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 Claims
This action is in reply to application 18/861,638 filed 10/30/2024. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 10-11 were amended, claims 2 and 9 were cancelled, and claim 12 was newly added in the reply filed 12/22/2025. Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-12 are pending. This action is final.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 12 regarding claims 1-11: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims -1, 3-8, and 10-12 are considered novel over the prior art.
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 16 regarding claims 1-11: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that claim 1 provides an improvement to a display by presenting privilege information in a structured format that incorporates utilization flags and availability conditions to facilitate consumption actions across facilities. The alleged improvements that Applicant’s invention provides are business improvements to a business related process, and not improvements to a computer system technology itself (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for examples and description of what is considered an improvement to a computer-functionality or an improvement to a technology). "Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing." International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2350, Oct. 17, 2022, pg. 8). The claimed computer components are generic and broadly recited, and the alleged improvements are not to the generic computer components themselves, but to the abstract process being performed by the computer components. Examiner respectfully argues that the claimed limitations not analogous to the MPEP descriptions and examples of improvements to computer-functionality or improvements to a technology, and that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 is not analogous to Core Wireless as Applicant alleges. Core Wireless was considered patent eligible because it specifically modified the structure of a graphical user interface based on the physical size of a computer display screen. The instant application takes no consideration of a physical size of a computer display screen, nor does it modify the structure of a graphical user interface.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 recites “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, Applicant argues that since claim 1 is considered novel over the prior art, it should also be considered to implement a “non-conventional” technical solution. Examiner notes, however, that an abstract idea may be considered novel over prior art but still remain unpatentable subject matter. Such is the case here. "The 'novelty' of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981). "[U]nder the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Aside from the generic computerized environment, the elements highlighted only comprise the abstract idea. An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, '[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)). Instead, an inventive concept is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 8, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation a display of the first a display of the first privilege information (e.g., claim 1, line 30) has a grammatical error in the form of repeated words. 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, 3-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1 and 10 recite an apparatus and a method, respectively, for performing the following: determine a result of identity authentication of a user who has purchased entry qualification information that enables the user to enter an event venue; issue, in a case that the result indicates that the identity authentication of the user has been successful, first privilege information that is able to be used in a first facility which is any one of a first commercial facility inside the event venue and a second commercial facility in a neighborhood of the event venue a and second privilege information in which an availability condition has been set, wherein the availability condition is a condition that the second privilege information is able to be used in a second facility which is the other one of the first commercial facility and the second commercial facility, and is different from the first facility, in a case that a payment terminal notifies that a consumption action using the first privilege information has been carried out in the first facility, and wherein the second privilege information is not able to be used in the second facility before the payment terminal notifies that the consumption action using the first privilege information has been carried out in the first facility; notify a terminal of the user of first notification information including a set of the first privilege information and the second privilege information and the availability condition set in the second privilege information, wherein the first notification information includes a display of the first privilege information with a first utilization state flag indicating the first privilege information as being available, the second privilege information with a second utilization state flag indicating the second privilege information as being unavailable, and the availability condition indicating the condition in which the second privilege information becomes available to be used in the second facility; and in the case that the payment terminal notifies that the consumption action using the first privilege information has been carried out in the first facility, update the second privilege information to be available, and notify the terminal of the user of second notification information including a display of the first a display of the first privilege information with the first utilization state flag indicating the first privilege information as having been used, the second privilege information with the second utilization state flag indicating the second privilege information as being available, and a notification message indicating that availability condition has been met and the second privilege information has become available to be used in the second facility. Therefore, claims 1 and 10 are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a machine and a method, respectively.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations ... determine a result of identity authentication of a user who has purchased entry qualification information that enables the user to enter an event venue; issue, in a case that the result indicates that the identity authentication of the user has been successful, first privilege information that is able to be used in a first facility which is any one of a first commercial facility inside the event venue and a second commercial facility in a neighborhood of the event venue a and second privilege information in which an availability condition has been set, wherein the availability condition is a condition that the second privilege information is able to be used in a second facility which is the other one of the first commercial facility and the second commercial facility, and is different from the first facility, in a case that ... notifies that a consumption action using the first privilege information has been carried out in the first facility, and wherein the second privilege information is not able to be used in the second facility before ... notifies that the consumption action using the first privilege information has been carried out in the first facility; notify ... the user of first notification information including a set of the first privilege information and the second privilege information and the availability condition set in the second privilege information, wherein the first notification information includes a display of the first privilege information with a first utilization state flag indicating the first privilege information as being available, the second privilege information with a second utilization state flag indicating the second privilege information as being unavailable, and the availability condition indicating the condition in which the second privilege information becomes available to be used in the second facility; and in the case that ... notifies that the consumption action using the first privilege information has been carried out in the first facility, update the second privilege information to be available, and notify ... the user of second notification information including a display of the first a display of the first privilege information with the first utilization state flag indicating the first privilege information as having been used, the second privilege information with the second utilization state flag indicating the second privilege information as being available, and a notification message indicating that availability condition has been met and the second privilege information has become available to be used in the second facility, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the groupings of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 10 merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements of claims 1 and 10, a privilege information issuing apparatus (claim 1), at least one storage device (claim 1), at least one processor (claim 1), a computer (claim 10), a payment terminal (claims 1 and 10) and a terminal (claims 1 and 10), are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements of claims 1 and 10 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe the abstract idea generally “applied” to a generic computer environment. The additional elements of claims 1 and 10 a privilege information issuing apparatus (described in spec. para. [0015]), at least one storage device (described in spec. para. [0036]), at least one processor (described in spec. para. [0022]), a computer (described in spec. para. [0148]), a payment terminal (described in spec. para. [0047]), and a terminal (described in spec. para. [0084]), are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which this additional element is described indicates that the additional element is sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7 and 9 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 2-7 and 9 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” a method of the aforementioned abstract idea. Claims 2-7 and 9 only recite additional elements previously examined in the independent claims. Therefore, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea in a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 2-7 and 9 only recite additional elements previously examined in the independent claims. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Step 1: Claim 8 recites a system for performing the following: a storage apparatus that stores first privilege information that is able to be used in a first facility which is any one of a first commercial facility inside an event venue and a second commercial facility in a neighborhood of the event venue, and second privilege information that is able to be used in a second facility which is the other one of the first commercial facility and the second commercial facility, the second facility being different from the first facility; and a privilege information issuing apparatus that is connected to the storage apparatus, and including: at least one storage device configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: determine a result of identity authentication of a user who has purchased entry qualification information that enables the user to enter an event venue, issue, in a case that the result indicates that the identity authentication of the user has been successful, the first privilege information and the second privilege information in which an availability condition has been set with reference to the storage apparatus, wherein the availability condition is a condition that the second privilege information is able to be used in a case that a payment terminal notifies that a consumption action using the first privilege information has been carried out in the first facility, notify a terminal of the user of first notification information including a set of the first privilege information and the second privilege information and the availability condition set in the second privilege information, wherein the first notification information includes a display of the first privilege information with a first utilization state flag indicating the first privilege information as being available, the second privilege information with a second utilization state flag indicating the second privilege information as being unavailable, and the availability condition indicating the condition in which the second privilege information becomes available to be used in the second facility, and in the case that the payment terminal notifies that the consumption action using the first privilege information has been carried out in the first facility, update the second privilege information to be available, and notify the terminal of the user of second notification information including a display of the first a display of the first privilege information with the first utilization state flag indicating the first privilege information as having been used, the second privilege information with the second utilization state flag indicating the second privilege information as being available, and a notification message indicating that availability condition has been met and the second privilege information has become available to be used in the second facility. Therefore, claim 8 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a machine.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations ... privilege information issuing ... stores first privilege information that is able to be used in a first facility which is any one of a first commercial facility inside an event venue and a second commercial facility in a neighborhood of the event venue, and second privilege information that is able to be used in a second facility which is the other one of the first commercial facility and the second commercial facility, the second facility being different from the first facility ... determine a result of identity authentication of a user who has purchased entry qualification information that enables the user to enter an event venue, issue, in a case that the result indicates that the identity authentication of the user has been successful, the first privilege information and the second privilege information in which an availability condition has been set with reference ... wherein the availability condition is a condition that the second privilege information is able to be used in a case that ... notifies that a consumption action using the first privilege information has been carried out in the first facility, notify ... the user of first notification information including a set of the first privilege information and the second privilege information and the availability condition set in the second privilege information, wherein the first notification information includes a display of the first privilege information with a first utilization state flag indicating the first privilege information as being available, the second privilege information with a second utilization state flag indicating the second privilege information as being unavailable, and the availability condition indicating the condition in which the second privilege information becomes available to be used in the second facility, and in the case that ... notifies that the consumption action using the first privilege information has been carried out in the first facility, update the second privilege information to be available, and notify ... the user of second notification information including a display of the first a display of the first privilege information with the first utilization state flag indicating the first privilege information as having been used, the second privilege information with the second utilization state flag indicating the second privilege information as being available, and a notification message indicating that availability condition has been met and the second privilege information has become available to be used in the second facility, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the groupings of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 8 merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements of claim 8 a privilege information issuing apparatus, at least one storage device, at least one processor, a storage apparatus, a payment terminal, and a terminal, are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements of claim 8 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe the abstract idea generally “applied” to a generic computer environment. The additional elements of claim 8, a privilege information issuing apparatus (described in spec. para. [0015]), at least one storage device (described in spec. para. [0036]), at least one processor (described in spec. para. [0022]), a storage apparatus (described in spec. para. [0021]), a payment terminal (described in spec. para. [0047]), and a terminal (described in spec. para. [0084]), are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which this additional element is described indicates that the additional element is sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Step 1: Claim 11 recites non-transitory computer-readable medium for performing the following: determination processing of determining a result of identity authentication of a user who has purchased entry qualification information that enables the user to enter an event venue; issuing processing of issuing, in a case that the result indicates that the identity authentication of the user has been successful, first privilege information that is able to be used in a first facility which is any one of a first commercial facility inside the event venue and a second commercial facility in a neighborhood of the event venue, and second privilege information in which an availability condition has been set, wherein the availability condition is a condition that the second privilege information is able to be used in a second facility which is the other one of the first commercial facility and the second commercial facility, and is different from the first facility, in a case that a payment terminal notifies that a consumption action using the first privilege information has been carried out in the first facility; and notification processing of notifying a terminal of the user of first notification information including a set of the first privilege information and the second privilege information and the availability condition set in the second privilege information, wherein the first notification information includes a display of the first privilege information with a first utilization state flag indicating the first privilege information as being available, the second privilege information with a second utilization state flag indicating the second privilege information as being unavailable, and the availability condition indicating the condition in which the second privilege information becomes available to be used in the second facility, and in the case that the payment terminal notifies that the consumption action using the first privilege information has been carried out in the first facility, updating the second privilege information to be available, and notifying the terminal of the user of second notification information including a display of the first a display of the first privilege information with the first utilization state flag indicating the first privilege information as having been used, the second privilege information with the second utilization state flag indicating the second privilege information as being available, and a notification message indicating that availability condition has been met and the second privilege information has become available to be used in the second facility. Therefore, claim 11 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: an article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations ... determination processing of determining a result of identity authentication of a user who has purchased entry qualification information that enables the user to enter an event venue; issuing processing of issuing, in a case that the result indicates that the identity authentication of the user has been successful, first privilege information that is able to be used in a first facility which is any one of a first commercial facility inside the event venue and a second commercial facility in a neighborhood of the event venue, and second privilege information in which an availability condition has been set, wherein the availability condition is a condition that the second privilege information is able to be used in a second facility which is the other one of the first commercial facility and the second commercial facility, and is different from the first facility, in a case that ... notifies that a consumption action using the first privilege information has been carried out in the first facility; and notification processing of notifying ... the user of first notification information including a set of the first privilege information and the second privilege information and the availability condition set in the second privilege information, wherein the first notification information includes a display of the first privilege information with a first utilization state flag indicating the first privilege information as being available, the second privilege information with a second utilization state flag indicating the second privilege information as being unavailable, and the availability condition indicating the condition in which the second privilege information becomes available to be used in the second facility, and in the case that ... notifies that the consumption action using the first privilege information has been carried out in the first facility, updating the second privilege information to be available, and notifying ... the user of second notification information including a display of the first a display of the first privilege information with the first utilization state flag indicating the first privilege information as having been used, the second privilege information with the second utilization state flag indicating the second privilege information as being available, and a notification message indicating that availability condition has been met and the second privilege information has become available to be used in the second facility, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the groupings of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 11 merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements of claim 11, a computer, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a payment terminal, and a terminal, are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements of claim 11 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe the abstract idea generally “applied” to a generic computer environment. The additional elements of claim 11, a computer (described in spec. para. [0148]), a non-transitory computer-readable medium (described in spec. para. [0148]), a payment terminal (described in spec. para. [0047]), and a terminal (described in spec. para. [0084]), are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which this additional element is described indicates that the additional element is sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Reasons for Novelty
Claims -1, 3-8, and 10-12 are considered novel over the prior art. Examiner has determined that the combination of claim elements is unanticipated by prior art and that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have arrived at the claimed invention. In the previous office action Examiner rejected the independent claims as being obvious over Raciborski (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0119977) in view of Wang (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0025066). Other relevant prior art includes Chao (U.S. Pub. No. 20070267487) and Halleen (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0287143). Examiner considers these references the closest prior art to the claimed invention. However, given the amendments to the independent claims, Examiner has determined that the previously cited combinations of references do not teach the independent claims as a whole. Furthermore, Examiner has determined that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these previously cited references with further prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the independent and dependent claims are all considered novel over the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3628