DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter 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.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
acquiring a current location of a user that has purchased a ticket to participate in an event;
acquiring a required time required to move from the current location of the to a venue of the event;
estimating, by comparing the required time and a grace period from a current time until a start time of the event, a possibility that the user will cancel participation in the event; and
when the estimated cancellation possibility satisfies a prescribed condition, transmitting a message to confirm whether or not there will be a cancellation.
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of , marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “wireless communication terminal and processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, wireless communication terminal and processor. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f);
- (processor)
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, -(wireless communication terminal)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two;
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dingler U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2010/0015993 A1 in view of Siman-Tov U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0293868 A1 in further view of Friio U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0117980 A1
As per Claims 1 and 7, Dingler teaches acquiring a current location of a wireless communication terminal held by a user that has a reservation to participate in an event (see para. 27);
acquiring a required time required to move from the current location of the wireless communication terminal to a venue of the event (see para. 27);
estimating, by comparing the required time and a grace period from a current time until a start time of the event (see para. 60 and 70), a possibility that the user will be re-queued for participation in the event (see para. 70); and
Dingler does not explicitly teach a purchased ticket for an event and cancellation possibility. Simon-tov teaches the possibility that a user has purchased a ticket and the possibility of cancellation (see para. 8). It would have been rima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Dingler to include the teachings Siman-tov in order to query a flight leg database.
Dingler does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Friio when the estimated cancellation possibility satisfies a prescribed condition, transmitting a message to the wireless communication terminal to confirm whether or not there will be a cancellation (see para. 142). It would have been prima facie obvious ton one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the systems of DIngler and Simon-Tov to include the teachings of Friio to allow an airline to keep a customer, as taught by the cited portion of Friio.
As per Claim 3, Dingler in view of Siman-Tov in further view of Friio teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Dingler further teaches wherein the estimating comprises: estimating, when the required time exceeds the grace period, that there is a possibility that the user will re-queue participation in the event (see para. 69-70 and Table 2). Siman-Tov teaches cancellation of participation in an event. The motivation is the same as opined above with respect to Siman-Tov.
As per Claim 4, Dingler in view of Siman-Tov in further view of Friio teaches the system of claim 3 as described above. Dingler further teaches wherein the estimating comprises estimating, when the required time is equal to or less than a time in which a duration of the event is added to the grace period, that there is a possibility that the user will arrive late and participate in the event (see para. 69, Table 2 and para. 70, the Examiner is interpreting the scenario involving Jim as meeting the limitations of the claim).
As per Claim 6, Dingler in view of Siman-Tov in further view of Friio teaches the system of claim 3 as described above. Dingler does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Friio executing a cancellation process for a ticket associated with the wireless communication terminal when a reply indicating that there will be a cancellation is received from the wireless communication terminal in response to the message; and executing a sale process for the ticket for which the cancellation process is executed (see para. 142). The motivation is the same as opined above.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dingler U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2010/0015993 A1 in view of Siman-Tov U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0293868 A1 in further view of Friio U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0117980 A1 and Wurster U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20080189143 A1
As per Claim 2, Dingler in view of Siman-Tov in further view of Friio teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Dingler further teaches wherein the acquiring the required time comprises acquiring a required time calculated from a movement time for moving along a route from the current location of the wireless communication terminal to the venue of the event in accordance with traffic circumstances on the route (see para. 71-72 and 74). Dingler does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Wurster, taking into account weather and the shortest route (see para. 65). It would have been rima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Dingler to include the teachings Wurster in to account for factors that may adversely impact a travel experience.
Claim 5 is not rejected by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights