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 the Claims
Claims 2-21 were previously pending. Claims 2-6, 10, and 17 were amended in the reply filed November 7, 2025. Claims 2-21 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims present an improvement to user interfaces by updating information without requiring the user to perform extra navigation steps and while persistently displaying other data (see Remarks, 16—"enables users to view multiple types of information at the same time that are typically viewable across multiple user interfaces and that enables persistent display of information in one section of the user interface while enabling dynamic selection of options within subsequent sections of the user interface"). However, this improvement is extremely similar to the ones argued in both International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2350, Oct. 17, 2022) (responding to a user's selection of a portion of a displayed map by simultaneously updating the map and a co-displayed list of items on the map held ineligible) and Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (displaying a second set of data without interfering with a first set of data held ineligible).
"We have also held that improving a user's experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality. For example, in Trading Techs. I, we held patent ineligible claims directed to a computer-based method for facilitating the placement of a trader's order. Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. I). Although the claimed display purportedly 'assist[ed] traders in processing information more quickly,' we held that this purported improvement in user experience did not 'improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Id.; see also Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1381, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. II) (holding that claims 'focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly' did not constitute a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality)." Customedia Technologies v. Dish Network, 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
With respect to Step 2B, Applicant also argues that "most of the claimed features are not found in paragraphs [0030], [0044], [0090], and [0099] - [0100] cited on page 7 of the Office Action." Remarks, 16. However, that the entirety of the invention is conventional is not the basis of the rejection. Instead, all of the claim elements but for the general technological environment (i.e., computers) are addressed under part 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework as comprising the abstract idea. Thus, they are not "additional elements" for which evidence of conventionality is required. "[T]he relevant inquiry is not whether the claimed invention as a whole is unconventional or non-routine." BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 2-21, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims are directed to an abstract idea reflected in the recited representative functions of the independent claims—including:
causing presentation of a first portion displaying one or more venues, a second portion displaying one or more events taking place at the one or more venues, a third portion displaying one or more show times for the one or more events, and a seating map portion to display one or more seating maps of the one or more venues, each of the first portion, the second portion, and the seating map portion being concurrently presented, and the first portion to navigate between a set of venues;
receiving a first selection input indicating a venue of the set of venues, where: the set of venues is stored in a first data table that corresponds to the first portion; the venue is indexed to a second data table that corresponds to the second portion and includes a plurality of events taking place at the venue; and the venue and the plurality of events are indexed to a third data table that corresponds to the seating map portion and includes seating information for the venue and the plurality of events;
causing presentation of the venue in the first portion;
responsive to receiving the first selection input, causing the one or more events stored by the second data table to be accessed and presented within the second portion;
causing display of individual events of the plurality of events in the second portion in response to additional touch to scroll through the plurality of events within the second portion while the venue remains persistently displayed in the first portion;
receiving second selection input indicating an event of the plurality of events,
responsive to receiving the second selection input, causing one or more show times of a plurality of show times of the event to be displayed in the third portion;
responsive to receiving further input to scroll through the plurality of show times within the third portion, causing display of at least a portion of the plurality of show times within the third portion while the venue remains persistently displayed in the first portion and while the event remains persistently displayed in the second portion;
responsive to receiving third selection input indicating a show time of the plurality of show times,
causing the seating information stored by the third data table to be accessed and presented as a seating map of the venue within the seating map portion, concurrently with the presentation of the venue within the first portion, the event within the second portion, and the show time within the third portion; and
responsive to a messaging input corresponding to a user, causing a ticket message to be transmitted to related entities within a social network of the user, the ticket message including an additional first portion indicating the venue, an additional second portion indicating the event, an additional third portion indicating the show time, and an additional seating map portion indicating the seating map of the venue and indicating a seat selection of the user within the seating map.
This qualifies as a method of organizing human activities because it recites collecting, analyzing, and outputting information for planning the event attendance behaviors of people and data to create commercial relationships with venue service providers via ticketing (i.e., in the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance, fundamental economic practices; commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities).
It shares similarities with other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts (see Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)—process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as process of gathering and analyzing seating map information of a venue, then displaying the results; Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018)—displaying a second set of data without interfering with a first set of data, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as displaying a second portion of venue data without interfering with a first portion of venue data; International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2350, Oct. 17, 2022)—responding to a user's selection of a portion of a displayed map by simultaneously updating the map and a co-displayed list of items on the map, similar because this also characterizes the invention; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Idem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315 (2017)—creating an index and using that index to search for and retrieve data, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as creating an index of tables and using that index to search for and retrieve data to display).
These cases all also describe significant aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (computing system including one or more processors and memory/non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-readable instructions, mobile device, unitary interfaces, client application, touch input, scroll button—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, client application, etc. to automate the abstract idea), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it."
Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements (computing system including one or more processors and memory/non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-readable instructions, mobile device, unitary interfaces, client application, touch input, scroll button—see published Specification ¶¶ 0021, 30, 44, 90, 99-101 describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely further limit the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims (i.e., generic computer and interface).
Claims 3-4 recite a swipe left input or a swipe right input, which is a generic feature of mobile devices. Moreover, this is merely used for data gathering activities (i.e., collecting information on where the user wants to navigate, which could be accomplished by other means and achieve the same result and is tangential to the invention). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 5, 7, 11-12 add a database, but this merely further limits the implementation of the abstract idea in a generic computerized environment. Claim 8 adds a generic user interface element, claim 6 adds a scroll button, claim 13 mentions "third party venue ticketing systems," claim 15 recites an API server, and claims 19-20 recite a mobile device with GPS. None of these provide a practical application for the same reasons as the elements in the independent claims (i.e., they are generic computer elements being utilized as a tool to execute the abstract idea). Additionally, some of these are merely performing extra-solution data gathering activities (scroll button, third party systems, API server, GPS unit). Looking at them in combination with the abstract idea, they are all being used as tools to implement the abstract idea and do not provide improvements to the computer itself or any other technology. Accordingly, the dependent claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Although they add the elements identified in 2A above, these do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above (see ¶ 0023—swipe left input or swipe right input; ¶ 0051—databases, ¶ 0031—user interface element, ¶ 0030—scroll button, ¶ 0049—third party venue ticketing systems, ¶¶ 0043-44—API server, ¶¶ 0098, 102—mobile device with GPS, where all of these are described at a high level of generality without any technical specifics). Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
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 DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628