DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendment/remarks filed 16 January 2026.
Claims 1-3 have been amended. Claims 4-20 have been canceled.
Claims 1-3 are currently pending.
Claims 1-3 are rejected.
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 Amendment/Remarks
Regarding 35 USC § 112, the rejections have been remedied by amendment of claim 1 and cancellation of all other offending claims. The rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC § 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered. Regarding the rejection of claims 1-15 as it relates to lack of structure, the remaining claim 1 now recites sufficient structure; said rejection is withdrawn. Regarding the rejections relating to an abstract idea, Applicant argues that the “claims are impossible without the claimed technology—a specific AI model hosted on a computer system—and are therefore not directed to mere “commercial interactions and interactions between people.” Remarks at 6. In Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the process does not ask if the claims are impossible without the claimed technology. These steps analyze the “additional elements” (i.e., the elements that exist outside of the abstract idea) and ask if they provide a practical application or significantly more. In the present claims, the additional elements merely implement the abstract idea. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC § 103, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “combining features of Abram[s] and Cohen is not merely a combination of old elements having predictable results.” Remarks at 6. As indicated by the fact that the elements are present in the prior art, the elements are considered “old.” Applicant does not provide any support for the assertion that the resulting combination would be unpredictable. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Abrams and Cohen are not even analogous art.” Remarks at 6. Abrams and Cohen are analogous to the claimed invention. See MPEP 2141.01(a) which indicates “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).” Abrams is analogous to the claimed invention at least because it is from the same field of endeavor (i.e., AI based interactions with a user). Cohen is analogous to the claimed invention at least because it is pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (i.e., selling event tickets). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 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.
Step 1
Claims 1-3 recite a system which is considered a machine or manufacture.
Step 2A-Prong One
Claims 1-3 recite the concept of utilizing a chatbot in the style of a desirable character to interact with a user and encourage them to make a purchase (see, for example, “an artificial intelligence (“AI”) model trained to interact as a character associated with a ticketed movie event; and a computer system comprising non-transitory computer-readable instructions that, when executed, cause a computer system to: determine to trigger an AI-driven interaction, wherein the AI-driven interaction presents interactive content as the character in the context of the event; receive user-interaction content from a user, wherein the user-interaction content is in response to presented interactive content; present a response to user-interaction content from the user as the character associated with the event; and facilitate a ticket purchase for the event” in claim 1). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas, including commercial interactions and interactions between people. Thus, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of a system comprising a computer system comprising non-transitory computer-readable instructions (found in claims 1-3) and include no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The system does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A-Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0366281 (“Abrams”) in view of US 2020/0167699 (“Cohen”).
Regarding Claim 1, Abrams teaches a system, comprising:
an artificial intelligence (“AI”) model trained to interact as a character associated with a ticketed movie event (See “In various embodiments, a character engine models a character that interacts with users” in ¶ 0005, “in an effort to make user interactions with machine-based systems more “human,” some service providers implement Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. In general, AI systems attempt to mimic the intelligence of a character that senses, thinks, and responds to individual users in a more lifelike fashion than a menu-based system” in ¶ 0005, and “For example, the inference engine 250 corresponding to a character from a movie could generate inferences and the character responses 285 based on recent comments about the movie on social media websites in addition to character experiences included in the movie script” in ¶ 0078. While Abrams does not utilize the word “ticketed” specifically, it is known that movies are more often than not “ticketed” events.); and
a computer system comprising non-transitory computer-readable instructions that, when executed, cause a computer system to: determine to trigger an AI-driven interaction, wherein the AI-driven interaction presents interactive content as the character in the context of the event; receive user-interaction content from a user, wherein the user-interaction content is in response to presented interactive content (See Fig. 4 and associated ¶¶ 0091-0100.);
present a response to user-interaction content from the use as the character associated with the event (See “In another example, if the user platform 120 is capable of displaying facial expressions, then the inference engine 250 could select and apply the personality engine 280(3) to modify and modulate facial expressions. More specifically, if the personality engine 280(3) represents an angry, hostile character, then the personality engine 280(3) could generate the character response 285 that causes the user platform 120 to display an angry expression. By contrast, if the personality engine 280(3) represents an agreeable, likable character, then the personality engine 280(3) could generate the character responses 285 that cause the user platform 120 to display a smile and nod” in ¶ 0064 and “For example, the inference engine 250 corresponding to a character from a movie could generate inferences and the character responses 285 based on recent comments about the movie on social media websites in addition to character experiences included in the movie script” in ¶ 0078.).
Abrams does not expressly each facilitate a ticket purchase for the event.
However, Cohen teaches facilitate a ticket purchase for the event (See “an artificial intelligence-driven bot is operable to communicate with the at least one user and determine an appropriate ticketing option based on user profile preferences, information given in the Smart Chat, and ticket purchases from connected users. For example, if the Platform receives a user communication in a chat room with an AI bot that she wants to be near attendees that are fans of the visiting team and she wants to be in a seat between $45 and $80, the AI bot is operable to intelligently search the available tickets and find tickets that meet her request and/or tickets that the AI determines have a high probability of acceptance by the user. The Platform is further operable to process a single request from a user in a Smart Chat and allow the user to purchase at least one ticket. Single purchasers are not limited to one ticket, but instead the Platform is operable to fulfil orders for one or more tickets per user” in ¶ 0093.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Abrams and Cohen to facilitate a ticket purchase. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected similarly. Claim 2 additionally recites that the event is a concert event. Abrams does not expressly teach the event is a concert.
However, Cohen teaches the event is a concert (See “FIG. 19 illustrates a Smart Chat with multiple event coordination tools, including services for a concert event, according to one embodiment of the present invention” in ¶ 0038.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Abrams and Cohen to utilize the context of a concert. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 3, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected similarly. Claim 3 additionally recites that the event is a sporting event. Abrams does not expressly teach the event is a sporting event.
However, Cohen teaches the event is a sporting event (See “FIG. 18 illustrates a Smart Chat with multiple event coordination tools, including services for a sporting event, according to one embodiment of the present invention” in ¶ 0037.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Abrams and Cohen to utilize the context of a sporting event. The claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. 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.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights