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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/20205 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims remain directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that the claims as recited provide a more reliable way for a user to locate their seat. While this may be the case, this is not a technological improvement that solves a problem rooted in computer technology. Being able to better find your seat in a venue is a problem that existed outside a technical environment. Applicant’s claims describe a business improvement rather than a technical improvement. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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 1-6 and 9 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:
obtain the information regarding the ticket to cause at least one of the at least one gate to send a ticket authentication request regarding the ticket to an authentication to receive an authentication result from the authentication and to control the indicator to output an indication corresponding to the authentication result, wherein the ticket authentication request comprises the information regarding the ticket and information regarding a location of the gate at a time the gate terminal receives the information regarding the ticket; to receive the ticket authentication request from the gate terminal and to authenticate the information regarding the ticket and to provide the authentication result and route generation to generate route information based on the information regarding the ticket and the information regarding the location of the gate at the time the gate terminal receives the information regarding the ticket, wherein the route information comprises a route from the location of the gate at a time the gate receives the information regarding the ticket to the visitor terminal acquires the ticket information output by the visitor that is information based on a route from a gate location where the gate terminal that has acquired the ticket information is located to a destination location associated with the ticket information regarding the ticket; and to provide the route information to the visitor terminal either directly or through the gate terminal, wherein the visitor terminal computer program code further comprises:
map generation configured to cause at least one of the at least one visitor to cause a map of a venue associated with the ticket to be displayed wherein the map comprises a graphical representation of the route. and presents the provided route information.
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 business relations, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “electronic ticket management system, server, visitor terminal, gate terminal, processor, computer-readable medium, display, computer program code, optical scanner, light and audio, interface, terminal memory, authentication server, gate terminal processor, ticket acquisition code, server memory, server processor route generation code, visitor terminal program code, map generation and display code, graphical representation”, 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, “electronic ticket management system, server, visitor terminal, gate terminal, processor, computer-readable medium.” 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);
- (“electronic ticket management system, server, visitor terminal, gate terminal, processor, computer-readable medium, display, computer program code, optical scanner, light and audio, interface, terminal memory, authentication server, gate terminal processor, ticket acquisition code, server memory, server processorroute generation code, visitor terminal program code, map generation and display code, graphical representation”)
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, -(gate);
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; While claims 2-5 describe varied codes and terminals, these additional elements do not remedy the deficiencies.
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.
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 1, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2001/0051915 A1 in view of Lopez U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0382144 A1
As per Claim 1, Ueno teaches
a display (see para. 175-176);
a visitor terminal wireless communication interface (see para. 175-176);
at least one visitor terminal memory storing visitor terminal computer program code (see para. 175-176); and
at least one visitor terminal processor configured to execute the visitor terminal computer program code and to cause the visitor terminal to operate according to the visitor terminal computer program code, wherein the visitor terminal computer program code comprises (see para. 175-176):
ticket information outputting code configured to cause at least one of the at least one visitor terminal processor to provide information regarding a ticket using at least one of the display or the visitor terminal wireless communication interface (see para. 175-176 and 179),
and
a gate terminal (see para. 180-181);
comprising:
an optical scanner (see para. 181);
an indicator configured to output light or audio (see para. 183);
a gate terminal wireless communication interface (see fig. 19, denotation 91);
at least one gate terminal memory storing gate terminal computer program code; and
wherein at least one gate terminal processor configured to execute the gate terminal computer program code and to cause the gate terminal to operate according to the gate terminal computer program code (see para. 183),
the gate terminal computer program code comprises:
ticket information acquisition code configured to cause at least one of the at least one gate terminal processor to obtain the information regarding the ticket using at least one of the optical scanner or the gate terminal wireless communication interface (see para. 183);
ticket authentication code configured to cause at least one of the at least one gate terminal processor to send a ticket authentication request regarding the ticket to an authentication server, to receive an authentication result from the authentication server, and to control the indicator to output an indication corresponding to the authentication result,
the authentication server comprising:
at least one server memory storing server computer program code (see para. 196); and
at least one server processor (see para. 180) configured to execute the server computer program code and to cause the authentication server to operate according to the server computer program code, wherein the server computer program code comprises (see para. 183 and fig. 19):
authentication code configured to cause at least one of the at least one server processor to receive the ticket authentication request from the gate terminal and to authenticate the information regarding the ticket and to provide the authentication result to the gate terminal (see para. 183 and fig. 19); and
Ueno does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Lopez
wherein the ticket authentication request comprises the information regarding the ticket and information regarding a location of the user at a time the user receives the information regarding the ticket (see para. 24, 43 and fig. 6A-6B); and
route generation code configured to cause at least one of the at least one server processor to generate route information based on the information regarding the ticket and the information regarding the location of the gate at the time the gate terminal, receives the information regarding the ticket, wherein the route information comprises a route from the location of the gate terminal at a time the gate terminal receives the information regarding the ticket to a destination location associated with the information regarding the ticket (see para. 24 and 45 and fig. 6A-6B);
and route transmission code configured to cause at least one of the at least one server processor to provide the route information to the visitor terminal either directly or through the gate terminal, wherein the visitor terminal computer program code further comprises (see para. 24 and 45 and fig. 6A-6B);
map generation and display code configured to cause at least one of the at least one visitor terminal processor to cause a map of a venue associated with the ticket to be displayed on the display, wherein the map comprises a graphical representation of the route (see para. 24 and 45 and fig. 6A-6B). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Ueno to include the teachings of Lopez to provide a visual aide for seat routing, as taught by the cited portion of Lopez.
Claims 2-5 are not rejected by the prior art of record.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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