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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending. Claims 1-9 have been examined.
Information Disclosure
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted 07/18/2025, 08/20/2025, 10/09/2025, 12/01/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
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 passenger boarding with priority. Specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the nonunderlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
(a) identifying a passenger with high priority for boarding announcements based on boarding reservation information;
(b) detecting the passenger with high-priority from footage captured by surveillance cameras; and
(c) displaying the footage of the passenger along with instructions for priority boarding for that passenger.
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 identifying a passenger with priority boarding from boarding reservation, identifying the passenger from surveillance footage, presenting the footage of the passenger for priority boarding, 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, “identifying a passenger with high priority for boarding announcement based on boarding reservation information;” “detecting the passenger with high-priority from footage captured…”, and “displaying the footage of the passenger along with instructions for priority boarding for that passenger…”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, characterize 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 “camera,” “a memory storing instructions” and “a processor configured to execute the instructions” recited in claim 1, “a non-transitory storage medium storing a program executable by 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 “identifying,” “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.
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).
determining the priority of each passenger in the boarding announcements based on information such as seat class, membership category, and whether or not they are accompanied by a passenger accompanying person for each passenger indicated in the boarding reservation information.
As above, the claims further recite the abstract idea of passenger boarding with priority. 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).
indicating a detection area of the passenger by a box in the footage.
As above, the claims further recite the abstract idea of passenger boarding with priority. 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 §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 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Unclear Scope
Claims 1, 4 and 7 each recites “(a) identifying a passenger with high priority for boarding announcements based on boarding reservation information.” And, claims 2, 5 and 8 each recites “determining the priority of each passenger in the boarding announcements…” Even though the limitations appear in claim portions of applicant’s disclosure (PGPub US 2025/0342410), applicant’s specification is silent on the term “boarding announcement” and does not provide descriptions of identifying a passenger with high priority for boarding announcement. Nor does the specification describe determining the priority of each passenger in the boarding announcements. The specification describes identifying a passenger with high priority for boarding (but no mention of ‘boarding announcement’) by disclosing “…in response to receiving the data set of each person from the operation terminal 70, the management server 10 determines priority in boarding guide based on information on a seat class, a membership category, and an accompanying person or the like on each person included in the data set and extracts a passenger having high priority (step S610).” (see paragraph [0170]) Therefore, the claims are unclear because the claims are not in line with the specification.
Claims 1, 4 and 7 each recites the limitations, “…(b) detecting the passenger with high-priority from footage captured by surveillance camera; (c) displaying the footage of the passenger along with instructions for priority boarding for that passenger.” Even though the limitations appear in claim portions of applicant’s disclosure (PGPub US 2025/0342410), applicant’s specification is silent on the terms “footage” and “surveillance cameras.” The specification describes ‘captured image’ but not ‘footage’ and ‘cameras’ not ‘surveillance cameras’. Paragraph [0060] of the specification discloses “A plurality of cameras 80 are arranged in peripheral regions ( adjacent regions) of boarding gates and are image capture devices that capture peripheral regions of the boarding gates, respectively. Each camera 80 is attached to a ceiling, a wall, a pillar, or the like, for example, so as to be able to capture a face of the user U who is present in the peripheral region of the boarding gate and waiting for boarding.” Paragraph [0164] of the specification discloses “…In step S603, the management server 10 detects a person from the captured image of the peripheral region of the boarding gate. When a plurality of persons are included in a captured image, the management server 10 detects face images of all the persons as target face images, respectively.” Therefore, the claims are unclear because the claims are not in line with the specification.
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 MARUTA (US 2016/0014382A1 (“MARUTA”)).
Per Claims 1, 5 and 8: MARUTA discloses an information processing method comprising:
(a) identifying a passenger with high priority (‘not-yet boarded passenger’) for boarding announcements based on boarding reservation information; (Fig. 4, Fig. 6; ¶¶18, 35, 65-66)
(b) detecting the passenger with high-priority from footage captured by surveillance cameras; and (Fig. 2, Fig. 6; ¶¶18, 35, 38, 66, 71)
(c) displaying the footage of the passenger along with instructions for priority boarding for that passenger. (Fig. 4, Fig. 5; ¶¶54, 58)
Additionally for claim 1, MARUTA discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to perform…(Fig.1; ¶¶27)
Additionally for claim 7, MARUTA discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing a program executable by a computer to perform processing comprising:… (Fig. 1; ¶¶27)
Per claims 2, 5 and 8: MARUTA discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 4 and 7.
MARUTA discloses:
determining the priority of each passenger in the boarding announcements based on information such as seat class, membership category, and whether or not they are accompanied by a passenger accompanying person for each passenger indicated in the boarding reservation information. (Fig. 6; ¶¶25, 33, 63, 65)
Per claims 3, 6 and 9: MARUTA discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 4 and 7.
MARUTA discloses:
indicating a detection area of the passenger by a box in the footage. (Fig. 4; ¶¶55, 57-58)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
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 on (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