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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/21/2026 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which 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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220084320 to Ito in view of US 20240305463 to Rojas in view of US 20020040341 to Shin in view of US 20210174269 to Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Ito teaches a method, comprising:
obtaining, by a user via a handheld device via a network connection in a first transaction, an electronic pass to attend an event at a future time in accordance with one or more parameters in connection with the event (¶ 84, 105, obtaining electronic ticket to event),
acquiring biometric information of the user using a sensor embedded in the handheld device (¶118, 122, user accesses website and acquires biometric information, e.g. face data);
creating a barcode on the handheld device that encrypts information needed for an entrance to the event, wherein the information includes including the electronic pass, and features of the biometric information of the user, and payment information (fig. 9, ¶ 62-65, 70-77, 106, encrypting event pass information via barcode);
presenting, subsequently by the user at the event via the handheld device, the optical signal for verification prior to entering the event (¶ 40, 44, 50, 60-66, 84-85, ticket check at entrance to event); and
Ito fails to teach but Rojas teaches:
generating a time stamp based on a current date/time associated with the electronic pass (¶ 20, timestamp);
creating an optical signal on the handheld device that encrypts information needed for an entrance to the event, including the time stamp (¶ 20, encrypted signal for ticketed event for display on user device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Rojas. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Rojas would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating the use of single use or time limited tokens (Rojas, ¶ 13).
Ito fails to teach but Shit teaches: creating a barcode on the handheld device that encrypts payment information used for future charges for the event (Shin, ¶ 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of . The motivation to do so is that the teachings of would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating convenient purchasing methodologies for customers (Shin, ¶ 35).
Ito fails to teach but Lee teaches:
wherein the first transaction is indicative of charging the user for the cost of the event at a time when the user shows up at the event (¶ 108); initiating a second online transaction via the payment information to charge the user to attend the event (¶ 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Lee. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Lee would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating flexible reservation and payment functionality (Lee, ¶ 108).
Regarding claim 2, 10, 18,
Ito teaches:
wherein the handheld device corresponds to one of a smart phone, a tablet, a personal data assistant, a wristwatch, and a mobile device (¶ 4, 122, 84, smart phone); and the biometric information is one or more of: a fingerprint, a face, a palm, and an iris (¶ 4, 19, 24, 111, face).
Regarding claim 3, 11, 19,
Ito teaches:
wherein the one or more parameters in connection with the event includes at least one of an identifier for uniquely identifying the event, a date and time of the event, a seating arrangement associated with the user at the event, a type of biometric information to be used for identity verification, a cost of the event, and a status of payment of the event (see fig. 7, ¶ 35-40, 55-56, 70, 82).
Regarding claim 3, 12, 20,
Ito teaches:
wherein the step of obtaining an electronic pass comprises: interfacing, via the handheld device, with a remote site that manages the event; selecting the event that the user intends to attend with the remote site; determining interactively the one or more parameters associated with the user's participation of the event (¶ 50, selecting entertainment, seat type and the like).
Regarding claim 5, 13, 21,
Ito teaches:
wherein the step of creating an optical signal comprises: processing the acquired biometric information of the user to extract the biometric features; recording the type of biometric information; encoding the information needed for verification at the event for an authorized entrance; generating the optical signal based on the encoded information (¶ 40, 44, 50, 60-66, 84, 105, 118, 122, processing biometrics, recording and encoding information via codes).
Regarding claim 6, 14, 22,
Ito teaches: wherein the optical signal corresponds to a barcode (¶ 121, barcode).
Regarding claim 7, 15, 23,
Ito teaches:
wherein the step of presenting the optical signal comprise one of: displaying the optical signal on a display screen of the handheld device so that the optical signal is to be read wirelessly; transmitting the optical signal via a network connection to a receiving means on-site of the event, wherein the network connection is one of a wired connection or a wireless connection (¶ 84-85, display and reading of ticket by ticket checking apparatus; wireless transmission).
Regarding claim 7, 16, 24,
Ito teaches:
decrypting the optical signal presented by the user to obtain the information encoded therein, including the electronic pass, and the biometric features of the biometric information acquired from the user at the time of generating the electronic pass (¶ 62-66, fig. 9, 122, verification of electronic pass, matching of biometric features of certain type);
determining a type of the biometric information; acquiring on-site biometric information of the user of the type; verifying the electronic pass and the identity of the user via the type of biometric information; and controlling the access of the user to the event based on the verification result (¶ 62-66, fig. 9, 122, use of electronic pass, matching of biometric features of certain type) Ito fails to teach, but Rojas teaches: decrypting the signal to obtain the time stamp (¶ 20, 54-57, 74-78, decryption). Motivation to include Rojas is the same as presented above.
Claims 9 and 17 are addressed by similar rationale as claim 1.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights