;” “searching for the passenger in a captured image…;” “detecting another person along with the passenger from the captured image in which the passenger appears;” and “if another person along with the passenger is not detected from the captured image or if another person along with the passenger is detected from the captured image but the another person is different from the companion,” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, characterize collection, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, which falls within the mental processes category of abstract ideas. The claims are abstract ideas because merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination any less abstract.
Prong Two of Step 2A
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The non-underlined additional elements of “a memory storing instructions” and “a processor configured to execute the instructions”, “cameras,” recited in claim 1, “a non-transitory storage medium storing a program that, when executed by a processor of a computer” recited in claim 7, merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Moreover, because claim 4 does not recite any element(s) performing the steps of “determining,” “searching,” “detecting,” and “displaying,” these additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to the abstract idea. With respect to the elements of “image captured by cameras,” they generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of cameras and does not provide improvements to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or a particular field of use of cameras capturing images.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely use computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea and it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewed as a whole, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept, and thus, is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims: 2-3, 5-6, 8-9
Claims 2, 5 and 8 recite the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
if other person along with the passenger is detected from the captured image, determining whether the other person is the same as the companion based on the boarding reservation information of the passenger.
As above, the claims further recite the abstract idea of security check of passenger with companion. The claims do not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 3, 6 and 9 recite the following underlined claim elements as abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
if the other person is different from the companion, indicating that the other person along with the passenger does not match the companion.
As above, the claims further recite the abstract idea of security check of passenger with companion. The claims do not introduce any new additional element beyond the additional elements discussed previously. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manasseh et al. (US 2005/0128304A1 (“Manasseh”)).
Per Claims 1, 5 and 8: Manasseh discloses an information processing method comprising:
(a) determining whether a passenger has a companion based on boarding reservation information of the passenger; (Fig. 7, item 272, Fig. 9, item 344; ¶¶39, 41-42)
(b) searching for the passenger in a captured image captured by cameras; (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 5, items 230/236, Fig. 8, Fig. 9, items 336-344; ¶¶22-23, 36, 39, 42)
(c) detecting another person along with the passenger from the captured image in which the passenger appears; and (Fig. 8, Fig. 9, items 342-350; ¶¶31, 36, 39, 41-43)
(d) if another person along with the passenger is not detected from the captured image or if another person along with the passenger is detected from the captured image but the another person is different from the companion, displaying an instruction to ask the passenger about the companion. (Fig. 5, item 238, Fig. 8, item 308, Fig. 9, items 342-350; ¶¶27, 31, 35-36, 39, 41-43)
Additionally for claim 1, Manasseh discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to perform…(Fig. 6; ¶¶38)
Additionally for claim 7, Manasseh discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing a program that, when executed by a processor of a computer, causes the processor of the computer to perform:… (Fig. 6; ¶¶38)
Per claims 2, 5 and 8: Manasseh discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 4 and 7.
Manasseh discloses the mothed comprising:
if other person along with the passenger is detected from the captured image, determining whether the other person is the same as the companion based on the boarding reservation information of the passenger.(Fig. 9, items 342-350; ¶¶36, 39, 41-43, 47)
Additionally, for claim 2, Manasseh discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform… (Fig. 6; ¶¶38)
Additionally, for claim 8, Manasseh discloses wherein the program causes the computer to perform… (Fig. 6; ¶¶38)
Claims 2, 5 and 8 each recites the step of determining whether the other person is the same as the companion based on the boarding reservation information of the passenger is only performed if other person along with the passenger is detected from the captured image. However, claims 1, 4 and 7, which claims 2, 5 and 8 each depends on, each recites the step of displaying an instruction to ask the passenger about the companion is only performed if another person along with the passenger is not detected from the captured image. These conditions (i.e. “another person along with the passenger is not detected from the captured image” as recited in claims 1, 4 and 7 and “other person along with the passenger is detected from the captured image” as recited in claims 2, 5 and 8 are mutually exclusive. Therefore, this limitations of claims 2, 5 and 8 are not performed because either the limitations of claims 1, 4 and 7 can be performed or the limitations of claims 2, 5 and 8 can be performed but not both. Therefore, it doesn’t get patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.04 II)
Per claims 3, 6 and 9: Manasseh discloses all the limitations of claims 2, 5 and 8.
Manasseh discloses the method comprising:
if the other person is different from the companion, indicating that the other person along with the passenger does not match the companion. (Fig. 5, item 238, Fig. 8, item 308, Fig. 9, items 342-350; ¶¶36, 39, 41-43, 47)
Additionally, for claim 3, Manasseh discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform… (Fig. 6; ¶¶38)
Furthermore, the limitations, “if the other person is different from the companion, indicating that the other person along with the passenger does not match the companion”, are not performed as claims 2, 5 and 8, which claims 3, 6 and 9 depend upon respectively, are not performed due to optional language. Therefore, it doesn’t get patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.04 II)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MCMAHON (WO 2001/063533A2) teaches techniques for check-in of airline passengers for departing flights.
Murphy (US 2004/0190757A1) teaches an integrated passenger management system includes a check-in facility comprising a biometric sensor, an identification document check facility arranged to connect to an external database of suspect passengers, a security portal comprising at least a further biometric sensor and a millimeter wave camera, and a boarding gate comprising at least a biometric sensor, wherein a passenger is allowed to board a transport medium associated with the boarding gate if the biometric measurements taken by the biometric sensors at each stage are substantially similar, and the other security checks are passed satisfactorily.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENYUH KUO whose telephone number is (571)272-5616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4 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, JOHN W HAYES can be reached at (571)272-6708. 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.
/CHENYUH KUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights