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 .
Prosecution Status
Applicant’s amendments filed 4/13/2026 have been received and reviewed. The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1-6, 8-15 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/13/2026 has been entered.
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.
1. Claims 1-6, 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-6, 8-15 are directed to managing the resale of event tickets, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a process in which the resale of event tickets in managed, through the facilitation of sales activities, in the following limitations:
rendering, an interactive map of an event venue, wherein said map is segmented into multiple sections and subdivided into rows;
a plurality of open sell offers from sellers, each sell offer specifying event tickets for sale corresponding to specific rows within said sections and at seller-specified prices, wherein said sell offers remain active and visible prior to execution or cancellation and said sellers can adjust said seller-specified prices at any time prior to execution;
a plurality of buy offers from buyers, each buy offer specifying desired locations within the venue and proposed prices and quantities, wherein said buy offers are submitted as open offers and remain active and visible on the platform prior to execution or cancellation, wherein said buyers can adjust said proposed prices at any time prior to execution;
displaying:
a seller column with said sell offers sorted by price;
a buyer column with said buy offers sorted by price, wherein both said seller column and said buyer column are simultaneously visible to users, facilitating matching of supply with demand;
continuously comparing, said buy offers and said sell offers based on price and quantity parameters; and
performing a matching operation when a buy offer matches a sell offer and processing a transaction when said matching operation occurs, said processing including facilitating a secure financial transaction between buyer associated with the matching buy offer and seller associated with the matching sell offer via an escrow service
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction between two consumers. This arrangement amounts to a sales activity or behavior; and business relations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
operating one or more servers to manage an online platform accessible to users via networked computing devices using a processor of the computing device,
by the online platform, using the one or more servers
on the platform
on said online platform
by a real-time matching engine executing on the one or more servers,
by the online platform
by a real-time matching engine
integrated into the online platform.
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 72-82 indicate that any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) and presenting offers and gathering statistics have each been considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Regarding Claim 15
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2-6, 7-14
Claims 2-6, 7-14 merely embellish the abstract idea of managing resale of event tickets, including facilitating interaction between consumers. While the claims do set forth the additional limitations (e.g., “online platform mechanisms”, “a row market interface within the online platform”), these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
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.
2. Claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gray (US 20160253749 A1).
Regarding Claim 1
Gray discloses a method for managing the resale of event tickets through an online marketplace, the method comprising
operating one or more servers to manage an online platform accessible to users via networked computing devices (Gray: see at least ¶73, 78, fig. 1-2), and comprising the following steps:
rendering by the online platform, using the one or more servers, an interactive map of an event venue, wherein said map is segmented into multiple sections and subdivided into rows; (Gray: see at least ¶83-85, fig. 32-33);
a plurality of open sell offers from sellers, each sell offer specifying event tickets for sale corresponding to specific rows within said sections and at seller-specified prices (Gray: see at least ¶101, fig. 9)
wherein said sell offers remain active and visible on the platform prior to execution or cancellation (Gray: see ¶123) and said sellers can adjust said seller-specified prices at any time prior to execution (Gray: see at least ¶123, fig. 23)
a plurality of buy offers from buyers, each buy offer specifying desired locations within the venue and proposed prices and quantities (Gray: see at least ¶128, fig. 16)
wherein said buy offers are submitted as open offers and remain active and visible on the platform prior to execution or cancellation (Gray: see ¶148), wherein said buyers can adjust said proposed prices at any time prior to execution (Gray: see at least ¶147, fig. 26)
displaying on said online platform (Gray: see at least figs. 9-10, 16-17):
a seller column with said sell offers sorted by price; (Gray: see at least figs. 9-10, 16-17)
a buyer column with said buy offers sorted by price, wherein both said seller column and said buyer column are simultaneously visible to users, facilitating matching of supply with demand; (Gray: see at least figs. 9-10, 16-17)
continuously comparing, by a real-time matching engine executing on the one or more servers, said buy offers and said sell offers based on price and quantity parameters; (Gray: see at least ¶11, 101)
performing a matching operation when a buy offer matches a sell offer and processing by the online platform, a transaction when said matching operation occurs, by a real-time matching engine, said processing including facilitating a secure financial transaction between buyer associated with the matching buy offer and seller associated with the matching sell offer (Gray: see at least ¶152) via an escrow service integrated into the online platform (Gray: see at least ¶124, 149)
Regarding Claim 15
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding Claim 2
Gray further discloses:
providing on the online platform mechanisms for both buyers and sellers to sort and filter listings and offers based on various criteria, including but not limited to price and ticket quantity (Gray: see at least ¶111, 123, 137, 148)
Regarding Claim 4
Gray discloses further discloses:
providing a row market interface within the online platform, wherein users can view detailed information about buy and sell offers for specific rows, including number of tickets per offer and a historical price trend analysis for those tickets. (Gray: see at least ¶86, 100, 127)
Regarding Claim 8
Gray further discloses:
wherein desired locations comprise an entire section of the venue map, or specific rows of the map (Gray: see at least ¶82, 85)
Regarding Claim 9
Gray further discloses:
enabling sellers to match their ticket listings directly with the existing purchase offers made by buyers, thereby facilitating immediate transaction opportunities.(Gray: see at least ¶83)
Regarding Claim 12
Gray further discloses:
a feature that allows buyers to set expiration dates and times for their purchase offers, with the provision that these expiration parameters are not visible to other users. (Gray: see at least ¶121)
Regarding Claim 13
Gray further discloses:
wherein the buyers can post multiple purchase offers for various rows and sections at different prices, with an automated system in place to cancel all other offers once a purchase is completed for a specified quantity of tickets (Gray: see at least ¶144-146)
Regarding Claim 14
Gray further discloses:
wherein the buyers can also post general purchase offers for tickets within a specified price range within an entire venue for a specified event. (Gray: see at least ¶144-145)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
3. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Goldberg et al. (US 20120226575 A1, hereinafter Goldberg).
Gray does not explicitly disclose, but Goldberg teaches in a similar environment:
enabling, through a user interface on the online platform, a user to upload and transfer a PDF version of a ticket as part of a ticket listing and selling process. (Goldberg: ¶123)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Gray with the features of Goldberg, since such a modification would have permitted sellers and buyers to view data corresponding to the bid or the ask value of the tickets based on venue, price and demand and to allow an individual to mark the tickets to market value. (Goldberg: see at least ¶2)
4. Claims 3, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Denker et al. (US 20120078667 A1, hereinafter Denker).
Gray does not explicitly disclose, but Denker teaches in a similar environment:
displaying a detailed section map within said online platform, separate from the general venue map, indicating available ticket offers in each row with associated details. (Denker: fig. 20, ¶265-266)
wherein the interactive venue map highlights sections with both sell and buy offers, using distinct visual markers to differentiate between sections that have only sell offers, only buy offers, and those that have both (Denker: ¶180, 265-266)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Gray with the features of Denker, since such a modification would have provided relevant real time dynamic data in seating maps for ticketed events (see ¶64-65 of Denker)
5. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Sunshine et al. (US 20230274200 A1, hereinafter Sunshine).
While Gray discloses providing a graphical chart visualizing pricing history of platform transactions (see at least ¶100, 127), Gray does not explicitly disclose the following, which Sunshine teaches in a similar environment:
displaying within the online platform a time series chart, which visualizes historical and real-time fluctuations in ticket prices for each row, thereby providing market trend information to users. (Sunshine: figs. 18-19, 22A-24B, ¶217-225, 231-233)
wherein the time series chart includes data on both high and low offers over a specified period, providing a comprehensive view of the market's pricing dynamics. (Sunshine: figs. 18-19, 22A-24B, ¶217-225, 231-233)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Gray with the features of Sunshine, since such a modification would have provided a system that is capable of more accurately forecasting demand for events and optimizing pricing for that event (see ¶18 of Sunshine)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 1 recites a technological improvement that has a practical application. Applicant asserts that the claim sets forth “an improvement for managing the resale of event tickets through an online marketplace that provides a plurality of open sell offers and a plurality of open buy offers. The plurality of buy offers have proposed prices, quantities and locations associated with it. Furthermore, a real-time matching engine executing on the one or more servers, continuously compares the buy offers and sell offers based on price and quantity parameters. Additionally, the online platform processes the transaction when the matching operation occurs.” However, applicant has merely listed commercial operations that the claim performs in a generic technological environment (“online marketplace”, “one or more servers”, “online platform”). None of the features listed by applicant are technical operations that alter the manner in which any of the recited technological elements operates. Instead, these elements are leveraged for their known advantages to perform commercial operations for managing the resale of tickets. Accordingly, these features do not amount to a technological improvement.
Applicant further argues that the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant argues that “Unlike a conventional networked marketplace where a buyer must repeatedly access the network and marketplace platform to check to see if a seller has listed an acceptable offer, and then accept it, the present claims, through a technological improvement, obviate the need to continuously access platform listings and manually initiate a transaction”. As noted above, the present claims do not present a technological improvement. Instead, they recite known and expected use of the recited technological elements. Additionally, the need of a user to additionally access a platform to check transaction status is a commercial customer service problem, and not a technological one. Nothing in the claims alters the manner in which a user may access an online platform.
Applicant further argues that the claims are similar to DDR in that they set forth a process that “"overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events" and is "necessarily rooted in computer technology" to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer- supported commerce.” However, in DDR, the conventional sequence of events was a technical operation of rendering an external webpage. The claims in DDR were found to override conventional process for navigating to an external webpage. No corollary exists in the claimed invention, as no conventional technical operation is addressed.
Applicant further argues that:
Claim 1's limitations address problems identified in the specification that limit buyers' options. Prospective buyers are often constrained to choose from existing ticket listings without the ability to express their willingness to pay a specific price for tickets in a desired location or row (Spec, paragraph [006]). As such, the claim is patent eligible as the elements are directed to an improvement in the process of managing the resale of event tickets by providing a plurality of open seller offers and a plurality of open buy offers. Accordingly, the practical application of claim 1 is directed toward using the plurality of open offers by buyers and sellers and a real-time matching engine that continuously compares these open buy and sell offers. As a result, the claim is directed toward an improvement in the field, with the specifically identified problem being directly solved using the steps of the claim. For at least this reason, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-14.
However, here applicant is arguing a commercial improvement to a commercial problem. There is no precedent for a solution to a commercial problem rendering an otherwise ineligible claim eligible.
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive, and the claims are held to be ineligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights