DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Amendment
2. The Amendment filed on October 31, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 10, and 11 have been amended. Claim 12 was previously cancelled. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 13-18 have been newly added. Thus, claims 1-11 and 13-18 are pending and rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-11 and 13-18 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.
In sum, claims 1-11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 11 and 17-18) and a machine (claims 1-10 and 13-16), where the machine is substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of performing multiple authentications for the issuance of a purchased ticket by:
a,…,that sells tickets; and
a,…,
wherein the,…,comprises:
at least one,…,storing a set of instructions: and
at least one,…,configured to execute the set of instructions to:
perform an identity verification of a ticket purchase applicant by a first biometric authentication using a first biometric information acquired from an image of an identity verification document and a second biometric information of the ticket purchase applicant based on a face image obtained via the,…, and store a third biometric information of the ticket purchase applicant who has been successfully verified;
access,…,after the identity verification has been successful, receive a ticket ID of a ticket purchased from the server apparatus, and stores the received ticket ID;
perform a second biometric authentication using a fourth biometric information of a ticket issuance applicant based on an additional face image obtained via the,…, and the stored third biometric information, and
performs a processing related to an issuance of a ticket when the second biometric authentication has been successful.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes, fundamental economic principles or practices (e.g., performing multiple authentications for the issuance of a purchased ticket).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “apparatus,” “terminal,” “memory,” and “processor” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, p. 31, ll. 5-11 of the specification). Independent claims 1 and 11 are nearly identical to independent claim 10 so the same analysis applies to those claims as well.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 13-18 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claim 2 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 10 in that it describes receiving data relating to a purchased ticket and storing this data. Dependent claim 3 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 10 in that it describes sending information relating to a ticket issuance request which include ticket identification information. Dependent claim 4 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 10 in that it describes performing the user authentication using the first and second biometric information. Dependent claim 5 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 10 in that it describes performing the user authentication using the third and fourth biometric information. Dependent claim 6 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 10 in that it describes obtaining electronic ticket from a generic server. Dependent claim 7 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 10 in that it describes obtaining the electronic ticket in a converted two-dimensional barcode format and displaying it. Dependent claim 8 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 10 in that it describes that the electronic ticket has a validity period in which it is valid for. Dependent claim 9 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 10 in that it describes that the first to fourth biometric are face images or values from the face images. Dependent claim 13, 15, and 17 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 10 in that it describes requesting the image of the identify verification document. Dependent claims 14, 16, and 18 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 10 in that it describes controlling a gate apparatus to permit a user to pass through a gate.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. (See MPEP §707.05). The Examiner considers the following reference pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the invention, but not all the features of the invention, for at least the following reasons:
SHIMIZU et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0228141) teaches a system for issuing a ticket for when there is a match between the biodata of a user and that of the user at the event venue using a specific code.
SHIMIZU fails to teach the following limitations in the current application found in independent claim 10: “perform an identity verification of a ticket purchase applicant by a first biometric authentication using a first biometric information acquired from an identity verification document and a second biometric information of the ticket purchase applicant, and stores a third biometric information of the ticket purchase applicant who has been successfully verified;” and “performs a second biometric authentication using a fourth biometric information of a ticket issuance applicant and the stored third biometric information, and performs a processing related to an issuance of a ticket when the second biometric authentication has been successful.” The current invention uses multiple various biometric authentications to verify the identity of the user. In addition, an identity verification document is being used to additionally authenticate the user. This is not present in SHIMIZU.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments filed on October 31, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that “Applicant respectfully submits these features do not cover fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, pp. 9-10). However, The heart of this invention is tied to performing authentication for a purchased ticket. Thus, the claims do not “merely involve a judicial exception.” They most definitely recite one. Specifically, this is within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions.
Applicant argues that Accordingly, amended claim 1 integrates any possible judicial exception into a practical application, and accordingly is patent eligible under Prong Two of the revised Step 2A of the Alice test. (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 10). Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Generic methods of verification such as taking a facial image using a camera do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant also argues that “Applicant respectfully submits that even if it is assumed the claim is directed to an abstract idea, which is not conceded, independent claim 1 recites significantly more than any allegedly abstract idea.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 10). Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: an “apparatus,” “terminal,” “memory,” and “processor” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, p.31, ll-5-11 of the specification). Using generic verification methods such as taking images of a person is not a technological improvement.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR §1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Amit Patel whose telephone number is (313) 446-4902. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 8 AM - 6 PM EST. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696