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
Claims 2, 9 and 16 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 1 was cancelled.
Claims 2-22 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments and amendments regarding the 112(a) rejection for claims 2, 9 and 16 have been entered and considered, respectively. Examiner agrees that the provided support from the provisional application specifications covers the element feature of the “drag-and-drop operation” function which was withdrawn in this rejection. However, Applicant’s arguments raised the same issue for reciting the element feature and its related function or step for “applying a name detection algorithm” in which their rejection under 112(a) is maintained herein due to the lack of details on how the algorithm is being applied. Please refer to this section for more information.
Regarding to applicant's arguments against the 101 rejection for the pending claims on pages 11-13: Applicant’s arguments directed to Step 2A prongs 1 – 2 and Step 2B analysis were considered. However, these arguments are not persuasive and the Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
For Step 2A-Prong 1 starting in p. 12: The Applicant argues that the pending claims are not directed to any of the abstract ideas identified because “the claim recites a system involving a client agent device and a primary load management system, where access-right datasets are automatically transferred from third-party servers” (i.e. “across multiple interconnected systems”) with “rule specification” that are transmitted and processed to “dynamically allocate access-right slots using identified communication channels” and “verify compliance with predefined rules.” However, the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive and respectfully disagrees. Because these limitation steps in the “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” while using “user-interface-triggered drag-and-drop operation”, “image processing operations performed at a client agent device”, application of a “name detection algorithm” to the extracted data, “determination of user entry into the spatial region and automated querying of external social media profiles”. Because under the “broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification” it was determined that the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed for the intended result of “authenticating” and “validating” users and their features/social media profiles to “enable” access to users to live events which “is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept” that is recited in a high level of generality and merely uses these functions applied in the computer to perform the claimed functions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) and 2106.05 (f)). Also, the physical aid used does not negate the mental nature of the limitation(s), even when using other generic computer components to simply “input”/”transfer” event document data from a “third party server” using “drag-and-drop operation”, “transmit”, ”receive” rule specification information between the computer and the device in the claimed system to “verify” it against predefined rules and “extract” user’s features from non-access-right documentation identified with image processing and identifying social media profiles by “applying” a name detection algorithm as claimed. At least the functions of “extracting” data with image processing and identifying social media profiles with the applied algorithm are not further specified as to how these are specifically performed and are broadly recited and broadly discussed in the Applicant disclosure as being used as tools (i.e. invoking “apply it”) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B & C)). Moreover, claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Thus, these claims and their additional elements, when evaluated, individually and in combination, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and their specification (see MPEP 2111 and 2106.04(II)), were still directed to the abstract ideas without reciting significantly more than the judicial exception.
Although these steps are implemented by a computer with text/image processing techniques and an algorithm, the “[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Finally, these limitation steps are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis.
For Step 2A-Prong 2 starting in p. 12: Applicant argues that the amended claims are “a specific technical solution to a technical problem, namely improving the security and reliability of event access-control systems” by achieving the implementation of “cross-domain identity resolution” as a “non-conventional integration of physical identity and online identity datasets” which integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by reciting significantly more at Step 2A Prong 2. However, these arguments are not persuasive. Because the improvements are not reflected in the functions as these are performed in the abstract idea(s) itself and the limitations already discussed above are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea of identifying social media profiles and their contents with general image/text processing techniques being used in a computer for the end result of further validate the user’s extracted features with identifying attributes of the social media profiles (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.04(d)(I)).
Further, the general computer, image processing and natural language algorithm technologies for their respective functions are broadly recited and lacks details on how such data transfer, user feature extraction of images and natural language (i.e. names/text) identification is specifically performed and simply is limited to using algorithms and image processing/ data extraction techniques and algorithms that attempts to limit the use of the abstract idea of validating user features associated to the user’s non-access right documents to enable user access into a live event in a physical venue, to computer environments (see MPEP 2106.05(h) for examples (v), (vi), (ix) and (x)).
For these same reasons stated above, these limitations are merely reciting functions being performed by generic computer components (e.g. clearly invoking "apply it" to a computer) to achieve the intended result in a high level of generality which cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step2A-Prong 2 and/or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (a)(I - II). Therefore, the claim limitations do not reflect or further limits how the use of the computer and general algorithms are improving access management/control systems or “digital identity verification” or “identity authentication systems”, as alleged by the Applicant, which further does not provide the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains 35 USC § 101 rejection for these pending claims.
Regarding to Applicant's arguments of rejection under 35 USC § 103 for the pending claims on pages 13 - 14: Applicant’s arguments regarding to claim 2 and the new claim limitations are not persuasive. Firstly, because the Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) as they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. But more specifically, upon further review of the combination of prior art of Gangi in view of Hendrickson and Paleja, the new limitations are still satisfied by at least the combination of Hendrickson and Paleja. Specifically, Hendrickson teaches the steps of transmitting rule specifications to the primary load management system along with request parameters and allocation parameters including allocation of access- right slots (i.e. allocated seats) as the system detects customers entering a “seat GPS Zone based on the location of his/her seat touchscreen on the fixed seat display or on the location of the customer's mobile device” and after determining “whether the identified customer has a pre-arranged food/drink order for the current event” at step 815, “the seat location is passed to the system at 821 and the order is completed at 822 by adding the number in the party (823), the time window for deliver (824), and the delivery options (825)” (see ¶0114; Hendrickson), in accordance to the rule specification transmission example given in ¶0179. The limitation directed to identifying communication channels (i.e. webpage or email address) data, that in response, the system automatically transmit the allocated access-right slots information via the corresponding communication channels identified, is taught as when “the member is finished with his/her order (event), tickets/receipts are printed and delivered to the customer at his/her seat location or GPS position at 832” and “the paid event is submitted to the vendor's delivered queue and the customer's profile information in TES is updated at 833. The event criteria is saved at 834 and the customer is automatically logged out” (see ¶0114; Hendrickson) as well as in other examples wherein such transmission of allocated access-right slots information is performed with airline systems in communication with airline vendors and customers via a “visual queue on the flight booking portion of the system” (see ¶0038 – 39; Hendrickson). Further, Paleja teaches the “verifying” whether the allocation parameters (i.e. allocated seats) complies with predefined rules and corresponding threshold constraints (i.e. restrictions and rules of time arrival and user’s geographic position/proximity to the venue) and the identified communication channels, as an embodiment wherein “location data provided by the location module 304 of the user device 112 may be provided to the venue management server 104, collaborative ticketing system 100, or some other system to verify that the user has arrived at the venue, to determine whether the user is within a threshold distance of the venue, will arrive within a threshold period of time, etc. In such cases, a notification may be generated to concessions personnel to begin preparing concessions when the user is within the threshold distance or will arrive within a threshold period of time” (see ¶0054; Paleja), in accordance to the verification of allocation parameters vs primary-system rules example given in ¶0182. See Fig. 9 and ¶0074 – 76 in Paleja for determination of ticket offers “parameters” with thresholds that is generated by “the offer generation module 200 or some other module or component of the collaborative ticketing system 100”. Therefore, for all of these reasons stated above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains 35 USC § 103 rejection for these pending claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2 - 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2, 9 and 16 are directed in part to the limitations of: “the one or more social media profiles are identified by applying a name detection algorithm to the extracted user feature, validating the extracted user feature with identifying attributes contained in the one or more social media profiles” contain subject matter (emphasized in bold) that is not sufficiently supported in the specification. Applicant cited ¶0216 - ¶0217 from the specifications (p.11 from Remarks). But more specifically, ¶0217 failed to disclose and fully support the function of “applying a name detection algorithm” to the extracted user feature, in such a way that provides more details on how this algorithm is applied for detecting “names from the extracted user feature of the non-access-right document” after being previously claimed to be extracted by “performing image processing on an image of the non-access-right document” (see ¶0221 from disclosure for support). Moreover, one of ordinary skilled in the art would not know how this “name detection” algorithm would be best practiced which fails the disclosure requirements because the "algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed”, rather than simply mentioning the type or name of the algorithm used (See MPEP 2161.01).
Therefore, this element and its corresponding limitations in the claims set as mentioned above, are not supported in the specifications and the cited portions failed to provide the written description requirement for support. Thus, “a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention” (see MPEP 2163). Therefore, the applicant did not provide an adequate written description of the invention that is sufficient to show possession of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art for the pending claimed scope of these element features.
For purposes of compact prosecution, the element feature in the claims 2, 9 and 16 that is directed to their corresponding limitations was reasonably interpreted as follows:
The steps of “the one or more social media profiles are identified by applying a name detection algorithm to the extracted user feature, validating the extracted user feature with identifying attributes contained in the one or more social media profiles” as a function was interpreted as a web application having the ability of accessing user account via personal identification (i.e. through other methods of identification and biometric scan and/or other methods of personal identification verification which is directed to applying the name detection algorithm to extracted features) to obtain the user’s personal name and further identify the user’s social media profile since the user’s account can also be linked to their social networking profiles wherein the database can verify and confirm (i.e. validate) the user’s identity upon the user walk-up to a GPS zone (i.e. GPS and/or RFID recognition) to process pre-ordered events that are matched to the user’s features such as user name, e-mail address, access card, biometric hand or finger scan, retinal scan, password, or other terminal kiosk, touchscreen, or mobile application of the like as well as using other security verification procedures that can include their social media profile attributes.
Finally, for all the reasons stated above the Examiner maintains that claims 3 – 8, 10 – 15 and 17 – 22 are rejected based on its dependency on claims 2, 9 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Thus, all disclosed limitations are considered to be new matter and are not supported by the specification (including the original claims) as originally filed on January 10, 2022.
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 2 - 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of this claimed invention recited in the claims begins in view of independent claim 2, the most representative claim of the independent claims set 2, 9 and 16, as follows:
At Step 1: the claimed invention in claims 2 – 8 and 22 falls under statutory category of a process, claims 9 – 15 are directed to a machine and claims 16 - 21 are directed to an article of manufacture.
At Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 2 (representative of claims 9 and 16) recites an abstract idea, in the following limitations:
…receiving…input corresponding to a drag-and-drop operation performed on a document, the document representing an access-right data set, the access-right dataset being stored…
receiving, in response to the drag-and-drop operation performed on the event document, the access-right dataset, wherein:
the event document is displayed …
the drag-and-drop operation causing the access-right dataset to be transferred…
the access-right dataset includes a record of a set of authorized users to access a specific digital section of the live event;
transmitting a rule specification…, wherein the rule specification includes:
one or more request parameters corresponding to allocation of access- right slots represented in the access-right dataset; and
an allocation parameter for allocating the access-right slots, wherein the allocation parameter identifies one or more communication channels;
wherein, based on the rule specification…
automatically transmit information pertaining to the allocated access-right slots…; and
verify that the allocation parameter complies with one or more predefined rules, including one or more threshold constraints and the identified one or more communication channels;
identifying…located at a first spatial region associated with a first resource corresponding to the live event, a non-access-right document associated with a user…being associated with the first spatial region;
extracting…a user feature from the non-access-right document by performing image processing on an image of the non-access-right document, wherein, the user feature corresponding to one or more data items included in the non-access-right document;
determining, based on the user feature whether the user associated with the non-access-right document enters the first spatial region;
retrieving, in response to determining that the user enters the first spatial region, data associated with the first spatial region…
comparing the user feature with the data associated with the first spatial region;
authenticating the user by automatically querying, in response to determining that the user feature matches the data associated with the first spatial region, one or more social media profiles using the extracted user feature to retrieve one or more additional data items associated with the user, wherein:
the one or more social media profiles are identified by applying a name detection algorithm to the extracted user feature,
validating the extracted user feature with identifying attributes contained in the one or more social media profiles,
the one or more additional data items correspond to a set of characteristics of the past one or more events attended by the user, and
the one or more social media profiles are unique to each of the user and serve to identify real world identity of the user, wherein the extracted user feature from the non-access-right document is used to associate the first spatial region with identifying attributes contained in the one or more social media profiles; and
enabling the user to access the live event on authenticating the user.
In a general sense these limitations, describe a method and a system for identifying and analyzing user data and their identification information to efficiently generate statistics that characterize each user including their preferences at a “spatial region” or venue based on their access rights validation. As disclosed in the specification in ¶0005, this invention “can execute big data analysis techniques to access-right data to generate statistics that characterize a set of users. For example, characteristics of users who access resources events can be analyzed with varying levels of detail. The access-right data can include access right assignments, and data identifying the users to which access rights are assigned. In some implementations, spatial management systems can access the platform to generate statistics for the resources. For example, a venue operator can use the platform to determine characteristics of a set of users who have accessed a venue, and identify an additional set of users who share similar characteristics.” However, the abstract idea(s) of a certain method of organizing human activity (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II) is recited in claim 9 in the form of “engaging in commercial or legal interactions” and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”. Specifically, the abstract idea is recited in at least the steps directed in part to “transmitting a rule specification” that involves the compliance of “request parameters” and “allocation parameters” corresponding to “allocation of access- right slots” based on “threshold constraints” to “identifying…non-access-right” document of a user, for “extracting” user features, “determining” their association to further “compare” the “user features” with a (first/second) “spatial region” related to a venue to “authenticate” users by “querying” their social media profiles to “validate” them with user features and finally “enable” access to users to the live event. Thus, these recited steps are managing business relations for live event access and complying with legal obligations through “non-access right” documentation (i.e. personal information such as passports or driver licenses) that need to be provided by each user, while collecting their social activities (i.e. social profile activity and interactions) to identify the user and properly handle their authentication and access to a live event based on their “allocation of access-right slots” and corresponding rules.
In addition, claim 2 recites the specific steps of “verify that the allocation parameter complies with one or more predefined rules…”, “identifying……a non-access-right document associated with a user…being associated with the first spatial region”, “determining…whether the user associated with the non-access-right document enters the first spatial region”, “comparing the “user feature with the data associated with the first spatial region”, “authenticating the user by automatically querying…one or more social media profiles using the extracted user feature to retrieve one or more additional data items”, “validating the extracted user feature with identifying attributes contained in the one or more social media profiles”, “the one or more social media profiles are unique to each of the user and serve to identify real world identity of the user…” and “enabling the user to access the live event…”. These steps fall within the abstract idea of a mental process that can be practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Because these steps for “verifying” allocation parameters complying with “predefined rules” to further “identifying……a non-access-right document associated with a user…”, “determining” the user associated entering a first (or a second) spatial region and “comparing” the user feature with this data to “authenticate” the user by “automatically querying” their social media profiles and “validating” the user features extracted with the social media profiles attributes to “enable” their access, encompass observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Also, these steps can either be done with the help of physical aid such as pen and paper or can be performed by humans without or with the assistance (e.g. tool) a computer. Thus, the steps do not negate and further still reads in the mental nature of the limitation(s), when verifying allocation parameters and pre-determined rules to identify user’s non-access right and their spatial region location information, compare user’s features and query users’ social medial for the intended result of authenticating and permitting access to users into a venue holding a live event. But also, the concept is merely claimed to be performed on a generic computer with the use of a generic computer system using data processing techniques such as image processing and text (i.e. name detection) recognition algorithms to perform the concept of authenticating and enabling user access based on their non-access credentials (i.e. identification documentation) and attributes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B & C)).
Step 2A Prong 2: For independent claims 2, 9 and 16, The judicial exception(s) or abstract idea previously identified is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)). The claims recite the additional element(s) of one or more processors; (from claim 9); a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (from claims 9 and 16); a drag-and-drop operation, an interface, a third-party server, a client agent device, a primary load management system, via the identified one or more communication channels, a name detection algorithm and a data store, (from claims 2, 9 and 16). These additional elements, individually and in combination, merely is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the element features including the computer, the “drag-and-drop operation” and the “image processing” techniques used for “extracting” user features and the “applying” of a “name detection algorithm to the extracted user feature” and “authenticating the user by automatically querying…one or more social media profiles…to retrieve one or more additional data items…” are recited at a high level of generality and are performed generally to apply the abstract idea identified without placing any limits on how these steps are performed distinctively from generic computer components and general image/text processing functions. Thus, each function including the “name detection algorithm” is recited to be generally applied (i.e. invoking “apply it”) to a computer with the aid of general image processing and natural language algorithm technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As for the steps of “receiving…, input corresponding to a drag-and-drop operation performed on a document…”, “receiving, in response to the drag-and-drop operation performed on a document, the access-right dataset…”, “the event document is displayed…”, “transmitting a rule specification…”, “retrieving…data associated with the first spatial region” in the claims are really nothing more than links to computer for implementing the use of ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components (refer to MPEP 2106.05 f (2)).
Moreover, the steps of “the drag-and-drop operation causing the access-right dataset to be transferred”, “extracting a user feature from the non-access-right document by performing image processing on an image of the non-access-right document”, “authenticating” users by “automatically querying” social media profiles and the identification of social media profiles by “applying a “name detection algorithm to the extracted user feature” are also “merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). In this case, the general computer, image processing and natural language algorithm technologies for their respective functions are broadly recited and lacks details on how such data transfer, user feature extraction of images and natural language (i.e. names) identification is specifically performed and simply is limited to using algorithms and image processing/ data extraction techniques and algorithms that attempts to limit the use of the abstract idea of validating user features associated to the user’s non-access right documents to enable user access into a live event in a physical venue, to computer environments (see MPEP 2106.05(h) for examples (v), (vi), (ix) and (x)). Therefore, this is indicative of the fact that the claim set has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore, the claims are found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the Examiner.
Step 2B: For independent claims 2, 9 and 16, these claims do not provide an inventive concept. The recited additional elements of the claim(s) are the following: one or more processors; (from claim 9); a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (from claims 9 and 16); a drag-and-drop operation, an interface, a third-party server, a client agent device, a primary load management system, via the identified one or more communication channels, a name detection algorithm and a data store, (from claims 2, 9 and 16), including the “extracting” and “authenticating” steps. These additional elements are not sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception or abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05). Because, as indicated in Step 2A Prong 2, these additional element(s) claimed are merely, instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, the recitation of a computer to perform the claim limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
For dependent claims 3-8, 10-15 and 17 - 22, these claims cover or fall under the same abstract idea of a method of organizing human activity and mental processes. They describe additional limitations steps of:
Claims 3-8, 10-15 and 17 - 22: further describes the abstract idea of the transmitting communication of a live event to users’ method and the upload and analysis of the extracted features of the user’s identity information (e.g. non-access right document which is a Driver’s license) to generate the user a profile for tracking events at a venue or “spatial region” purposes and to enable the user to access the “resource” related to their “spatial region” or venue. Thus, being directed to the abstract idea group of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” and “commercial or legal interactions” as it is further handling the user data to determine their validation, access and track their social activity data.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: For dependent claims 3-8, 10-15 and 17 - 22, these claims do not include additional elements. Rather what is claimed simply further defines the same abstract idea that was set forth in independent claims 2, 9 and 16, respectively. Nothing additional is claimed that is not part of the abstract idea.
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 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.
Claims 2-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangi (U.S. Pub No. 20060169768 A1) in view of Hendrickson (U.S. Pub No. 20140025540 A1) in further view of Paleja (U.S. Pub No. 20160148126 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16:
Gangi teaches:
one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions which, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including: (In ¶0050; Fig. 9 (59): teaches that the system includes a “data processor” that communicates with “the server 31”.)
receiving, by a client agent device in communication with a primary load management system, input corresponding to a drag-and-drop operation performed on an event document, the event document representing an access-right data set, the access-right dataset being stored at a third-party server; (In ¶0037 – 38; Fig. 6 (31, 39 and 41); Fig. 7 (31, 33, 41 and 49): teaches the primary load management system receiving document representing an access-right data set from a third party as a “remote computer, e.g., server 31” receiving an individual’s “downloaded or scanned personal image, a downloaded or read driver's license from a public authority, checking account number, credit card, debit card from a financial institution, and supermarket frequent purchaser card” given the access-right data definition in ¶0005 and ¶0179 from Applicant application. The drag-and-drop function for attaching or uploading a document does not hold patentable weight. Further, the server and its “prompted instructions” can ask an individual to select a password and further “permit him to associate, if he so desired, certain ID and/or purchasing (credit/debit/checking account) data with particular transaction types, merchants, etc.” wherein such association is considered an example of a drag-and-drop function under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Refer to ¶0040 wherein the “central server 31” can be expanded to include other capabilities that “minimize portability issues and facilitate complex identification needs” and in ¶0062 – 63 the “program product 51 stored in memory of the server 31” can include “instructions to perform the operations” of “receiving a request from a point of transaction terminal or associated data processor for at least a portion of the set of personal data of the user along with both the personal ID of the user and a provider ID, and providing customized information based on a data profile derived from the set of personal data of the user for use by the provider identified by the provider ID” which is also directed to the access-right event documentation. See ¶0044 – 48 and ¶0052 for more details of the system communicating over the network with a client agent device that is interpreted as the user accessing “the server 31 through the interface device 33” to allow or assign “individual ID providers 39 selective access to the user's other personal data, typically required by the respective ID provider 39 for identification or authentication purposes” as well as “cross-link other ID provider data”. The system can receive “digitized data” in a “POS/POT ready format when delivered to the server 31” from a “POS/ POT terminal 41”.)
receiving, in response to the drag-and-drop operation performed on the event document, the access-right dataset, wherein: the event document is displayed on an interface of the third-party server, (In ¶0037; Fig. 6 (31, 39 and 41); Fig. 7 (31, 33, 41 and 49): teaches an example wherein the “server 31” (e.g. such as a “supermarket”; ¶0038 and ¶0040) can download “checking account number, credit card, debit card from a financial institution, and supermarket frequent purchaser card” including “other coupons, discounts offers and or communications which could be read via the Internet or POS/POT and/or redeemed by the customer for future purposes” directed to the access-right dataset that can be presented in a “POS screen” from the supermarket by means of processing “changes, updates, and additions with respect to the supermarket frequent purchaser card and/or those from other service providers 39” (see ¶0040) which can imply drag and drop functions. Refer to ¶0042 wherein the “personal data” directed to the access-right documentation can be received from an “ID provider 39 associated with the user” (e.g. on behalf of the user) or “directly from the user”.)
the access-right dataset includes a record of a set of authorized users to access a specific digital section of the live event; (In ¶0054; Fig. 6 (31, 39 and 41); Fig. 7 (31, 33, 41 and 49): teaches that “the transaction site is a manned facility, in accordance with the data profile, the server 31 can return to a data processor 47 and/or output device 49 at the transaction site” such as “an indication that the user is a member associated with credentials necessary to access the transaction site” that can be viewed.)
identifying, at the client agent device located at a first spatial region associated with a first resource corresponding to the live event, a non-access-right document associated with a user, the client agent device being associated with the first spatial region; (In ¶0050: teaches a user having at “least one ID instrument 43 associated with the user's personal data and a member of the network of users associated with the server 31 arrives at a transaction site, e.g., convenience store gas pump, facility having a security gate, supermarket checkout counter, etc.” (e.g. venue) to swipe or pass their “ID instrument 43” which is defined as a driver’s license (see ¶0048; non-access-right document) through “a card reader portion of the terminal 41 if in the form of a magnetic card” (client agent device) in which the identification data is then transmitted to the system’s server to identify the user “as a member of the network of users”. Also, in ¶0040 “The system could be expanded to include, by way of examples, membership ID's admittance, hospital, medical insurance, event ticketing, and/or money transfer type transactions” which is directed to live events that can occur under event ticketing. Thus, “In this fashion, an individual and/or entity could minimize portability issues and facilitate complex identification needs such as biometrics, imaging, and fingerprint technologies”.)
extracting, at the client agent device, a user feature from the non-access-right document by performing image processing on an image of the non-access-right document, wherein, the user feature corresponding to one or more data items included in the non-access-right document; (In ¶0050: teaches that the “server 31 uses the credentials extracted from the ID instrument 43” (driver’s license), “looks up those credentials in the database 32” (which includes user’s “personal data” or user features such as “personal name”; see ¶0042), and “identifies the user as a member of the network of users.” Refer to ¶0049 wherein the “POS/POT terminals 41” connected to the server include an “optical scanner” that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), implicitly performs machine learning-based image processing on an image as claimed, and in accordance to ¶0221 from applicant specs.)
enabling the user to access the live event on authenticating the user. (In ¶0047; Fig. 6 (39 and 41): teaches that a user’s “driver's license number” or “other form of identification” can “be used to allow access to vender peripheral devices such as, for example, a gate, security door, turnstile, gas pump lock, computer lock, ignition lock, and others known to those skilled in the art” and “to physical facilities such as, for example, sporting events, secure facilities, prison or hospital visitor admittance, hospital nurseries, employee only portions of the facility, ATM devices, self-service devices requiring identification, just to name a few” by allowing “a single identification device cross-linked to credentials otherwise contained on other devices or ID instruments 43” of the user which is directed to authenticating the user. Refer to ¶0050 for another example of user access to a physical facility.)
Gangi’s system can transmit communications to the user (see ¶0057, Gangi) including transactions such as coupons and other incentives which are associated with user profiles generated to access events (see ¶0053, Gangi). But, Gangi does not explicitly teach the abilities of transmitting rule specifications to the primary load management system along with request parameters and allocation parameters including allocation of access- right slots (i.e. allocated seats) and identifying communication channels (i.e. webpage or email address) data, that in response, the system automatically transmit the allocated access-right slots information via the corresponding communication channels identified, determining based on user features, whether the user associated with the non-access-right document enters the first spatial region, retrieving data associated with the first spatial region from a data store to compare it with the user features by applying a name detection algorithm to the extracted user features to validate the extracted features with identifying attributes of the user social media profile wherein these social media profiles are being unique to each user for identifying the real world identity of the user. However, Hendrickson teaches:
transmitting a rule specification to the primary load management system, wherein the rule specification includes: one or more request parameters corresponding to allocation of access- right slots represented in the access-right dataset; and an allocation parameter for allocating the access-right slots, wherein the allocation parameter identifies one or more communication channels; (In ¶0114; Fig. 6B (636); Fig. 8B3 (821 – 825); Fig. 8B2 (815): teaches an embodiment wherein once the “system detects at 814 that the customer has entered a seat GPS Zone based on the location of his/her seat touchscreen on the fixed seat display or on the location of the customer's mobile device” and after determining “whether the identified customer has a pre-arranged food/drink order for the current event” at step 815, “the seat location is passed to the system at 821 and the order is completed at 822 by adding the number in the party (823), the time window for deliver (824), and the delivery options (825)” which are interpreted as the allocation of access-right slots from the request parameters (i.e. location of requested seats in a venue) and the allocation parameter identifying the communication channel or website from where it was requested and purchased by the user which was via the “seat display” or ”vendor's menu using the seat point-of-service based system”, in accordance to the rule specification transmission example given in ¶0179. See ¶0159 for another example based on “a walk-up or drive-up GPS Zone allows pre-ordered events to be processed without proper check-in” and see ¶0030 for another example of a customer booking flights based on their preferences and available seats (i.e. allocation parameter for allocating the access-right slots) in a specific airline.)
wherein, based on the rule specification, the primary load management system is configured to: automatically transmit information pertaining to the allocated access-right slots via the identified one or more communication channels; and (In ¶0114; Fig. 8B4 (832); Fig. 8B2 (833 – 834): teaches that “if the member is finished with his/her order (event), tickets/receipts are printed and delivered to the customer at his/her seat location or GPS position at 832” and “the paid event is submitted to the vendor's delivered queue and the customer's profile information in TES is updated at 833. The event criteria is saved at 834 and the customer is automatically logged out” which is interpreted as the transmission of allocated access-right slots information to the communication channels (i.e. webpage). See ¶0038 – 39 for transmission of allocated access-right slots information in a travel embodiment, wherein airlines need to know “how many seats to reserve in order to know what planes and flight times they should make available to customers”, thus the system is helpful as airlines vendors can place customers considering their preferences in a “visual queue on the flight booking portion of the system”, but also, the system considers the “seating capacity of the plane of the vendor's preset preferences” and their “promotional presets as well” and these seating capacity with vendor’s preferences information (i.e. to induce ”more flights at capacity with a better gauge on supply and demand of seats on each flight”) will be “within moments [for] the customer [that[ will have one or more options made available to him/her in order to make a precise purchase that satisfies all of his/her preset event seating/pricing preferences”.)
determining, based on the user feature whether the user associated with the non-access-right document enters the first spatial region; (In ¶0027: teaches in an embodiment that “once a customer profile is created, or if the customer already has a profile” which can be “linked to customer identification” such as a driver’s license, “the customer can enter the number of people in the party and access the restaurant's menu and enter meal orders for the party or e-vite others to join party. The pre-registered orders may be held under the primary account holder's name or group name, and all of the member's orders will be preset in the delivery queue, ready for confirmation by the designated primary account holder or party member once he/she arrives on-site”.)
retrieving, in response to determining that the user enters the first spatial region, data associated with the first spatial region from a data store; comparing the user feature with the data associated with the first spatial region; (In ¶0114; Fig. 8: teaches that “As illustrated in FIG. 8B, the system detects at 814 that the customer has entered a seat GPS Zone based on the location of his/her seat touchscreen on the fixed seat display or on the location of the customer's mobile device. At 815, the system determines whether the identified customer has a pre-arranged food/drink order for the current event (concert, flight, etc.)” which is directed to retrieving and comparing data associated with the first spatial region with the user features. Thus, “once an event is detected at 815 or the customer decides at 816 to access his/her TES account, the member logs into TES using a card swipe, a biometric scan, etc. at the customer's seat using the seat point-of-service based system or the customer's mobile device at 817”.)
the one or more social media profiles are identified by applying a name detection algorithm to the extracted user feature, (In ¶0151: teaches this limitation under BRI, when via “any touchscreen, mobile, or web interface application”, “customers can access his/her account via personal identification that includes magnetic scan, user name, e-mail address, and/or other methods of identification and biometric scan, password, and/or other methods of personal identification verification” which is directed to applying a name detection algorithm to the extracted user feature (i.e. user’s personal name) to identify the user’s social media profile, in accordance to the example given of performing the name detection algorithm performed by a name analysis system in ¶0217 from Applicant disclosure. But also, such identification is facilitated since the “database accessed via the web interface permits a customer to combine his/her personal/business e-mail addresses, social networking, special interests, and other such services into one profile account and then to choose to share his/her personal/business data via the social networking and sharing services offered on the web interface with others within his/her personal/business network” (see ¶0150).)
validating the extracted user feature with identifying attributes contained in the one or more social media profiles, (In ¶0159: teaches and example wherein “customer's device at either a walk-up or drive-up GPS Zone allows pre-ordered events to be processed without proper check-in” that when “the customer arrives at an onsite touchscreen application, he/she will need only verify his/her identity and modify/approve his/her order in queue” which is directed to validating the user feature extracted with identifying attributes from their social media. The system “thus enables on to arrive, verify, pay, and go”. Also, the validations of extracted user features with identifying attributes in their social media profile is interpreted as the verification of customer’s identity via the “GPS recognition of the customer's phone, user name, e-mail address, access card, biometric hand or finger scan, retinal scan, password, or other terminal kiosk, touchscreen, or mobile application of the like" (see ¶0024). Refer to ¶0087 – 88 for more examples of approving and confirming user’s orders based on the “GPS and/or RFID recognition” of user’s features and identifying information in the “pre-registered order” (see ¶0085 – 86) and for validating other users that the user gifted granted, refer to ¶0084. Finally, for both of these last examples, the system “a security verification procedure is performed at 261 before approval of the payment is granted at 262” (see ¶0083) as well, which is another example directed to validating the user with their features and social media profile attributes.)
the one or more social media profiles are unique to each of the user and serve to identify real world identity of the user, wherein the extracted user feature from the non-access-right document is used to associate the first spatial region with identifying attributes contained in the one or more social media profiles; and (In ¶0150 – 151; Fig. 11: teaches that the user can include their “social networking” in their corresponding user profile account which can be used in a “web interface application”. This way, the user, “can access his/her account via personal identification” and/or “other methods of personal identification verification” permitted inside the system which can be used to include associations between first spatial region with identifying attributes contained in the user’s social media profiles.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangi to provide the abilities of transmitting rule specifications to the primary load management system along with request parameters and allocation parameters including allocation of access- right slots (i.e. allocated seats) and identifying communication channels (i.e. webpage or email address) data, that in response, the system automatically transmit the allocated access-right slots information via the corresponding communication channels identified, determining based on user features, whether the user associated with the non-access-right document enters the first spatial region, retrieving data associated with the first spatial region from a data store to compare it with the user features by applying a name detection algorithm to the extracted user features to validate the extracted features with identifying attributes of the user social media profile wherein these social media profiles are being unique to each user for identifying the real world identity of the user, as taught by Hendrickson in order to “allow vendors to send precision offers to customers based on real-time purchasing and profile preference data of that customer” and with these “precision offers reach the customers at the appropriate time (e.g., when the customers are in the proximity of the vendor's location) in the way that the customer prefers to receive such offers” (¶0027; Hendrickson)
Hendrickson teaches the user authentication based on querying social media profiles to retrieve and link additional information of the user while determining similar data associations (e.g. user feature matches the data associated with the first spatial region) which is directed to the “database search features” that can be integrated for the user to search (e.g. query) “system information on vendors and other members as well as information from his/her own profile” including their “social networking” profile (see ¶0149 – 150; Hendrickson), wherein the system further includes “standard social networking features” (see Fig. 11 and ¶0126; Hendrickson). Neither Gangi or Hendrickson explicitly teach the abilities of specifically have drag and drop operation to transfer data from a third-party server to the client device, verifying that the allocation parameters (i.e. allocated seats) complies with predefined rules and corresponding threshold constraints (i.e. restrictions and rules of time arrival and user’s geographic position/proximity to the venue) and the identified communication channels and automatically querying social media networks with user features extracted to specifically retrieve additional information corresponding to a set of user characteristics associated with past events attended by the user to authenticate the user. However, Paleja teaches:
the drag-and-drop operation causing the access-right dataset to be transferred from the third-party server to the client agent device and (In ¶0107; Figs. 13B – 13C: teaches that the user can buy “three tickets for himself” that can be for inviting “one or more friends” that are selected to invite by “tapping on the images of particular friends…causing the selected friend's image to be added to the outing summary section 1300” or “once a friend has been added (as in FIG. 13C), the user can drag the friend's image to the left into the shaded portion of the summary section 1300, if desired, to indicate that the user will pay for the friend's ticket” which satisfies the drag-and-drop operation function which is then transmitted and retrieved by the “venue management server 104” or the “venue kiosk 106” (see ¶0049 – 50 and ¶0053), in accordance to ¶0005 and ¶0049 from applicant specs.)
verify that the allocation parameter complies with one or more predefined rules, including one or more threshold constraints and the identified one or more communication channels; (In ¶0054; Figs. 6 – 7: teaches the allocation parameters (i.e. allocated seats) satisfying predefined rules with threshold constraints (i.e. restrictions and rules of time arrival and user’s geographic position/proximity to the venue) and the identified communication channels (i.e. webpage or email address) in an embodiment wherein “location data provided by the location module 304 of the user device 112 may be provided to the venue management server 104, collaborative ticketing system 100, or some other system to verify that the user has arrived at the venue, to determine whether the user is within a threshold distance of the venue, will arrive within a threshold period of time, etc. In such cases, a notification may be generated to concessions personnel to begin preparing concessions when the user is within the threshold distance or will arrive within a threshold period of time”, in accordance to the verification of allocation parameters vs primary-system rules example given in ¶0182. See ¶0074 – 76 and Fig. 9, wherein “At block 910, the offer generation module 200 or some other module or component of the collaborative ticketing system 100 can determine parameters for the ticket offers that it is generating” which includes “any number of parameters in addition to the identity and time of the event for which the offer is being generated” such as “a base price that corresponds to the starting price of the tickets in connection with the offer”, “a discount amount or function that corresponds to the discount applied to offered tickets when friends also purchase tickets (such as a set discount amount or percentage for each additional friend, tiered discount levels that increase at one or more thresholds, etc.)” and a “floor price may also be determined, corresponding to the lowest amount the tickets will be sold for in connection with the offer”.)
authenticating the user by automatically querying, in response to determining that the user feature matches the data associated with the first spatial region, one or more social media profiles using the extracted user feature to retrieve one or more additional data items associated with the user, wherein: (In ¶0041; Fig. 1 (110 and 112) Fig. 2 (208): teaches that “the social connection module 208 may access various social network services with which a user is associated (e.g., has an account), and add the user's contacts from the individual social network services to a data store (e.g., the users data store 228)” which suggests the user authentication based on querying social media profiles. This way, the module may “analyze previous orders 226, usage history 230, and/or other information associated with the user and the user's friends and other social connections” to retrieve and identify “friends with whom the user typically attends movies generally, friends with whom the user typically attends movies having particular characteristics (e.g., genres, actors, etc.), friends with whom the user may not have attended a movie recently, friends showing interest in movies currently showing or movies with characteristics similar to those currently showing, etc.”. Moreover, in ¶0029 “social network servers 110” can “provide information about social connections and other relevant social information, such as user profiles and the identity of users' friends; and user devices 112 that may be used by users to view event offers, place orders, generate invitations, view previews, and the like” which further is directed to authenticating the user by querying the user social media profile and user features extracted.)
the one or more additional data items correspond to a set of characteristics of the past one or more events attended by the user, and (In ¶0032: teaches that the system can also include and retrieve “user reviews and other information regarding events attended by the users”. See ¶0042 wherein the “collaborative ticketing system 100 may use to provide offers and friend recommendations to users based on the users' current locations, preferences, previous usage, social connections, and the like” and ¶0065 wherein the system can ask the user “whether the user saw the previous installment in the series”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangi with Hendrickson to provide the abilities of specifically have drag and drop operation to transfer data from a third-party server to the client device, verifying that the allocation parameters (i.e. allocated seats) complies with predefined rules and corresponding threshold constraints (i.e. restrictions and rules of time arrival and user’s geographic position/proximity to the venue) and the identified communication channels and automatically querying social media networks with user features extracted to specifically retrieve additional information corresponding to a set of user characteristics associated with past events attended by the user to authenticate the user, as taught by Paleja in order to “recommend events and/or friends to invite to events based on observed event-related behaviors of the user and the friends (e.g., browsing events, viewing previews or other event-related content, attending events with other users, etc.” (¶0019; Paleja)
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17:
The combination of Gangi, Hendrickson and Paleja, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 2, 9 and 16, respectively.
Gangi further teaches:
wherein the non- access-right document uniquely identifies the user. (In ¶0049: teaches the user’s driver’s license that uniquely identifies the user which also related to the user’s extracted “credentials” and their “identification data” derived (see ¶0050).)
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18:
The combination of Gangi, Hendrickson and Paleja, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 2, 9 and 16, respectively.
Gangi further teaches:
wherein the non-access-right document is a Driver's License. (In ¶0049: teaches that the user’s “ID instrument 43” is defined by Gangi as a driver’s license (non-access-right document).)
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19:
The combination of Gangi, Hendrickson and Paleja, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 2, 9 and 16, respectively.
Gangi further teaches:
wherein extracting the user feature includes detecting a name provided on the non-access-right document. (In ¶0050; Fig. 8 (32): teaches that the “server 31 uses the credentials extracted from the ID instrument 43, looks up those credentials in the database 32” which stores “personal data” such as the user’s “personal name” and their driver’s license (user feature; see ¶0041 – 42).)
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20:
The combination of Gangi, Hendrickson and Paleja, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 2, 9 and 16, respectively.
Gangi further teaches:
further comprising generating a profile for the user… (In ¶0046: teaches that the derivation (creation) of the user’s “data profile” connected to their “ID instrument 43” (see ¶0046). The user can be provided access via the “ID instrument” to “allow monitoring of transactions under the user's personal ID or other credentials.” Finally, transactions “can be logged and the user identification, provider location, and date and time, can be associated with the logged event”, events such as the “movement of pets or possessions carrying an ID instrument 43 containing the personal ID or other credentials of the user” (see ¶0052 – 53).)
associating the profile for the user with the non-access-right document of the user. (In ¶0053: teaches that the “the server 31, such cross-linking can allow access to the personal data in accordance with the data profile using the different credentials provided by different ID providers 39. For example, a vendor membership card in possession of the user previously configured as part of the user's personal data can allow limited access by a vendor to other personal data identified in accordance with a data profile such as, for example, an image of the user, driver's license number, credit or debit card number, or other form of identification, which can be used to allow access to vender peripheral devices such as, for example, a gate, security door, turnstile, gas pump lock, computer lock, ignition lock, and others known to those skilled in the art.”)
Neither Gangi or Hendrickson explicitly teach the ability of tracking the user’s attendance to events each time which is associated to other (second) resources. Therefore, Paleja further teaches:
…by tracking the user each time the user attends an event at a second spatial region associated with a second resource and (In ¶0084: teaches that user’s “At block 1012, the order management module 202 or some other module or component of the collaborative ticketing system 100 can determine…history of ordering tickets and attending movies with particular users, etc.”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangi with Hendrickson to provide the ability of tracking the user’s attendance to events each time which is associated to other (second) resources, as taught by Paleja as it can “may be useful in determining which movies and other events to recommend to the user, which invitations to automatically generate, which friends to recommend for particular events, etc.” (¶0024; Paleja)
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 21:
The combination of Gangi, Hendrickson and Paleja, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 2, 9 and 16, respectively.
Neither Gangi or Hendrickson explicitly teach the abilities of identifying other user(s) from the access-right dataset and their social media profiles for matching characteristic between the user and each other users to transmit a communication to the user and the other related users related to the live event. Therefore, Paleja further teaches:
identifying the one or more other users from the access-right dataset and the one or more social media profiles, wherein each user of the one or more other users having at least one characteristic matching with the set of characteristics of the user; and (In ¶0053; Fig. 4; Fig. 7 (D): teaches that the “kiosk 106 may verify the ticket identifier using previously-received ticketing information and, upon successful verification, indicate the successful check in to the user” as well as “have access to information regarding which friends of the user have already checked in” to further display it, which is directed to sharing a similar or matching characteristic for attending a particular event.)
transmitting, by the client agent device located at the first spatial region associated with the first resource, a communication to the user and the one or more other users, the communication being associated with the live event, wherein the communication connects online environment to offline environment by extracting real world characteristics from the one or more social media profiles. (In ¶0056 – 57; Fig. 4; Fig. 7 (D, E and F): teaches that “venue management server 104 can cause presentation of the concession notification information (or related information) associated with the user or ticket to appropriate personnel (e.g., display a notification on a screen, play an audible tone or text-to-speech presentation, print a paper notification, etc.)” and “concessions may be prepared and a user may be notified at (F) when the concessions are available for pickup”. Thus, “when the items are ready to be picked up, a notification can be generated to the user device 112” which is associated to the live event. Other types of notifications can be provided such as “a concession preparation notification or check-in notification at (E)” to the “venue management server” (see ¶0050). Refer to ¶0048 wherein “Notifications may be sent to the user devices 102 a-102 z, or just to the originating user device 102 a” and the “users may be prompted or enabled to purchase tickets for the wining showing” and refer to ¶0064 for the system transmission of “push notifications, alerts displayed with in the application 114, etc.) that alert the users to new previews” of an event (e.g. movie; see ¶0061).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangi with Hendrickson to provide the abilities of identifying other user(s) from the access-right dataset and their social media profiles for matching characteristic between the user and each other users to transmit a communication to the user and the other related users related to the live event, as taught by Paleja as it can “may be useful in determining which movies and other events to recommend to the user, which invitations to automatically generate, which friends to recommend for particular events, etc.” (¶0024; Paleja)
Regarding claim 8 and 15:
The combination of Gangi, Hendrickson and Paleja, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 2 and 9, respectively.
Gangi further teaches:
wherein the user is enabled to access the first resource without an access right or without presenting an access right to the client agent device. (In ¶0052: teaches an example that upon the provision of a user’s card or “other ID instrument 43” such as a driver’s license (see ¶0049), the system’s server can enable access to the “gasoline pump” (client agent device) the user requested to use based on the confirmation of existing credentials of the identified user (without presenting an access right to the client agent device).)
Regarding claim 22:
The combination of Gangi, Hendrickson and Paleja, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2.
Gangi does not explicitly teach the abilities of uploading extracted user features from the non-access right document to the user’s social media to analyze the uploaded user features and determine set of characteristics that are related to a live event of preference. However, Hendrickson further teaches:
further comprising: uploading the extracted user feature from the non-access right document to a social media corresponding to the user; (In ¶0150: teaches that “the database accessed via the web interface permits a customer to combine his/her personal/business e-mail addresses, social networking, special interests, and other such services into one profile account and then to choose to share his/her personal/business data via the social networking and sharing services offered on the web interface with others within his/her personal/business network” which is directed to uploading the extracted user features (see ¶0158 for more details regarding this “population” of options based on “the profile criteria”). This account can include “user name, e-mail address, and/or other methods of identification and biometric scan, password, and/or other methods of personal identification verification” from personal identifications and the customer can “make most effective use of accessing his/her personal/business profile by electing to use Cardless options as described herein, whereby a customer can add data to his/her profile and pay for services without the use of cash, check, or credit/debit card” and by specifying “precision preferences” (see ¶0151 – 152), in accordance to the applicant specifications in ¶0219.)
and analyzing the uploaded user feature to determine the set of characteristics of the user associated with the live event. (In ¶0159: teaches that the system at the vendor’s locations, “a GPS Zone is identified by the satellite coordinates of a vendor's location. Using these coordinates, a customer's order is triggered by the customer's unique mobile phone identification and the order is put into queue once the customer has crossed the plane of the GPS Zone. The customer's device at either a walk-up or drive-up GPS Zone allows pre-ordered events to be processed without proper check-in. When the customer arrives at an onsite touchscreen application, he/she will need only verify his/her identity and modify/approve his/her order in queue. The system thus enables on to arrive, verify, pay, and go” in which such user’s order and their identity (e.g. uploaded user features) is directed to the determination of the set of characteristics of the user associated with the live event (e.g. vendor location; see ¶0161 in which the same technology is applied to entertainment events to obtain customer seats as well) in accordance to the applicant specifications in ¶0219.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gangi to provide the abilities of uploading extracted user features from the non-access right document to the user’s social media to analyze the uploaded user features and determine set of characteristics that are related to a live event of preference, as taught by Hendrickson in order to “allow vendors to send precision offers to customers based on real-time purchasing and profile preference data of that customer” and with these “precision offers reach the customers at the appropriate time (e.g., when the customers are in the proximity of the vendor's location) in the way that the customer prefers to receive such offers” (¶0027; Hendrickson). More specifically, the uploaded extracted features from a social media can help the user to “make most effective use of accessing his/her personal/business profile by electing to use Cardless options as described herein, whereby a customer can add data to his/her profile and pay for services without the use of cash, check, or credit/debit card.” (¶0151; Hendrickson).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moiyallah (U.S. Pub No. 20180115540 A1) is pertinent because it is “an event processing system that processes the event requests by adequately validating the user information associated with the event request and providing an extra layer of security while completing the event request.”
Denker (U.S. Patent No. 9286592 B2) is pertinent because it is “related to access control, and in particular, to access control to a venue or other location using a networked system.”
Lacey (U.S. Pub No. 20170140174 A1) is pertinent because it “relate generally to computer networks, and more specifically, to systems and methods for obtaining authorization to release personal information associated with a user.”
Sheck (U.S. Pub No. 20150324400 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to systems and methods for the collection, tracking, analysis, and reporting of activities of persons at an event or location, and more particularly to automated systems and methods for collecting and analyzing interest-indicating activities, and generating a persistent event stream reflecting individual interests.”
Pui (U.S. Pub No. 20060271381 A1) is pertinent because it is “directed toward an internet-based, interactive wedding planning and management program, consisting of software linking two or more networked computers, which allows a wedding group, including the brides, grooms, guest, and wedding planner to interactively plan the wedding, where the bride is the primary account owner and can give each invited guest different usernames and passwords, along with the ability to give administrative access to others, such as a wedding planner, and can set up “user” access limitations which denies information to certain people regarding sensitive features of the wedding”
Sharp (U.S. Pub No. 20170178034 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to automated, conditional event ticketing and reservation techniques implemented over computer networks.”
Madafferi (U.S. Pub No. 20090167492 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to a system and method of identity verification and access control of patrons to a venue, and relates particularly, though not exclusively, to such a system and method for use in licensed venues.”
Nakfoor (U.S. Pub No. 20050021365 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to a system and method for real-time sales and distribution of tickets.”
Kramer (U.S. Patent No. US9824371 B2) is pertinent because it is “A system can determine that a mobile device, located at a physical place of business transmits a first electronic communication for redemption of an electronic offer at the physical place of business.”
O'Toole (U.S. Patent No. 10567253 B1) is pertinent because it “relates generally to a method for enabling collection of data from participants of live-events for generation of a matrix enabling identification of high-value participants having high social influence, high social interaction value and high economic value at live-events.”
Samovar (EP Patent No. 2016553 B1) is pertinent because it “relates to methods and systems for providing secure access control to a facility, and in particular, to systems and methods for facility access tokens.”
Witherspoon (U.S. Pub No. 20130085832 A1) is pertinent because it is “A venue management system and method that effectively integrates and automates access control systems, membership and/or loyalty programs, and similar programs and systems to allow a sports team or other organization to more effectively monitor and track ticket holders' attendance histories, purchase histories, spending patterns and other behaviors and to provide rewards and other incentives more closely tied to these behaviors.”
Gueye (U.S. Pub No. 20180216946 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to methods and systems for facilitating provisioning of social activity data to a mobile device based on user preferences.”
Skeen (U.S. Pub No. 20170178034 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to automated, conditional event ticketing and reservation techniques implemented over computer networks.”
Hermann (U.S. Pub No. 20120215637 A1) is pertinent because it is related to “social networking and interactive promotions, and more particularly, to systems and methods for enabling communications, interactive promotions, location-based services, loyalty programs and commerce at a venue such as a theater or stadium” which allows “a loyalty-based system to actively engage the fan within the venue location”.
Mcglynn (GB Pub No. 2461963A) is pertinent because it “relates in particular to the control of access by a user to an event, location or service.”
Walker (CA Pub No. 2829004 A1) is pertinent because it is “a location-based service may be provided that may be integrated with venue systems, credit card processing systems, and/or loyalty systems for purposes of increasing the likelihood that offers will be accepted and sales of products and services will be made. Such a system according to various embodiments may leverage a social network of the user, and extend particular brand loyalties throughout the social network.”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Ivonnemary Rivera Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-6158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/IVONNEMARY RIVERA GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights