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 . 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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filled on 10/31/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 have been amended and Claims 8-9 have been canceled by Applicant.
Claims 1-7 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments / Arguments
Applicant’s 10/31/2025 amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection in this action.
Response to Applicant’s 101 rebuttal Arguments
Remarks 10/31/2025 p.5 ¶1 argues that the claims are directed to a method for using technology to improve the online marketing and sales of tickets for a performance. Claims 1-7 are argued to each require computer use and alleged that could not be performed without a computer or outside of a computer device environment. The pending claims are thus argued as directed to using computers to interact with a user in a manner that improves online marketing and sales for performance tickets. Remarks 10/31/2025 p.5 ¶2 further argues that since the claims require a computer, the claims could not be performed otherwise. Specifically, Remarks 10/31/2025 p.6 ¶1, 1st–3rd sentences argues that using electronic devices, e.g. smart phones, to enable apprise users real-time online ticket sales momentum for others across the world is not a longstanding or fundamental human practice. Additionally, Remarks 10/31/2025 p.6 ¶1, 4th-6th sentences argues that the claims cannot be performed in the human mind or using a pencil and paper. Rather, similar to the patent-eligible claims in DDR Holdings, Applicant's pending claims are argued to involve both a computer and the Internet but stand apart because they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet Applicant's pending claims are about using technology to do something novel that is possible only through the use of the technology.
Examiner fully considered the 101 rebuttal arguments but respectfully disagrees finding them unpersuasive by starting from Applicant’s own admission at Remarks 10/31/2025 p.5 ¶1, 1st and 3rd sentences that the claims improve the online marketing and sales for performance tickets.
Yet, MPEP 2106.04 I is clear that a “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry” citing Myriad, 569 US at 591,106 USPQ2d at 1979.
The “Myriad” rationale supra, was further corroborated by the Federal Circuit in SAP Am, Inc v InvestPic as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.C(i). Specifically, SAP Am Inc v InvestPic,LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 127 U.S.P.Q.2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2018), Court Opinion clarified that: “even if one assumes that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant those features are not enough for eligibility because their innovation is innovation in ineligible subject matter. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting”. “no matter how much of an advance in the field the claims [would] recite, the advance [would still] lie entirely in the realm of abstract ideas with no plausibly alleged innovation in non-abstract application realm”.
Here too, similar to the legal tests above, the Applicant’s alleged improvement is improvement in ineligible subject matter, namely, ineligible improvement in online marketing and sales for performance tickets. Thus here, an analogous allegation for a groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant online marketing and sales for performance tickets, as attempted by Remarks 10/31/2025 p.5 ¶1, should also not render the claims eligible. This is corroborated by the fact that when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A ¶2, the online marketing and sales for performance tickets as raised by Applicant above remain integral to the abstract fundamental economic practices with the term fundamental not used in the sense of necessarily being old or well-known but rather as building block of modern economy. Here, since the marketing and sales concept remains fundamental, the inquiry into whether such fundamental concept is not old, well-known or longstanding test as raised by Remarks 10/31/2025 p.6 ¶1, 1st–3rd sentences does not necessarily help in ruling out the current claims as being ineligible.
As per the use of technology, computers or devices to perform such fundamental, abstract concepts of online marketing and sales for performance tickets, as repeatedly argued by Applicant at Remarks 10/31/2025 p.5-p.6, the Examiner points to MPEP 2106(a)(2) II ¶6, 4th sentence which reveals that certain activity between a person and a computer may still fall within certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. This is corroborated by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II B, which finds that even a eleven-step method for displaying an advertisement (ad) in exchange for access to copyrighted media, comprising steps of receiving copyrighted media, selecting an ad, offering the media in exchange for watching the selected ad, displaying the ad, to allow the consumer access to the media and receiving payment from the sponsor of the ad1 recites abstract commercial interactions of the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities. In a similar vein, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C found use of computers such as considering historical usage information while inputting data2 and/or providing information to a person without interfering with a person primary activity by acquiring content from information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content3 to also recite abstract social activities or managing interactions. Given such preponderance of legal evidence on computerized abstract concepts, the Examiner reasons that here, the analogous use of technology, computers or electronic devices to perform such fundamental, abstract concepts of online marketing and sales for performance tickets, as raised by Remarks 10/31/2025 p.5-p.6 would also not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract fundamental economic, commercial and/or social activities of the abstract certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities.
Also, the fact that the claims can or cannot be performed in the human mind or using a pencil and paper, as inquired by Applicant at Remarks 10/31/2025 p.6 ¶1, 4th-6th sentences, is not a test for Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II), but rather a test for the Mental Processes grouping (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III). The Applicant conflates the two and erroneously applies the human mind or pen & paper test to the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities test. To be also clear, while the Non-Final Office Act 07/01/2025 found, and the current Act also finds, the claims to recite, describe or set forth the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities, the Examiner does not negate, as a separate test, the possible implementation of the claims as computer-aided mental processes. This is because, similar to the use of computer not necessarily precluding the claims from reciting the abstract Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities, an argument can also be made that such use of computer aids, as tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #1,#2,#3 do also not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract Mental Processes. The examiner raises such rationale because, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C states: #1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer, #2 Performing a mental process in a computer environment, and # 3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process still recite the abstract mental processes. This finding also effectively rebuts the Applicant’s argument at Remarks 10/31/2025 p.5-p.6. that use of computers or electronic devices in performing the online marketing and sales of tickets for a performance would render the claims non-abstract.
If necessary, even when more granularly testing, beyond mere computer aids, and as additional computer-based elements, use of such computers or devices as mere invocation of computers or machinery to apply, the aforementioned abstract exception, would not integrate said abstract exception into a practical application, according to MPEP 2106.05(f), despite the Applicant allegation to the contrary made at Remarks 10/31/2025 p.5 ¶2. This is because, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) cites among others, case law such as Affinity Labs, TLI Communications, Intellectual Ventures, FairWarning, Apple and Alice to show that merely applying the already recited abstract idea such as business process by use of a computer or other machinery to perform economic or other tasks by receiving, storing, or transmitting data including by monitoring audit log data executed on computer and requiring use of software to tailor information4 and generating 2nd menu generated from 1st menu and sending it to another location do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong 2). Such functions, when performed by the additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
It would then also follow that here, the level of computerization as argued at Remarks 10/31/2025 p.5-p.6 would at most represent such examples of computer or other machinery to perform economic or other tasks by receiving, storing, or transmitting data including by monitoring audit log data executed on computer and requiring use of software to tailor information and generating 2nd menu generated from 1st menu and sending it to another location that would not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application.
Additionally, and/or alternatively, if still necessary, Examiner would rely on MPEP 2106.05(h) to show that performing the abstract exception in a technological environment or field of do not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application (Step 2A prong two in light of 2019 PEG Advanced Module Slide 20). Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(h) (ii),(iv),(vi),(x) cites among others, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 595, 95 USPQ2d at 1010; “FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”, “Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” and buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1095-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) to show that identifying the participants [here “demographics”], specifying that the abstract monitoring audit log data (identified above) relates to transactions or activities executed in a computer environment (identified above) and limiting the combined collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of collection and analysis to data related to a particular technological environment, as well as requiring that the abstract idea be performed using a computer that receives and sends information over a network, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
It then follows that here the use of computers or devices as argued at Remarks 10/31/2025 p.5-p.6 could also be argued to represent a narrowing of the abstract idea to a computerized field of use or technological environment, which according to MPEP 2106.05(h) also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two).
As per the allegation made by Remarks 10/31/2025 p.5 ¶2 that the claims are similar to DDR Holdings, the Examiner submits that the current legal findings of the present claims are irreconcilably different than what was found eligible in DDR Holdings because here, the limitations argued at Remarks 10/31/2025 p.5-p.6 are admitted by Applicant as directed to online marketing and sales for performance tickets. At no point do the amended claims provide anything remotely analogous to the systems and methods of generating a composite webpage that combines certain visual elements of a host website with the content of a third-party merchant, as was the case in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 113 USPQ2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2014), as cited by MPEP 2106.05(d). Digging deeper into DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d at 1248,113 USPQ2d at 1099, Examiner finds the Court ruled that the eligible claim had additional elements that amounted to significantly more than the abstract idea, because it modified conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, which differed from the conventional operation of Internet hyperlink protocol that transported the user away from the host’s webpage to the third party’s webpage when the hyperlink was activated. Here however, there is nothing similar to such patent eligible technological arrangement.
In conclusion, the Examiner has provided a preponderance of legal evidence to show that the character as a whole of the claims is still undeniably abstract, with the argued use of computers possibly representing mere computer aids that do not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract exception, or at most, as additional elements still incapable to integrate the abstract exception into practical application, and for the same reasons also incapable to provide anything that is significantly more than what was already found as the abstract idea itself.
Thus, the argued claims are believed to be patent ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Applicant’s 102/103 rebuttal Arguments
Prior art argument 1: Remarks 10/31/2025 p.6 ¶3 - p.7 argues the prior art of Boudville; Wesley John US 20130325524 A hereinafter Boudville does not teach the limitation of dependent Claim 8 now canceled and rolled into in parent independent Claim 1, namely: “the participation momentum feed comprises at least one from the following list: a number of tickets available for the movie, an amount of money spent on purchasing tickets for the movie, and a target for ticket sales for the movie” [bolded emphasis added].
Examiner fully considered the Applicant’s argument but respectfully disagrees.
Examiner, submits that under the broadest reasonable interpretation test of MPEP 2111, the threshold term disclosed by Boudville ¶ [0077] corresponds to the term “target” as claimed.
Boudville ¶ [0077] 4th-6th sentences: If the number of buyers rises above some threshold [interpreted as target for ticket sales], then the ticket price might fall. By displaying on screen the current total of tickets bought [or sales] in this movie session, and showing the threshold [or target], this could act in part as a gaming environment. The intent is to induce collective cooperative response by the audience. This concept is further clarified by ¶ [0079] 6th-7th sentences: thresholds 205 are thresholds [or targets] of the number of tickets for a movie. At or above this value, the price per ticket would fall. ¶ [0088] 3rd-5th, 2nd sentences: the threshold column… show the number of extra [or available] purchases needed to reach threshold [or target]. A countdown display could be… easier…to grasp… Buy 2 more tickets to [movie name] for lower prices!. ¶ [0089] 10th sentence: easily see time history of the audience's purchases and how far away the next thresholds are for each trailer. ¶ [0098] 1st-2nd sentences: If there are several thresholds [or targets] per movie, Fig.2 might… have an extra column. This could show the next (lower) price if the next (higher) threshold [target] of ticket purchases is reached).
Boudville ¶ [0077] 4th sentence: …the number of buyers rises above some threshold,
can also be argued to correspond to “an amount of money spent on purchasing tickets for the movie” as claimed. This is clarified by ¶ [0112] 5th sentence: Fig. 2 might be for total purchases for each movie. ¶ [0121] 1st sentence noting purchases made across several rooms, by the audiences. ¶ [0139] 9th sentence: The screens show purchases made by members in the group.
Thus, Boudville teaches the contested limitation.
Prior art argument 2: Remarks 10/31/2025 p.8 ¶1 argues that the gamification reasoning combining Boudville with Dillon and Elkady is flawed since claim 8 does not provide gamification.
Applicant’s prior art argument 2 is considered and moot in view of new grounds of rejection with the Examiner no longer relying on Dillon and Elkady in the prior art rejection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention
Claim 2 is dependent and has been amended to recite “The method of claim 1, wherein the participation momentum feed comprises a number of tickets available for the movie”.
Claim 2 is rendered vague and indefinite because it is unclear if “a number of tickets available” as subsequently recited in said dependent claim 2, relates back to “a number of tickets available for the movie” antecedently now amended at parent independent Claim 1.
Claim 2 is recommended to be amended to recite as example: The method of claim 1, wherein the participation momentum feed comprises [[a]] the number of tickets available for the movie.”
Claim 3 is dependent and amended to recite “The method of claim 1, wherein the participation momentum feed comprises an amount of money spent on purchasing tickets for the movie”.
Claim 3 is rendered vague and indefinite because it is unclear if “an amount of money spent on purchasing tickets for the movie” as subsequently recited in said dependent Claim 3, relates back to “an amount of money spent on purchasing tickets for the movie” as antecedently now amended at parent independent Claim 1.
Claim 3 is recommended to be amended to recite, as an example only: The method of claim 1, wherein the participation momentum feed comprises [[an]] the amount of money spent on purchasing tickets for the movie.
Claim 4 is dependent and has been amended to recite: “The method of claim 1, wherein the participation momentum feed comprises a target for ticket sales for the movie”
Claim 4 is rendered vague and indefinite because it is unclear if “a target for ticket sales for the movie” as subsequently recited in said Claim 4 relates back to “a target for ticket sales for the movie” as now antecedently amended at parent independent Claim 1.
Claim 4 is recommended to be amended to recite by example The method of claim 1, wherein the participation momentum feed comprises [[a]] the target for ticket sales for the movie”.
Clarification and/or correction is/are required
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 1-7 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, here abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) or at least describe set forth an abstract idea, of “participation momentum feed” as summarized by both the Title of the Invention, and detailed throughout the body of Claims 1-7. Such “participation momentum feed” is an example of managing relationships or interactions between people including social activities [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C] and associated commercial [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II B] or fundamental economic practices [MPEP 21056.04(a)(2) II A], set forth here by “purchasing a ticket for a movie”, “available tickets for the movie”, “an amount of money spent on purchasing tickets for the movie” “a target for ticket sales for the movie” (Claim 1-4) with the term fundamental not being used in the sense of necessarily being old or well-known but rather representing building block(s) of modern economy. Such social activities and associated commercial and/or fundamental economic practices, set forth by the claims above, represent a sub-grouping under of the broader abstract grouping abstract certain methods of organizing human activities.
Equally important, per MPEP 2106(A)(2) II ¶6, 4th sentence, each of the sub-groupings of the certain methods of organizing human activities grouping encompass activity that involves multiple people [akin here to “demographics” at dependent Claim 7], and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of… shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may still fall within certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Similarly, as articulated by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II B, an eleven-step method for displaying an advertisement (ad) in exchange for access to copyrighted media, comprising steps of receiving copyrighted media, selecting an ad, offering the media in exchange for watching the selected ad, displaying the ad, allowing the consumer access to the media, and receiving payment from the sponsor of the ad5 set forth the abstract commercial interactions of organizing human activities.
It then follows that here, “remotely and electronically presenting an interface for purchasing a ticket for a movie; in conjunction with presenting the interface for engaging in a remote computer activity, remotely and electronically presenting a participation momentum feed” (independent Claim 1), “wherein the participation momentum feed comprises at least one from the following list” (independent Claim 1): “a number of tickets available for the movie” (independent Claim 1,dependent Claim 2), “an amount of money spent on purchasing tickets for the movie” (independent Claim 1, dependent Claim 3), “and a target for ticket sales for the movie” (independent Claim 1, dependent Claim 4), “wherein the remote computer activity further comprises watching a trailer for the movie” (dependent Claim 5), “wherein the participation momentum feed is based at least in part on geography” (dependent Claim 6), “the participation feed is based at least in part on demographics” (dependent Claim 7) would similarly set forth examples of such computer implemented social and/or fundamental economic or commercial activities that’s falls under the abstract certain methods of organizing human activities grouping.
Also, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A v. finds that local processing of payments for remotely purchases6,
still recites the abstract fundamental economic practices. It then follows that the analogous considerations for geography, as in “wherein the participation momentum feed is based at least in part on geography” (Claim 6), would also not preclude the clams to set forth the abstract idea.
As per the high level of computerization, represented here, by a “interface” in “remotely and electronically” to aid in commercial “purchasing” and “presenting” a “participation momentum feed”, the Examiner points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II C which finds that computerization such as considering historical usage information while inputting data7 and/or providing information to a person without interfering with a person’s primary activity by acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content8 still describe or set forth abstract social activities or managing interactions.
Thus, Claims 1-7 recite, describe or at least set forth the abstract exception. In abundance of caution, the Examiner performs additional scrutiny on the computer implementation below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional computer elements, when considered under Step 2A prong 2, merely apply the abstract idea as recited, described or set forth above and/or limit it to a field of use or technological environment. Here, the computer elements were found not to preclude the recitation, description or setting forth of the abstract idea. Examiner will now demonstrate that even when considered, as additional computer-based elements such, as the “interface” still not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For example, MPEP 2106.05(f) is cited by MPEP 2106.04(d) to show that the additional elements are not integrating abstract idea into a practical application
MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) cites among others, Affinity Labs, TLI Communications, Intellectual Ventures, FairWarning, Apple and Alice case law to state that merely applying the already recited abstract idea such as business process by use of a computer or other machinery to perform economic or other tasks by receiving, storing, or transmitting data including by monitoring audit log data executed on computer and requiring use of software to tailor information9 and generating 2nd menu generated from 1st menu and sending it to another location do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong 2). Such functions, when performed in combination, by the additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It then follows that here the level of computerization of “remotely and electronically interface for purchasing a ticket for a movie” and “remotely and electronically presenting a participation momentum feed” as recited throughout Claims 1-4 would at most represent such an example of computer or other machinery to perform economic or other tasks by receiving, storing, or transmitting data including by monitoring audit log data executed on computer and requiring use of software to tailor information and generating 2nd menu generated from 1st menu and sending it to another location. Additionally, and/or alternatively
MPEP 2106.05(h) is relied by Examiner to show that performing the abstract idea (identified above) in a technological environment or field of do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two in light of 2019 PEG Advanced Module Slide 20). Specifically MPEP 2106.05(h) (ii),(iv),(vi),(x) cites among others, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 595, 95 USPQ2d at 1010; “FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”, “Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” and buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1095-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) to show that identifying the participants [akin here to “demographics”], specifying that the abstract monitoring audit log data (identified above) relates to transactions or activities executed in a computer environment (identified above) and limiting the combined collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of collection and analysis to data related to a particular technological environment, as well as requiring that the abstract idea be performed using a computer that receives and sends information over a network, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It then follows that here the use of computerized “remotely and electronically interface for purchasing a ticket for a movie” and “remotely and electronically presenting a participation momentum feed” as recited throughout Claims 1-4 could also be argued to represent a narrowing of the abstract idea to a computerized field of use or technological environment, which according to MPEP 2106.05(h) also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as shown above, the additional computer-based elements merely apply the already recited abstract idea, [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and/or provide a narrowing of the abstract idea to a field of user or technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(h)]. Examiner follows MPEP 2106.05 (d) II and carries over the MPEP 2106.05 (f), (h) findings as sufficient option for evidence that the additional computer-based elements also do not provide significantly more, without relying on conventionality test of MPEP 2106.05(d).
Yet assuming arguendo, that further evidence would be required to demonstrate conventionality of the additional, computer-based elements, the Examiner would further point to MPEP 2106.05(d) to demonstrate that said additional elements remain well-understood, routine, conventional. In that case, Examiner would rely as evidence on Applicant’s own Original Specification per MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). Specifically here, Original Specification ¶ [0011]-¶ [0014], ¶ [0044]-¶ [0049] discloses the “interface” and “feed” and the associated remote computer activity at a high level of generality which are thus construed as generic or conventional.
In conclusion, Claims 1-7 although directed to the statutory category of “method” or process, they still recite, or at least set forth, the abstract idea (Step 2A prong one), with no additional, computer-based elements cable to, either alone or in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B). Thus, Claims 1-7 are not patent eligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention as disclosed by: Boudville; Wesley John US 20130325524 A
Claim 1. Boudville teaches “A computer-implemented method, comprising”:
- “remotely and electronically presenting an interface for engaging in a remote computer activity”; (Boudville ¶ [0037] A mobile electronic billboard can be used to offer items for sale to a crowd in a public place. The use of a barcode on the billboard lets a person buy an item. And the billboard showing item purchases also permits interactive dynamic group purchasing.
Boudville ¶ [0051] Jane's initial taking of the image of the barcode could cause a change in overall image on Screen 103. While if she then performs some action on the web page, where this involves or ends in a pressing of a link or button on the page that sends data to Web Server 105, this can also cause changes in Screen 103. Hence, we have an interactive feedback loop.
Boudville ¶ [0077] If the barcode appears on an electronic screen, other data could be shown, to create an interactive feedback loop with the patrons. One example of how to encourage the interactivity and (hopefully) purchases is via dynamic group purchasing. The price of a ticket to a future movie whose trailer was shown might be a function of the response of the audience. If the number of buyers rises above some threshold, then the ticket price might fall. By displaying on the screen the current total of tickets bought in this movie session, and showing the threshold, this could act in part as a gaming environment. The intent is to induce a collective cooperative response by the audience. ¶ [0082] 1st – 2nd sentences: It is stressed that the tabular format of Fig. 2 is one example only. There could be another Graphical User Interface, for one or both of the screen in Fig. 2 and the patron's web page. ¶ [0083] The interactive effect might extend to the theatre showing on the main projection screen text and graphics, possibly accompanied by audio from the theatre's speakers, promoting ticket purchases. The text or audio might declaim, for example, Hurry. Buy your tickets NOW for cheap prices! ¶ [0085] Screen 201 shows only 3 rows of movie titles. There could be more rows or less rows. If more movies are to be listed than there are rows, then the list might be scrolled regularly, so that all the trailers are visible over time. A variant of Screen 201 has no Barcode 202. Instead, the latter is shown on a separate display; perhaps by itself. This display might be electronic or hardcopy.
Boudville ¶ [0169] If the locations and route that a billboard will take is known in advance, it can be publicized on the web site. This could be in a programmatic or structured form, so a visitor can download the time and locations. The locations might be described by some common geocode method. Hence a visitor to the website who uses a mobile device to do so might have attendant software on the device (or the device can use remote software) to devise a route from the visitor's current location to the present or future location of the billboard).
- “in conjunction with presenting the interface for engaging in a remote computer activity, remotely and electronically presenting a participation momentum feed, wherein the participation momentum feed comprises at least one from the following list: a number of tickets available for the movie” (Boudville ¶ [0079] 6th-7th sentences: thresholds 205 are thresholds of the number of tickets for a movie. At or above this value, the price per ticket would fall. ¶ [0088] 3rd-5th, 2nd sentences: the threshold column… show number of extra [or available] purchases needed to reach threshold. A countdown [or remaining or available] display could be… easier…to grasp… Buy 2 more [available] tickets to [movie name] for lower prices!. ¶ [0089] 10th sentence: easily see time history of the audience’s purchases and how far away [interpreted as still available from] the next thresholds are for each trailer. ¶ [0098] 1st-2nd sentences: If there are several thresholds per movie, Fig.2 might …have an extra column. This could show the next (lower) price if next (higher) [interpreted as available from next] threshold of ticket purchases is reached), “an amount of money spent on purchasing tickets for the movie” (Boudville ¶ [0077] 4th sentence …displaying on screen the current total of tickets bought in this movie session…. ¶ [0089] 10th sentence: easily see the time history of the audience's purchases and how far away the next thresholds are for each trailer. For example, at ¶ [0112] 5th sentence: Fig. 2 might be for total purchases for each movie, made in that set of rooms. ¶ [0121] 1st sentence noting purchases made across several rooms, by the audiences. Similarly, ¶ [0139] 9th sentence: The screens show purchases made by members in the group. Claim 21: varying a plurality of movie trailers across the one or more theatres and/or different movie sessions, maximizing revenue from ticket sales), “and a target for ticket sales for the movie” (Boudville ¶ [0077] 4th-6th sentences: If the number of buyers rises above some threshold [interpreted as target for ticket sales], then the ticket price might fall. By displaying on screen the current total of tickets bought [or sales] in this movie session, and showing the threshold [or target], this could act in part as a gaming environment. The intent is to induce collective cooperative response by the audience. This concept is further clarified by ¶ [0079] 6th-7th sentences: thresholds 205 are thresholds [or targets] of the number of tickets for a movie. At or above this value, the price per ticket would fall. ¶ [0088] 3rd-5th, 2nd sentences: the threshold column… show the number of extra [or available] purchases needed to reach threshold [or target]. A countdown display could be… easier…to grasp… Buy 2 more tickets to [movie name] for lower prices!. ¶ [0089] 10th sentence: easily see time history of the audience's purchases and how far away the next thresholds are for each trailer. ¶ [0098] 1st-2nd sentences: If there are several thresholds [or targets] per movie, Fig.2 might… have an extra column. This could show the next (lower) price if the next (higher) threshold [target] of ticket purchases is reached).
Claim 2. Boudville teaches all the limitations in claim 1 above. Furthermore,
Boudville teaches: “wherein the participation momentum feed comprises a number of tickets available for the movie” (Boudville ¶ [0079] 6th-7th sentences: thresholds 205 are thresholds of the number of tickets for a movie. At or above this value, the price per ticket would fall. ¶ [0088] 3rd-5th, 2nd sentences: the threshold column… show number of extra [or available] purchases needed to reach threshold. A countdown [or remaining or available] display could be… easier…to grasp… Buy 2 more [available] tickets to [movie name] for lower prices!. ¶ [0089] 10th sentence: easily see time history of the audience’s purchases and how far away [interpreted as still available from] the next thresholds are for each trailer. ¶ [0098] 1st-2nd sentences: If there are several thresholds per movie, Fig.2 might …have an extra column. This could show the next (lower) price if next (higher) [interpreted as available from next] threshold of ticket purchases is reached).
Claim 3. Boudville teaches all the limitations in claim 1 above. Furthermore,
Boudville teaches “wherein the participation momentum feed comprises an amount of money spent on purchasing tickets for the movie” (Boudville ¶ [0077] 4th sentence …displaying on screen the current total of tickets bought in this movie session…. ¶ [0089] 10th sentence: easily see the time history of the audience's purchases and how far away the next thresholds are for each trailer. For example, at ¶ [0112] 5th sentence: Fig. 2 might be for total purchases for each movie, made in that set of rooms. ¶ [0121] 1st sentence noting purchases made across several rooms, by the audiences. Similarly, ¶ [0139] 9th sentence: The screens show purchases made by members in the group. Claim 21: varying a plurality of movie trailers across the one or more theatres and/or different movie sessions, maximizing revenue from ticket sales)
Claim 4. Boudville teaches all the limitations in claim 1 above. Furthermore,
Boudville teaches “wherein the participation momentum feed comprises a target for ticket sales for the movie” (Boudville ¶ [0077] 4th - 6th sentences: If the number of buyers rises above some threshold [interpreted as target for ticket sales], then the ticket price might fall. By displaying on the screen the current total of tickets bought [or sales] in this movie session, and showing the threshold [or target], this could act in part as a gaming environment. The intent is to induce collective cooperative response by the audience. This concept is further explained at
¶ [0079] 6th-7th sentences: thresholds 205 are thresholds [or targets] of the number of tickets for a movie. At or above this value, the price per ticket would fall. ¶ [0088] 3rd-5th, 2nd sentences: the threshold column… show the number of extra [or available] purchases needed to reach threshold [or target]. A countdown display could be… easier…to grasp… Buy 2 more tickets to [movie name] for lower prices!. ¶ [0089] 10th sentence: easily see the time history of the audience's purchases and how far away the next thresholds are for each trailer. ¶ [0098] 1st-2nd sentences: If there are several thresholds [or targets] per movie, Fig.2 might… have an extra column. This could show the next (lower) price if the next (higher) threshold [target] of ticket purchases is reached).
Claim 5 Boudville teaches all the limitations in claim 1 above. Furthermore,
Boudville teaches “wherein the remote computer activity further comprises watching a trailer for the movie” (Boudville ¶ [0073] The order in which the trailers appear on the main screen might now have extra significance. Suppose after or during the first trailer, a barcode becomes visible, to let a patron buy a ticket to the trailer, when the impressions of the trailer are at their strongest. The web page for this might or might not show a list of all the trailers to be shown on the main screen in this session. In either case, there could be a tendency for a patron enthusiastic about the first trailer to buy tickets to it. This diminishes her ability to buy tickets to the other trailers. Likewise the second trailer could statistically reduce the chances of purchases for later trailers. This could be tested empirically by, for example, varying the order of the first and second trailers on several screens and across several sessions and different theatres).
Claim 6 Boudville teaches all the limitations in claim 1 above. Furthermore,
Boudville teaches “wherein the participation momentum feed is based at least in part on geography” (Boudville teaches several examples starting with: ¶ [0062] 1st sentence… the geographic distribution of purchases and poll results is valuable. Then see ¶ [0063] 2nd sentence, noting other example to: detect presence of cellphone user in some neighborhood [or geography] and then send an email or SMS or Bluetooth message. ¶ [0135] 1st,2nd,7th sentences: the dynamic group purchasing method has users in one location [or geography]. ¶ [0140] 1st sentence: An example of a group of people in one location [or geography] is people queuing to get into the building for the event. ¶ [0157] 3rd sentence: The coordinates of these locations might preferably be recorded by the web server using, GPS coordinates [or geography] of the locations if these can be found from sensors on the billboard or its vehicle. For a different example see ¶ [0112]).
Claim 7 Boudville teaches all the limitations in claim 1 above. Furthermore,
Boudville teaches wherein the participation feed is based at least in part on demographics
(Boudville teaches several examples starting with: ¶ [0030] 3rd-4th sentences: First, the audience [or demographics] has shown by its presence that it is willing and able to pay to go to a theatre. Second, the immersive effect of the large screen and the attendant sound system is more effective than television ads or billboards or other traditional means in conveying an anticipated future viewing experience. ¶ [0055] 4th sentence: Third, a studio might have several trailers for a movie, which emphasize different aspects to appeal to different audiences [or demographics]. Specifically, per ¶ [0158] last sentence: the billboard also allows for social or collective dynamic group [demographic] feedback effect. ¶ [0077] 2nd-6th sentences: One example of how to encourage the interactivity and (hopefully) purchases is via dynamic group purchasing. The price of a ticket to a future movie whose trailer was shown might be a function of response of the audience [or demographics]. If the number of buyers [or demographics] rises above some threshold, then the ticket price might fall. By displaying on the screen the current total of tickets bought in this movie session, and showing the threshold, this could act in part as a gaming environment. The intent is to induce a collective cooperative response by the audience [or demographics]. ¶ [0089] 10th sentence: a patron can easily see the time history of the audience's purchases and how far away the next thresholds are for each trailer. ¶ [0092] A very practical benefit is that it avoids some early buyers [or demographics] having regrets about placing their orders too soon, when they were charged higher prices than a current buyer [demographic] would be. For our feedback to be optimal, we need liquidity in this (small) marketplace. So we need patrons [or demographics] to not be averse to placing the initial purchases, which then appear on the table in Screen 201, to act as incentive for others to buy. ¶ [0094] The threshold for discounted prices might vary with the choice of future movie. It could also be a function of how many people [demographics] are currently in the audience [or main demographics]. So in a theatre that is half full, the threshold might be less than in an almost full theatre. This makes meeting the threshold more feasible in the former case. ¶ [0113] 1st sentence noting another example with sparse audiences [or demographics]. See a different example at ¶ [0132] having sequential trailers is to have these sequential trailers… for movies deemed likely to appeal to different audiences [or demographics], to lower the risk of purchase interference. An action movie trailer might be succeeded by a trailer to a romance, as an example. Theatres probably already perform this to some extent. The novelty is that our submission lets them test and measure the efficacy of the orderings. Also see ¶ [0116] for a different example. ¶ [0139] Broadly our method can be used under the following conditions. There is a group of people in one location. Several, if not most, have mobile wireless devices (typically cellphones) currently serviced by one or more wireless networks. (These might be a cellphone provider and WiFi). The people can see each other and their surroundings. The surroundings have one or more electronic screens. On these are shown one or more barcodes. The barcodes encode URLs of web pages where items can be purchased electronically. The screens show purchases made by members in the group. The purchases might be at prices dependent on the number of purchases. Thus, allowing dynamic group purchasing. ¶ [0140] An example of a group of people in one location is people queuing to get into a stadium or building for some event, like a football game or night club or concert. Either before the doors are opened, or even when they are opened, many people might just be standing around or moving slowly. Nor is the current case restricted to people in a queue. They might be a crowd, with no internal queuing structure. ¶ [0163] 5th sentence: The server can then find the most popular way suggested by the billboard's users [or demographics] and then tell the billboard to display in such a manner. ¶ [0165] 3rd sentence: having a relatively few items means that the group dynamics of people seeing existing purchases is easier to display and thus it is easier to try to amplify the amounts of those purchases).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The following art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
- Commonly Asked Questions About Crowdfunding, Angel Studios, December 8, 2023
- WO 2013180744 A1 teaching at its abstract: A movie theatre shows a barcode on an electronic screen separate from the projection screen, on a side wall of the movie room. The barcode lets a patron buy tickets