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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. The following is a non-final, First Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-13 are pending.
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.
2. The claimed invention (Claims 1-13) is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and/or “Mental Process”, which has/have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in MPEP 2106.04(a). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications:
3. Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a statutory Category?
Claims 1-12: Yes, these claims are method and therefore are directed to the statutory class of process.
Claim 13: Yes, this claim is a system, which recite at least one processor…….., and therefore are directed to the statutory class of machine and article of manufacture.
4. Step 2A prong 1, Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B:
Independent claim 13 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to an abstract idea of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and/or “Mental Process”:
Steps/limitations 1-4 of obtaining ticket information comprising performance time and performance place information about an offline or online performance event (limitation 1); obtaining activity status information comprising at least one of from among offline location information and online viewing history information of a user (limitation 2); verifying attendance of the performance event based on the ticket information and the activity status information (limitation 3); and providing a reward according to the attendance verification (limitation 4) falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because these steps mainly describe the concepts of commercial or legal interactions (include subject matter relating to agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions).
Further, the limitation 3 mentioned above of “verifying attendance of the performance event based on the ticket information and the activity status information” also fall within the abstract “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a human being can observing/evaluating/analyzing the ticket information and the activity status information in order to verify attendance of the performance event.
Independent claim 13, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites underlined additional elements (i.e., at least one memory…..; at least one processor…; real-time; online real-time…; non-fungible token/NFT….) to perform abstract steps/limitations 1-4 mentioned above. The additional element(s) in all of the steps is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions of computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform/apply the judicial exception(s) of steps/limitations 1-4 mentioned above; thus, they do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in claim 13, the limitations 1-2 and 3 of “obtaining ticket information comprising performance time and performance place information about an offline and online performance email” via at least one processor (limitation 1); “obtaining activity status information comprising at least one of from among offline real-time location information and online real-time viewing history information of a user” via at least one processor (limitation 2); and “providing a non-fungible token (NFT) reward according to the attendance verification” via at least one processor (limitation 4) are merely receiving data/ gathering data, transmitting data, which are considered as “insignificant extra solution activity”; thus, they do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, again, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Again, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Again, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, again, the additional element of using generic computer components (i.e., at least one memory…..; at least one processor…; real-time; online real-time…; non-fungible token/NFT…….) to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. see MPEP 2106.05(f). For the above mentioned reasons, viewed the claim as a whole, the additional elements/additional steps/additional limitations individually and in combination do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Independent claim 13 (step 2B): The additional underlined elements in claim 13 of (i.e., at least one memory…..; at least one processor…; real-time; online real-time…; non-fungible token/NFT…) is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. In other word, the underlined additional elements “i.e., at least one memory…..; at least one processor…; real-time; online real-time…; non-fungible token/NFT…….” is/are amounts no more than mere instructions of computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform/apply the judicial exception(s) of steps/limitations 1-4 mentioned above; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(f). in claim 13, the limitations 1-2 and 3 of “obtaining ticket information comprising performance time and performance place information about an offline and online performance email” via at least one processor (limitation 1); “obtaining activity status information comprising at least one of from among offline real-time location information and online real-time viewing history information of a user” via at least one processor (limitation 2); and “providing a non-fungible token (NFT) reward according to the attendance verification” via at least one processor (limitation 4) are merely receiving data/ gathering data, transmitting data, which are considered as “insignificant extra solution activity”; thus, are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Again, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When revaluating the limitations 1-2 and 3 mentioned above of “obtaining ticket information comprising performance time and performance place information about an offline and online performance email” via at least one processor (limitation 1); “obtaining activity status information comprising at least one of from among offline real-time location information and online real-time viewing history information of a user” via at least one processor (limitation 2); and “providing a non-fungible token (NFT) reward according to the attendance verification” via at least one processor (limitation 4) in step 2B here, these gathering data/receiving data, and transmitting data/ sending data are also well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The use of generic computer to display data/transmit data/send data through an unspecified generic computer does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, and is/are considered as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, 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”.
Thus, evidences has been provided to show these additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity according to MPEP 2106.07 (a) (III). Therefore, for the above mentioned reasons, viewed as a whole, even in combination, the above additional steps/additional elements/additional limitations do not amount to significantly more/do not provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
As per independent claim 1: Alice Corp. also establishes that the same/similar analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, a method claim 1 is also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same/similar reasons as the system claim(s) 16. The additional underlined components (i.e., attendance verification reward application executed by at least one processor of a terminal…., online performance event; real-time; online real-time; ) described in independent claim 1 add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. They are merely using as tools to implement the identified abstract idea and/or are general link to technological environment. Thus, are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 1-12 are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 1 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Please note that in claim 2, the limitation “an NFT, a digital file registered on a blockchain” are recited at a high level of generality such that they are merely recited as performing generic computer or other machinery functions routinely used in the computer applications {MPEP 2106.05(f)} and/or insignificant extra solution activity {MPEP 2106.05(g)}; and/or general link to technological environment {MPEP 2106.05(h)}; thus, they do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Also, the limitations in claims 10 and 12 (e.g., camera capturing; video captured) are recited as a general link to technological environment {MPEP 2106.05(h)}; thus, they do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Therefore, Looking at the limitations as an ordered combinations adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-3 and 5-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aiello et al; (US 2023/0230075 A1):
7. Independent claims 1 and 13: Aiello teaches a method and system for providing a reward according to attendance verification, in which an attendance verification reward application executed by at least one processor of a terminal provides the reward according to the attendance verification {At least figs. 5-6 paras 0091-0095 and fig. 7 paras 0096-0097}, the method comprising:
obtaining ticket information comprising performance time (paras 0093-0097) and performance place information (paras 0093-0097) about an offline or online performance event {At least fig. 6 paras 0093-0095, fig. 7 paras 0096-0097 in context with paras 0002-0003, 0054, 0149};
obtaining activity status information comprising at least one of from among offline real-time location information (paras 0091-0092} and online real-time viewing history information of a user {At least fig. 5 paras 0091-0092};
verifying attendance of the performance event based on the ticket information (paras 0091-0092, 0096-0097 in context with para 0122-0124) and the activity status information (e.g., user location such as user is entering the venue in paras 0091-0092, 0096-0097, 0124. Note that Applicant’s specification define the activity status information such as e.g., user location information in at least para 146) {At least fig. 5 paras 0091-0092 in context with paras 0058, 0122-0124. Also see fig. 7 paras 0096-0097}; and
providing a non-fungible token (NFT) reward according to the attendance verification {At least fig. 5 paras 0091-0092 especially para 0092. Also see fig. 7 paras 0096-0097 especially para 0097}.
8. Claim 2: Aiello teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. Aiello further teaches wherein the NFT reward is a reward provided based on an NFT (e.g., Non-fungible tokens/NFT in para 0058), a digital file (para 0058) registered on a blockchain {At least paras 0058 in context with fig. 5 paras 0091-0092 especially para 0092}.
9. Claim 3: Aiello teaches the claimed invention as in claim 1. Aiello further teaches wherein the verification of the attendance of the performance event comprises verifying the attendance based on verification conditions comprising a participation place condition that sets a target place for approving the attendance verification for the performance event {At least fig. 5 paras 0091-0092 in context with paras 0124}, and a participation time condition that sets a target viewing time for approving the attendance verification for the performance event {At least fig. 5 paras 0091-0092, fig. 7 paras 0096-0097 in context with para 0124}.
10. Claim 5: Aiello teaches the claimed invention as in claim 2. Aiello further teaches wherein the provision of the NFT reward according to the attendance verification comprises creating the NFT reward comprising predetermined digital content (paras 0058, 0111, 0122, 0126 in context with paras 0092, 0097. Also see fig. 12 paras 0104-0105) {At least paras 0091-0092, 0097 especially paras 0092, 0097 in context with para 0058, 0111, 0122, 0126. Also see fig. 12 paras 0104-0105}.
11. Claim 6: Aiello teaches the claimed invention as in claim 5. Aiello further teaches wherein:
the provision of the NFT reward according to the attendance verification further comprises
providing an offline customized NFT reward according to the attendance verification for an offline performance event {At least fig. 5 paras 0091-0092 and fig. 7 paras 0096-0097, fig. 9 para 0100 and fig. 11 para 0103. Also see fig. 12 paras 0104-0106}; and
the creation of the NFT reward comprising the digital content comprises creating the offline customized NFT reward based on user-specific digital content comprising a video captured targeting a user who attended the offline performance event {At least fig. 12 paras 0104-0106}.
12. Claim 7: Aiello teaches the claimed invention as in claim 2. Aiello further teaches providing a new NFT reward according to a plurality of pieces of attendance verification {At least paras 0092, 0097 in context with para 0103}
13. Claim 8: Aiello teaches the claimed invention as in claim 7. Aiello further teaches wherein the provision of the new NFT reward according to the plurality of pieces of attendance verification comprises providing a predetermined additional NFT reward when the plurality of pieces of attendance verification based on a plurality of pre- designated performance events are approved {At least paras 0092, 0097 in context with para 0103}.
14. Claim 9: Aiello teaches the claimed invention as in claim 7. Aiello further teaches wherein the provision of the new NFT reward according to the plurality of attendance verification comprises {At least paras 0092, 0097 in context with para 0103}:
providing an upgrade function for synthesizing a plurality of NFT rewards provided
according to the plurality of pieces of attendance verification approved according to a predetermined criterion {At least paras 0092, 0097 in context with para 0103}; and
providing a predetermined higher-tier NFT reward when the synthesis is successful {At least paras 0092, 0097 in context with para 0103}.
15. Claim 10: Aiello teaches the claimed invention as in claim 2. Aiello further teaches:
verifying the attendance based on verification basic conditions (paras 0091-0092, 0096, 0097 in context with paras 0122-0124) comprising minimum attendance verification requirements {At least fig. 5 paras 0091-0092, fig. 7 paras 0096-0097 in context with paras 0122-0124 see after the verification conditions/requirements is/are approved, the user is allowed to enter the venue/permitted access to enter the venue (para 0097)},
performing capturing control to restrict or permit camera capturing {At least para 0111, fig. 12 paras 0104-0105 in context with paras 0088-0089} when the attendance verification according to the verification basic conditions is approved {At least fig. 5 paras 0091-0092, fig. 7 paras 0096-0097 and also paras 0122-0124 in context with fig. 12 paras 0011, 0104-0105}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
17. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aiello et al; (US 2023/0230075 A1), in view of Royall et al; (US 2023/0385715 A1):
18. Claim 4: Aiello teaches the claimed invention as in claim 3. Aiello further teaches wherein the verification of the attendance of the performance event comprises: verifying offline attendance based on the ticket information, the real-time location information, and the verification conditions when the performance event is an offline performance event {At least fig. 5 paras 0091-0092 in context with paras 0058, 0122-0124. Also see fig. 7 paras 0096-0097}.
However, Aiello does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “verifying online attendance based on the ticket information, the real-time viewing history information, and the verification conditions when the performance event is an online performance event.
Royall teaches verifying online attendance based on ticket information, the real-time viewing history information, and the verification conditions when the performance event is an online performance event {At least para 0048 in context with fig. 3 paras 0079-0082 especially paras 0080-0082}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify “wherein the verification of the attendance of the performance event comprises: verifying offline attendance based on the ticket information, the real-time location information, and the verification conditions when the performance event is an offline performance event” of Aiello to include “verifying online attendance based on ticket information, the real-time viewing history information, and the verification conditions when the performance event is an online performance event”, taught by Royall. One would be motivated to do this since for online performance events, verifying attendance through ticket data, real-time viewing history, and conditions ensures authenticity, compliance, accuracy, and actionable insights. This approach not only protects the event’s integrity but also maximizes its value by delivering measurable results and a better attendee experience.
19. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aiello et al; (US 2023/0230075 A1), in view of Bowman et al; (US 2018/0173868 A1):
20. Claim 11: Aiello teaches the claimed invention as in claim 10. Aiello does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “wherein the performance of the capturing control
comprises performing the capturing control based on a preset capturing restriction section”.
Bowman teaches a general concept of a performance of capturing control comprises performing the capturing control based on a preset capturing restriction section {Bowman: At least para 0029}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify “wherein the performance of the capturing control comprises performing the capturing control” of Aiello to include “a performance of capturing control comprises performing the capturing control based on a preset capturing restriction section”, taught by Bowman. One would be motivated to do this since performing the capturing control based on a preset capturing restriction section at an event/venue would directly support attendee privacy, security, marketing, and operational efficiency, while aligning with legal and compliance requirements.
21. Claim 12: The combination of Aiello and Bowman teaches the claimed invention as in claim 11. The combination further teaches wherein the provision of the NFT reward according to the attendance verification {Aiello: paras 0091-0092, 0096, 0097 in context with paras 0122-0124} comprises creating the NFT reward comprising a user personal video captured {Aiello: At least para 0011, fig. 12 paras 0104-0105 in context with paras 0088-0089} in a section other than the capturing restriction section {Bowman: para 0029}.
Prior Art that is pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure
22. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Royall et al; (US 2023/0385715 A1), wherein teaches Provided are systems and methods for an event management platform that include integrated services that are conventionally provided as add-on features or even provided by third party servicers in conventional approaches. The system delivers functionality not available in any conventional approach. The system and method deliver event management for both online and in-person event execution. Ticketing operation is integral in the platform and can be provided without notorious ticket service fees. Further embodiments automatically integrate an ambassador platform configured to deliver promotion, tracking, marketing, and attribution functions with little or no input required from an event organizer. Pre-registration services can be implemented with little or no input, and ambassador teams can be linked by the system to an event and used to drive participation. Information captured and made available by the ambassador platform and ticketing platform enables audience insights and targeting that are unavailable in conventional systems.
Julian et al; (US 2012/0004950 A1), wherein teaches A method and system is presented for the integration of offline media tracking and measurement with an online audience validation system. In one embodiment, the system builds on the existing audience validation system functionality and enables advertisers and marketers to better track attendance and the consumption of offline media that is displayed at event for which tickets must be procured. In another embodiment, the system allows Advertisers and Marketers to track attendance and the exposure of ticket holders to specific media during the event and to subsequently use this information to target survey and offers to event attendees. In another embodiment, the ability to track online, mobile, and offline media affords the additional benefit to perform full conversion funnel tracking across those media that further enables CPA advertising as well.
Cohen et al (US 2020/0167699 A1), wherein teaches Systems and methods for group event and service coordination are provided, including Smart Chats, which connect user accounts to tools for intelligently finding tickets for sale, cost splitting, accessing related events and services, and sharing media. The systems and methods further implement artificial intelligence to match non-connected user accounts and provide event and service recommendations to connected user accounts.
QUIGLEY et al; (US 2023/0117725 A1), wherein teaches Systems and methods that generate data representing an analytic result relating to at least one of a state, a workflow, or an event in a digital token system, including a digital token system that cryptographically links a set of digital tokens to instances of a set of real-world entities. The systems and methods produce a performance analytic by processing a set of collected data, structuring and filtering the collected data to obtain a multi-dimensional structured data set, and querying the multi-dimensional structured data set. Systems and methods further leverage a set of data collection services configured to collect data from one or more interfaces, a set of workflows configured to produce event data, and a data store configured to store collected attribute data.
Further see other reference in PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thuy Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-272-4585 and fax number is 571-273-4585. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30 am to 5: 00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. The FAX 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.
/THUY N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622.
Prosecution Insights