DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending. Claim 14 was amended in the reply filed June 11, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, of which claims 1-13 are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. "Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. More specifically, the claimed invention is directed to overcoming the problems of '...fraud and ... "double booking" of seats or positions during [an] event', as described at para. [00162] of the application as filed." Remarks, 11. Fraud and double booking are not problems "particular to the Internet" or any other technology and instead are abstract commercial problems.
Applicant also frames the problem as specifically related to screen captures. "Fraud and/or double booking via screen capture of a digital ticket were not possible, and therefore not a technical problem, within the pre-Internet world." Remarks, 11. The difficulty with this argument is that neither the claims themselves or the Specification set forth any level of detail regarding how the screen captures are prevented. The question is whether the invention "focus[es] on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology” or instead is "directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke[s] generic processes and machinery." Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). "Generally, a claim that merely describes an 'effect or result dissociated from any method by which [it] is accomplished' is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter." Ameranth at 1241 (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), "the claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more." Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Moreover, the claimed invention's focus has nothing to do with preventing screen captures and this is tangential extra-solution activity. The § 101 inquiry examines "what the patent asserts to be the focus of the claimed advance over the prior art." Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2019). In this case, the focus of the invention is on a better event ticketing arrangement for a group of people (i.e., social and commercial interactions). "However, while these networks may provide for communication between event participants, the structure of these networks does not provide for an efficient manner of identifying and connecting accounts that have a likelihood of attending the event together." Published Specification, ¶ 0003. "While some group ticketing systems have been implemented with split-fare features, these systems often do not provide any methods for efficiently coordinating events between group participants, do not generate user behavior analytics, and do not provide relevant social tools and recommendations." Published Specification, ¶ 0004. The invention accomplishes these solutions to abstract problems with generic computers used as tools to coordinate event attendance, which is not patent-eligible.
The Specification only mentions preventing screen captures in passing, and also explicitly states that it is a problem that has already been solved by other parties. "Preferably, an image-based digital ticket, for example, one presented in a mobile application, is configured such that it does not permit screenshots or screen captures of the ticket. In one embodiment, this functionality is accomplished through SCREENSHIELD by CONFIDE, INC., YOVO by CONTENTGUARD INC., or any other screenshot blocking tool which causes images such as bars to be displayed when a screenshot." Published Specification, ¶ 0160 (emphasis added). This is the only relevant section of the disclosure with respect to preventing screen captures.
Applicant also argues that the claims recite "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Remarks, 12-13. However, these arguments are unpersuasive for the same reasons set forth above. Fraud and double booking are not challenges specific to technology, and Applicant's Specification confirms that the additional elements recited are well-understood, routine, and conventional for the uncontested reasons set forth in the rejection. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
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 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 14-20, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the representative functions of the independent claims—including:
store a plurality of user profiles;
generate a plurality of matches between at least one first user profile of the plurality of user profiles and at least one second user profile of the plurality of user profiles based on at least one profile element common to both the at least one first profile and the at least one second profile;
provide an indication of suggested upcoming live events based on attendance records of one or more profiles of the plurality of matches and pattern matching against a browsing history and/or social media activity;
select a subset of the plurality of user profiles based on at least one shared profile element of the subset of the plurality of user profiles;
receive desired price ranges from the subset of the plurality of user profiles via a group communication;
determine an available selection of tickets for the assigned event based on the predetermined price ranges;
reserve and/or purchase the available selection of tickets;
convert reserved and/or purchased tickets of a file type into reserved and/or purchased tickets of a managed ticket identifier comprising a unique identifier associated with a user account;
store the reserved and or/purchased tickets and associate the reserved and/or purchased tickets with the managed ticket identifier
assign multiple user profiles with reserved tickets to a seat sharing plan;
wherein the multiple user profiles assigned to the seat sharing plan are selected based on positions of the reserved and/or purchased tickets and/or price range of the reserved and/or purchased tickets;
transmit a first ticket from the reserved and/or purchased tickets valid for a first time period within the assigned event to each of the multiple user profiles in the seat sharing plan;
upon expiry of the first time period, delete the first ticket from each of the multiple user profiles in the seat sharing plan and transmits a second ticket from the reserved and/or purchased tickets valid for a second time period within the assigned event to each of the multiple user profiles in the seat sharing plan;
determine at least one unfilled seat in a venue based on scanned ticket data and/or video analysis of the at least one unfilled seat; and
transmit at least one upgraded ticket for the at least one unfilled seat to at least one of the multiple user profiles.
These limitations taken together qualify as a certain method of organizing human activities because they recite collecting, analyzing, and outputting information for planning the event attendance behaviors of groups of people and performing the related commercial/financial transactions (i.e., in the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance, commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities).
It shares similarities with other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts (see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)—tailoring sales information presented to a user based on, e.g., user data or time data, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as tailoring ticket sales information presented to a user based on, e.g., group communication data or price range data; Smart Sys. Innovations v. Chicago Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017)—formation of financial transactions in a particular field (i.e., mass transit) and data collection related to such transactions, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as formation of financial transactions in a particular field (i.e., event tickets) and data collection related to such transactions).
These cases describe significantly similar aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (server computer including a memory with at least one database; internet messaging platform; wherein the at least one server computer is in network communication with a plurality of devices; communication connection; broadly performing steps "automatically;" "image-based digital" tickets; machine learning model; PDF or image files—all recited at a high level of generality).
The claims also recite to train a machine learning model based on records of previously purchased tickets, previous attendance, and/or indications of interest of the plurality of user profiles. This limitation describes using generic machine learning on new preferred data without setting forth any technological improvements. At the high level of generality set forth, the technical aspects of machine learning here are generic because they could be used across a multitude of data environments. Moreover, the claims do not set forth any improvements to machine learning itself, and instead use it as a tool to perform an abstract function (i.e., coordinating a ticketed group event among people). "[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101." Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18). "The requirements that the machine learning model be ‘iteratively trained’ or dynamically adjusted in the Machine Learning Training patents do not represent a technological improvement" because "[i|terative training using selected training material and dynamic adjustments based on real-time changes are incident to the very nature of machine learning." Id. at 12 (emphasis added).
The claims also recite "wherein the first image-based digital ticket is configured to prevent screen captures of the first image-based digital ticket" and "wherein the second image-based digital ticket is configured to prevent screen captures of the second image-based digital ticket." However, no technical mechanism is set forth to accomplish these results-based limitations. "Generally, a claim that merely describes an 'effect or result dissociated from any method by which [it] is accomplished' is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter." Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), "the claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more." Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The Specification notes that preventing screen captures is a tool to limit ticketing fraud (i.e., an abstract purpose—see published Specification ¶ 0160). Moreover, in addition to being results-based tool used to accomplish an abstract function, these limitations are also performing extra-solution activities that are tangential to the invention and do not provide meaningful limits on how the abstract planning and ticketing for event attendance of groups of people is as a whole is performed. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (restricting public access to media was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity).
Although the claims have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, etc. to automate the abstract idea), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements (server computer including a memory with at least one database; internet messaging platform; wherein the at least one server computer is in network communication with a plurality of devices; communication connection; broadly performing steps "automatically;" "digital" tickets; machine learning model; PDF or image files—see published Specification ¶¶ 0066, 68 ("Tickets are constructed in any type of eTicketing file format commonly used in the field of digital ticketing"), 85, 123, 127, 129, 138 describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements).
The claims also recite to train a machine learning model based on records of previously purchased tickets, previous attendance, and/or indications of interest of the plurality of user profiles. This does not set forth "significantly more" for the same reasons that it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the disclosure supports that the training is conventional by its brief mention in ¶ 0066 without any appreciable technical specificity, as well as its invention by another entity ("Examples of artificial intelligence algorithms and related processes applicable to this embodiment of the present invention are described in U.S. Pat. No. 9,922,286, to inventor Hazard, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.").
The claims also recite "wherein the first image-based digital ticket is configured to prevent screen captures of the first image-based digital ticket" and "wherein the second image-based digital ticket is configured to prevent screen captures of the second image-based digital ticket." Neither the claims nor the disclosure set forth any specific means to accomplish these results-based limitations. The Specification further confirms that this feature is well-understood, routine, and conventional by describing it without any technical detail and instead as a commercially-available product from another entity. "Preferably, an image-based digital ticket, for example, one presented in a mobile application, is configured such that it does not permit screenshots or screen captures of the ticket. In one embodiment, this functionality is accomplished through SCREENSHIELD by CONFIDE, INC., YOVO by CONTENTGUARD INC., or any other screenshot blocking tool which causes images such as bars to be displayed when a screenshot." Published Specification, ¶ 0160 (emphasis added).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these basic computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely narrow the same abstract idea identified above without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims (i.e., a generic server). Claim 17 adds an external ticketing system and claim 20 adds a generic artificial intelligence module. These merely serve to further limit the general link of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and using computers as tools at a high level to perform purely abstract activities.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Although they add the elements identified in 2A above (external ticketing system, artificial intelligence module), these do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above (see ¶¶ 0064-65, 104) describing these at a high level of generality and without any appreciable technical specifics). Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights