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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on November 18, 2025 has been entered. Applicant has amended claims 2-3 and 5-7. Applicant has cancelled claims 8-12. Claims 1, and 14-23 were previously withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-7 and 13-23 are now pending. Claims 2-7 and 13 have been examined and currently stand rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 is objected because there is a space between the word events and a comma (e.g., online gaming events , metaverse).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Non-Functional Language:
Examiner notes that the independent claim 2 is directed to a method (i.e., process). However, only claims 2, 3, and 5 recite positively recited method steps.
In claim 3, the phrase “for instantaneous verification live at events, which extenuates, mitigates, and helps prevent fraud while decentralizing the ticket experience, on any platform/blockchain/technology platform.” is non-functional descriptive material, because it describes, at least in part, characteristics of the NFTs and blockchain.
In claim 4, the phrase “sporting events, movie theaters, esports tournaments, online gaming events, metaverse/virtual reality type events, shows and any live or performance events, for which the process for using NFT' s ticketing adds a commercial advantage or user access benefits based upon the blockchain or crypto-technology compatibility” is non-functional descriptive material, because it describes, at least in part, characteristics of the NFTs.
In claim 6, “sub-elements and products thereby being NFT platforms, including commercial and user benefits of positively impacting by reducing fraud, impacting the potential for fraud, and decentralizing the ticketing experience” is non-functional descriptive material, because it describes the sub-elements and products. Examiner notes that claim 6 does not have a positively recited step.
In claim 7, the phrase “whereby event organizers are incentivized to enable people to trade on their respective tickets using the process, whereby the NFT on-boards other access and privilege commands dictated by users” is non-functional descriptive material, because it describes, at least in part, the use of NFT.
In claim 13, the phrase “wherein conventional smart devices and later developed special purpose electronic means display each said NFT or convey the metadata a contained within aforementioned NFT acquired by a consumer.” is non-functional descriptive material, because it describes characteristics of the smart devices.
Intended use/Result Language:
In claim 2, the phrase “for authentically and replicably linking, arraying, and presenting data sets, in a decentralized fashion” in the intended use of using a blockchain system. For example, applicant fails to positively recite a step where data sets are linked, arrayed and presented.
In claim 2, the phrase “to offer for consideration said at least an NFT for ticketing purposes; and, activating at least a ticketing event, thereby including acceptance of the at least an NFT as a ticket being accepted to represent consideration tendered and associated therewith.” is the intended use of using a blockchain system. For example, applicant fails to positively recite steps related to the NFT (e.g., activating, accepting…).
In claim 5, the phrase “to verify the NFT of an event attendee” is the intended use of using a verification protocol to verify an NFT. For example, applicant fails to positively recite the step there an NFT is verified.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“special purpose electronic means” display each said NFT or convey the metadata contained within aforementioned NFT acquired by a consumer, in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5-7 and 13 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.
Claim 5 recites, in part, “…and wherein the NFT' s are activating a ticketing event…”. Examiner has reviewed the applicant disclosure and was unable to find support for this limitation. For example, Applicant’s disclosure indicates “NFT/Blockchain addition of the present invention spent most of its powder on the need to "suitable for providing entry to an event,”. see Applicant’s Specification [0022]. As best, the NFT is being used as credential to grant access, therefore, the NFT does not “activate” a ticketing event.
The claim limitations identified in the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation section, seen above, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), however applicant’s disclosure fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function(s).
With respect to the “special purpose electronic”, applicant fails to describe what structure, if any, makes up the recited with the special purpose electronic.
The structure corresponding to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitations that are computer-implemented specialized functions must include a general purpose computer or computer component along with the algorithms that the computer uses to perform each claimed specialized function. It is further noted that the written description requirement under 112(a) is not satisfied by stating that one of ordinary skill in the art could devise an algorithm to perform the specialized programmed functions. In view of the details provided above, Examiner contends that applicant’s disclosure does not provide a disclosure of corresponding structure in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how the inventor intended to program the disclosed computer to perform all of the claimed functions. See Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 94 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, claims 6-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) at least for their dependency to claim 5.
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.
Claim 2-7 and 13 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 13 recites, in part, “conventional smart devices and later developed special purpose electronic means display each said NFT…”. It is unclear because it appears that the claim to attempts to claim technology that has not been developed yet. Applicant specification does not provide description and or structural detail to these “later developed” devices.
Product And Process In The Same Claim:
Claim 2 is directed to a product and process in the same claim (i.e., “leveraging a blockchain system for…”).
Claims 3 is directed to a product and process in the same claim (i.e., wherein systems and processes…).
Claim 6 is directed to a product and a process in the same claim (i.e., sub-elements and products thereby…).
Claim 7 is directed to a product and a process in the same claim (i.e., the process of claim 6, and products thereby…).
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to "[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data" was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited "an input means" and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear "whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means."); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph). See MPEP 2173.05(p) (II).
Antecedent Basis:
In claim 5, the term “The NFT” lacks of antecedent basis because claim 2 recite at least (one) NFT and this is insufficient to provide antecedent basis to “the NFT”.
In claim 7, the term “the NFT” lacks of antecedent basis because claim 2 recite at least (one) NFT and this is insufficient to provide antecedent basis to “the NFT”.
The claim limitations identified in the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation section, seen above, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), however the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function(s) and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function(s).
With respect to the “special purpose electronic”, applicant’s fails to fails to describe what structure, if any, makes up the recited with the special purpose electronic.
Examiner notes that for computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations, the corresponding structure includes both the computer and the algorithm that performs the recited functions. In this instance, and as explained above, the disclosure fails to disclose the corresponding structure (i.e. computer and algorithm), material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function(s) and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the various functions.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Accordingly, claims 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) at least for their dependency to claim 2.
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 2-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites and is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., an abstract idea) and does not provide an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor include an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea to which the claim is directed. MPEP §2106.
In determining subject matter eligibility in an Alice rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, it is first determined as Step 1 whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of an invention (i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter). MPEP §2106.03. Here, the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 2-7 and 13). Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 1. MPEP §2106. Under a Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter that amounts to a judicial exception to patentability. MPEP §2106.04. Independent Claim 2, is selected as being representative of the independent claims in the instant application, claim 2 recites:
A process NFTs to function as tickets, which comprises, in combination, at least the steps of:
providing at least an NFT, having data incorporated therein; leveraging a blockchain system for authentically and replicably linking, arraying, and presenting data sets, in a decentralized fashion, to offer for consideration said at least an NFT for ticketing purposes; and, activating at least a ticketing event, thereby including acceptance of the at least an NFT as a ticket being accepted to represent consideration tendered and associated therewith.
Examiner notes that the independent claim 2 is directed to a method (i.e., process). However, only claims 2, 3 and recite positively recited method steps.
Here, the claims recite an abstract idea, or combination of abstract ideas, of providing and accepting a token. This concept/abstract idea, which is identified in the bolded sections seen above, falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping because it describes commercial or legal interaction. Accordingly, it is determined that the claims recite an abstract idea since they fall within one or more of the three enumerated categories of patent ineligible subject matter. MPEP §2106.04. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Elfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F .3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335-36. Here, it is clear that the claim(s) focus on an abstract idea, and not on any improvement to technology and/or a technical field.
Since it is determined that the claim(s) contain a judicial exception, it must then be determined, under Step 2A, Prong 2, whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception. MPEP §2106.04. In order to make this determination, the additional element(s) are analyzed to determine if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
As indicated in the “Claim Interpretation” section seen above, the portion of the limitation which recites “for authentically and replicably linking, arraying, and presenting data sets, in a decentralized fashion” in the intended use of using a blockchain system. For example, applicant fails to positively recite a step where data sets are linked, arrayed and presented. And the phrase “to offer for consideration said at least an NFT for ticketing purposes; and, activating at least a ticketing event, thereby including acceptance of the at least an NFT as a ticket being accepted to represent consideration tendered and associated therewith.” is the intended use of using a blockchain system. For example, applicant fails to positively recite steps related to the NFT (e.g., activating, accepting…).
Beyond these intended use and/or non-functional phrases, claim 2 recites the additional element of an NFT. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Examiner finds no indication in the Specification, that the operations recited in the independent claims require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible."). Furthermore, there is no indication in the claim(s) that the use on NFTs, in combination with the abstract idea leads to an improvement of another technology, or to a technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Examiner further notes that even though the claims may not preempt all forms of the abstraction, this alone, does not make them any less abstract. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic computing component (e.g., NFT) to implement the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more than the judicial exception. Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements recited in the claim(s) add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Therefore, claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 3-7 and 13 when analyzed are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7 further refine the abstract idea by describing and indicating the intended use of the NFTs. These claims fail to include any new additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible. Accordingly, it is determined that all claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by QUIGLEY et al. (2023/0117135 A1), “Quigley”.
Regarding claim 2: Quigley disclose :
A process for ticketing using NFTs, which comprises, in combination, at least the steps of:
providing at least an NFT having data incorporated therein; leveraging a blockchain system for authentically and replicably linking, arraying, and presenting data sets, in a decentralized fashion, to offer for consideration said at least an NFT for ticketing purposes; and, activating at least a ticketing event, thereby including acceptance of the at least an NFT as a ticket. (See at least Quigley, [0923]; [0925-0927]; [0945]. where an NFT (i.e., NFT) is provided (e.g., VIRLs created with respect to experiences can be tokenized in NFTs, first user may own an NFT ticket corresponding to a particular experience and/or benefit) having data incorporated therein (e.g., In general, the analytics and reporting system may generate analytics and statistical data including supply data, popularity data, value data) blockchain system for authentically and replicably linking, arraying, and presenting data sets, in a decentralized fashion, to offer for consideration said at least an NFT for ticketing purposes (e.g., the ticket may be stored on a blockchain or distributed ledger) activating at least a ticketing event, thereby including acceptance of the at least an NFT as a ticket (i.e., these embodiments, VIRLs and/or other tokens may act as tickets to event).)
being accepted to represent consideration tendered and associated therewith. (See at least Quigley, [0959]; In these embodiments, for example, seats or sections may be dynamically assigned at the time a user redeems the NFT ticket 8022A and/or uses a redemption code to gain admittance to an event.)
Applicant is reminded that the phrase “for authentically and replicably linking, arraying, and presenting data sets, in a decentralized fashion” in the intended use of using a blockchain system. For example, applicant fails to positively recite a step where data sets are linked, arrayed and presented.
Applicant is reminded that the phrase “to offer for consideration said at least an NFT for ticketing purposes; and, activating at least a ticketing event, thereby including acceptance of the at least an NFT as a ticket being accepted to represent consideration tendered and associated therewith.” is the intended use of using a blockchain system. For example, applicant fails to positively recite steps related to the NFT (e.g., activating, accepting…).
The applicant is reminded that these portions, i.e., intended use/result, do not further limit the scope of the claim as the limitations, or portions thereof, do not claim the functions as being positively recited actions or functions, and/or they do not add any meaning or purpose to the associated manipulative step(s). See MPEP 2103 C and 2111.04. Simply because the limitation recites something as being "for ... [performing a specific functionality]", etc. does not mean that the functions are required to be performed, or are actually performed.
Regarding claim 3: Quigley disclose the process of claim 2. Quigley further disclose wherein systems and processes using blockchain and NFTs for instantaneous verification live at events, which extenuates, mitigates, and helps prevent fraud while decentralizing the ticket experience on any platform/blockchain/technology platform. (See at least Quigley, [0924]; [0945] Quigley disclose; therefore the potential for fraud would discourage secondary ticket markets; event organizers or other interested parties to determine how the tokenized tickets collections are being used (e.g., sold and resold, traded, redeemed, consumed, etc.);
Applicant is reminded that the phrase “for instantaneous verification live at events, which extenuates, mitigates, and helps prevent fraud while decentralizing the ticket experience, on any platform/blockchain/technology platform.” is non-functional descriptive material, because it describes, at least in part, characteristics of the NFTs and blockchain.
Regarding claim 4: Quigley disclose the process of claim 3. Quigley further disclose sporting events, movie theaters, esports tournaments, online gaming events, metaverse/virtual reality type events, shows and any live or performance events, for which the process for using NFT' s ticketing adds a commercial advantage or user access benefits based upon the blockchain or crypto-technology compatibility. (See at least Quigley, [0923]; tokens may act as tickets to events, such as concerts, sporting events, theatre events, and the like (e.g., as tokenized tickets).)
Applicant is reminded that the phrase “sporting events, movie theaters, esports tournaments, online gaming events, metaverse/virtual reality type events, shows and any live or performance events, for which the process for using NFT' s ticketing adds a commercial advantage or user access benefits based upon the blockchain or crypto-technology compatibility” is non-functional descriptive material, because it describes, at least in part, characteristics of the NFTs.
Regarding claim 5: Quigley disclose the process of claim 4. Quigley further disclose using an accepted and effective verification protocol to verify the NFT of an event attendee, and wherein the NFT' s are activating a ticketing event being used online. (See at least Quigley, [0923]; For example, VIRLs created with respect to experiences can be tokenized in NFTs, such that the experience- based items can be transferred from one account to another account of a user. In these embodiments, VIRLs and/or other tokens may act as tickets to events, such as concerts, sporting events, theatre events, and the like (e.g., as tokenized tickets).)
Applicant is reminded that the phrase “to verify the NFT of an event attendee” is the intended use of using a verification protocol to verify an NFT. For example, applicant fails to positively recite the step there an NFT is verified.
Regarding claim 6: Quigley disclose the process of claim 5. Quigley further disclose sub-elements and products thereby being NFT platforms, including commercial and user benefits of positively impacting by reducing fraud, impacting the potential for fraud, and decentralizing the ticketing experience. (See at least Quigley, [0929]; Thus, for example, a ser may be able to use an NFT ticket at an electronic theater kiosk in order to obtain admission to a theater (e.g., because the point-of-sale kiosk is integrated with the redemption system).)
Applicant is reminded that in claim 6, the phrase “sub-elements and products thereby being NFT platforms, including commercial and user benefits of positively impacting by reducing fraud, impacting the potential for fraud, and decentralizing the ticketing experience” is non-functional descriptive material, because it describes the sub-elements and products. Examiner notes that claim 6 does not have a positively recited step.
Regarding claim 7: Quigley disclose the process of claim 6. Quigley further disclose whereby using NFT verification controls whereby event organizers are incentivized to enable people to trade on their respective tickets using the process, whereby the NFT on-boards other access and privilege commands dictated by users. (See at least Quigley, [0927]; [0930]; In embodiments, NFT tickets and/or other tokenized tickets may be tradable via marketplaces, such that tickets may be resalable after purchase. In these embodiments, a first user may own an NFT ticket corresponding to a particular experience and/or benefit (e.g., an event ticket) and transfer the NFT ticket (e.g., sell, gift, or trade it) to another user.)
Applicant is reminded that the phrase “whereby event organizers are incentivized to enable people to trade on their respective tickets using the process, whereby the NFT on-boards other access and privilege commands dictated by users” is non-functional descriptive material, because it describes, at least in part, the use of NFT.
Regarding claim 13: Quigley disclose the process of claim 7. Quigley further disclose wherein conventional smart devices and later Developed special purpose electronic means display each said NFT or convey the metadata contained within aforementioned NFT acquired by a consumer. (See at least Quigley, [0941]; [0957]. The NFT identifier 8202 may uniquely identify the NFT. The media asset links 8204, as described above for the NFT ticket template 8140, may include links (e.g., IPFS links) to off-chain data that may be displayed or output when a user views an NFT in a wallet ( e.g., image, audio, and/or
video data). For example, a QR code may be stored as an image associated with the NFT ticket, which the user may display (e.g., via the user's digital wallet 8004) for scanning by the point-of-sale system 8008.)
Applicant is reminded that the phrase “wherein conventional smart devices and later developed special purpose electronic means display each said NFT or convey the metadata a contained within aforementioned NFT acquired by a consumer.” is non-functional descriptive material, because it describes characteristics of the smart devices.
Response to Arguments
Specification Objections:
Applicant’s amendments has corrected the previously identified issues. Accordingly, the specification objection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections:
Applicant’s amendments has corrected the previously identified issues with respect to claims 1-3, 6-9 and 11-12. However, claim 4 still objected since it has the same issue stated in the last action (e.g., because there is a space between the word events and a comma (e.g., online gaming events , metaverse).)
The Refection of Claims Under§ 112
Applicant asserts “Claims 5-13 and Claim 2-13 are no longer properly rejected s stated, as amended.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 5-7 and 13 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and claims 2-7 and 13 remain rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because Applicant’s amendments did not correct the previously identified issues with respect to claims 2-3, 5-7 and 13.
The Refection of Claims Under § 102:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., having at least one element) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(Kang et al US 20210357893 A1): The present disclosure relates generally to systems and methods for using a distributed ledger (e.g., blockchain) to create an online ticketing platform for the buying and/or selling of authenticated live event tickets. More specifically, exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure relate to systems and methods for creating a blockchain-based online ticketing platform that may be decentralized, that may be public, and that may be transparent to a buyer and/or seller of live event tickets (e.g., sporting events, concerts, theatrical productions, and other live entertainment events). An exemplary embodiment may include a system for electronic commerce in a distributed computing system with blockchain protocols and smart contracts that may comprise: a decentralized, public, and permission-less online platform for the electronic commerce of secure digital assets, wherein the secure digital assets are managed by the blockchain protocols and smart contracts; and a truth source. Kang et al. Abs.
Meyers (US 20230123993 A1)In various examples, in response to the payment response verifying the payment request, the NFT platform system 6827 facilitates the minting of a ticket NFT 6822 associated with a ticket to the event/venue. In the alternative, one or more ticket NFTs can be minted prior to sale. In this fashion, for example, a limited, numbered series and/or other set of ticket NFTs can be minted and offered for sale to potential attendees as special collector’s items. In a further example, ticket NFTs can be minted with special subsidiary benefits not associated with an ordinary ticket, such as a backstage pass, premium access, a meet and greet component, etc. (Meyers, [0119].
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KARLYANNIE M GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 4:30-pm.
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.
/K.G.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights