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 .
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 (1-17) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims (1-17) are directed to the abstract idea of Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). 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)
“register entry qualification information with which a user is able to enter an event venue where an event is held through identity authentication and identity authentication information for registering the user who has purchased the entry qualification information in an associated manner; refer to the storage apparatus and control the identity authentication using identity authentication information for authentication acquired from the user; specify the entry qualification information associated with the identity authentication information with which the identity authentication has been successful; issue privilege information that is able to be used in one or more commercial facilities in a neighborhood of the event venue on the basis of the specified entry qualification information; and notify the user of the issued privilege information”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional limitations such “register entry qualification information with which a user is able to enter an event venue where an event is held through identity authentication and identity authentication information for registering the user who has purchased the entry qualification information in an associated manner; refer to the storage apparatus and control the identity authentication using identity authentication information for authentication acquired from the user; specify the entry qualification information associated with the identity authentication information with which the identity authentication has been successful; issue privilege information that is able to be used in one or more commercial facilities in a neighborhood of the event venue on the basis of the specified entry qualification information; and notify the user of the issued privilege information”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite additional limitations which are “storage device, storage apparatus, privilege issuing apparatus, processor, non-transitory computer-readable medium”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims (1-17) that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims (1-17) are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) (1-17) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOMI et al (hereinafter GOMI)(US Publication 2017/0155629 A1) in view of Cornick et al. (hereinafter Cornick)(US Publication 2017/0155629 A1)
Re claim 1, GOMI discloses a privilege information issuing apparatus comprising: at least one storage device (See fig. 4-5, 9, 11 where it teaches at least one storage unit.) configured to store instructions; and at least one processor (See fig. 4-5, 9, 11 where it teaches at least one control unit.) configured to execute the instructions to: register, in a storage apparatus, entry qualification information with which a user is able to enter an event venue where an event is held through identity authentication and identity authentication information for registering the user who has purchased the entry qualification information in an associated manner (See fig. 4; ¶ 29-31, 35-36 where it teaches registering user information, privilege information, etc..); refer to the storage apparatus and control the identity authentication using identity authentication information for authentication acquired from the user (See fig. 4; ¶ 29-33, 49-53 where it teaches authenticating the user.); specify the entry qualification information associated with the identity authentication information with which the identity authentication has been successful. (See fig. 4; ¶ 29-30, 49-55 where it teaches the facility admits the user to the concert to be held at the facility.)
But the reference of GOMI fails to teach issue privilege information that is able to be used in one or more commercial facilities in a neighborhood of the event venue on the basis of the specified entry qualification information; and notify the user of the issued privilege information.
However, Cornick does. (See fig. 6; ¶ 110, 115-117) In the same field of endeavors, the reference of Cornick discloses and fairly suggests issue privilege information that is able to be used in one or more commercial facilities in a neighborhood of the event venue on the basis of the specified entry qualification information; and notify the user of the issued privilege information. (See ¶ 110 where it teaches the checkpoint device 601 may determine whether or not an identified person has a ticket or other entitlement to enter a ticketed or other area; ¶ 115 where it teaches season ticket holders at a ballpark may be entitled to half price concessions at any concession stand at the ballpark. Screening at an entrance of the park may notify a person of such an entitlement by presenting them with an associated coupon. Alternatively, a season ticketholder may be biometrically identified upon arrival at concession stands in the ballpark and any discount may be applied to their order at the concession stand. The system 600 may additionally send the person notifications while they are in the ballpark regarding specials, discounts to which they are entitled to, freebies they are entitled to, and so on. For example, the system 600 may transmit messages to a person's mobile telephone or other mobile device during a ballgame that they have earned a free hot dog and to come and claim such at an associated hot dog stand, where soft drinks are now 50% off.)
Therefore, taking the combined teachings of GOMI & Cornick as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to incorporate this feature into the system of GOMI, in the manner as claimed and as taught by Cornick, for the benefit of providing entitlements at the venue.
Re claim 2, the combination of GOMI & Cornick discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: control the identity authentication at a time of payment by the user in the commercial facilities, and issue the privilege information that is able to be used in the commercial facilities at the time of the payment on the basis of the specified entry qualification information. (In Cornick, see ¶ 115-117)
Re claim 3, the combination of GOMI & Cornick discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: issue the privilege information including discount information that is able to be applied to a payment price at the time of the payment on the basis of the specified entry qualification information. (In Cornick, see ¶ 115-117)
Re claim 4, the combination of GOMI & Cornick discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: specify seat information included in the specified entry qualification information, and issue the privilege information in accordance with the specified seat information. (In Cornick, see ¶ 111, 117)
Re claim 5, the combination of GOMI & Cornick discloses wherein a purchase history of the entry qualification information in past events is further registered in association with the identity authentication information in the storage apparatus, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: specify the purchase history including the entry qualification information associated with the identity authentication information with which the identity authentication has been successful, and issue the privilege information in accordance with the specified purchase history. (In Cornick, see ¶ 115-117)
Re claim 6, the combination of GOMI & Cornick discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: register attribute information of the user in association with the identity authentication information in the storage apparatus, specify the attribute information associated with the identity authentication information with which the identity authentication has been successful, and issue the privilege information on the basis of the specified attribute information as well. (In Cornick, see ¶ 103-117 and/or In GOMI, see fig. 4; ¶ 29-31, 35-36)
Re claim 7, the combination of GOMI & Cornick discloses wherein the event is a sport game, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: specify a support target of the user on the basis of the specified attribute information, and issue the privilege information on the basis of the specified support target as well. (In Cornick, see ¶ 103-117)
Re claim 8, the combination of GOMI & Cornick discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: issue the privilege information in consideration of a relationship between the specified support target and a result of the sport game. (In Cornick, see ¶ 103-117)
Re claim 9, the combination of GOMI & Cornick discloses wherein the attribute information includes seat information for watching the sport game, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: specify the support target of the user from the seat information. (In Cornick, see ¶ 103-117)
Re claim 10, the combination of GOMI & Cornick discloses wherein the attribute information includes a method of purchasing entry qualification information for the sport game, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: specify the support target of the user from the method of purchasing. (In Cornick, see ¶ 103-117)
Re claim 11, the combination of GOMI & Cornick discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: provide information related to the user associated with the identity authentication information, with which the identity authentication has been successful, to the commercial facilities in a case where the user has made payment using the privilege information issued through the identity authentication in the commercial facility. (In Cornick, see ¶ 103-117)
Re claim 12, the combination of GOMI & Cornick discloses wherein the identity authentication is biometric authentication, and the identity authentication information is biometric information of the user. (In Cornick, see ¶ 103 and/or In GOMI, see fig. 4; ¶ 29-31, 35-36)
Re claim 13, the combination of GOMI & Cornick discloses wherein the commercial facilities are facilities in a cooperative relationship with the event venue. (In Cornick, see ¶ 115-117)
Claims (14, 16-17) have been analyzed and rejected w/r to claim 1 above.
Claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected w/r to claim 2 above.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON FLORES whose telephone number is (571)270-1201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 6pm.
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, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/LEON FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676 August 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights