DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on December 09, 2025. Claims 1 - 15 are presented for examination. Claims 2 - 8, 10 - 12, and 15 are rejected and this Office Action is being made Final.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on December 09, 2025 has been entered and considered by the examiner. Based on the amendment to overcome the objection to the drawing, the amendment to overcome the objection to the specification, the amendment to overcome the objection to the claims, and the amendment to overcome the rejection under35 U.S.C. 112 for claim 1, all objections and rejections with regards to claim 1 have been withdrawn.
Examiner’s Note
It is recommended to start the claims on a separate sheet, and not as a section of another sheet. The Response to Office Action, filed December 09, 2025 discloses the title and application information, and below, the claims are listed, starting with claim 1. Claim 1 should start on a separate sheet, and nothing should be recited on the same sheet as the last claim in the set of claims.
In addition, it is recommended to mark the amendments to the claims in the claims themselves. Example, instead of completely removing “essentially” from claim 1, mark it out to show the following:
In addition, while the applicant has provided arguments for claims 2 - 15 in the response to the Office Action, since they are newly added claims and are given a full search and consideration.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2 and 3 are independent claims. However, the claims are listed in a paragraph format, and not recited with each limitation separated. In addition, the new claims should start separately from the end of the previous claim, as presented at the end of claim 1 and the beginning of claim 2.
Example format recommended:
2. (New) A system comprising:
a processor and a memory configured to:
(i) display, via a user interface, a map of an event area and a plurality of event resources positioned on locations of the map;
(ii) analyze the plurality of event resources according to an event metric to determine a score for each event resource; and
(iii) display, via the user interface, an indication of the score for each event resource integrated with the map at the respective location of each event resource.
3. (New) A system comprising: a processor and a memory configured to:
(i) display, via a user interface, a map of an event area and a plurality of event resources positioned on the map;
(ii) analyze the plurality of event resources according to an event metric to determine a score;
(iii) receive a modification to the event metric; and
(iv) automatically replace at least one event resource in response to the modification to the event metric.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4 - 8, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 lacks antecedent basis for “map at the respective location” (Lines 5 - 6).
Dependent claims 4 - 8 and 15 are rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 2.
Suggested language: Amend the phrase to recite “map at a respective location”.
Claim 7 lacks antecedent basis for “selected from the group consisting of” (Line 2).
Suggested language: Amend the phrase to recite “selected from a group consisting of”.
Claim 11 lacks antecedent basis for “wherein the alternative event resource” (Line 1).
Suggested language: Amend the phrase to recite “wherein an alternative event resource”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sundaresan (U.S. PG Pub 2016/0055550 A1), hereinafter “Sundaresan”.
As per claim 2, Sundaresan discloses:
a system comprising a processor and a memory configured to (Sundaresan, par [0092] discloses processor and memory included in a computer device.)
display, via a user interface, a map of an event area and a plurality of event resources positioned on locations of the map (Sundaresan, par [0051] discloses a map displaying a seating chart in a venue for an event on a user interface.)
analyze the plurality of event resources according to an event metric to determine a score for each event resource (Sundaresan, par [0054] discloses a quality rating obtained based on users assessing the seating chart to provide information regarding the seats used, and par [0074] - [0075] adds a confidence score calculated regarding the number of users providing information, with the confidence score compared to a threshold, with par [0076] adding the confidence score used to provide information regarding quality seating for an event.)
display, via the user interface, an indication of the score for each event resource integrated with the map at the respective location of each event resource (Sundaresan, par [0077] discloses a user interface displaying available seats as well as information pertaining the seats, based on the seat information from the confidence score in par [0076]).
For claim 4: The prior art of Sundaresan discloses claim 4: The system of claim 2, wherein
the processor is further configured to determine an overall score for the event based on the scores of the plurality of event resources, and display the overall score via the user interface (Sundaresan, par [0076] discloses a plurality of aspects combined from the event server to obtain the confidence score, which is compared to a threshold, with par [0088] adds a user interface displayed to provide a user with operations to select.)
For claim 5: The prior art of Sundaresan discloses claim 5: The system of claim 2, wherein
the event metric comprises at least one of a sustainability metric, a security metric, or an accessibility metric (Sundaresan, par [0073] discloses the confidence score associated with the quality of seatings, with par [0076] adds the confidence score associated with the quality of seats and the cost of the seat in a seating section.)
For claim 7: The prior art of Sundaresan discloses claim 7: The system of claim 2, wherein
the indication of the score for each event resource comprises a visual indicator selected from the group consisting of: color coding, numerical values, graphical icons, and opacity levels (Sundaresan, par [0044] discloses a quality rating regarding seating for an event, including using a scale of 1 to 10, a star rating (5 star being the best seat, 1 star being the worst), or a thumbs up/down visual.)
For claim 8: The prior art of Sundaresan discloses claim 8: The system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to
display an event layer overlaid on the map, wherein the event layer comprises the indication of the score for each event resource (Sundaresan, par [0059] discloses quality ratings and/or comments on a user interface, overlaid on information displayed, with par [0046] discloses quality ratings associated with a seat and used to calculate a grade for the seat, and par [0063] adds a seating chart for the value displayed, providing event specific information, including seating.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 6, 10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaresan (U.S. PG Pub 2016/0055550 A1), and further in view of Sullivan et al (U.S. Patent 11,270,396 B1), hereinafter “Sullivan”.
As per claim 3, Sundaresan discloses:
a system comprising: a processor and a memory configured to (Sundaresan, par [0092] discloses processor and memory included in a computer device.)
display, via a user interface, a map of an event area and a plurality of event resources positioned on the map (Sundaresan, par [0051] discloses a map displaying a seating chart in a venue for an event on a user interface.)
analyze the plurality of event resources according to an event metric to determine a score
(Sundaresan, par [0054] discloses a quality rating obtained based on users assessing the seating chart to provide information regarding the seats used, and par [0074] - [0075] adds a confidence score calculated regarding the number of users providing information, with the confidence score compared to a threshold, with par [0076] adding the confidence score used to provide information regarding quality seating for an event.)
Sundaresan does not expressly disclose:
receive a modification to the event metric; and
automatically replace at least one event resource in response to the modification to the event metric.
Sullivan however discloses:
receive a modification to the event metric (Sullivan, col9, ln 20 - 22 discloses user input provided for a system to perform a modification to booths or layouts.)
automatically replace at least one event resource in response to the modification to the event metric (Sullivan col 2, ln 61 - 67 adding automatically changing elements of a venue, including shape, size and positions of venue features, with col 17, ln 22 - 27 adds a map to show needed changes, including seating, toilet, water fountain, and door changes.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the confidence score regarding seating for an event in a venue teaching of Sundaresan with the modification performed automatically for features of a venue, including seating and toilet seat changes teaching of Sullivan. The motivation to do so would have been because Sullivan discloses the benefit of a validation process that search for features that provide a validation, with a map of flagged violations can be changed, including issues with doors, toilet, water fountains or seating (Sullivan, col 17, ln 16 - 27).
For claim 6, the prior art of Sundaresan discloses the system of claim 2.
The prior art of Sundaresan does not expressly disclose:
wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a modification to the event metric via the user interface; and
update the displayed scores based on the modification to the event metric.
Sullivan however discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a modification to the event metric via the user interface (Sullivan, col 9, ln 20 - 22 discloses user input indicating a modification to be performed.)
update the displayed scores based on the modification to the event metric (Sullivan, col 5, ln 25 - 31 discloses an update performed after changes to the venue is performed, and col 3, ln 63 - 67 through col 4, ln 1 - 5 adds venue information and datasets, in which the data is interpreted to be updated after changes to the venue is performed, as recited in col 5, ln 25 - 31.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the confidence score regarding seating for an event in a venue teaching of Sundaresan with the modification performed automatically for features of a venue, including seating and toilet seat changes teaching of Sullivan, and the additional teaching of modifications performed, also found in Sullivan. The motivation to do so would have been because Sullivan discloses the benefit of a validation process that search for features that provide a validation, with a map of flagged violations can be changed, including issues with doors, toilet, water fountains or seating (Sullivan, col 17, ln 16 - 27).
For claim 10: The combination of Sundaresan and Sullivan discloses claim 10: The system of claim 3, wherein
the event metric comprises at least one of a sustainability metric, a security metric, or an accessibility metric (Sundaresan, par [0073] discloses the confidence score associated with the quality of seatings, with par [0076] adds the confidence score associated with the quality of seats and the cost of the seat in a seating section.)
For claim 12: The combination of Sundaresan and Sullivan discloses claim 12: The system of claim 3, wherein
the processor is further configured to display, via the user interface, an indication of the score associated with the plurality of event resources (Sundaresan, par [0076] discloses a plurality of aspects combined from the event server to obtain the confidence score, which is compared to a threshold, with par [0088] adds a user interface displayed to provide a user with operations to select.)
For claim 15: The combination of Sundaresan and Sullivan discloses claim 15: The system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive a modification to the event metric via the user interface (Sullivan, col 9, ln 20 - 22 discloses user input indicating a modification to be performed.)
automatically replace at least one event resource with an alternate event resource in response to the modification (Sullivan col 2, ln 61 - 67 adding automatically changing elements of a venue, including shape, size and positions of venue features, with col 17, ln 22 - 27 adds a map to show needed changes, including seating, toilet, water fountain, and door changes, and col 17, ln 60 - 65 adds changes provided, including booth size, a change in location with a different location for an element.)
update the displayed scores to reflect the alternate event resource (Sullivan, col 5, ln 25 - 31 discloses an update performed after changes to the venue is performed, and col 3, ln 63 - 67 through col 4, ln 1 - 5 adds venue information and datasets, in which the data is interpreted to be updated after changes to the venue is performed, as recited in col 5, ln 25 - 31.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the confidence score regarding seating for an event in a venue teaching of Sundaresan with the modification performed automatically for features of a venue, including seating and toilet seat changes teaching of Sullivan, and the additional teaching of modifications performed, also found in Sullivan. The motivation to do so would have been because Sullivan discloses the benefit of a validation process that search for features that provide a validation, with a map of flagged violations can be changed, including issues with doors, toilet, water fountains or seating (Sullivan, col 17, ln 16 - 27).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claim 1:
For claim 1: The prior art of Mei et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2005/0131658 A1) discloses a component model representing spatial components defining location and seating of an audience, including different types of seats and reservation area for wheelchair seating, event design document for design and layout representing set up of stage and event area, Sundaresan (U.S. PG Pub 2016/0055550 A1) discloses confidence score regarding seating for an event in a venue, and Sullivan et al. (U.S. Patent 11,270,396 B1) discloses different events with different layouts and walkways regarding outdoor space, configuring events using an interface oi place symbols representing booths and services.
However, none of the references cited, including the prior art of Mei, Sundaresan, and Sullivan, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record discloses a system including the steps of a modified plurality of event resources place on a map based on an event layer with an event matric used to obtain a score, with the event metric including sustainability metric, accessibility metric, or a security metric, with the event layer updated to indicate an overall score regarding to resources of the event placed on a map, and using machine learning to provide modifications to the event metric by replace event resources automatically with a different event resource having a different score to provide a collected event score to match the modified event metric, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention, with regards to providing a type of feedback when an event organizer designs a physical space for an event. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Claims 9, 11, 13, and 14 are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of Sundaresan (U.S. PG Pub 2016/0055550 A1) discloses confidence score regarding seating for an event in a venue, and Sullivan et al. (U.S. Patent 11,270,396 B1) discloses different events with different layouts and walkways regarding outdoor space, configuring events using an interface oi place symbols representing booths and services.
In addition, Mei et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2005/0131658 A1) discloses a component model representing spatial components defining location and seating of an audience, including different types of seats and reservation area for wheelchair seating, event design document for design and layout representing set up of stage and event area.
However, none of the references cited, including the prior art of Mei, Sundaresan, and Sullivan, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record discloses:
Claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to use a machine learning process to automatically replace the at least one event resource.
Dependent claim 11 is allowable under 35 U.S.C. 103 for depending from claim 9, an allowable base claim under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim 13, wherein the machine learning process comprises a trained neural network that evaluates event resources based on historical event data.
Claim 14, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine a score for each event resource according to the event metric; display, via the user interface, an indication of the score for each event resource at its respective location on the map; and wherein the automatic replacement of the at least one event resource is performed to adjust an aggregate event score toward the modified event metric.
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 CEDRIC D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7089. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 4:30am - 2:00pm, F 4:30am - 11:30am.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/Cedric Johnson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
March 20, 2026