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 .
Status of Claims
Due to communications filed 7/24/25, the following is a first non-final office action. Claims 1-18 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4 and 7 of copending Application No. 18/384517 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims disclose “A facility management system comprising: at least one memory storing one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to”, “obtain a face image...using...a check-in terminal at a facility”, “identify the user by a first face authentication using the first face image and a pre-stored image”, “perform a check-in process of the user”, and “register the face image of the user”. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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,
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C, 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (l.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In addition, claims 1, 7 and 13 recites a judicial exception. These claims as a whole recite obtaining face images, identifying a user through facial authentication, performing a check-in process, and registering authorized users, which constitutes managing access to a facility and authorization of users, which falls into the certain method of organizing human activity grouping. In addition, these steps can be performed mentally or with pen and paper, which falls into the mental processes grouping. The mere nominal recitation of a generic memory/processor/non-transitory computer-readable recording medium does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity/mental processes groupings. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements including a processor, memory, camera and stored facial images merely perform generic computer functions of receiving, processing, storing and displaying information and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Finally, the claims do not recite an inventive concept. . The claim does not improve facial recognition technology, image processing, computer functionality or any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12 and 15-18 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. The additional elements of the processor in claim 2; camera in claim 4; camera in claim 7, camera in claim 10; user terminal in claim 12; camera in claim 16; terminal in claim 18 are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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, 7 and 13 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.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 is recites the limitation "a companion of the user" in claim 1, line 4; claim 7, line 2; and claim 13, line3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (CN 110443923 A), and further in view of ABDUL et al (WO 2018048352 A1), and further in view of SAKON (JP 2017182326 A).
As per claim 1, Xu et al discloses:
A facility management system comprising: at least one memory storing one or more instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions, ((XU ET AL: the self-service subsystem comprises: a processor.. the processor is connected with the server... The security management system of the invention at least comprises a hotel reservation system, an information collecting system, a hotel management system, intelligent access management control system, a face detection and recognition system, a database storage system, a visitor management system sub-system module, and a central server, said each sub- system is connected with the central server.);
to: obtain a face image of...a user using a camera provided at a check-in terminal at a facility, (See claim 1 of XU et al: "at the hotel entrance, based on monitoring video intelligent terminal collects entering all the human face data hotel, wherein said video intelligent monitoring terminal is an active face detection, it at least includes a face detection module, a face image collecting module human face image data);
identify the user by a face authentication using the face image of the user and a pre-stored image; perform a check-in process of the user identified, (See claim 1 of XU et al: human face image data of
the video intelligent terminal transmits the collected is sent to the server for further processing and
stored in the face database.. the first information collecting point is set at least comprises human face image collecting module on the hotel foreground area, face detecting identifying module of the foreground self-service terminal device extracting face image information field and comparing the human face image within a predetermined information face database stored in the reservation system by face detecting identifying module, according to the similarity judging whether it is the same human face, by matching, configured guest and granted by the system based on the access right of the face");
XU et al does not disclose:
obtain a face image of a companion of the user along with a face image of a user using a camera provided at a check-in terminal at a facility,
However, ABDUL et al (WO 2018048352 A1) discloses “Facilitating a secure check-in without a personnel at a service area of the hotel by providing a kiosk, wherein the kiosk comprises an image generating device; - Generating images of the one or more users and identifying the one or more users by means of facial images; and Selectively providing access to lodging facility when the one or more users are identified”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by , ABDUL et al in the systems of XU et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
XU et al does not disclose:
in a case where the check-in process is performed, register both the face image of the user
and the face image of the companion, as face images of permitted users allowed to use services
provided in the facility,
However, SAKON (JP 2017182326 A) discloses: SOLUTION: An authentication system comprises: a portable mobile terminal 13 that has a camera and communication functions; and a register DB (database) server 7 that is connectable to the mobile terminal via a network. In the register DB server, information about a qualification to be authenticated, and face information on a legitimate proprietary of the qualification are registered. The mobile terminal includes: a reception unit that receives the information about the qualification and the face information from the register DB server via the network; a storage unit that stores a face image of an authenticated person shot by using the camera function; and a collation unit that implements processing of collating the face information transmitted from the register DB server with the shot face image within the terminal. As a result of the collation processing in the collation unit, when the face information and the face image coincide with each other and the information about the qualification is judged valid, the authenticated person is authenticated to be the legitimate proprietary of the qualification, and a right to be granted by the qualification is given to the authenticated person); ALSO SEE "perform a matching operation based on the face image of the first user obtained from the second camera and the checked-in user images in the second collection of images"); ALSO SEE: "In FIG. 5A...The face may be photographed using a camera installed at a purchase place or using a smartphone owned by the purchaser...When such registration is completed, the registered face owner is stored in the server as a valid qualification holder; ALSO SEE “In addition, when an unspecified number of persons to be authenticated are targeted, depending on the nature of the qualification to be authenticated, qualification holders corresponding to this may be collectively received. In the case where a large number of users visit at the same time, in consideration of the memory capacity of the mobile terminal, each certifier (person in charge) is assigned to each terminal...The user may be authenticated in an empty space by guiding the user”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by SAKON in the systems of XU et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, Xu et al discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
associate the face image of the companion and the face image of the user with reservation
information of the user, and manage service usage permissions based on the reservation information, (“human face characteristic information in the hotel reservation period, reservation human face image with the identity document image system by obtaining guest by the user terminal device and transmitted to the hotel management system, pre-processing the image, extracting the human face characteristic information in the human face image from the face detection and identity of certificate photo, the similarity of the two according to the feature analysis so as to perform face recognition comparison”).
As per claim 3, Xu et al discloses:
Wherein the reservation information includes number of the user and the companion, (See claim 5 of Xu et al: “5. The security management method according to claim 1 or 2, wherein step S5 further comprises the following specific step: S5-1: if the intelligent terminal through the identification and comparison when there is found not registered person, sends caution prompt to the background management system; at the same time, the human face information is not the registered person obtaining stored in the abnormal information database, S5-2: when the room access intelligent terminal cannot obtain the face image, by access intelligent terminal sends prompt again for performing human face image collecting and identifying comparison; At the same time, human body detecting module or a face detection module detecting the room entering the number counting, if it does not accord with the number of registered, send out warning prompt to the system.”).
As per claim 5, Xu et al does not disclose the following:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: register the face image of the companion as a face image of the permitted users with same service permissions as the user,
However, Abdul discloses: (“Facilitating a secure check-in without a personnel at a service area of the hotel by providing a kiosk, wherein the kiosk comprises an image generating device; - Generating images of the one or more users and identifying the one or more users by means of facial images; and Selectively providing access to lodging facility when the one or more users are identified”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by , ABDUL et al in the systems of XU et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 6, Xu et al discloses:
Wherein the pre-stored image is uploaded by the user via a user terminal during a reservation
Procedure, (step S6: in a predetermined system or foreground self-help terminal equipment further comprises a visitor management system for managing visitor temporary access. the specific steps are as follows; step S6-1: visitor needs in a predetermined system of visitor management sub-system or the foreground self-service terminal device of visitor management subsystem input name, contact way or the certificate number and other personal information and personnel to access the related information, and the camera of the user terminal or the foreground self-help terminal shooting upload human face image of itself, after the visitor submits the personal information can apply access authorization.).
As per claim 7, this claim recites limitation similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1 and is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 8:
associating the face image of the companion and the face image of the user with reservation information of the user, and managing service usage permissions based on the reservation information.
Please see the rejection for claim 2.
As per claim 9: wherein the reservation information includes number of the user and the companion.
Please see the rejection for claim 3.
As per claim 11:
further comprising: registering the face image of the companion as a face image of the permitted users with same service permissions as the user.
Please see the rejection of claim 5.
As per claim 12:
Wherein the pre-stored image is uploaded by the user via a user terminal during a reservation
procedure.
Please see the rejection of claim 6.
As per claim 13, this claim recites limitations similar to those of independent claim 1 and is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 14:
wherein the facility management method further comprises:
associating the face image of the companion and the face image of the user with
reservation information of the user, and
managing service usage permissions based on the reservation information.
Please see the rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 15, wherein
the reservation information includes number of the user and the companion.
Please see the rejection of claim 3.
As per claim 17:
wherein the facility management method further comprises:
registering the face image of the companion as a face image of the permitted users with
same service permissions as the user.
Please see the rejection for claim 5.
As per claim 18:
wherein the pre-stored image is uploaded by the user via a user terminal during a reservation
procedure.
Please see the rejection for claim 6.
Claim(s) 4, 10, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (CN 110443923 A), and further in view of ABDUL et al (WO 2018048352 A1), and further in view of SAKON (JP 2017182326 A), and further in view of (JP 2020524850 A).
As per claim 4, Xu et al does not disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: output an instruction for directing faces to the camera in a case where the face images are not normally captured.
However, (JP 2020524850 A) discloses: [0083] At block 1002, the system captures, from one or more cameras (eg, 276, 376, 476), one or more digital images (eg, video frames) showing a subject in an area such as waiting room 104. Can be obtained. For example, in some implementations, the system can capture a video feed that includes a plurality of digital images captured by a digital camera. At block 1004, the system can detect one or more portions of the one or more digital images that represent a subject's face as one or more detected face images. In various implementations, techniques similar to those employed in block 406 of FIG. 4, one example of which is shown in more detail in FIG. 5, can be used to detect faces. .. In some implementations, head poses as high as 40-45 degrees from the direction toward the camera may be usable to detect faces. As mentioned above, in some embodiments, selection of "keyframes" of multiple digital images (eg, video streams) showing different detected poses, facial expressions, etc. of the subject. can do. In various embodiments, the digital image (eg, keyframe) can be analyzed using a variety of face detection techniques (eg, template comparison), where the detected face image shows only the face of the subject. It can be trimmed to include, background removed, and so on.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by (JP 2020524850 A) in the systems of XU et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 10:
outputting an instruction for directing faces to the camera in a case where the face images
are not normally captured.
Please see the rejection of claim 4.
Asper claim 16:
wherein the facility management method further comprises: outputting an instruction for directing faces to the camera in a case where the face images are not normally captured.
Please see the rejection for claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights