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 .
Priority
Applicant claims priority to provisional U.S. Patent Application No. 63/594,360, filed October 30, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted on 2/6/2025 has been considered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s claims, filed 10/30/2024, have been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the system, as claimed in claims 1-7, are directed to a machine, the method, as claimed in claims 8-14, are directed to a process, and the non-transitory computer readable medium, as claimed in claims 15-20, are directed to an article of manufacture (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 8, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
receive a user input in a natural language;
processing the user input to generate a searchable query;
using the searchable query from the user input as one or more keywords to identify a plurality of results;
generating a textual output in the natural language on the first interface based on the plurality of results; and
generating a visual output based on the plurality of results, wherein the plurality of results is based on user demographics, user preferences, and user feedback obtained from an event.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “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).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in representative claim 8 are certain methods of organizing human activity because generating a plurality of results based on a user query is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Thus, claim 8 recites an abstract idea.
Independent claims 1 and 15 recite the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 8. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claims 1 and 15 as described above for independent claim 8.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, claim 1 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A multi-modal e-commerce system for providing artificial intelligence (AI) based ticket booking to a plurality of users, comprising:
a system application running on a user device, wherein the system application includes a hybrid interface, and the hybrid interface includes a first interface and a second interface, wherein the first interface is configured to receive a user input in a natural language via a chatbot; and
an AI-enabled engine that processes the user input to generate a searchable query, wherein the AI-enabled engine is configured to:
use the searchable query from the user input as one or more keywords to identify a plurality of results;
generate a textual output in the natural language on the first interface based on the plurality of results; and
generate a visual output on the second interface based on the plurality of results, wherein the plurality of results is based on user demographics, user preferences, and user feedback obtained from an event database.
Claim 8 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A method for providing artificial intelligence (AI)-based ticket booking to a plurality of users, the method comprising:
running a system application on a user device, wherein the system application includes a hybrid interface, and the hybrid interface includes a first interface and a second interface, wherein the first interface is configured to receive a user input in a natural language via a chatbot;
processing, via an AI-enabled engine, the user input to generate a searchable query;
using the searchable query from the user input as one or more keywords by the AI-enabled engine to identify a plurality of results;
generating by the AI-enabled engine a textual output in the natural language on the first interface based on the plurality of results; and
generating by the AI-enabled engine a visual output on the second interface based on the plurality of results, wherein the plurality of results is based on user demographics, user preferences, and user feedback obtained from an event database.
Claim 15 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method for providing artificial intelligence (AI) based ticket booking to a plurality of users, the method comprising:
running a system application on a user device, wherein the system application includes a hybrid interface, and the hybrid interface includes a first interface and a second interface, wherein the first interface is configured to receive user input in a natural language via a chatbot;
processing, via an AI-enabled engine, the user input to generate a searchable query;
using the searchable query from the user input as one or more keywords by the AI-enabled engine to identify a plurality of results;
generating by the AI-enabled engine a textual output in the natural language on the first interface based on the plurality of results; and
generating by the AI-enabled engine a visual output on the second interface based on the plurality of results, wherein the plurality of results is based on user demographics, user preferences, and user feedback obtained from an event database.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“running a system application on a user device, wherein the system application includes a hybrid interface, and the hybrid interface includes a first interface and a second interface”, “a chatbot”, “an AI-enabled engine”, and “an event database”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Figs. 1, 17-18; paragraphs [0022], [0057], [0062], [0281], [0285]-[0312]). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited receiving steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1, 8, and 15 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to claims 1, 8, and 15, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20
Dependent claim(s) 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1, 8, and 15.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 set forth:
wherein the textual output is a response from the searchable query including events in the natural language, and the visual output is a response from the searchable query including a visual form of the events and corresponding event information.
wherein the AI-enabled engine is further configured to acquire real-time user feedback on the plurality of results and modify the plurality of results to obtain a set of results based on the user feedback.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of generating a plurality of results based on a user query. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 1, 8, and 15.
Thus, dependent claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, and 16-18
Dependent claim(s) 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, and 16-18 sets forth:
wherein the visual output on the second interface is based on: a text output, generated based on the user input, indicating access right information associated with an event; a visualization of the text output; a seat map displaying availability of access rights for the event, based on an input from a user; and in response to one or more filters obtained from the searchable query, a user interaction element: enabling selection of a number of access rights; and enabling selection of a value range for the number of access rights.
wherein the access rights include one or more tickets for the event, and the plurality of results include a plurality of events.
wherein the AI-enabled engine is further configured to: determine a user intent from the user input; determine constraints, in response to the user intent; query a resource data store, based on the constraints; determine availability of access rights, based on query results; expand the constraints if the access rights are unavailable; retrieve access right information, based on availability of the access right information; generate a text response, based on the access right information; generate first interface data based on the user input and text response; apply a first degree of visibility to the first interface data; generate a visual response, based on the access right information; generate second interface data, based on the visual response; apply a second degree of visibility to the second interface data; and present the hybrid interface on the user device, based on the first and second interface data, in response to the user input and applied filters.
wherein the user demographics include user location, user data, and venue locations of events; the user preferences include user information on seat, price, artist, genres, sub-genres, social media graph of user, browsing history, web searches associated with entities of multiple resources, likes, clicks, favorites, purchase history, tickets purchased, tickets transferred, tickets sold, attendance history, friends, friends list, items displayed, venue, venue location, median price in group, and history; and the user feedback includes feedback from users for one or more events before and after attending the one or more events.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of generating a plurality of results based on a user query. While the claim(s) do set forth the additional elements of “a user interaction element”, “a resource data store”, and “web searches” these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claims 1, 8, and 15, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is these additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, and 16-18 are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gruber et al. (US 2022/0254338 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Gruber et al., hereinafter Gruber, discloses a method for providing artificial intelligence (AI)-based ticket booking to a plurality of users (Figs. 1, 9, 10; ¶¶0119-0125; TABLE 1 [local event concert]), the method comprising:
running a system application on a user device (Figs. 3-4; ¶¶0073-0082), wherein the system application includes a hybrid interface, and the hybrid interface includes a first interface and a second interface (Figs. 2-3, 9-20; ¶0161, ¶0243, ¶0261), wherein the first interface is configured to receive a user input in a natural language via a chatbot (Fig. 2, element 101B; ¶0161, ¶¶0243-0261);
processing, via an AI-enabled engine, the user input to generate a searchable query (Figs. 2, 10-20, 28-29; ¶¶0161-0175, ¶¶0243-0261, ¶0297, ¶0400);
using the searchable query from the user input as one or more keywords by the AI-enabled engine to identify a plurality of results (Fig. 2, 10-21, Fig. 28-29; ¶¶0161-0175, ¶¶0270-0290, ¶0297, ¶¶0306-0308, ¶¶0400-0407);
generating by the AI-enabled engine a textual output in the natural language on the first interface based on the plurality of results (Fig. 2, element 101C, Figs. 28-29; ¶0161, ¶0297, ¶¶0306-0308, ¶0400); and
generating by the AI-enabled engine a visual output on the second interface based on the plurality of results (Fig. 2, element 101D, Fig. 21, Fig. 28-29; ¶0161, ¶0306-0308, ¶0400), wherein the plurality of results is based on user demographics, user preferences, and user feedback obtained from an event database (¶¶0130-0134, ¶¶0306-0308, ¶¶0400-0411).
Regarding claim 9, Gruber discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the visual output on the second interface is based on:
a text response generated based on the user input indicating access right information associated with an event (Figs. 8, 21, 29-31; ¶¶0400-0411);
a visualization of the text response (Figs. 21, 29-31; ¶¶0400-0411);
a seat map displaying availability of access rights for the event based on input from a user (Figs. 8, 21, 29-31; ¶¶0219-0226 [party size constraint] and ¶¶0400-0411; Examiner notes tables for 2 is comparable to availability of access rights); and
in response to one or more filters obtained from the searchable query, a user interaction element (Fig. 8; Fig. 21, element 2103; ¶0307) enables:
selection of a number of access rights (¶¶0219-0226 [input of party size constraint]); and
selection of a value range for the number of access rights (Fig. 23; ¶0233 [input of price constraint], ¶0330).
Regarding claim 10, Gruber discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the access rights include one or more tickets for the event (Figs. 29-31; ¶0300 [dinner reservations are comparable to tickets] and ¶¶0400-0411), and the plurality of results includes a plurality of events (Figs. 29-31; ¶¶0400-0411).
Regarding claim 11, Gruber discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising:
determining a user intent from the user input (Fig. 10-11, 15-21, 30-33; ¶¶0233-0262, ¶¶0374-0383, ¶¶0461-0466);
determining constraints, in response to the user intent (Fig. 10-11, 15-21, 30-33; ¶¶0233-0262, ¶¶0300-0330, ¶¶0461-0466);
querying a resource data store, based on the constraints (Fig. 8, 15-21, 30-33; ¶¶0300-0330, ¶¶0461-0466);
determining an availability of access rights, based on query results (Fig. 8, 15-21, 30-33; ¶¶0300-0330, ¶¶0461-0466);
expanding the constraints if the access rights are unavailable (Fig. 8, 15-21, 30-33; ¶¶0300-0330, ¶¶0461-0466);
retrieving access right information, based on availability of the access right information (Fig. 8, 15-21, 30-33; ¶¶0300-0330, ¶¶0461-0466);
generating a text response, based on the access right information (Fig. 8, 15-21, 30-33; ¶¶0300-0330, ¶¶0461-0466);
generating first interface data, based on the user input and the text response (Fig. 8, 15-21, 30-33; ¶¶0300-0330, ¶¶0461-0466);
applying a first degree of visibility to the first interface data (Fig. 8, 15-21, 30-33; ¶¶0300-0330, ¶¶0461-0466);
generating a visual response, based on the access right information (Fig. 8, 15-21, 30-33; ¶¶0300-0330, ¶¶0461-0466);
generating second interface data, based on the visual response (Fig. 8, 15-21, 30-33; ¶¶0300-0330, ¶¶0461-0466);
applying a second degree of visibility to the second interface data (Fig. 8, 15-21, 30-33; ¶¶0300-0330, ¶¶0461-0466); and
presenting the hybrid interface on the user device, based on the first and second interface data, in response to the user input and applied filters (Fig. 8, 15-21, 30-33; ¶¶0300-0330, ¶¶0461-0466).
Regarding claim 12, Gruber discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the textual output is a response from the searchable query including events in the natural language, and the visual output is a response from the searchable query including a visual form of the events and corresponding event information (Fig. 8, 15-21, 30-33; ¶¶0300-0330, ¶¶0461-0466).
Regarding claim 13, Gruber discloses the method of claim 8, Gruber further discloses further comprises acquiring real-time user feedback on the plurality of results, and modifying the plurality of results to obtain a set of results based on the user feedback (Fig. 8, 15-21, 30-33; ¶¶0300-0330, ¶¶0461-0466).
Regarding claims 1-6, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claims 8-13, except claims 8-13 are directed to a process while claims 1-6 are directed to a machine. The added element of “multi-modal e-commerce system” is also taught by Gruber (¶0317). Therefore, claims 1-6 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claims 8-13.
Regarding claims 15-20, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claims 8-13, except claims 8-13 are directed to a process while claims 1-6 are directed to an article of manufacture. The added element of “non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method” is also taught by Gruber (¶0992). Therefore, claims 15-20 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claims 8-13.
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) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruber in view of Werneke (US 2014/0278595 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Gruber discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the user demographics include user location, user data, and venue locations of events (¶¶0130-0146); the user preferences include user information on seat, price, artist, genres, sub-genres, social media graph of user, browsing history, web searches associated with entities of multiple resources, likes, clicks, favorites, purchase history, tickets purchased, , attendance history, friends, friends list, items displayed, venue, venue location, and history (¶¶0619-0628, ¶¶0691-0697); and the user feedback includes feedback from users for one or more events before and after attending the one or more events (¶¶0619-0628, ¶¶0693-0697, ¶0724).
While Gruber discloses user preferences (¶¶0619-0628, ¶¶0691-0697), Gruber does not explicitly teach these include tickets transferred, tickets sold, and median price in group. However, in the field of venue ticketing (abstract), Werneke teaches data repositories that store information including purchased, sold, and transferred ticket information transfer of ticket information within a profile including transacting users (Fig. 2; ¶¶0051-0053) and Werneke teaches enabling a user to be appraised of median prices of tickets (¶0111). The step of Werneke is applicable to the method of Gruber as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to purchasing events. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the user preferences as taught by Gruber with the tracking of tickets transferred, tickets sold, and median price in group as taught by Werneke. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Gruber in order to retain any information about tickets that may be suitable to facilitate repurchasing profile information and indicate predetermined pricing strategies, purchasing strategies, purchasing commitments, and/or the like for repurchasing (¶0053).
Regarding claim 7, the claims disclose substantially the same limitations, as claim 14, except claim 14 is directed to a process while claim 7 is directed to a machine. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 14, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 14.
Examiner’s Comment
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reference U of the Notice of References Cited “Lisa Licht, CMO Of Live Nation, On Driving Commerce With Chatbots” discloses using AI chatbots to purchase concert tickets.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 EST.
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, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights