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 06/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 are pending. Claims 1-9 have been examined.
Information Disclosure
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted 06/08/2026 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.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
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], [0128], [0134]-[0194], [0136], [0148], [0192], of applicant’s specifications.
Examiner notes, however, that the amended claim 1, as representative, continues to recite an abstract idea of passenger boarding with priority. Specifically, the claim recites “(a) determining a passenger who is eligible for priority boarding based on boarding reservation information”, “(b) detecting the passenger with high-priority from a captured image captured…”, “(c) displaying the captured image of the passenger along with instructions for the priority boarding for that passenger…”, 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 determining a passenger with priority boarding from boarding reservation, identifying the passenger from captured image, presenting the captured image of the passenger for priority boarding, 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 a passenger who is eligible for priority boarding based on boarding reservation information”, “detecting the passenger with high-priority from a captured image captured…”, “displaying the captured image of the passenger along with instructions for the priority boarding for that passenger…”, 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. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of the claim such as “a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions,” “a plurality of cameras,” “an operational terminal,” 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. With respect to the elements of “image captured by at least a camera of a plurality of 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. The use of the additional elements as tools to implement the abstract idea 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. Specifically, these additional elements perform(s) the steps or functions such as: determining a passenger who is eligible for priority boarding based on boarding reservation information, detecting the passenger with high-priority from a captured image captured, displaying the captured image of the passenger along with instructions for the priority boarding for that passenger. 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 passenger boarding with priority. 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 claims 1, 4 and 7 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's amendments to claims 1, 4 and 7 have overcome the previous rejections under 35 USC 102; therefore, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
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) determining a passenger who is eligible for priority boarding based on boarding reservation information;
(b) detecting the passenger with high-priority from a captured image captured by at least a camera of a plurality of cameras; and
(c) displaying the captured image of the passenger along with instructions for the priority boarding for that passenger on an operational terminal.
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 determining a passenger with priority boarding from boarding reservation, identifying the passenger from captured image, presenting the captured image 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, “determining a passenger who is eligible for priority boarding based on boarding reservation information;” “detecting the passenger with high-priority from image captured…”, and “displaying the captured image 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 “at least one camera of a plurality of cameras,” “an operational terminal,” and “a memory configured to store 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 “determining,” “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 at least one camera of a plurality of 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).
determining the passenger who is eligible for priority boarding further based on any of 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 captured image.
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 §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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MARUTA (US 2016/0014382A1 (“MARUTA”)) in view of Spencer et al. (US 2011/0227697A1 (“Spencer”))
Per Claims 1, 4 and 8: MARUTA discloses an information processing method comprising:
(a) determining a passenger with is eligible for…boarding based on boarding reservation information; (Fig. 4, Fig. 6; ¶¶18, 35, 65-66)
(b) detecting the passenger with high-priority from a captured image captured by at least one camera of a plurality of cameras; and (Fig. 2, Fig. 6; ¶¶18, 35, 38, 66, 71)
(c) displaying the captured image of the passenger along with instructions for the…boarding for that passenger on an operational terminal. (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)
MARUTA discloses a passenger eligible for boarding based on boarding reservation information (Fig. 4, Fig. 6; ¶¶18, 35, 65-66). However, MARUTA does not explicitly disclose priority boarding as the boarding status of the passenger.
Spencer teaches priority boarding of a passenger based on boarding reservation information (¶30; claim 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of MARUTA to incorporate the teachings of passenger priority boarding based on boarding reservation information, as disclosed in Spencer, for improving and analyzing passenger flow. (Spencer: ¶56)
Per claims 2, 5 and 8: MARUTA in view of Spencer discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 4 and 7.
MARUTA discloses:
determining the passenger who is eligible for…boarding based on information any of 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)
Spencer teaches priority boarding of a passenger based on boarding reservation information (¶30; claim 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a method of MARUTA in view of Spencer to incorporate the teachings of passenger priority boarding based on boarding reservation information, as disclosed in Spencer, for improving and analyzing passenger flow. (Spencer: ¶56)
Per claims 3, 6 and 9: MARUTA in view of Spencer discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 4 and 7.
MARUTA discloses:
indicating a detection area of the passenger by a box in the captured image. (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.
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