DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 11/28/2023 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 8/13/2025.
a. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-14 are amended
b. Claims 4, 6 are cancelled
Overall, Claims 1-3, 5, 7-16 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-3, 5, 7-16 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-12 are directed to an apparatus, claims 13 are directed to computer implemented method, and claims 14-16 are directed to a system.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Claim 1, (which is representative of Claims 13, 14) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims 13, 14) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] An apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to:
[B] detect use of a ticket;
[C] grant a token whose ownership can be clarified to an owner of the ticket in response to the detection of the use of the ticket;
[D] wherein, in granting the token, when identity of a user of the ticket and the owner of the ticket is confirmed, the token is granted to the owner of the ticket, the identity of the user and the owner is confirmed using a face image of the owner stored by a camera in advance and a face image of the user captured by the camera when the ticket is used simultaneously with an image of the ticket.
Claim 1 (which is representative of claims 13, 14) recites: granting a token to the user of a ticket ([B], [C]), the token is granted to the owner of the ticket and the identity of the suer is confirmed ([D]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “motivating people to participate at an event”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers reasonable performance of limitations expressing [observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion; select the appropriate only] in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that claim 1 (which is representative of claims 1, 14) recites an abstract idea that represents a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – QUALIFIERS]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “by a computer,” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “motivating people to participate at an event”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 (which is representative of claims 13, 14) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Therefore, it is concluded that independent claims 1, 13, 14 are deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 2 recites:
[A] detect the use of the ticket by detecting that a user of the ticket is permitted to enter an event venue where an event related to the ticket is held.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “motivating people to participate at an event”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data” “sorting information” i.e. comparing data, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”).
Therefore, claim 2 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites:
[A] detect the use of the ticket by detecting that a user of the ticket has started online viewing of video or audio related to the ticket.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “motivating people to participate at an event”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data” “sorting information” i.e. comparing data, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”).
Therefore, claim 3 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 5 recites:
[A] the identity of the user and the owner is confirmed by identity authentication that is required when accessing information of the ticket, and when the identity of the user and the owner is confirmed, the token is granted to the owner of the ticket.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “motivating people to participate at an event”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “presenting offers and gathering statistics”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”).
Therefore, claim 5 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 7 recites:
[A] transmit an identifier to the owner of the ticket; and receive an input of the identifier from the owner.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “motivating people to participate at an event”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”).
Therefore, claim 7 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 8 recites:
[A] write the identifier on a face of the ticket.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “motivating people to participate at an event”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “Insignificant Extra-Solution (Pre-Solution and/or Post-Solution) Activity”, i.e. activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Specifically, the claim elements are considered post-solution activity because they are mere outputting or post-processing results from executing the abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”).
Therefore, claim 8 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 9 recites:
[A] an owner of the token is registered in a server that menages the token in response to the use of the ticket, using a user ID in the server that manages the token, the user ID being associated with a user ID in a server that manages information of the ticket.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “motivating people to participate at an event”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “Insignificant Extra-Solution (Pre-Solution and/or Post-Solution) Activity”, i.e. activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Specifically, the claim elements are considered post-solution activity because they are mere outputting or post-processing results from executing the abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”).
Therefore, claim 9 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 10 recites:
[A] change the owner of the token to another user.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “motivating people to participate at an event”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception” on a computer, i.e., mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or another exception on a computer. In order to transform a judicial exception into a patent-eligible application, the further elements or combination of elements must do more than simply state identified abstract idea, while adding the words “apply it” or an equivalent thereof. In this specific case, the claim elements invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Therefore, it is readily apparent that the claim elements represent nothing more than implementing the judicial exception on a computer. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”).
Therefore, claim 10 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 11 recites:
[A] identify a user who owns the token; and
[B] provide a benefit to the user who owns the token, using the token as a voucher.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “motivating people to participate at an event”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception” on a computer, i.e., mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or another exception on a computer. In order to transform a judicial exception into a patent-eligible application, the further elements or combination of elements must do more than simply state identified abstract idea, while adding the words “apply it” or an equivalent thereof. In this specific case, the claim elements invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”).
Therefore, claim 11 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 12 recites:
[A] identify a user whose token ownership state satisfies a predetermined condition; and
[B] grant an additional token to the user whose token ownership state satisfies the predetermined condition.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “motivating people to participate at an event”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception” on a computer, i.e., mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or another exception on a computer. In order to transform a judicial exception into a patent-eligible application, the further elements or combination of elements must do more than simply state identified abstract idea, while adding the words “apply it” or an equivalent thereof. In this specific case, the claim elements invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”).
Therefore, claim 12 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 15-16 recite:
wherein the token is associated with a management ledger on which a transaction history can be referred to.
wherein the token is managed by a distributed management ledger.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – the token, a management ledger – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (“motivating people to participate at an event”), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, claims 15-16 are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, Claims 1-3, 5, 7-16 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 difference 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 the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenblatt et al (US 2010/0082491), in view of Lee (US 2009/0125407).
Regarding Claims 1, 13, 14: Rosenblatt first embodiment discloses: An apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to:
grant a token whose ownership can be clarified to an owner of the ticket in response to the detection of the use of the ticket. {see at least [0007] gaining entry and an event-related benefit}
Rosenblatt first embodiment does not disclose, however, Rosenblatt second embodiment discloses:
detect use of a ticket; and {see at least fig7, rc94, rc96, [0148]-[0150] ticket turnstile (reads on detecting the use of a ticket)}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Rosenblatt first embodiment to include the elements of Rosenblatt second embodiment. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to determine when to whom to provide the benefit. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Rosenblatt first embodiment evidently discloses provide a benefit to a ticket holder. Rosenblatt second embodiment is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of detecting the use of a ticket in the same or similar context. As best understood by Examiner, since both provide a benefit to a ticket holder, as well as detecting the use of a ticket are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Rosenblatt first embodiment, as well as Rosenblatt second embodiment would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Rosenblatt. **Examiner notes that the reference is being used here as a one-reference combination in this 103 rejection because the reference teaches two clearly different embodiments within the same cited reference.**
Rosenblatt does not disclose, however, Lee discloses:
wherein, in granting the token, when identity of a user of the ticket and the owner of the ticket is confirmed, the token is granted to the owner of the ticket, the identity of the user and the owner is confirmed using a face image of the owner stored by a camera in advance and a face image of the user captured by the camera when the ticket is used simultaneously with an image of the ticket. {see at least [0006], [0012] user image, stored user image, ticket image}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Rosenblatt to include the elements of Lee. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to perform a more secure authentication. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Rosenblatt evidently discloses providing benefits to ticket users. Lee is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of displaying user’s picture along with the ticket in the same or similar context. As best understood by Examiner, since both providing benefits to ticket users, as well as displaying user’s picture along with the ticket are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Rosenblatt, as well as Lee would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Rosenblatt / Lee.
Regarding Claim 2: Rosenblatt, Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Rosenblatt further discloses: wherein in detecting use of the ticket, the processing circuitry is further configured to
detect the use of the ticket by detecting that a user of the ticket is permitted to enter an event venue where an event related to the ticket is held. {see at least fig7, rc94, rc96, [0148]-[0150] ticket turnstile (reads on detecting the use of a ticket)}
Regarding Claim 3: Rosenblatt, Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Rosenblatt further discloses: wherein in detecting use of th ticket, the processing circuitry is further configured to
detect the use of the ticket by detecting that a user of the ticket has started online viewing of video or audio related to the ticket. {see at least fig64, [0337]-[0345] electronic concert (reads on online audio related event)}
Regarding Claim 5: Rosenblatt, Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Rosenblatt further discloses: wherein in granting the token,
the identity of the user and the owner is confirmed by identity authentication that is required when accessing information of the ticket, and {see at least [0176], [0193], [0210]-[0211] The authentication procedure of block 224 may involve, for example, verifying that the purchaser of the ticket and the owner of the handheld device 40 are the same, if the ticket has not been transferred to another owner, or verifying that the ticket has not previously been stored electronically on another electronic device 10 or used to gain entry to the event}
when the identity of the user and the owner is confirmed,
the token is granted to the owner of the ticket. {see at least [0177]-[0179] benefits associated with ticket data}
Regarding Claim 7: Rosenblatt, Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Rosenblatt further discloses: wherein in granting the token, the processing circuitry is further configured to:
transmit an identifier to the owner of the ticket; and receive an input of the identifier from the owner. {see at least [0209]-[0210] owner identification; owner device identification (reads on identifying owner)}
Regarding Claim 8: Rosenblatt, Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 7. Rosenblatt further discloses: wherein in granting the token, the processing circuitry is further configured to
write the identifier on a face of the ticket. {see at least [0157] the face of the ticket … different information (based on the broadest reasonable interpretation requirement (MPEP 2111) reads on identified on the face of the ticket)}
Regarding Claim 9: Rosenblatt, Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Rosenblatt further discloses: wherein in granting the token,
an owner of the token is registered in a server that menages the token in response to the use of the ticket, using a user ID in the server that manages the token, the user ID being associated with a user ID in a server that manages information of the ticket. {see at least [0143]-[0144] local server tracking the use of benefits (reads on registering tokens related to tickets)}
Regarding Claim 11: Rosenblatt, Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Rosenblatt further discloses: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
identify a user who owns the token; and {see at least [0143] benefit associated with ticket used by particular user (reads on user owning a token)}
provide a benefit to the user who owns the token, using the token as a voucher. {see at least fig8B, [0154] digital content ticket may provide additional benefits}
Regarding Claim 12: Rosenblatt, Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Rosenblatt further discloses: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
identify a user whose token ownership state satisfies a predetermined condition; and {see at least [0176] The authentication procedure of block 224 may involve, for example, verifying that the purchaser of the ticket and the owner of the handheld device 40 are the same, if the ticket has not been transferred to another owner, or verifying that the ticket has not previously been stored electronically on another electronic device 10 or used to gain entry to the event; fig5, [0141] user may use a benefit associated with electronic ticket (reads on predetermined condition)}
grant an additional token to the user whose token ownership state satisfies the predetermined condition. {see at least [0134] accessing other benefits associated with the ticket; fig8B, [0154] additional benefits associated with the ticket)}
Regarding Claim 15: Rosenblatt, Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 14. Rosenblatt further discloses:
wherein the token is associated with a management ledger on which a transaction history can be referred to. {see at least fig8B, [0153]-[0154] benefits associated with the tickets stored. Referring to storing (i.e. referring) information as “associated with a management ledger”, absent any form or structure to distinguish it from any kind of storage, is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
Regarding Claim 16: Rosenblatt, Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 14. Rosenblatt further discloses:
wherein the token is managed by a distributed management ledger. {see at least fig8B, [0153]-[0154] benefits associated with the tickets stored. Referring to managing information as “associated with a distributed management ledger”, absent any form or structure to distinguish it from any kind of management, is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenblatt et al (US 2010/0082491), in view of Lee (US 2009/0125407), in further view of Grube (US 2012/0035217).
Regarding Claim 10: Rosenblatt, Lee discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Rosenblatt, Lee does not disclose, however, Grube discloses: further causing the processing circuitry is further configured to:
in response to an instruction from an owner to whom the token is granted, change the owner of the token to another user. {see at least [0239], [0246] reassigning face value benefits}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Rosenblatt, Lee to include the elements of Grube. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to entice ticket holders to participate at the event. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143(B)). In the instant case, Rosenblatt, Lee evidently discloses providing benefits to ticket users. Grube is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of transferring the benefits in the same or similar context. As best understood by Examiner, since both providing benefits to ticket users, as well as transferring the benefits are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Rosenblatt, Lee, as well as Grube would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Rosenblatt, Lee / Grube.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20160104186 A1 Parento; Stephen A. et al. METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIA FOR PROVIDING INFLIGHT BENEFITS VIA PURCHASE CARD TRANSACTIONS - Methods, systems, and computer readable media for providing inflight benefits via purchase card transactions are disclosed. An exemplary method includes at an airline perk management module (APMM), receiving an indication that an airline ticket is purchased using a loyalty card corresponding to a passenger enrolled in an airline perk program, identifying at least one airline perk associated with an aircraft seat assignment corresponding to the purchased airline ticket, and notifying an inflight service provider to deliver, inflight, the at least one identified airline perk to a passenger having the aircraft seat assignment. An exemplary system includes at least one processor and memory, whereby APMM utilizes the at least one processor and the memory to notify a merchant airline to deliver the at least one airline perk to a passenger having a seat assignment on an airline, the airline ticket for the seat assignment being purchased using a loyalty card.
US 20220277234 A1 UHR; Joon Sun et al. METHOD FOR PROVIDING ONLINE TICKET SERVICE BY USING BLOCKCHAIN NETWORK AND SERVER USING THE SAME - The present invention relates to a method for providing an online ticket service by using a blockchain network, comprising steps of: (a) in response to acquiring ticket reservation information corresponding to a ticket purchased by a purchaser from a ticket sale server, creating a ticket token corresponding to the ticket by referring to the ticket reservation information, and registering generated information on the ticket token in a distributed ledger of a blockchain network; and (b) transmitting the ticket token to a seller token wallet corresponding to the seller of the ticket, thereby (i) causing the seller token wallet to transmit the ticket token to a user token wallet corresponding to the user of the ticket, and (ii) registering movement information of the ticket token from the seller token wallet to the user token wallet in the distributed ledger of the blockchain network.
US 20190026767 A1 Blasi; Luca et al. WIRELESS NETWORK LOAD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - Systems and methods for managing mobile network loads are provided. A load manager may communicate with a plurality of mobile devices in wireless communication with a hardware infrastructure of a mobile network. The hardware infrastructure may provide wireless access to the mobile network. The load manager may receive an infrastructure performance indicator descriptive of operation of the hardware infrastructure in wireless communication with one of the plurality of mobile devices at one of multiple geographic locations wirelessly served by the hardware infrastructure. The load manager may generate, based on analysis of the infrastructure performance indicator, a reward record configured to associate a reward with a target geographic location wirelessly served by the hardware infrastructure. The load manager may instruct a mobile devices to display an indication of the reward record at a position on the display of the mobile device representative of the target geographic location.
US 20070244731 A1 Barhydt; William J. et al. System and Method for Mobile Virtual Mobile Ticketing - Provided herein are systems and methods for allowing mobile users to join a virtual line or queue for high demand tickets to an event. In an embodiment, users pay a small fee to join the virtual line or queue. After the users join the virtual line, the tickets to the event are allocated to the users in the virtual line based on an allocation policy set by the ticket distributor. After the allocation has been made, the users are notified of the allocation decision and each user that has been allocated a ticket is given an opportunity to purchase the ticket, e.g., within a purchase fulfillment period. In an embodiment, a user may purchase virtual tickets to join the virtual line or queue using his/her mobile phone/handset. In this embodiment, the user may be charged through his/her mobile carrier for the purchase of a virtual ticket.
US 20210099284 A1 Grube; Gary W. MODIFYING BLOCKCHAIN-ENCODED RECORDS OF RIVED LONGEVITY-CONTINGENT INSTRUMENTS - A method executed by a computing device includes obtaining fulfillment information of a first longevity-contingent instrument of a set of longevity-contingent instruments. The method further includes verifying authenticity of an asset blockchain-encoded record representing sub-assets to produce an asset authenticity indicator and verifying authenticity of a liability blockchain-encoded record representing sub-liabilities to produce a liability authenticity indicator. When the asset authenticity indicator and the liability authenticity indicators are favorable, the method further includes facilitating exclusion of the first longevity-contingent instrument from the set of longevity-contingent instruments to produce updated sub-assets and updated sub-liabilities. The method further includes updating the asset blockchain-encoded record to represent the updated sub-assets and updating the liability blockchain-encoded record to represent the updated sub-liabilities.
US 20160335565 A1 Charriere; Brent L. et al. IN-EVENT SEAT EXCHANGE - A method for a (peer to peer) in-event ticket exchange that occurs inside the ticked event venue after the original ticket holders have gained entry to the venue is provided. The method comprises reselling or exchanging event tickets on a tertiary market within the event venue after the tickets are used to gain admission to the event but while the tickets still retain a valid right to a seating/viewing location where an electronically accessible database connects first ticket owner to second ticket owner at the event who wish to upgrade their seating/viewing location.
US 20140278873 A1 SHIMIZU; Hideaki et al. CONTENT SHARING SYSTEM, CONTENT SHARING SERVER APPARATUS, CONTENT SHARING METHOD AND RECORDING MEDIUM - An example system includes: a terminal device accepting operation of contributing content by a contributor or accepting operation by an evaluator of evaluating published content or a contributor who contributed content; and a content sharing server apparatus having a value information providing unit providing value information to a user, a content contribution acceptance unit accepting contribution of content from a contributor through communication with the terminal device, and an evaluation acceptance unit accepting an evaluation, for contributed content or a contributor who contributed content, from an evaluator with reduction in value of the value information through communication with the terminal device.
US 20230058828 A1 MORI; Yuichiro INFORMATION-PROVIDING SYSTEM - An information providing system includes: a wearing data acquisition part configured to acquire wearing data indicating that a user has worn a fashion item; a wearing history storage part configured to store a wearing history based on the wearing data; an information providing part configured to provide the user with information, based on the wearing history; and a merchandise information storage part configured to store information of a merchandise item that is the fashion item, in which the information providing part suggests the merchandise item, based on the wearing history, a merchandise item having a similar feature to an item of either a large number of wearing times or a high wearing frequency in the wearing history and a merchandise item having a dissimilar feature, and the merchandise item, based on a suggestion ratio between the similar merchandise items and the dissimilar merchandise items set for the every user.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “The human mind is not equipped to perform this subject. Hence, none of the claims are directed to mental processes. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are directed toward patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of these rejections.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
A human can very well look at the user and ticket or at a user picture and ticket at the same time. Therefore, it is concluded that the step can be performed by a human mind.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits remarks and arguments geared toward the amendments. Examiner has carefully reviewed and considered Applicant’s remarks, however they ARE MOOT in light of the fact that they are geared towards the amendments. Nevertheless, Lee discloses:
wherein, in granting the token, when identity of a user of the ticket and the owner of the ticket is confirmed, the token is granted to the owner of the ticket, the identity of the user and the owner is confirmed using a face image of the owner stored by a camera in advance and a face image of the user captured by the camera when the ticket is used simultaneously with an image of the ticket. {see at least [0006], [0012] user image, stored user image, ticket image}
Therefore, Lee discloses the amended limitation.
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached o