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
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 01/06/2026.
Claims 1-20 have been canceled.
Claims 21-33 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claim 21 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-11 of Applicant’s response filed 01/06/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 7-8, that the claims solve a technical problem in traditional ticketing systems by providing a technical solution to data interoperability and ticket overuse by eliminating the need for manual voucher exchanges or supplier-specific integrations. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that the problem solved is not a technical one, as the need to track multi-use tickets does not specifically arise in the realm of computer technology. Furthermore, the solution alleged is not necessarily rooted in computer technology since, if the claimed invention were practiced outside the realm of the generic computer components recited, the alleged benefit of tracking multi-use vouchers would still be brought about. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 7-10, that the claims bring about an improvement to ticketing technology by solving the problem of lack of integration between supplier computers. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that such an improvement is again to the abstract idea itself (integration and communication between disparate suppliers), and the mere use of computers to perform such represents the generic computer implementation of the abstract ideas themselves. Mere use of a computer to put parties into contact and integrate communication between the two does not amount to a technical improvement, but rather amounts to the generic computer implementation of the abstract ideas themselves. Furthermore, the accurate tracking of number of uses of a multi-use ticket represents and improvement to the abstract idea itself, since this benefit would be brought about if the abstract idea were practiced outside the realm of the computer technology recites. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 21-33:
“booking module” which translates
“activation module” which translates and validates
Claim 24:
“routing module” to route
Claims 29-30:
“usage module” which compares
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 21-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claim 21 the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine). The claimed invention of independent claim 21 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claim 21, as a whole, recites the following limitations:
storing, in the memory, executable instructions implementing a communication gateway having a distributor application programming interface and a supplier application programming interface configured to translate ticketing messages between heterogeneous data formats (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could store these instructions in memory; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers)
receiving. . . a booking message or a multi-use ticket message from a distributor of a plurality of distributors. . . ; (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a booking message or multi-ticket use message from a distributor; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers; Examiner respectfully notes that the requirement to receive messages electronically amounts to the mere generic computer implementation of the one or more abstract ideas)
authenticating. . . an identifier of the distributor against a stored list of valid distributor identifiers. . . (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could authenticate an identifier of a distributor against a list; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers)
translating the booking message into an internal format interpretable by the integration system; (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could translate booking messages into a format which is interpretable by a given system; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers)
validating product codes of the booking message using a product code mapping table stored in the memory to determine at least one supplier system corresponding to the booking message; (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could validate product codes using mappings stored in a table to determine a supplier system which corresponds to a message; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers)
creating a booking entry in a ticket booking record of the system database (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could create a booking entry in a booking record of a database; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers)
recording a booking event in the event store representing a state transition of the booking; (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could record a booking event of this type; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers)
transmitting the booking to the determined supplier system. . . (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could send a booking message to a determined supplier; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers; Examiner respectfully notes that the requirement to transmit messages electronically amounts to the mere generic computer implementation of the one or more abstract ideas)
translating and validating a multi-use ticket message received from the distributor (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could translate and validate multi-use ticket messages received from a distributor; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers; Examiner respectfully notes that the requirement to transmit messages electronically amounts to the mere generic computer implementation of the one or more abstract ideas)
determining, using the product code mapping table, a subset of the plurality of supplier systems at which a multi-use ticket is valid; (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine which suppliers a multi-use ticket is valid at using a product code mapping table; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers)
recording the multi-use ticket in a ticket activation record of the system database with an associated permitted number of uses: (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could record an activation of a multi-use ticket in an activation record; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers)
recording a ticket activation event in the event store: and (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could record a ticket activation event in an event store; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers)
transmitting an activation message to each supplier system of the subset. . . (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could send an activation message to suppliers; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers; Examiner respectfully notes that the requirement to transmit messages electronically amounts to the mere generic computer implementation of the one or more abstract ideas)
receiving. . . ticket usage messages asynchronously transmitted from the supplier systems in response to usage of the multi-use ticket (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive ticket usage messages sent asynchronously; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers; Examiner respectfully notes that the requirement to receive messages electronically from supplier systems amounts to the mere generic computer implementation of the one or more abstract ideas)
recording each ticket usage message in a ticket usage record of the system database (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could record ticket usage messages in a ticket usage record; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers)
recording a corresponding usage event in the event store: (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could record usage events in an event store; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers)
aggregating recorded usage events to enforce a global usage limit for the multi-use ticket across the plurality of supplier systems; (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could aggregate recorded usage events in order to enforce a global usage limit for multi-use tickets; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers)
and upon determination that the permitted number of uses has been fulfilled, transmit deactivation messages to supplier systems that have not transmitted a usage message, thereby synchronizing deactivation of the multi-use ticket across the distributed supplier systems. (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could send deactivation messages to suppliers who haven’t indicated a usage of a ticket in order to synchronize deactivation of a ticket across suppliers; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers; Examiner respectfully notes that the requirement to transmit messages electronically amounts to the mere generic computer implementation of the one or more abstract ideas)
The above limitations, as a whole, represent mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement the steps using a set of generic computer components, the entirety of the process above for managing usage of multi-use tickets could be performed by hand. Furthermore, as a whole, the process above for managing and tracking usage of multi-use tickets recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this process in performing multi-use ticket management and sales activities for their customers.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
A cloud-based, event-driven data integration method for synchronizing ticket sales across a plurality of distributed supplier systems , comprising: (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
providing an integration system including a processor, a non-transitory memory, a system database, and an event store; (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
at/via a communication gateway (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a plurality of distributors connected to the integration system; (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
by the processor (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and routing the message to a corresponding service module; (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
executing, by the processor, a booking module to automatically perform the steps of: (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
via the supplier application programming interface. . . (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
executing, by the processor, an activation module to automatically perform the steps of: (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claim 21 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 22-33, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claim 21:
wherein the communication gateway includes a routing module and an authentication module executable by the processor.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 22:
executing a distributor API and a supplier API of the communication gateway to permit communication between disparate software components using the processor and converting electronic data between different formats such that the same electronic data is readable by each of the disparate software components.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use. Regarding the conversion of data between different formats, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, simple observation, evaluation and judgement, and pen and paper, could perform this step.
Claim 24:
executing the routing module to dynamically route the booking message to the distributor API using the processor and translating the booking message to a format interpretable by the processor using the distributor API.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could translate data from one format to another.
Claim 25:
the booking module determining whether the booking message corresponds to a capacity-limited event after validating the booking message and before creating the booking in the ticket booking record.
the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine whether a message corresponds toa capacity limited event after validation and before creating a booking record; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers.
Claim 26:
the booking module cancelling the booking at the supplier.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could cancel a booking at a supplier; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers.
Claim 27:
the activation module determining whether a number of uses of the multi-use ticket is less than a permitted number of uses of the multi-use ticket.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could compare a number of uses to a threshold; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers.
Claim 28:
the activation module deactivating the multi-use ticket if the number of uses is not less than the permitted number of uses.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could compare a number of uses to a threshold and deactivate it if so; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers.
Claim 29:
the usage module of the service modules comparing product codes corresponding to a ticket in the ticket booking record and a supplier ID to a code mapping table and determining which distributor or distributors are associated with the ticket.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make this comparison and determination; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers.
Claim 30:
the usage module transmitting a ticket usage to the determined distributors via the communication gateway.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the use of the gateway and message transmission represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the sending of a usage message recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could forward a usage message on to a distributor; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers.
Claim 31:
wherein the ticket usage message to the distributor includes a distributor order number, a ticket number, and associated consumer information.
This limitation merely alters the information in the usage message above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 32:
the distributor receiving the ticket usage message by a communication unit and a processor comparing the ticket usage message to a reserved ticket record.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the use of the processor and communication unit represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the receiving and comparing recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a message and make this comparison; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers.
Claim 33:
the processor moving the ticket in the ticket usage message from the reserved ticket record to the ticket usage record.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the receiving and comparing recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could move a ticket from a reserved record to a usage record; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ticket management and sales companies would perform this step in performing ticket management and sales activities for their customers.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 22-33, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Conclusion
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 EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628