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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/26/2026 has been entered.
Acknowledgements
Claims 1, 3, 6, 14, have 16 have been amended. Claim 5 was previously canceled. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments, filed 05/26/2026, to claim 6 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and (d) rejections previously set forth in the Final Rejection 04/03/2026. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and (d) rejections of claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 05/26/2026, to claims 1 and 14 have not overcome the prior art rejections. Applicant has not provided any remarks that need to be addressed. Please see below for an updated mapping of the prior art in light of the amendments.
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 1-4 and 6-20 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 1 and 14 recite “wherein the in-venue transaction via the additional NFT is recorded on the decentralized blockchain.” However, the instant specification does not disclose or suggest recording any in-venue transaction via the additional NFT. While [000103] discloses “as all transactions and updates to the NFT are recorded on the blockchain,” this disclosure refers to NFTs as tickets and transactions/updates to the NFT, not in-venue transactions where a user is rewarded with an additional NFT after making an in-venue purchase. Therefore, claims 1 and 14 introduce new matter.
Claims 2-4, 6-13, and 15-20 depend from claims 1 and 14. They do not cure the deficiencies presented above. Therefore, they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for at least based on their dependency from a rejected base claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-2, 4, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. WO 2017/136579 (herein as “Johnson”) in view of Kang et al. WO 2021/054989 (herein as “Kang”), and further in view of Hermann U.S. 2012/0215637.
Re Claim 1, Johnson discloses a method for tamper-proof assignment and tracking of tickets to access an event for a defined period of time, to at least one user device, the method comprising:
rendering, via a credential server, first information associated with the event to the at least one user device ([0071] – “web-server system 318 (i.e. credential server) can interact with user device 310 to identify available tickets and to collect information needed to assign an ticket. Web-server system 318 can interact with SQL system 341 so as to retrieve data about particular events and/or tickets (i.e. first information) to as to configure web data…to reflect accurate or semi-accurate information and/or statuses,” i.e. rendering first information to the user device);
receiving a request for the tickets from the at least one user device in response to the rendered first information, wherein the request includes at least one of a location associated with the event and a number of tickets requested by the at least one user device ([0020] – “Notifications of available tickets can be accompanied by options to request that one or more tickets be assigned to a user (i.e. in response to the rendered first information). Therefore, user 105 can provide input to user device 110 via an interface to request such assignment and provide other pertinent information…In some instances, a request includes one or more access to a particular event (i.e. number of tickets)…an event location.”);
extracting information from a first database based on the request received from the at least one user device, wherein the extracted information includes a list of unfilled tickets requested by the at least one user device with parameters including at least one of the location associated with the event, a type of tickets requested by the at least one user device, and identifiers associated with the tickets ([0071] – “Web-server system 318 can interact with SQL system 341 so as to retrieve data about particular events and/or tickets…Catalog system 342 may provide condensed status updates (e.g. reflecting a binary indication as to whether an ticket is available) to SQL system 341 (i.e. an unavailable ticket is analogous to an unfilled ticket),” [0060] – “The relational databases can include…for example, event information, access-right identifications and characteristics (i.e. identifiers associated with the tickets), access-right statuses and/or assignments, and/or user and/or user account data”);
assigning, via the credential server, the tickets, from the list of unfilled tickets to an account associated with the at least one user device based on the received request ([0024] – assigning a ticket to a user, [0113] – assigning tickets responsive to a request);
assigning, by the credential server, […] a colored coin, linked with the tickets, to the account associated with the at least one user device based on the assignment of the tickets from the list of unfilled tickets, […] ([0014] – “A colored bitcoin, access token, or access token identifier ties an event (i.e. linked with the tickets) to a bitcoin transaction or other trustless ledger transaction so that the transfer and ownership of the event (i.e. assigning to the account) can be traced through the block chain of the trustless ledger transaction. An event can be a ticket to a restricted area…” [0184] – “a cryptocurrency block chain to provide for use of a colored cryptocurrency element that represents a particular access-right (i.e. assignment of the ticket),” [0185] – the colored cryptocurrency element associated with the access-right is granted to the user);
acquiring, by the credential server, personal identification information of the account associated with the at least one user device ([0061] – “generate status-update request communications to be sent to one or more access assignment systems and/or intermediate systems…a status-update communication identifies assignment details, such as a user, account and/or user device associated with an access-right assignment”);
updating the decentralized blockchain and the first database in response to the acquired personal identification information associated with the at least one user device, wherein the update in the decentralized blockchain and the first database is adapted to provide real-time consistency by maintaining operations between distributed nodes and the first database ([0013] – “the distributed database may be decentralized and trustless,” [0014] – “transfer and ownership of the event can be traced through the block chain of the trustless ledger transaction,” [0060] – “The relational databases can include…include user and/or user account data, etc.”);
Examiner notes that the “wherein” (“the update…is adapted to…) clause is an intended result of updating decentralized blockchain and the first database and is therefore, not given patentable weight since it does not limit how the updating is performed. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, prior art is provided: [0098] – “Updates to data stores…can improve cross-device data consistency.”
transmitting the first information, wherein the first information includes presale notifications to one or more user devices selected from a whitelist stored in the first database ([0018] – notifications of available rights are transmitted to a set of user devices, a set being analogous to a whitelist. The available rights are not yet sold, and are therefore “presale,” [0093] - account data store 424 can store data for entities, users, account data, and/or information such as one or more device types, IP addresses, etc., “whitelist stored in the first database”);
Examiner notes that the content of the first information is nonfunctional descriptive material because it does not meaningfully limit how the first information is rendered see MPEP 2111.05. Therefore, the content of the first information cannot be given patentable weight. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, prior art citation is provided above.
transmitting a notification to the at least one user device, wherein the notification comprises a confirmation of assignment of the tickets […] to the account associated with the at least one user device [0141];
Examiner notes that the content of the notification is nonfunctional descriptive material because it does not meaningfully limit how the notification is transmitted see MPEP 2111.05. Therefore, the content of the notification cannot be given patentable weight. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, prior art citation is provided above.
verifying a validity of the tickets […], when the at least one user device is requesting access to the event, based on scanning information provided on the tickets and referencing a transaction history […] in the decentralized blockchain […] ([0180] – “a user being in possessing the private key…may be an indicator that the user has a valid ticket for a particular venue…verification of a user possess an ticket may be established by confirming the user is in possession of the corresponding private key,” [0181] – “a private key…may be represented…in a physical form (e.g. a barcode or quick response (QR) code)…user is required to transfer the cryptocurrency element (associated with the ticket, enabled by possession of the private key)…to obtain entry to a venue,” [0173] – “On the full block chain, each and every cryptocurrency element and all transfers of all cryptocurrency elements ever made are accounted for, allowing verification of which addresses control which cryptocurrency elements at any given moment”);
[…]; and
transmitting at least one updated […] colored coin and privilege to access the event to the at least one user device based on the verification of the tickets […] ([0186] – the same or another, i.e. updated, colored cryptocurrency element may be transferred to the user upon exit to grant the user access for re-entry if the user is eligible).
Although Johnson discloses using “colored coins,” which are similar to the NFTs in the instant application regarding the representation and tracking of real-world assets, Examiner recognizes that Johnson does not expressly disclose using NFTs. Specifically, Johnson does not expressly disclose
a unique non-fungible token (NFT), linked with the tickets;
the NFT is the unique non-fungible token in a decentralized blockchain, and
the NFT is stored in the decentralized blockchain configured to maintain secure and transparent transaction history of the tickets for future traceability;
updating transaction record of the assigned NFT in the decentralized blockchain;
the transaction history includes the transaction record of the NFT;
wherein the in-venue transaction via the additional NFT is recorded on the decentralized blockchain.
Kang discloses an online platform for commerce in a distributed system with blockchain protocols and smart contracts. Specifically, Kang discloses
a unique non-fungible token (NFT), linked with the tickets [0047] – “The term “non-fungible” token, as used herein, may refer to a live even ticket that has been tokenized.”;
the NFT is the unique non-fungible token in a decentralized blockchain ([0047] – “Non-fungible tickets are never the same (i.e. unique),” [0103] – “as each new event is created…as each tickets/token is purchased, or as an ownership interest of a current ticket/token is transferred, a new entry to the blockchain 110 is added”), and
the NFT is stored in the decentralized blockchain configured to maintain secure and transparent transaction history of the tickets for future traceability ([0056] – “Systems and methods described herein relate to a decentralized blockchain-based online ticketing platform that may achieve trust between the user community using openness, provide transparency of operation, and create a ticketing platform on which all ticket data (i.e. NFT) is stored “on-chain”);
wherein the in-venue transaction via the additional NFT is recorded on the decentralized blockchain [0058] – “The additional block can contain one or more new transaction records associated with the event.”
Examiner notes that “configured to maintain…” is an intended result. It does not meaningfully limit how the NFT is stored. Therefore, it cannot be given patentable weight. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, prior art citation is provided above.
updating transaction record of the assigned NFT in the decentralized blockchain [0103] – “as each new event is created…as each tickets/token is purchased, or as an ownership interest of a current ticket/token is transferred, a new entry to the blockchain 110 is added.”;
the transaction history includes the transaction record of the NFT [0103] – “all parties may monitor the comprehensive transaction history in real-time to validate ticket ownership,” “as each new event is created…as each tickets/token is purchased, or as an ownership interest of a current ticket/token is transferred, a new entry to the blockchain 110 is added.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson’s decentralized virtual trustless ledger for ticketing control with the teachings of using NFTs to represent tickets and recording transactions in the blockchain in Kang. One would be motivated to make this combination because NFTs are a known, obvious variant of colored coins, and using blockchain to record transactions allow for provenance tracking for authenticity and accuracy Kang, [0056], therefore, it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success.
However, Johnson in view of Kang do not explicitly teach
monitoring one or more in-venue user interactions to:
identify an in-venue transaction by the at least one user device, and
assign an additional NFT or an interaction reward based on the in-venue transaction, and
transmit a promotional offer on the at least one user device to perform the in-venue transaction using the additional NFT assigned as the interaction reward.
Hermann discloses a system and method that permits a user at a venue location to be more effectively engaged by a venue operator. Specifically, Hermann discloses
monitoring one or more in-venue user interactions to [0025] – “actions performed by the user among multiple applications and venue locations are monitored by a loyalty system”:
identify an in-venue transaction by the at least one user device [0073] – “information that may be tracked may include purchasing behavior of the user,” and
assign an additional NFT or an interaction reward based on the in-venue transaction [0121] – “monitoring and rewarding user behavior,” “may perform one or more actions at the venue location,” “a reward is communicated to the mobile device operated by the user,” and
transmit a promotional offer on the at least one user device to perform the in-venue transaction using the additional NFT assigned as the interaction reward ([0095] – “Location information 405 may be communicated to a promotion system 404, and based on the location of the user, an indication of a promotion or other advertisement 406 may be sent and displayed to the user,” [0122] – “user performs some location-based activity, i.e. in-venue transaction…and receives a reward based on that activity…awards may include…any other thing of value may be provided to the user”).
Although Hermann does not disclose the award being an additional NFT, Hermann does disclose the award may be any other thing of value, thereby suggesting any award of value rewarded may still render the prior art functional. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute an additional NFT for the award in Hermann since the combination would be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Johnson in view of Kang’s decentralized virtual trustless ledger for ticketing control with the teachings of monitoring and rewarding a user based on the user’s transactions in Hermann. One would be motivated to make this combination to improve user engagement and thereby provide better services to users during an event Hermann, [0088].
Re Claim 2, Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann teach the method of claim 1, and Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann further teach further comprising transferring ownership of the NFT linked with the tickets based on personal identification information associated with an account of a second user who is at a receiving destination (Johnson [0188] – transferring the ticket represented by the colored cryptocurrency element to an address controlled by a second user, i.e. personal identification information associated with an account of a second user).
Re Claim 4, Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann teach the method of claim 1, and Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann further teach further comprising prioritizing user devices for accessing privileges or other tickets based on NFTs owned by a user, associated with a user device of the user devices, and past history stored in the first database (Johnson [0108] – prioritizing requests based on similar or same tickets, i.e. owned by a user, earlier requests, whether requests were associated with users having established accounts, i.e. past history, etc.).
Re Claim 7, Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann teach the method of claim 1, and Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann further teach wherein the first database storing at least one of historical data associated with the at least one user devices, user preferences, user behavior, location information associated with the at least one user device, a list of available tickets, the NFT assigned to the user device, and social media account information associated with the at least one user device Johnson [0060], [0071].
Re Claim 8, Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann teach the method of claim 1, and Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann further teach further comprising managing the personal identification information and the NFT assigned to the at least one user device using the decentralized blockchain (Johnson [0171] – an address is analogous to personal identification information).
Re Claim 9, Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann teach the method of claim 1, and Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann further teach further comprising
linking the acquired personal identification information with the assigned NFT (Johnson, [0114] – “store an indication in account data store 424 that the ticket(s) have been assigned to the user,” assigning is analogous to linking);
registering the linked personal identification information in the first database (Johnson, [0114] – “store an indication in account data store 424 that the ticket(s) have been assigned to the user,” storing the indication is analogous to registering in the first database).
However, Johnson does not expressly disclose
verifying the personal identification information linked with the NFT by comparing it with the personal identification information registered in the first database.
Kang discloses an online platform for commerce in a distributed system with blockchain protocols and smart contracts. Specifically, Kang discloses
verifying the personal identification information linked with the NFT by comparing it with the personal identification information registered in the first database [00101] – identification verification includes providing information such as biometric-based ID to secure a user’s account such that they could repeat the verification process again, i.e. comparing with personal identification information, to recover wallets or purchased tickets.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson’s decentralized virtual trustless ledger for ticketing control with the teachings of verifying identity of a user by comparing personal identification information with previously provided personal identification information in Kang. One would be motivated to make this combination to improve security of the account and eliminate bots Kang [00101].
Re Claim 10, Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann teach the method of claim 9, and Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann further teach further comprising rendering the tickets associated with the NFT to the at least one user device based on the verification of the personal identification information of a user, associated with the at least one user device, registered in advance, and wherein the verified personal identification information is stored in the first database (Kang [00101] – identification verification includes providing information such as biometric-based ID to secure a user’s account such that they could repeat the verification process again, as needed, to recover purchased tickets, i.e. rendering the tickets).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson’s decentralized virtual trustless ledger for ticketing control with the teachings of providing tickets based on verifying the identity of a user in Kang. One would be motivated to make this combination to improve security of the account and eliminate bots Kang [00101].
Re Claim 12, Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann teach the method of claim 1, and Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann further teach further comprising defining a transfer method of the tickets linked to the NFT based on a smart contract of the decentralized blockchain, wherein the transfer method defines an identifier at which the user device circulates the tickets (Kang [0017-18] – using smart contracts to sell, or transfer, a live event ticket as a non-fungible token, a transaction identifier is defined for facilitating the transaction).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson’s decentralized virtual trustless ledger for ticketing control with the teachings of using smart contracts to define rules regarding sale and resale of live event tickets in Kang. One would be motivated to make this combination because implementing smart contracts with a blockchain would enable the ability to control end-to-end commerce so that revenue may be recaptured and distributed in a controlled and orderly manner, e.g. controlled by a rule set or rule sets Kang [0003].
Re Claim 13, Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann teach the method of claim 1, and Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann further teach further comprising transmitting the tickets to a user, via the credential server, based on referencing the transaction history of the NFT in the decentralized blockchain and verifying the transaction history in accordance with one or more rules of a ticket transfer method linked to the NFT (Kang [0018] – sale and resale of live event ticket may correspond to at least one smart contract deployed on a blockchain, and [00103] - transaction history may be monitored in real-time to validate ticket ownership as each ticket/token is purchased or transferred).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson’s decentralized virtual trustless ledger for ticketing control with the teachings of referencing the blockchain and employing smart contracts in Kang. One would be motivated to make this combination because implementing smart contracts with a blockchain would enable the ability to control end-to-end commerce so that revenue may be recaptured and distributed in a controlled and orderly manner, e.g. controlled by a rule set or rule sets Kang [0003].
Re Claims 14-15 and 17-19, they are the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claims of method claims 1-2, 4, 7 and 9. They recite similar distinguishing features as claims 1-2, 4, 7 and 9. Furthermore, Johnson discloses a storage medium, such as a non-transitory storage medium, that can be used to store program code for each of one or more of the components, modules, and/or engines depicted in the prior art [0133]. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. WO 2017/136579 (herein as “Johnson”) in view of Kang et al. WO 2021/054989 (“Kang”) and Hermann U.S. 2012/0215637 as applied to claims 2 and 15 above, and further in view of Sehrer U.S. Patent 8,983,868.
Re Claim 3, Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann teach the method of claim 2, however, Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann do not explicitly teach wherein transferring the ownership of the NFT includes, giving privilege related to the transfer of the ownership to the second user, associated with a second user device, wherein the second user is present at the receiving destination, and
wherein the second user is eligible as the receiving destination based on a participation score for accessing the event or based on an index value associated with a social medial ID of the second user as an action history of the second user.
Sehrer discloses using location information in electronic commerce. Specifically, Sehrer discloses if a score calculated by the social module is above a threshold, the purchase transaction is approved (i.e. giving privilege) Col. 9, lines 58-61. The score (i.e. index value) is calculated based on the social networking information of the user (i.e. social media ID) Col. 11, lines 11-12. The user making the purchase is analogous to the second user at the receiving destination.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann’s decentralized virtual trustless ledger for ticketing control with the teachings of using a calculated score of the user to approve or deny the transaction in Sehrer. One would be motivated to make this combination to reduce fraudulent transactions Sehrer Col. 1, lines 11, 19-20, Col. 4, lines 65-67.
Re Claim 16, it is the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claim of method claim 3. It recites similar distinguishing features as claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 6 , 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. WO 2017/136579 (herein as “Johnson”) in view of Kang et al. WO 2021/054989 (herein as “Kang”) and Hermann U.S. 2012/0215637 as applied to claims 1, 5 and 14 above, and further in view of Yantis et al. WO 2020/092900 (herein as “Yantis”).
Re Claim 6, Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann teach the method of claim 1, however, Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann do not explicitly teach further comprising generating the whitelist that includes a list of approved user devices based on a comparison of personal identification information associated with one or more user devices with corresponding information stored in the first database.
Yantis discloses a tokenization platform. Specifically, Yantis discloses maintaining and updating a public address list of valid accounts [0891]. The account of the user is verified based on the public address of the user, i.e. personal identification information [0027].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann’s decentralized virtual trustless ledger for ticketing control with the teachings of updating and maintaining a list of valid accounts in Yantis. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Therefore, the combination of prior art elements according to known methods would yield predictable results and renders the claim obvious.
Re Claim 11, Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann teach the method of claim 1, however, Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann do not explicitly teach wherein the NFT is issued in the decentralized blockchain in which nodes permitted by an administrator can participate, and wherein the NFTs are stored either in a non-custodial wallet accessible on the user device or in a custodial wallet accessible to NFT issuer.
Yantis discloses a tokenization platform. Specifically, Yantis discloses a distributed ledger may be private [0884], i.e. blockchain in which nodes permitted by an administrator can participate. Furthermore, Yantis discloses tokens can be assigned to a user’s wallet [0847].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnson in view of Kang and Hermann’s decentralized virtual trustless ledger for ticketing control with the teachings of issuing NFTs on a private blockchain and storing the NFTs in a user’s wallet in Yantis. One would be motivated to make this combination because these are known variations in blockchain technology (private vs. public blockchain, custodial vs. non-custodial wallets) and it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success.
Re Claim 20, it is the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claim of method claim 11. It recites similar distinguishing features as claim 11. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Truong et al. U.S. 2018/0005465 directed to verification of access rights. See at least [0245, 247].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm MT.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/CHRISTINE DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights