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, 10, and 16 were amended in the reply filed 5/29/2026. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending. This action is final.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 16 regarding claims 1-4 and 6-20: 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 abstract idea recited in the claims are not directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction – business relations). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to managing the business relations between ticket purchasers, validated ambassadors, event organizers, and other parties involved in the promotion and sale of event tickets. The examples of business relations in the MPEP cited by Applicant are not meant to be exclusory. Instead, they are merely examples of types of business relations.
Applicant further argues that cited portions of the claims are additional elements, but Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. Instead, the claims as a whole (and the portions cited) are a mix of an abstract idea and additional elements. Both the abstract idea and the additional elements have been properly examined in the 35 USC § 101 rejection below. The abstract idea has been properly categorized as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction – business relations), while the additional elements have been properly categorized as components of a generic computer environment upon which the abstract idea has merely been “applied.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f). In Applicant’s arguments Applicant combines abstract idea limitations with additional elements and argues that these cited portions of the claims are more than “business relations.” Examiner agrees that the combination of the abstract idea and the additional elements are more than the abstract idea alone, but this does not reflect a proper analysis of the claim language. Instead, Examiner has noted that, while there are additional elements that cannot be categorized as part of the abstract idea, these additional elements can all properly be categorized as part of a generic computer environment upon which the abstract idea has merely been “applied.”
Applicant further argues that the abstract idea is not directed to “commercial or legal interactions” such as agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, or marketing or sales activities or behaviors. Notably, Applicant left out the category of commercial or legal interactions that Examiner applied to the abstract idea in the 35 USC § 101 rejection (business relations). Applicant further cites other categories of abstract idea which the claimed abstract idea is not a part of, but this argument is not applicable to the patent eligible subject matter rejections under 35 USC § 101. The abstract idea recited in the claims has been properly categorized under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction – business relations).
Applicant further argues that a list of summarized portions of claim 1 have been improperly categorized as part of the abstract idea and should instead be considered additional elements. This type of analysis is improper because Applicant is arguing for analysis of language used to summarize portions of claim 1 instead of the actual claim language as written. Examiner has provided a proper analysis of which portions of the claim language are considered part of the abstract idea and which portions of the claim language are considered additional elements. If Applicant has issue with any of these specific categorizations and associated analysis, Examiner recommends arguing each issue by citing the claim language, Examiner’s analysis, and providing an argument for why Examiner’s analysis is improper.
Applicant further argues that the claims are directed to non-abstract software improvements of the functioning of the computer system on which they are implemented. 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 or computer software 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 or computer software themselves, but to the abstract process being performed by the computer components and computer software. 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 claims are eligible for providing “significantly more.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant cites Sample Claim 3 of Example #35 which describes a process for providing mechanical access to a keypad after verifying a customer’s identity. Applicant argues that the USPTO's guidance for Example #35 indicates that the limitations, "the ATM's provision of the random code, the mobile communication device's generation of the customer confirmation code in response to the random code, the ATM's analysis of the customer confirmation code, and the ATM's subsequent sending of a control signal to provide or prevent access to the keypad of the ATM and thus allow or prevent a transaction based on the analysis of the code data sets" are "additional elements" that fall outside of the "certain methods of organizing human activity" category of abstract idea and are sufficient to provide an inventive concept. This is an incorrect interpretation of the USPTO’s analysis of Example #35 Claim 3. The analysis does not consider all of the limitations of each of these steps as additional elements, nor does the analysis consider all of the limitations outside of the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category. On the contrary, the analysis explicitly categorizes the recited abstract idea as falling within the category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., fundamental business practices). Under it’s Step 2B analysis the USPTO comes to the conclusion that, “In combination, these steps do not represent merely gathering data for comparison or security purposes, but instead set up a sequence of events that address unique problems associated with bank cards and ATMs (e.g., the use of stolen or “skimmed” bank cards and/or customer information to perform unauthorized transactions).” There is no analogous series of steps and combination of additional elements in instant claim 1 which would be considered eligible under Step 2B for the same reasons.
Applicant further argues that each of the claims reflects a combination that is not well-known, routine, and conventional. This analytical standard is not applicable here and is being misinterpreted by Applicant, however. First, this analytical standard is not applicable because all of the additional elements have been categorized as part of a generic computer environment and they have not been categorized as “well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Applicant reiterates their previous argument that the claims are directed to an improvement to a computer, technology, or technical field. 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.
Reasons for Allowability under 35 USC § 102 and 103
Claims 1-4 and 6-20, when viewed as a whole, are novel. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 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 6-20 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, via a distributed payment network comprising mobile devices linked via the electronic data records with validated ambassadors, execute in-person sales 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; for a first payment method routed via the distributed payment network: display a third graphical user interface element for processing in-person payment by recording a cash 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, for the first payment method, the platform is configured to, in response to processing the in-person payment by recording the cash 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 by charging a payment account of the validated ambassador; and for a second payment method routed via the distributed payment network, display a fourth graphical user interface element for processing in-person payment by charging a payment account of the respective purchaser for transferred electronic ticket IDs using the authorized first mobile device linked with the validated ambassador. 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 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; for a first payment method routed ... processing in-person payment by recording a cash payment from the respective purchaser to the validated ambassador for transferred ... ticket IDs using the authorized first ... linked with the validated ambassador, wherein, for the first payment method ... in response to processing the in-person payment by recording the cash 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 by charging a payment account of the validated ambassador; and for a second payment method routed ... processing in-person payment by charging a payment account of the respective purchaser for transferred ... ticket IDs using the authorized first ... linked with the validated ambassador, 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 distributed payment network (claims 1, 10, and 16), a first graphical user interface element (claims 1, 10, and 16), a second graphical user interface element (claims 1, 10, and 16), a third graphical user interface element (claims 1, 10, and 16), and a fourth 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 distributed payment network (illustrated in Fig. 1), a first graphical user interface element (illustrated in Fig. 25), a second graphical user interface element (illustrated in Fig. 25), a third graphical user interface element (described on spec. pg. 61), and a fourth 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 17-20 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 17-20 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), 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), 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 17-20 are not patent eligible.
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 CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 CDT.
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, 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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights