DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 10, and 13-15 have been amended.
Claims 11 and 12 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-10 and 13-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant's Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 8-9, filed 24 June 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of claims 1-19 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter, have been fully considered, and are persuasive, in view of the claim amendments. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of claims 1-19 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 8-9, filed 24 June 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of claims 1-19 for being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, have been fully considered, and are persuasive, in view of the claim amendments. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of claims 1-19 for being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more have been withdrawn.
Although the claims recite the abstract idea of generating a seating plan, the claims also recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The ordered combination of limitations and additional elements, apply the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the claims recite transformation of one data type/structure into another concrete technical artifact, such as transforming a visual representation into a refined edge-detected map, and then into a vectorized digital twin. Thus, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and are patent eligible.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 6-8, filed 24 June 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided below, as necessitated by the claim amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 19 are objected to because of the following typographical error: “…an Event Ticking system…”, but should say “…an Event Ticketing system… ”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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:
“an input module to receive and analyze execute an image transformation pipeline…” in claim 1.
“a Seating Plan Generator Module ("SPGM") to fit seat rows… and to map said rows to coordinates…” in claim 1.
“an input module to execute an image transformation pipeline…” in claim 10.
“a Seating Plan Generator Module ("SPGM") to fit seat rows… and to map said rows…” in claim 10.
“a module configured to embed into a website…” in claim 10.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20140195277), in view of Ganihar (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20210049812), in further view of Towfiq (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20180293519).
In regards to claim 1, Kim teaches: A system for generating a digital venue environment, said system comprising: an input module to execute an image transformation pipeline (Kim: ¶6-11, ¶40, ¶51-53, ¶58-62 disclose a computer system comprising hardware and software elements configured to generate a digital seating chart for a venue, wherein the system receives and analyses a venue image/photo).
Although Kim teaches a computer system configured to utilize edge detection to generate a digital seating chart for a venue (Kim: ¶53, ¶58), the reference does not explicitly teach utilizing OTSU thresholding to transform the image.
However, Kim and Ganihar together teach comprising at least edge detection and OTSU thresholding to transform a visual representation of a venue into a refined edge-detected map (Kim: ¶53, ¶58 disclose detecting the boundaries of sections of the images and the edges of seats at a venue map; Ganihar: ¶81-82 disclose utilizing OTSU thresholding techniques to transform a venue image).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the image transformation, as taught by Ganihar, into the system and method of Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “remove distortions that can be caused by noise content in the binary image” (Ganihar: ¶69).
Additionally, although Kim teaches a computer system comprising hardware and software elements configured to generate a digital seating chart for a venue, the reference does not explicitly state assigning seat rows in a vectorized digital representation.
However, Kim and Towfiq together teach a Seating Plan Generator Module (“SPGM”) to fit seat rows to detected seat objects within a vectorized digital twin (Towfiq: ¶7, ¶37, ¶45, ¶48 disclose assigning sections, rows, and seats into a vectorized digital venue representation) and to map said rows to coordinates relative to said visual representation to maintain margins and layout distancing between rows (Towfiq: ¶57 disclose specifying coordinate locations for each row and seat; Kim: ¶66 disclose identifying a seat and row location based on coordinate locations).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vectorization, as taught by Towfiq, into the system and method of Kim and Ganihar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide for the automatic and computer-assisted generation of vectorized venue maps for event venues” (Towfiq: ¶5).
In regards to claim 2, Kim, Ganihar, and Towfiq teach the system of claim 1. Kim and Towfiq together further teach a parser functionally associated with said input module and configured to determine whether a received visual representation of a venue is vectorized, and if said visual representation is determined to not be vectorized, to instruct said input module to execute the image transformation pipeline (Towfiq: ¶45-53 disclose determining if the digital venue representation is vectorized, and if not, performing vectorization).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vectorization, as taught by Towfiq, into the system and method of Kim and Ganihar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide for the automatic and computer-assisted generation of vectorized venue maps for event venues” (Towfiq: ¶5).
In regards to claim 3, Kim, Ganihar, and Towfiq teach the system of claim 2. Kim further teaches wherein a non-vectorized visual representation may be of a format selected from a group consisting of handmade sketches, video recordings and photographs of said venue (Kim: ¶8, ¶49, ¶51-52, ¶58 disclose wherein the venue representation is a schematic, photo, or drawing).
In regards to claim 4, Kim, Ganihar, and Towfiq teach the system of claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein said SPGM is functionally associated with a Venue Feature Classifier (“VFC”) to classify said detected seat objects and further identify and location-register venue features including one or more of: (a) fixed columns and other structural supports within the venue, (b) existing seats and other seating structures within the venue, (c) stages or platforms towards which seated event attendees should be facing (Kim: ¶49-62, ¶117 disclose classifying detected venue features).
In regards to claim 5, Kim, Ganihar, and Towfiq teach the system of claim 4. Kim further teaches wherein said SPGM generates seat identifiers for existing seats registered by said VFC (Kim: ¶66-70, ¶78 disclose generating seat identifiers).
In regards to claim 6, Kim, Ganihar, and Towfiq teach the system of claim 4. Kim and Towfiq together further teach wherein said SPGM generates at least one new seat proposal along with corresponding location coordinates utilizing a user selected algorithm as constrained by placement of venue features identified and registered by said VFC from a venue visual representation (Kim: ¶66-70, ¶78 disclose generating a digital seating chart with corresponding seat and row coordinate locations based on identified venue features; Towfiq: ¶45-53, ¶57 disclose utilizing algorithms to generate a venue seating arrangement specifying coordinate locations for each row and seat).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the algorithms, as taught by Towfiq, into the system and method of Kim and Ganihar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide for the automatic and computer-assisted generation of vectorized venue maps for event venues” (Towfiq: ¶5).
In regards to claim 7, Kim, Ganihar, and Towfiq teach the system of claim 6. Kim further teaches wherein new seat proposals generated by said SPGM are issued seat identifiers along with corresponding venue location coordinates (Kim: ¶66-70, ¶78 disclose generating seat identifiers along with corresponding seat and row coordinate locations).
In regards to claim 8, Kim, Ganihar, and Towfiq teach the system of claim 7. Kim further teaches wherein said SPGM is functionally associated with an Event Ticketing system configured to enable the public to purchase designed tickets proposed (Kim: ¶80-82 disclose enabling ticket purchasing through a ticketing system).
In regards to claim 9, Kim, Ganihar, and Towfiq teach the system of claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein said system is integral or otherwise functionally associated with an online website builder (Kim: ¶92-93, ¶114-115 disclose wherein the system is functionally associated with a web server and web pages).
In regards to claim 10, Kim teaches: A website builder comprising: an input module to execute an image transformation pipeline (Kim: ¶6-11, ¶40, ¶51-53, ¶58-62 disclose a computer system comprising hardware and software elements configured to generate a digital seating chart for a venue, wherein the system receives and analyses a venue image/photo).
Although Kim teaches a computer system configured to utilize edge detection to generate a digital seating chart for a venue (Kim: ¶53, ¶58), the reference does not explicitly teach utilizing OTSU thresholding to transform the image.
However, Kim and Ganihar together teach comprising at least edge detection and OTSU thresholding to transform a visual representation of a venue into a refined edge-detected map (Kim: ¶53, ¶58 disclose detecting the boundaries of sections of the images and the edges of seats at a venue map; Ganihar: ¶81-82 disclose utilizing OTSU thresholding techniques to transform a venue image).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the image transformation, as taught by Ganihar, into the system and method of Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “remove distortions that can be caused by noise content in the binary image” (Ganihar: ¶69).
Additionally, although Kim teaches a computer system comprising hardware and software elements configured to generate a digital seating chart for a venue, the reference does not explicitly state assigning seat rows in a vectorized digital representation.
However, Kim and Towfiq together teach a Seating Plan Generator Module ("SPGM") to fit seat rows to detected seat objects within a vectorized digital twin (Towfiq: ¶7, ¶37, ¶45, ¶48 disclose assigning sections, rows, and seats into a vectorized digital venue representation) and to map said rows to coordinates relative to said visual representation to maintain margins and layout distancing between rows, thereby generating a digital seating plan (Towfiq: ¶57 disclose generating a digital seating plan based on specifying coordinate locations for each row and seat; Kim: ¶66 disclose identifying a seat and row location based on coordinate locations); and a module configured to embed into a website associated with the website builder at least one of: data representing the digital seating plan, or a link to the digital seating plan (Kim: ¶92-93, ¶114-115 disclose wherein the system is functionally associated with a web server and web pages in order to embed the digital seating plan into a web browser).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vectorization, as taught by Towfiq, into the system and method of Kim and Ganihar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide for the automatic and computer-assisted generation of vectorized venue maps for event venues” (Towfiq: ¶5).
In regards to claim 13, Kim, Ganihar, and Towfiq teach the website builder of claim 10. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 2 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 2. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 2 applies to the rejection of claim 13.
In regards to claim 14, Kim, Ganihar, and Towfiq teach the website builder of claim 10. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 3 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 3.
In regards to claim 15, Kim, Ganihar, and Towfiq teach the website builder of claim 10. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 4 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 4.
In regards to claim 16, Kim, Ganihar, and Towfiq teach the website builder of claim 15. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 5 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 5.
In regards to claim 17, Kim, Ganihar, and Towfiq teach the website builder of claim 15. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 6 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 6. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 6 applies to the rejection of claim 17.
In regards to claim 18, Kim, Ganihar, and Towfiq teach the website builder of claim 17. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 7 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 7.
In regards to claim 19, Kim, Ganihar, and Towfiq teach the website builder of claim 18. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 8 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 8.
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 Wayne S Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
