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
This action is in reply to the application 18/446,425 filed on 8/8/2023. Claims 1, 10, and 16 were amended, claim 5 was cancelled, and claim 21 was newly added in the reply filed 4/25/2025. Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-11, 15-17, and 20-21 were amended in the reply filed 11/17/2025. Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are pending. This action is non-final.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 16 regarding claims 1-4 and 6-21: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the claims recite additional elements that reflect non-abstract software improvements to computer technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged improvements that Applicant’s invention provides are business improvements to a business related process, and not improvements to a computer system technology itself (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for examples and description of what is considered an improvement to a computer-functionality or an improvement to a technology). "Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing." International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2350, Oct. 17, 2022, pg. 8). The claimed computer components are generic and broadly recited, and the alleged improvements are not to the generic computer components themselves, but to the abstract process being performed by the computer components. Examiner respectfully argues that the claimed limitations not analogous to the MPEP descriptions and examples of improvements to computer-functionality or improvements to a technology, and that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the recited abstract idea does not fall within the category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction – business relations). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examples of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction) provided in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) are not meant to be exclusory. The claimed invention described at a high level is directed to organizing and granting permission to users to act as ambassadors and remote box offices, and granting them rewards for this service. This abstract idea is directed to the commercial sale of tickets and managing the business relationship between an event organizer, a ticket selling ambassador, and a ticket purchaser. Therefore, the recited abstract idea has been properly categorized as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction – business relations).
Applicant further provides a list of limitations which Applicant cites as additional elements. Examiner does not consider all of these limitations additional elements, and what additional elements are recognized by Examiner are considered part of a generic computer environment upon which the abstract idea is merely “applied.” The claimed invention described at a high level is directed to organizing and granting permission to users to act as ambassadors and remote box offices, and granting them rewards for this service. This is the abstract idea shown in Step 2A Prong One below. The invention treats the users’ mobile devices as a digital means of organizing and granting permission to these users to act as ambassadors and remote box offices, and granting them rewards for this service. The fact that the abstract idea grants permissions to users by way of digital permissions of their respective mobile devices merely describes the abstract idea being implemented by way of generic computer devices.
Applicant further argues that the alleged improvements provided by the claimed invention are technical in nature and not abstract in nature. Examiner respectfully disagrees. For example, the alleged improvement to security over a conventional system is provided by organizing data regarding the registration and validation of users. This is not a technical improvement, but instead an improvement to an abstract idea. Merely implementing this improvement to an abstract idea on a generic network of generic computer devices does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Instead, this merely describes “applying” the abstract idea to a generic computer environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant further argues that the claim provides “significantly more” under Step 2B. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, Examiner does not agree that Example 35 Claim 3 is analogous to the claimed invention. Secondly, Examiner does not agree that each claim reflects a combination that is not well-known, routine, and conventional. While Examiner recognizes that this can be a path to patent eligibility under 35 USC § 101, it does not apply for this application. The claims merely recite an abstract idea applied to a generic computer environment. Examiner does not agree that the combination of elements recited in claim 1, “do not represent merely gathering data for comparison or security purposes, but instead set up a sequence of events that address unique problems.” The problems which the invention addresses are abstract in nature and not technical in nature. As mentioned above, the alleged improvement to security over a conventional system is provided by organizing data regarding the registration and validation of users. This is not a technical improvement, but instead an improvement to an abstract idea. Merely implementing this improvement to an abstract idea on a generic network of generic computer devices does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Instead, this merely describes “applying” the abstract idea to a generic computer environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Counter to Applicant’s allegations, Examiner believes that the concept of validating users before authorizing them to sell tickets to an event is both abstract and routine. This is not to say that the specific claimed steps used to provide this validation and authorization are not novel (Examiner has already recognized that the claims as a whole are novel). However, novelty is not the standard by which patent eligible subject matter is determined. "The 'novelty' of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981). "[U]nder the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The alleged improvements that Applicant’s invention provides are business improvements to a business related process, and not improvements to a computer system technology itself (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for examples and description of what is considered an improvement to a computer-functionality or an improvement to a technology). "Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing." International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2350, Oct. 17, 2022, pg. 8). The claimed computer components are generic and broadly recited, and the alleged improvements are not to the generic computer components themselves, but to the abstract process being performed by the computer components. Examiner respectfully argues that the claimed limitations not analogous to the MPEP descriptions and examples of improvements to computer-functionality or improvements to a technology, and that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term a fourth graphical user interface appears to actually be indicative of a fourth graphical user interface element. Claim 16 recites a first graphical user interface element, a second graphical user interface element, and a third graphical user interface element. There is no similar recitation of a distinct first, second, or third graphical user interface. Appropriate correction is required.
Reasons for Allowability under 35 USC § 102 and 103
Claims 1-4 and 6-21, when viewed as a whole, are novel. Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are not anticipated by any prior art. Furthermore, Examiner has determined that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine prior art to arrive at the claimed limitations. Notable references which come closest to teaching the claim limitations include: Koren (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0253602) which teaches compensating a promoter for recommending a provider to a patron; Gelfand (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0185394) which teaches a concierge purchasing tickets on behalf of a patron; Nestor (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0006208) which teaches a venue box office that can sell and trade tickets via a web browser interface. Other relevant art of note includes: Higgy (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0173317); Ravindra (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0039916); Denker (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0078667); and Chavez (U.S. Pat. No. 11,935,018). The deficiencies of the closest art include the following: Koren (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0253602) does not teach their promoters purchasing tickets on behalf of patrons or payments made to the event organizer; Gelfand (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0185394) does not teach promoters receiving rewards for purchasing tickets or making recommendations, and Gelfand also does not teach forwarding received payments to the event organizer; Nestor (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0006208) does not teach promoters receiving rewards for purchasing tickets or making recommendations. As noted above, Examiner has determined that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine these references or others to arrive at the claimed invention. Examiner therefore concludes that the claims as a whole are novel and not subject to rejection under 35 USC § 102 or 103.
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 1-4 and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 10, and 16 recite a system, a method, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, respectively, for performing the method host a platform associated with at least one performance event; limit, via respective graphical user interfaces of mobile devices linked via electronic data records with a set of users, access to the platform to selected users of the set of users; define, in the electronic data records, a first subset of users of the set of users as users having a first user role and a link between the first user role and mobile devices of the first subset of users, the users having the first user role being registered with the platform; track activities of the users having the first user role, the activities comprising performance of tasks promoting the at least one performance event linked via the electronic data records with one or more event definitions for the at least one performance event; attribute, in the electronic data records, the activities of the users having the first user role to respective users having the first user role, comprising: collecting electronic validation information associated with the respective users having the first user role; and matching the collected electronic validation information in respective records of the electronic data records with the respective users having the first user role; credit rewards to the respective users having the first user role based on a rewards program and the matched electronic validation information, wherein limiting, via the respective graphical user interfaces of the mobile devices linked via the electronic data records with the set of users, access to the platform to the selected users of the set of users comprises using the at least one processor to: create first electronic access data records in the electronic data records defining a first level of electronic access to graphical users interfaces provided by the platform to users validated as users having the first user role and credited with rewards; create second electronic access data records in the electronic data records defining a second level of electronic access to the graphical users interfaces provided by the platform to users other than users validated as the users having the first user role and credited with rewards; manage, based on the first level of electronic access and the second level of electronic access, access via the respective graphical user interfaces to functions of the platform; determine, from among a network comprising a plurality of registered ones of the mobile devices, whether a first mobile device of the plurality of registered mobile devices is authorized to process transfers of electronic ticket IDs for a first performance event of an event organizer; in response to determining that the first mobile device is authorized to process the transfers of the electronic ticket IDs for the first performance event, authorize display of a remote box office graphical user interface on the first mobile device; and in response to determining that the first mobile device is not authorized to process the transfers of the electronic ticket IDs for the first performance event, restrict display of the remote box office graphical user interface on the first mobile device, wherein determining, from among the network comprising the plurality of registered mobile devices, whether the first mobile device is authorized to process transfers of the electronic ticket IDs for the first performance event comprises: for at least a first user having the first user role, in response to collecting first electronic validation information associated with the first user and matching the collected first electronic validation information in the electronic data records with the first user, validating the first user as an ambassador; after validating the first user as an ambassador, defining, in the electronic data records, a first electronic ambassador validation specifying the first mobile device linked with the first user in the electronic data records; after defining the first electronic ambassador validation specifying the first mobile device linked with the first user, selecting, based on an event definition and a promotion framework linked in the electronic data records with the first performance event, and from among a plurality of electronic ambassador validations each specifying at least one of the plurality of registered mobile devices, the first electronic ambassador validation and linking the first electronic ambassador validation with the event definition for the first performance event; based on verification of the link between the first electronic ambassador validation and the event definition for the first performance event, transforming the first mobile device linked via the electronic data records with the validated ambassador into a remote box office by authorizing the first mobile device to display the remote box office graphical user interface for the first performance event, wherein the link between the first electronic ambassador validation and the event definition does not authorize the first mobile device to display the remote box office graphical user interface for performance events other than the first performance event, wherein the remote box office graphical user interface is configured to execute in-person sales and/or in-person distribution of tickets for the first performance event from the validated ambassador to respective purchasers, the remote box office graphical user interface configured to: display a first graphical user interface element identifying a first electronic ticket ID for at least one ticket providing access to the first performance event of the event organizer using the authorized first mobile device linked with the validated ambassador; display a second graphical user interface element including a prompt for transferring the first electronic ticket ID for the at least one ticket providing access to the first performance event from the event organizer to a respective purchaser using the authorized first mobile device linked with the validated ambassador; and display a third graphical user interface element for processing in-person payment from the respective purchaser to the validated ambassador for transferred electronic ticket IDs using the authorized first mobile device linked with the validated ambassador, wherein the platform is configured to, in response to processing the in-person payment from the respective purchaser to the validated ambassador, use the authorized first mobile device linked with the validated ambassador to route payment to the event organizer. Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 16 are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a machine, a method, and an article of manufacture, respectively.
Step 2A Prong One: The limitations ... limit ... access ... to selected users of the set of users; define, in the ... data records, a first subset of users of the set of users as users having a first user role and a link between the first user role and ... the first subset of users, the users having the first user role being registered ... track activities of the users having the first user role, the activities comprising performance of tasks promoting the at least one performance event linked via the ... data records with one or more event definitions for the at least one performance event; attribute, in the ... data records, the activities of the users having the first user role to respective users having the first user role, comprising: collecting ... validation information associated with the respective users having the first user role; and matching the collected ... validation information in respective records of the ... data records with the respective users having the first user role; credit rewards to the respective users having the first user role based on a rewards program and the matched ... validation information, wherein limiting ... access ... to the selected users of the set of users comprises ... create first ... access data records in the ... data records defining a first level of ... access to ... users validated as users having the first user role and credited with rewards; create second ... access data records in the ... data records defining a second level of ... access to ... users other than users validated as the users having the first user role and credited with rewards; manage, based on the first level of ... access and the second level of ... access, access ... to functions ... determine, from ... a plurality of registered ones ... whether a first ... of the plurality of registered ... is authorized to process transfers of ... ticket IDs for a first performance event of an event organizer; in response to determining that the first ... is authorized to process the transfers of the ... ticket IDs for the first performance event, authorize ... a remote box office ... on the first ... and in response to determining that the first ... is not authorized to process the transfers of the ... ticket IDs for the first performance event, restrict ... the remote box office ... on the first ... wherein determining ... whether the first ... is authorized to process transfers of the ... ticket IDs for the first performance event comprises: for at least a first user having the first user role, in response to collecting first ... validation information associated with the first user and matching the collected first ... validation information in the ... data records with the first user, validating the first user as an ambassador; after validating the first user as an ambassador, defining, in the ... data records, a first ... ambassador validation specifying the first ... linked with the first user in the ... data records; after defining the first ... ambassador validation specifying the first ... linked with the first user, selecting, based on an event definition and a promotion framework linked in the ... data records with the first performance event, and from among a plurality of ... ambassador validations each specifying at least one of the plurality of registered ... the first ... ambassador validation and linking the first ... ambassador validation with the event definition for the first performance event; based on verification of the link between the first ... ambassador validation and the event definition for the first performance event, transforming the first ... linked via the ... data records with the validated ambassador into a remote box office by authorizing the first ... to ... remote box office ... for the first performance event, wherein the link between the first ... ambassador validation and the event definition does not authorize the first ... to ... remote box office ... for performance events other than the first performance event, wherein the remote box office ... is configured to execute in-person sales and/or in-person distribution of tickets for the first performance event from the validated ambassador to respective purchasers, the remote box office ... configured to: ... identifying a first ... ticket ID for at least one ticket providing access to the first performance event of the event organizer using the authorized first ... linked with the validated ambassador; ... a prompt for transferring the first ... ticket ID for the at least one ticket providing access to the first performance event from the event organizer to a respective purchaser using the authorized first ... linked with the validated ambassador; and ... processing in-person payment from the respective purchaser to the validated ambassador for transferred ... ticket IDs using the authorized first ... linked with the validated ambassador, wherein ... in response to processing the in-person payment from the respective purchaser to the validated ambassador, use the authorized first ... linked with the validated ambassador to route payment to the event organizer, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction – business relations). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction – business relations). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements an event management system (claim 1), at least one processor (claims 1 and 16), a memory (claim 1), a computer (claim 10), at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 16), host a platform (claims 1, 10, and 16), graphical user interfaces (claims 1, 10, and 16), mobile devices (claims 1, 10, and 16), electronic (claims 1, 10, and 16), a network (claims 1, 10, and 16), a first mobile device (claims 1, 10, and 16), display (claims 1, 10, and 16), a remote box office graphical user interface (claims 1, 10, and 16), a first graphical user interface element (claims 1, 10, and 16), and a second graphical user interface element (claims 1, 10, and 16), and a third graphical user interface element (claims 1, 10, and 16) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. All the additional elements included in claims 1, 10, and 16 are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. (Examiner’s Note: The claimed invention described at a high level is directed to organizing and granting permission to users to act as ambassadors and remote box offices, and granting them rewards for this service. This is the abstract idea shown in Step 2A Prong One above. The invention treats the users’ mobile devices as a digital means of organizing and granting permission to these users to act as ambassadors and remote box offices, and granting them rewards for this service. The fact that the abstract idea grants permissions to users by way of digital permissions of their respective mobile devices, merely describes the abstract idea being implemented by way of generic computer devices.) Simply “applying” the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of an event management system (described on spec. pg. 13), at least one processor (described on spec. pg. 4), a memory (described on spec. pg. 4), host a platform (described on spec. pg. 4), graphical user interfaces (described on spec. pg. 60; Figs. 9-13 and 15-31), at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (described on spec. pg. 4, 13; The system comprises at least one processor operatively connected to a memory ... The event management system 100 can include an event management engine executing on various computer systems ... ), mobile devices (described on spec. pg. 32), electronic (not explicitly described in the spec.), a network (illustrated in Fig. 1), a first mobile device (described on spec. pg. 32), display (described on spec. pg. 16), a remote box office graphical user interface (described on spec. pg. 9), a first graphical user interface element (illustrated in Fig. 25), a second graphical user interface element (illustrated in Fig. 25), and a third graphical user interface element (described on spec. pg. 61) are described in the specification at a high-level indicating the known nature of each of these additional elements in the art. As discussed above, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the abstract idea using a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-15, and 17-21 have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-15, and 17-21 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea. Although the dependent claims recite the following additional elements: a sponsor and/or brand manager interface (claims 8 and 14), and a fourth graphical user interface (claim 21) they are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Individually and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because simply “applying” the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Although the dependent claims recite the following additional elements: a sponsor and/or brand manager interface (described on spec. pg. 5), and a fourth graphical user interface (described on spec. pg. 61), they are described in the specification at a high-level indicating the known nature of each of these additional elements in the art. As discussed above, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the abstract idea using a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-15, and 17-21 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHANNON CAMPBELL can be reached at (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3628