DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/28/2025 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-15, and 17- 23 are presented for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/28/2025 has been entered.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-15, and 17- 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al. (US Pub. 20210081853 A1) in view of Wall et al. (US Pub. 20120143703 A1) in further view of Eicher et al. (US Pub. 20120221474 A1).
For claims 1, 8, and 15, Parker discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by a first electronic device, cause the first electronic device to:
store a pass within an application operating on the first electronic device, the application configured to store at least one or more passes (Fig. 6; step 5606-5610) [0037-39];
present first information indicative of the pass to a second electronic device (inspector’s scanner/device) via wireless communication, the first information indicative of the pass to be utilized by the second electronic device to redeem the pass (Figs. 42, presenting the ticket’s information to an inspector’s device/scanner to use the ticket wirelessly, to be used by the inspector device/scanner’s mobile application) [0134, 0136, 0175]; and
second information from the second electronic device, the second information comprising data indicative of the pass being redeemed for access to a location (Figs. 28-32, receiving the ticket(s) are scanned/used information in a particular zone or location for enforcement analytics) [0069, 0190].
But Parker doesn’t explicitly teach receive, via contactless proximity-based communication, second information from the second electronic device, the second information comprising data indicative of the pass being redeemed for access to a location.
However, Wall discloses receive, via contactless proximity-based communication, second information from the second electronic device, the second information comprising data indicative of the pass being redeemed for access to a location (Fig. 4, 460) [0064, 0073].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing wireless/contactless transactions used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Parker with Wall to ensure critical information can be directly exchange among peer devices, thus, improving transaction time and speed.
But Parker and Wall don’t explicitly teach updating, by the first electronic device, the pass stored within the application operating on the first electronic device with a redemption time of the pass based at least in part on the second information received from the second electronic device.
However, Eicher discloses updating, by the first electronic device, the pass stored within the application operating on the first electronic device with a redemption time of the pass based at least in part on the second information received from the second electronic device (Figs. 11- 12, step 342) [0064-66, 0070, 0008].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing wireless/contactless transactions used in a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Parker with Wall and Eicher to ensure real-time updates when exchanging critical information between devices, thus, improving transaction efficiency.
Claim 1 differs from claim 8 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior arts. The cited prior art Parker further discloses a method (Fig. 6).
All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
Claim 15 differs from claim 8 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior arts. The cited prior art Parker further discloses a first electronic device, comprising: memory to store an application [0213]; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to [0213]. All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
For claims 3, 10, and 17, Parker discloses the application comprises a digital wallet application, and wherein the digital wallet application is further configured to store one or more mobile payment cards (stored credit card information on an application for checkout) [0039, 0131, 0208].
For claims 4, and 11, Parker discloses to store the pass includes to store the pass encrypted within a secure element (e.g. QR code) [0136, 0140, 0162].
For claims 5, 12, and 18, Parker discloses the wireless communication comprises the contactless proximity-based communication between the first electronic device and the second electronic device [0175, 0194, 0200].
For claims 6, 13, and 19, Parker discloses detect a selection of an icon presented on a display of the first electronic device, the icon associated with the pass (Figs. 6-8) [0077, 0134]; and
present the application for interaction with the pass in response in detection of the selection of the icon (Figs. 40-44) [0077, 0134].
For claim 14, and 20, Parker discloses wherein the location comprises an event space (Figs. 44 and 46, zone or geographical area) [0069, 0190].
For claims 21-23, Eicher discloses the second information includes the redemption time of the pass (Fig. 12, step 342) [0070, 0008]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the argument for the limitation “…updating, by the first electronic device, the pass stored within the application operating on the first electronic device with a redemption time of the pass based at least in part on the second information received from the second electronic device…”, the Examiner asserts that Eicher discloses on Figs. 11-12, step 342, mobile device records the pass's redemption time in the app after receiving verification from another source “… If it is determined in block 342 that the date and time of redemption is within the specified limits, the method moves to a block 371 whereby the mobile ticketing database is updated signifying the mobile ticket has, been redeemed and the user is allowed entry into the event…” [0070, 0008];
“… scanning the QR.RTM. code 314 or manually entering the scanning unit's identification number 315, the method moves onto decision block 316 whereby it determines if the device is authorized. In such block, the scanner identification string of the ticket scanning unit is verified against information registered with the mobile ticketing provider…” [0064].
With regards to the argument for the limitation “…store a pass within an application operating on the first electronic device, the application configured to store at least one or more passes…”, the Examiner again asserts that Parker discloses on Fig. 6, steps 5606-5614, “…the mobile ticketing application may require a user to log-in or register if they do not have an existing account….After the payment information is confirmed tickets may be downloaded and stored in the mobile device.” [0039]; “…installing a Spritesheet containing ticket images, animation, text, graphics on the mobile device. …ticket information and user activity may be stored in local and remote databases....” [0150-151].
With regards to the argument for the limitation “…present first information indicative of the pass to a second electronic device via wireless communication, the first information indicative of the pass to be utilized by the second electronic device to redeem the pass …”, the Examiner reasserts that Parker discloses on Figs. 42, presenting the ticket’s information to an inspector’s device/scanner to use the ticket wirelessly, to be used by the inspector device/scanner’s mobile application. See paragraphs [0134, 0136, 0175].
With regards to the argument for the limitation “…receive, via contactless proximity-based communication, second information from the second electronic device, the second information comprising data indicative of the pass being redeemed for access to a location”, the Examiner again asserts that Wall discloses on Fig. 4, 460, “…application 122 can display the receipt on the contactless device 120 via the user interface 123. The receipt can identify all items applied to the transaction. For example, the receipt can identify each coupon, loyalty redemption, stored value card, or other value added service applied to the transaction, and may also show items included in the transaction (for example, ticket numbers for tickets purchased) …” [0064, 0073].
ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS
NECESSARY
The arguments made by the counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. The Applicant representative’s arguments for the obvious reason to combine the implicit and explicit teaching of the cited reference(s) failed to provide factual support to sustain the ground of arguments. The mere statement of disagreement of the prior art made by the Applicant’s representative cannot be served as evidence for support. Please see the following case law for detail:
In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
ARGUING AGAINST REFERENCES INDIVIDUALLY
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck and Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As discussed above, it is apparent that the Applicant's cited limitations, elements, and arguments have already been disclosed by the relevant prior art(s) or were thoroughly addressed by the Examiner. Additionally, the current Office Action provides further elaboration on the explicit and implicit teachings of the aforementioned disclosed reference(s). It is important to note that any justifications and citations utilized in the preceding Office Action which were not contested by the Applicant shall be regarded as an implicit admission by the Applicant on the matter at hand.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409