DETAILED ACTION
In the response filed June 5, 2026, the Applicant amended claims 1, 3, and 4. Claims 1-8 are pending in the current application.
Notice of 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
The drawings were objected to for informalities. Examiner thanks the Applicant for revising and amending the disclosure and hereby withdraws the objection from the previous Office action. Examiner notes there are additional objections set forth in the current Office action.
Claim 1 was objected to for informalities. Examiner thanks the Applicant for revising and amending the claim language and hereby withdraws the objection from the previous Office action. Examiner notes there are additional objections set forth in the current Office action.
Claims 1 and 2 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite. Examiner thanks the Applicant for revising and amending the claim language and hereby withdraws the rejection from the previous Office action.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1-8 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps describe or set-forth providing options for tickets requested by a user; presenting a calendar with alternate views and configurations for timeslots; providing purchase options for tickets requested by a user and presenting a calendar with alternate views and configurations for timeslots, which amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As Applicant describes, “providing, storing and accessing a timeslot rules table,” “integrating multiple groups of timeslots,” “optimizing recurring event calculations by providing a calendar recurring table” and “displaying serviceable ticketing options to the user,” under broadest reasonable interpretation, amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). That the steps are executed by “a database,” and “a user interface,” does not change the abstract idea. The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using the mentioned “a database,” and “a user interface,”, is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception as they cannot be performed entirely in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.C states that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. In all cases described under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.C, the identified abstract ideas are performed on a generic computer, in a computer environment, and as a tool to perform the identified mental processes.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception as they recite how a solution to a problem is accomplished and provides an improvement to computer functionality. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a computer system,” “a database system,” “a user interface,” “a calendar visualization,” (claim 1); “a processor,” “a visual calendar,” “a user device,” “memory,” (claim 3); “an apparatus comprising: a processor; a database; and a memory operatively coupled to the processor,” “a compute device,” “a database including the timeslot rules table, the timeslot additions table, the calendar recurring rule table, and the exceptions table,” “a visual calendar based interface on the compute device,” (claim 4), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
The functions performed by the device or system in claims 1, 3, and 4, are well-known functions, and require nothing more than a generic computer performing generic computer functions. The claims disclose generic structures such as “a computer system,” “a database system,” “a user interface,” “a calendar visualization,” (claim 1); “a processor,” “a visual calendar,” “a user device,” “memory,” (claim 3); “an apparatus comprising: a processor; a database; and a memory operatively coupled to the processor,” “a compute device,” “a database including the timeslot rules table, the timeslot additions table, the calendar recurring rule table, and the exceptions table,” “a visual calendar based interface on the compute device,” (claim 4). These generic device elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract ideas because they would be routine in any computer implementation. Further, the generic devices disclosed merely implement or apply the abstract ideas noted above, and therefore cannot be considered significantly more than the abstract ideas (Current application, Par. [0138]). None of the dependent claims introduce claim elements that are significantly more than the identified abstract ideas. Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1-8 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “2440” as found in Figure 24; “260” and “262” as found in Figure 26. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 24, “a user interface” should read --the user interface-- as this appears to be Applicant’s intent (see Current application, Par. [0047]).
Claim 1, line 16, “span at least 20,000 – 99,999 tenants or customers” should read --span at least 20,000 to 99,999 tenants or customers-- as this appears to be Applicant’s intent (see Current application, Par. [0132], [0152] – storage spans no more than tens of thousands).
Claim 2, line 2, “(h) receiving a ticketing request confirmation from the user; and (i) updating the database based on the ticketing request confirmation.” should read --(i) receiving a ticketing request confirmation from the user; and (j) updating the database based on the ticketing request confirmation.-- as this appears to be Applicant’s intent.
Appropriate correction is 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-3 are drawn to processes and claims 4-8 are drawn to a machine, each of which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites/describes the following steps:
“(a) providing a timeslot rules table, the timeslot rules table being an immutable table of a first plurality of timeslots, the timeslot rules table defining a plurality of scheduling rules…;”
“(b) providing a timeslot additions table, the timeslot additions table including a second plurality of timeslots being different from the first plurality of timeslots…;”
“(c) providing a calendar recurring rule table…, the calendar recurring rule table including recurring pattern rules for one or more of the timeslot rules table and the timeslot additions table wherein said calendar recurring rule table enables optimization of recurring event calculations;”
“(d) providing an exceptions table, the exceptions table including one or more exceptions to the scheduling rules…;”
“(f) receiving a ticketing request from a user for one or more recurring events;”
“(g) determining whether the ticketing request is serviceable based on one or more of a database including the timeslot rules table, the timeslot additions table, the calendar recurring rule table, and the exceptions table;” and
“(h) displaying serviceable ticketing options, via a calendar visualization, to the user ….”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth providing options for tickets requested by a user, which amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 3 recites/describes the following steps:
“(a) presenting, …, a visual calendar based view that displays time slot data with controls to view and edit details; and (b) presenting alternate visual views …, such as day tiles or text and timeslot mixed panels, …, and whereby multiple timeslots are easily and simply configurable by presenting them as a group and allowing for the configuration of all timeslots in a given group.”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth presenting a calendar with alternate views and configurations for timeslots, which amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 4 recites/describes the following steps:
“receive an event request including event data for one or more recurring events from an event planner …”
“generate, based on the event request: a timeslot rules table, the timeslot rules table being an immutable table of a first plurality of timeslots, the timeslot rules table defining a plurality of scheduling rules;”
“a timeslot additions table, the timeslot additions table including a second plurality of timeslots being different from the first plurality of timeslots;”
“a calendar recurring rule table, the calendar recurring rule table including recurring pattern rules for one or more of the timeslot rules table and the timeslot additions table;” and
“an exceptions table, the exceptions table including one or more exceptions to the scheduling rules;”
“receive… a ticketing request from a user … for one or more recurring events associated with the event request from the event planner;”
“determine… whether the ticketing request is serviceable based on … the timeslot rules table, the timeslot additions table, the calendar recurring rule table, and the exceptions table;”
“generate… a visual calendar based view… operated by the planner to enable the planner to modify details of the one or more recurring events, wherein the visual calendar-based view is dynamically updated based on modifications and exceptions;” and
“generate …a visual calendar based interface…… to enable the user to purchase a ticket for the one or more recurring events, wherein the visual calendar-based interface integrates real-time ticket availability and user preferences;”
“…utilizing the timeslot rules table, timeslot additions table, calendar recurring rule table, and exceptions table, resulting in enhanced user interaction and efficient management of complex recurring events.”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth providing purchase options for tickets requested by a user and presenting a calendar with alternate views and configurations for timeslots, which amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that the independent claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Dependent claim 2 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitations “(a) presenting, by a processor, a visual calendar based view that displays time slot data with controls to view and edit details; and (b) presenting alternate visual views on a user device, such as day tiles or text and timeslot mixed panels, wherein the alternate visual views are generated by the processor, which is communicatively coupled with memory storing instructions for the processor, and whereby multiple timeslots are easily and simply configurable by presenting them as a group and allowing for the configuration of all timeslots in a given group,” that further define the abstract idea. Claim 2 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 5 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitations “wherein the buyer is further enabled…to…consider options for purchase and view additional displayed information in each day that assists with making a purchase decision; be presented with alternate visual views such as day tiles or text and timeslot mixed panels; and reduce the number of clicks needed to complete the purchase of one or more tickets out of a plurality of possible ticket options,” that further defines the abstract idea. Claim 5 recites the additional limitation “the visual calendar based interface” which is addressed below.
Dependent claim 6 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitations “present a visual calendar based view that displays time slot data with controls to view and edit details; and present alternate visual views such as day tiles or text and timeslot mixed panels, whereby multiple timeslots are easily and simply configurable by presenting them as a group and allowing for the configuration of all timeslots in a given group,” that further defines the abstract idea. Claim 6 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 7 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “wherein the event data includes parameters for the one or more recurring events, the parameters including an identification number, name, start time, duration, number of recurring events, offsets for the recurring events, and pricing” that further defines the abstract idea. Claim 7 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 8 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “generate tables for pricing, capacity for events, and discounts” that further defines the abstract idea. Claim 8 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “a computer system,” “a database system,” “a user interface,” “a calendar visualization,” (claim 1); “a processor,” “a visual calendar,” “a user device,” “memory,” (claim 3); “an apparatus comprising: a processor; a database; and a memory operatively coupled to the processor,” “a compute device,” “a database including the timeslot rules table, the timeslot additions table, the calendar recurring rule table, and the exceptions table,” “a visual calendar based interface on the compute device,” (claim 4).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a computer system,” “a database system,” “a user interface,” “a calendar visualization,” (claim 1); “a processor,” “a visual calendar,” “a user device,” “memory,” (claim 3); “an apparatus comprising: a processor; a database; and a memory operatively coupled to the processor,” “a compute device,” “a database including the timeslot rules table, the timeslot additions table, the calendar recurring rule table, and the exceptions table,” “a visual calendar based interface on the compute device,” (claim 4), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims also recite the additional elements/limitations of: “wherein said timeslot rules table is stored in and accessed from a database system for efficient querying and retrieval;” “(e) utilizing efficient data storage that can span at least 20,000 - 99,999 tenants or customers all having complex multi-day timeslot data in the computer system;” (claim 1); “(i) updating the database based on the ticketing request confirmation,” (claim 2); “store the timeslot rules table, the timeslots additions table, the calendar recurring rule table, and the exceptions table in the database;” (claim 4).
The recited additional elements of “wherein said timeslot rules table is stored in and accessed from a database system for efficient querying and retrieval;” “(e) utilizing efficient data storage that can span at least 20,000 - 99,999 tenants or customers all having complex multi-day timeslot data in the computer system;” (claim 1); “(i) updating the database based on the ticketing request confirmation,” (claim 2); “store the timeslot rules table, the timeslots additions table, the calendar recurring rule table, and the exceptions table in the database;” (claim 4), simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional elements are deemed “extra-solution” because they are merely associating/storing data in a database. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Remaining dependent claims 2 and 5-8 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a computer system,” “a database system,” “a user interface,” “a calendar visualization,” (claim 1); “a processor,” “a visual calendar,” “a user device,” “memory,” (claim 3); “an apparatus comprising: a processor; a database; and a memory operatively coupled to the processor,” “a compute device,” “a database including the timeslot rules table, the timeslot additions table, the calendar recurring rule table, and the exceptions table,” “a visual calendar based interface on the compute device,” (claim 4), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional elements of “wherein said timeslot rules table is stored in and accessed from a database system for efficient querying and retrieval;” “(e) utilizing efficient data storage that can span at least 20,000 - 99,999 tenants or customers all having complex multi-day timeslot data in the computer system;” (claim 1); “(i) updating the database based on the ticketing request confirmation,” (claim 2); “store the timeslot rules table, the timeslots additions table, the calendar recurring rule table, and the exceptions table in the database;” (claim 4), even if considered to be an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, additionally amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, appended to the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of user interfaces. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
This conclusion is based on a factual determination. The determination that associating/storing data in a database is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of associating/storing data in a database. The determination that receiving data/messages over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of receiving data/messages over a network.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity), and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Remaining dependent claims 2 and 5-8 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denker et al. (US 2013/02144665 A1) in view of Cary (US 2005/0222971 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Denker discloses a computer implemented method for event management and participation, comprising:
(a) providing a timeslot rules table (Par. [0114], Data stores (e.g., databases) may be used to store some or all of the information discussed herein (e.g., seating maps, pricing information, seat status, purchase information, ticket information, etc.)), the timeslot rules table being an immutable table of a first plurality of timeslots, the timeslot rules table defining a plurality of scheduling rules, wherein said timeslot rules table is stored in and accessed from a database system for efficient querying and retrieval (Par. [0339], a user interface may be provided that enables a user to purchase or reserve a right (which may be represented by a physical or electronic ticket) to enter a venue (such as a museum or amusement park ride) at a certain time or to use a facility at a certain time (e.g., a golf course tee time). The user interface may list a plurality of time slots, with an associated “add” control);
(e) utilizing efficient data storage that can span at least 20,000 - 99,999 tenants or customers all having complex multi-day timeslot data in the computer system (Par. [0114], Data stores (e.g., databases) may be used to store some or all of the information discussed herein (e.g., seating maps, pricing information, seat status, purchase information, ticket information, etc.) - Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see Current application, [0132] indicating data storage that “can” span tens of thousands of customers);
(f) receiving a ticketing request from a user for one or more recurring events (Par. [0339], a user interface may be provided that enables a user to purchase or reserve a right (which may be represented by a physical or electronic ticket) to enter a venue (such as a museum or amusement park ride) at a certain time or to use a facility at a certain time (e.g., a golf course tee time). The user interface may list a plurality of time slots, with an associated “add” control – Current application, Par. [0040], “recurring event” defined as ticketing opportunities that are recurring in nature such that the event might occur daily, hourly, or even shorter (e.g., 10 minute timeslots) over an extended period of days, weeks or indefinitely, i.e., golf tee times);
(g) determining whether the ticketing request is serviceable based on one or more of a database including the timeslot rules table, the timeslot additions table, the calendar recurring rule table, and the exceptions table (Par. [0341], By way of further example, if no tickets are available in a given sales channel (an initial or primary sales channel) in a section pointed at or clicked on by the user, a notification may be provided as to the availability of tickets in the section via one or more alternate channels); and
(h) displaying serviceable ticketing options (Par. [0339], [0341]), via a calendar visualization, to the user via a user interface, ensuring a responsive and interactive user experience (Par. [0324], the map can be configured to display a timed entry in a form similar to that of a calendar entry (e.g., a Microsoft Outlook calendar or Google calendar entry)).
Denker does not explicitly disclose (b) providing a timeslot additions table, the timeslot additions table including a second plurality of timeslots being different from the first plurality of timeslots, integrated via a user interface for seamless data interchange; (c) providing a calendar recurring rule table stored in and accessed from said database system, the calendar recurring rule table including recurring pattern rules for one or more of the timeslot rules table and the timeslot additions table wherein said calendar recurring rule table enables optimization of recurring event calculations; (d) providing an exceptions table, the exceptions table including one or more exceptions to the scheduling rules stored in and accessed from the database system.
Cary teaches (b) providing a timeslot additions table, the timeslot additions table including a second plurality of timeslots being different from the first plurality of timeslots, integrated via a user interface for seamless data interchange (Par. [0186], In step 702, the sub-process in step 346, discussed above, is used to find the first valid occurrence date after the later of the current date or the PatternStartDate for each new item by including in the call to the sub-process in step 346 a reference to the new item and the effective date referenced in step 700. The sub-process in step 346 sets the new item's ItemDate field value to the first valid occurrence date and the new item's OccurrenceNumber field to the corresponding ordinal position associated with said ItemDate for the series of occurrences represented by the new item…The new item is now added to the scheduled tasks information);
(c) providing a calendar recurring rule table stored in and accessed from said database system, the calendar recurring rule table including recurring pattern rules for one or more of the timeslot rules table and the timeslot additions table wherein said calendar recurring rule table enables optimization of recurring event calculations (Par. [0069], The timeslots information storage buffer 138 temporarily stores timeslots information. The task-timeslot information management unit 132 acquires timeslots information stored in the task-timeslot information storage device 106 such as shown in FIG. 5, and stores the acquired timeslots information in the timeslots information storage buffer 138. Items in the timeslots information represent a single discrete time period or a recurring pattern of discrete time periods such as “every Tuesday from 10:30AM to 12:00PM” as is represented by item 1 in FIG. 5);
(d) providing an exceptions table, the exceptions table including one or more exceptions to the scheduling rules stored in and accessed from the database system (Par. [0064], the task-timeslot information management unit 132 acquires the long-term scheduled tasks information stored in the task-timeslot information storage device 106, stores said long-term scheduled tasks information in the scheduled tasks storage buffer 128, acquires from the task-timeslot information storage device 106 exceptions information as shown in FIG. 3, temporarily stores the exceptions information in the exceptions information storage buffer 130, and incorporates into the information resident in the scheduled tasks storage buffer 128 newly created, additional items to represent additional scheduled task occurrences associated with recurring tasks represented in the long-term scheduled tasks information, or, alternatively, exception occurrences where there are items in the exceptions information which correspond to particular scheduled task occurrences).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ticketing system of Denker to include the scheduling modification abilities of Cary as a need exists for efficiently managing the increased volume and levels of detail which are introduced along with the display of multiple timeslots, tasks, and even sub-groups or other intermediate hierarchies (Cary, Par. [0008]). In addition, Cary discusses the need for template mechanisms which minimize the number of templates required to support large and diverse user groups and allow template designers to anticipate normal changes in a user's circumstances or requirements over the course of following a particular template program (Cary, Par. [0009]). Implementing timeslot additions with recurring rules and exceptions would enable a ticketing system to efficiently manage multiple timeslots and implement mechanisms to anticipate changes in a user's circumstances or requirements over the course of following a particular template program.
Regarding claim 2, Denker discloses further comprising: (h) receiving a ticketing request confirmation from the user; and (i) updating the database based on the ticketing request confirmation (Par. [0311], The populated data may be dynamically changed in response to a user's actions (e.g., in response to some or all of the following: user searches, specified preferences, navigation instructions, seat selections, section selections, ticket purchase instructions, tagging instructions, control activations, etc.). The user interfaces, including the interactive seat maps, may be updated in substantially real-time in response to user actions and/or in response to updated data, such as updates in ticket pricing, seat availability, seat status, etc., as made or detected by the system).
Regarding claim 3, Denker discloses a computer implemented method for presenting complex multi-day recurring timeslot data to event directors in a way that makes it easy to configure events, comprising:
(b) presenting alternate visual views on a user device, such as day tiles or text and timeslot mixed panels (Par. [0339], a user interface may be provided that enables a user to purchase or reserve a right (which may be represented by a physical or electronic ticket) to enter a venue (such as a museum or amusement park ride) at a certain time or to use a facility at a certain time (e.g., a golf course tee time). The user interface may list a plurality of time slots, with an associated “add” control – Current application, Par. [0040], “recurring event” defined as ticketing opportunities that are recurring in nature such that the event might occur daily, hourly, or even shorter (e.g., 10 minute timeslots) over an extended period of days, weeks or indefinitely, i.e., golf tee times), wherein the alternate visual views are generated by the processor, which is communicatively coupled with memory storing instructions for the processor (Par. [0114]).
Denker does not explicitly disclose (a) presenting, by a processor, a visual calendar based view that displays time slot data with controls to view and edit details; and whereby multiple timeslots are easily and simply configurable by presenting them as a group and allowing for the configuration of all timeslots in a given group. Cary teaches presenting, by a processor, a visual calendar based view that displays time slot data with controls to view and edit details (Par. [0104], [0105], Fig. 14, The program viewer/editor component 154 provides processes for editing the displayed items in an efficient manner by applying drag-and-drop actions against the user interface elements which make up the GUI screen); and whereby multiple timeslots are easily and simply configurable by presenting them as a group and allowing for the configuration of all timeslots in a given group (Par. [0074], Fig. 10, Fig. 11, timeslots grouped according to the date).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ticketing system of Denker to include the scheduling modification abilities of Cary as a need exists for efficiently managing the increased volume and levels of detail which are introduced along with the display of multiple timeslots, tasks, and even sub-groups or other intermediate hierarchies (Cary, Par. [0008]). In addition, Cary discusses the need for template mechanisms which minimize the number of templates required to support large and diverse user groups and allow template designers to anticipate normal changes in a user's circumstances or requirements over the course of following a particular template program (Cary, Par. [0009]). Implementing timeslot additions with recurring rules and exceptions would enable a ticketing system to efficiently manage multiple timeslots and implement mechanisms to anticipate changes in a user's circumstances or requirements over the course of following a particular template program.
Regarding claim 4, Denker discloses an apparatus comprising: a processor; a database; and a memory operatively coupled to the processor (Par. [0114]), the memory storing instructions to cause the processor to:
receive an event request including event data for one or more recurring events from an event planner operating a compute device (Par. [0150], At state 156, event creation is performed. In an example embodiment where multiple price breaks are to be established, an event is defined, in part, via the price breaks, where a given physical section and price break combination is assigned to an individual section. The number of sections (and the number of seats per section) may be used for estimating the available event capacity);
generate, based on the event request:
a timeslot rules table, the timeslot rules table being an immutable table of a first plurality of timeslots, the timeslot rules table defining a plurality of scheduling rules (Par. [0339], a user interface may be provided that enables a user to purchase or reserve a right (which may be represented by a physical or electronic ticket) to enter a venue (such as a museum or amusement park ride) at a certain time or to use a facility at a certain time (e.g., a golf course tee time). The user interface may list a plurality of time slots, with an associated “add” control);
store the timeslot rules table in the database …(Par. [0114], Data stores (e.g., databases) may be used to store some or all of the information discussed herein (e.g., seating maps, pricing information, seat status, purchase information, ticket information, etc.));
receive, by the processor, a ticketing request from a user operating a compute device for one or more recurring events associated with the event request from the event planner (Par. [0339], a user interface may be provided that enables a user to purchase or reserve a right (which may be represented by a physical or electronic ticket) to enter a venue (such as a museum or amusement park ride) at a certain time or to use a facility at a certain time (e.g., a golf course tee time). The user interface may list a plurality of time slots, with an associated “add” control – Current application, Par. [0040], “recurring event” defined as ticketing opportunities that are recurring in nature such that the event might occur daily, hourly, or even shorter (e.g., 10 minute timeslots) over an extended period of days, weeks or indefinitely, i.e., golf tee times);
determine, by the processor, whether the ticketing request is serviceable based on a database including the timeslot rules table, the timeslot additions table, the calendar recurring rule table, and the exceptions table (Par. [0341], By way of further example, if no tickets are available in a given sales channel (an initial or primary sales channel) in a section pointed at or clicked on by the user, a notification may be provided as to the availability of tickets in the section via one or more alternate channels);
generate, by the processor, a visual calendar based interface on the compute device operated by the user (Par. [0324], the map can be configured to display a timed entry in a form similar to that of a calendar entry (e.g., a Microsoft Outlook calendar or Google calendar entry)) to enable the user to purchase a ticket for the one or more recurring events, wherein the visual calendar-based interface integrates real-time ticket availability and user preferences (Par. [0339], [0341]); wherein the processor, the database, and the memory collectively enable improved event scheduling and ticketing (Par. [0120], certain embodiments optionally set the granularity low enough of avoid or reduce operational inefficiencies and customer confusion).
Denker does not explicitly disclose store… the timeslots additions table, the calendar recurring rule table, and the exceptions table in the database; a timeslot additions table, the timeslot additions table including a second plurality of timeslots being different from the first plurality of timeslots; a calendar recurring rule table, the calendar recurring rule table including recurring pattern rules for one or more of the timeslot rules table and the timeslot additions table; an exceptions table, the exceptions table including one or more exceptions to the scheduling rules; generate, by the processor, a visual calendar based view on the compute device operated by the planner to enable the planner to modify details of the one or more recurring events, wherein the visual calendar-based view is dynamically updated based on modifications and exceptions; and wherein the processor, the database, and the memory collectively enable improved event scheduling and ticketing by utilizing the timeslot rules table, timeslot additions table, calendar recurring rule table, and exceptions table, resulting in enhanced user interaction and efficient management of complex recurring events.
Cary teaches store… the timeslots additions table, the calendar recurring rule table, and the exceptions table in the database (Par. [0044], In the following description, numerous specific details of programming, software modules, user selections, network transactions, database queries, database structures, etc., are provided for a thorough understanding of the embodiments of the invention. However, those skilled in the art will recognize that the invention can be practiced without one or more of the specific details, or with other methods, components, materials, etc.);
a timeslot additions table, the timeslot additions table including a second plurality of timeslots being different from the first plurality of timeslots (Par. [0186], In step 702, the sub-process in step 346, discussed above, is used to find the first valid occurrence date after the later of the current date or the PatternStartDate for each new item by including in the call to the sub-process in step 346 a reference to the new item and the effective date referenced in step 700. The sub-process in step 346 sets the new item's ItemDate field value to the first valid occurrence date and the new item's OccurrenceNumber field to the corresponding ordinal position associated with said ItemDate for the series of occurrences represented by the new item…The new item is now added to the scheduled tasks information);
a calendar recurring rule table, the calendar recurring rule table including recurring pattern rules for one or more of the timeslot rules table and the timeslot additions table (Par. [0069], The timeslots information storage buffer 138 temporarily stores timeslots information. The task-timeslot information management unit 132 acquires timeslots information stored in the task-timeslot information storage device 106 such as shown in FIG. 5, and stores the acquired timeslots information in the timeslots information storage buffer 138. Items in the timeslots information represent a single discrete time period or a recurring pattern of discrete time periods such as “every Tuesday from 10:30AM to 12:00PM” as is represented by item 1 in FIG. 5); and
an exceptions table, the exceptions table including one or more exceptions to the scheduling rules (Par. [0064], the task-timeslot information management unit 132 acquires the long-term scheduled tasks information stored in the task-timeslot information storage device 106, stores said long-term scheduled tasks information in the scheduled tasks storage buffer 128, acquires from the task-timeslot information storage device 106 exceptions information as shown in FIG. 3, temporarily stores the exceptions information in the exceptions information storage buffer 130, and incorporates into the information resident in the scheduled tasks storage buffer 128 newly created, additional items to represent additional scheduled task occurrences associated with recurring tasks represented in the long-term scheduled tasks information, or, alternatively, exception occurrences where there are items in the exceptions information which correspond to particular scheduled task occurrences);
generate, by the processor, a visual calendar based view on the compute device operated by the planner to enable the planner to modify details of the one or more recurring events (Par. [0104], [0105], Fig. 14, The program viewer/editor component 154 provides processes for editing the displayed items in an efficient manner by applying drag-and-drop actions against the user interface elements which make up the GUI screen), wherein the visual calendar-based view is dynamically updated based on modifications and exceptions (Par. [0113], the program items DND controller 156 calls the programs information management unit 152 to update the template programs information stored in the template programs storage buffer 150 and the program viewer/editor component 154 to display the now modified template programs information on the GUI screen); and
wherein the processor (Par. [0271]), the database (Par. [0044]), and the memory (Par. [0046]) collectively enable improved event scheduling and ticketing by utilizing the timeslot rules table, timeslot additions table, calendar recurring rule table, and exceptions table, resulting in enhanced user interaction and efficient management of complex recurring events (Par. [0272], [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ticketing system of Denker to include the scheduling modification abilities of Cary as a need exists for efficiently managing the increased volume and levels of detail which are introduced along with the display of multiple timeslots, tasks, and even sub-groups or other intermediate hierarchies (Cary, Par. [0008]). In addition, Cary discusses the need for template mechanisms which minimize the number of templates required to support large and diverse user groups and allow template designers to anticipate normal changes in a user's circumstances or requirements over the course of following a particular template program (Cary, Par. [0009]). Implementing timeslot additions with recurring rules and exceptions would enable a ticketing system to efficiently manage multiple timeslots and implement mechanisms to anticipate changes in a user's circumstances or requirements over the course of following a particular template program.
Regarding claim 5, Denker discloses wherein the buyer is further enabled, via the visual calendar based interface (Par. [0324], the map can be configured to display a timed entry in a form similar to that of a calendar entry (e.g., a Microsoft Outlook calendar or Google calendar entry)), to: consider options for purchase and view additional displayed information in each day that assists with making a purchase decision (Par. [0339], a user interface may be provided that enables a user to purchase or reserve a right (which may be represented by a physical or electronic ticket) to enter a venue (such as a museum or amusement park ride) at a certain time or to use a facility at a certain time (e.g., a golf course tee time). The user interface may list a plurality of time slots, with an associated “add” control – Current application, Par. [0040], “recurring event” defined as ticketing opportunities that are recurring in nature such that the event might occur daily, hourly, or even shorter (e.g., 10 minute timeslots) over an extended period of days, weeks or indefinitely, i.e., golf tee times).
be presented with alternate visual views such as day tiles or text and timeslot mixed panels (Par. [0339], a user interface may be provided that enables a user to purchase or reserve a right (which may be represented by a physical or electronic ticket) to enter a venue (such as a museum or amusement park ride) at a certain time or to use a facility at a certain time (e.g., a golf course tee time). The user interface may list a plurality of time slots, with an associated “add” control); and
reduce the number of clicks needed to complete the purchase of one or more tickets out of a plurality of possible ticket options (Par. [0120], certain embodiments optionally set the granularity low enough of avoid or reduce operational inefficiencies and customer confusion).
Regarding claim 6, Denker discloses wherein the memory stores instructions to further cause the processor to: present alternate visual views such as day tiles or text and timeslot mixed panels (Par. [0339], a user interface may be provided that enables a user to purchase or reserve a right (which may be represented by a physical or electronic ticket) to enter a venue (such as a museum or amusement park ride) at a certain time or to use a facility at a certain time (e.g., a golf course tee time). The user interface may list a plurality of time slots, with an associated “add” control – Current application, Par. [0040], “recurring event” defined as ticketing opportunities that are recurring in nature such that the event might occur daily, hourly, or even shorter (e.g., 10 minute timeslots) over an extended period of days, weeks or indefinitely, i.e., golf tee times).
Denker does not explicitly disclose present a visual calendar based view that displays time slot data with controls to view and edit details; and whereby multiple timeslots are easily and simply configurable by presenting them as a group and allowing for the configuration of all timeslots in a given group. Cary teaches present a visual calendar based view that displays time slot data with controls to view and edit details (Par. [0104], [0105], Fig. 14, The program viewer/editor component 154 provides processes for editing the displayed items in an efficient manner by applying drag-and-drop actions against the user interface elements which make up the GUI screen); and whereby multiple timeslots are easily and simply configurable by presenting them as a group and allowing for the configuration of all timeslots in a given group (Par. [0074], Fig. 10, Fig. 11, timeslots grouped according to the date).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ticketing system of Denker to include the scheduling modification abilities of Cary as a need exists for efficiently managing the increased volume and levels of detail which are introduced along with the display of multiple timeslots, tasks, and even sub-groups or other intermediate hierarchies (Cary, Par. [0008]). In addition, Cary discusses the need for template mechanisms which minimize the number of templates required to support large and diverse user groups and allow template designers to anticipate normal changes in a user's circumstances or requirements over the course of following a particular template program (Cary, Par. [0009]). Implementing timeslot additions with recurring rules and exceptions would enable a ticketing system to efficiently manage multiple timeslots and implement mechanisms to anticipate changes in a user's circumstances or requirements over the course of following a particular template program.
Regarding claim 7, Denker discloses wherein the event data includes parameters for the one or more recurring events, the parameters including name (Par. [0262], event name), start time (Par. [0262], event date and time), and pricing (Par. [0339], price and availability details).
Denker does not explicitly disclose wherein the event data includes parameters for the one or more recurring events, the parameters including an identification number, duration, number of recurring events, offsets for the recurring events. Cary teaches wherein the event data includes parameters for the one or more recurring events, the parameters including an identification number (Par. [0115]), duration, number of recurring events, offsets for the recurring events (Par. [0040], starting time, an ending time, a start date, an end date, an occurrence date, a recurrence calculation type identifier, a day of week indicator, a days of week indicator, a week of month indicator, a month of year indicator, a user identifier, a user group identifier, a time interval in which an event repeats, a number of time intervals between occurrences of an event, a non-recurring event indicator, an indicator that exception occurrences exist, a listing of event occurrences, and a listing of any exception occurrences).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ticketing system of Denker to include the scheduling modification abilities of Cary as a need exists for efficiently managing the increased volume and levels of detail which are introduced along with the display of multiple timeslots, tasks, and even sub-groups or other intermediate hierarchies (Cary, Par. [0008]). In addition, Cary discusses the need for template mechanisms which minimize the number of templates required to support large and diverse user groups and allow template designers to anticipate normal changes in a user's circumstances or requirements over the course of following a particular template program (Cary, Par. [0009]). Implementing timeslot additions with recurring rules and exceptions would enable a ticketing system to efficiently manage multiple timeslots and implement mechanisms to anticipate changes in a user's circumstances or requirements over the course of following a particular template program.
Regarding claim 8, Denker discloses wherein the memory stores instructions that further cause the processor to generate tables for pricing, capacity for events, and discounts (Par. [0114], Data stores (e.g., databases) may be used to store some or all of the information discussed herein (e.g., seating maps, pricing information, seat status, purchase information, ticket information, etc.)).
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Wagner (US 2023/0267423 A1) discloses a system programmed to receive, from a user application, a subscription request identifying an event manager, and create a subscription record in a database. The server is also programmed to receive, from a manager application, calendar event information including a scheduled date/time for each of a plurality of events, and create, in the database, a plurality of event records linked to the event manager ID. Additionally, the server is programmed to receive, from the user application, a populate request configured to populate a calendar event feed displayed by the user application, and in response to the populate request, query the database for event records associated with event managers and the user, generate an ordered sequence of the calendar event information for the events returned by the query, and transmit the ordered sequence to the user application for display in the calendar event feed.
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 Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571)272-6782. 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.
/Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights