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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 2/13/2026.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-11, 14-15, and 17-20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 21-24 have been added.
Claims 2-3, 6, 12-13, and 16 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-11, 14-15, and 17-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Preliminary Matters
The claim amendments submitted on 2/13/2026 are non-compliant with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121, specifically in that Claim 8-10 and 17-19 are all listed as “Original” yet each contain amendments. In the interests of compact prosecution, the claim amendments submitted on 2/13/2026 are examined presently as if they were compliant.
Objections
The present amendments to the specification obviate the previous objection thereto; therefore, this objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections regarding “a ticket database” were largely but not entirely obviated by the present claim amendments. Accordingly, Claim 10 remains rejected in this manner and these rejections are withdrawn regarding all other claims.
The present amendments to the claims obviate all other previous 112(b) rejections; therefore, these other 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant presents significant discussion of the present invention “[b]efore turning to certain steps of a traditional § 101 analysis,” though Examiner notes for clarity that the majority of this section relates to arguments that the claims embody an improvement to a technology under the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis. Examiner makes the following observations regarding the content of this section.
Applicant states that “[a]s a result, the inventors were not seeking ways to transfer ownership of a ticket from a first individual to a second individual. Instead, the inventors were trying to create a system in which the ticket owner could offer use of an event ticket to a first offered party, but where the ticket owner retained the right to recall the ticket and the right to reassign use of the event ticket to a second offered party.” While subject matter eligibility under 101 differs from the standards of 102 and 103, as is clear from the primarily cited Rojas reference, this improvement which “the inventors were trying to create” was already accomplished prior to Applicant’s effective filing date. As such, even if this asserted improvement did indeed constitute an improvement to a technology (which Examiner disputes), one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably conclude that this was an improvement to a technology as of Applicant’s effective filing date.
Applicant states that “[e]xisting databases of event ticket information typically include one record of each issued event ticket” and “[t]his system works because each time ownership of a ticket is transferred from a first individual to a second individual, the machine-readable code information for the ticket in the event ticket database is updated with new machine-readable code,” which upon checking at the event will match the offered user’s credentials in the database and will not match the ticket purchaser’s credentials. Again, this same functionality in relation to a partial transfer of rights (rather than a transfer of the ticket in its entirety) is already established in the prior art, and as such one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing could not reasonably conclude that this was an improvement to a technology as of the date of filing (even if this indeed constituted an improvement to a technology, which again Examiner disputes).
This section also contains numerous references to “display-only rights.” As is clear from both the original disclosure and Applicant’s discussion in the present remarks of “typical[]” event ticketing systems prior to the present invention, what Applicant calls “display-only rights” is somewhat misleading, as such rights also include the right of the offered party to use the ticket to gain access to the venue for the event in question. Rather, these “display-only” rights allow the ticket purchaser to retain ownership rights of the ticket (ie: allowing the ticket purchaser to recall previously offered ticket rights from the offered party and potentially offer these “display-only” rights to another party) such that the offered user may not further transfer the display and use rights granted to them in the claimed process. The claims as previously drafted (e.g., Claims 2-3) were interpreted accordingly, and the present rolling up of such language into the independent claims is interpreted in the same way presently. This has bearing on the remainder of Examiner’s responses to the present Remarks below.
Applicant presents repeated assertions and arguments regarding an improved “structural changes to event ticketing information databases” (e.g., “[a]s explained in paragraphs 35 and 36 of the present application, the structure of the event ticket databases had to be altered to store new items of information…”); however, these assertions and arguments fail to evidence an improvement to a technology as understood in relation to the standards of Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B in the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis. MPEP 2106.05(a) explains that such improvements to a technology are “a technological solution to a technological problem,” and further that “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Choosing what information to store in a database, particularly where such data is abstract in nature (as here, the argued authorization/rights information for ticket usage) is entirely an abstract concept rather than a technological one. Both in the original disclosure (e.g., Paragraph 0076 and Applicant’s asserted Paragraphs 0035-0036) and claims, this is described at an extremely high level, constituting no more than Alice-type execution of this abstract idea in an entirely results-based manner (ie: absent any technical details as to how this computer implementation is to be accomplished).
Despite the scant details regarding these asserted “structural changes to event ticketing information databases” found in either the original disclosure or the present Remarks, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize that these “structural changes” to an event ticketing database might be accomplished by simply appending a data table with one or more additional rows or columns (depending upon formatting), which likewise is an entirely abstract concept accomplishable absent any computer structure whatsoever (e.g., as a database stored in a paper ledger). Even specifically considering computer implementation of these argued “structural changes” (and in a more granular manner than as is claimed), this may be accomplished by way of appending a digital spreadsheet (e.g., an Excel spreadsheet) with one or more additional rows or columns in the same way, such that this recorded data is stored and accessible for future data analysis, a function which long pre-dates the present invention. How Applicant could conclude that such a basic and ubiquitous function could reasonably be considered an improvement to a technology as of Applicant’s 2023 filing date is quite beyond Examiner’s understanding.
Even if this function were not abstract (which, to be clear, it is abstract as claimed and as described), and even in light of the full scope of the original disclosure, Applicant’s assertion that “the inventors had to invent a whole new way of recording ticket information in the existing ticket information database which required altering the structure of the ticketing databases to include multiple new fields” is at best hyperbolic. Choosing to store additional pieces of abstract data in a database is not a technological improvement. Further, the vague discussion of this functionality in the original disclosure causes additional issues with this assertion of a technological improvement in that it merely “sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner” or constitutes “a bare assertion of an improvement” as described in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
This stands in stark contrast to the argued Enfish case, wherein the invention thereof not only specified the storage of data in a particular table format, but claimed the separate storage of data tables and a key for such tables, resulting in an improvement to the manner in which a computer stores and processes information (ie: the same data may be stored using less memory, and the computer may access and process such data at improved speeds). Applicant cannot say that the present invention does the same. What is described in Paragraphs 0035-0036 and argued in the present remarks in relation to these “structural changes” (which Examiner notes for clarity represents purely abstract storage of labeled data rather than any structural makeup of the claimed computer elements themselves) is pure abstract record-keeping (e.g., storage of authorization/rights information in a database) and abstract data analysis based thereon (e.g., allowing entry when proffered ticket information matches said stored authorization/rights information, and refusing entry when it does not).
More granularly regarding the previous 101 rejections as argued against presently by Applicant (e.g., “The analysis provided by the Examiner ignores the fact that claim 1 is directed to a method that is implemented via software and database structures. For that reason, focusing on generic computer hardware elements like memory and processors makes little to no sense.), Examiner disagrees. Generic computer hardware is what is explicitly present in the claims, and as such it not only makes perfect sense to consider these elements, Examiner is required to do so under the standards of the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis. While Applicant is correct that software can effectuate non-abstract improvements to computer technology (e.g., as in the presently argued Enfish, presently vaguely asserted McRO, and any number of other pieces of caselaw), and while Applicant may certainly make such arguments, neither the claim language, the content of the original disclosure, or the present arguments succeed in illustrating an improvement to a technology. Applicant’s arguments fail to articulate any such improvement to a technology (e.g., computer functionality), but rather sets forth improvements to an abstract concept (essentially, allowing a partial rights transfer from a ticket purchaser to another party, such that this other party may use these rights to attend an event but still allowing the purchaser to recall such rights if they choose to), such abstract improvement at a high level effectuated via computer elements. So far as Applicant argues these computer elements being specifically programmed to allow performance of this abstract improvement, this likewise fails to constitute an improvement to a technology as understood in the current state of patent law. Applicant does not describe such software as effectuating an improvement to a technology itself (e.g., improvements to memory usage and processing speeds, as in Enfish), but rather merely describes the claimed generic computer elements as being programmed to effectuate the claimed abstract steps and abstract improvement. This is essentially a special purpose computer test argument (of In re Alappat); however, this test has not been good law for well over a decade at this point, having been superseded by the Bilski and Alice decisions. This is no longer an accepted standard for achieving subject matter eligibility.
Regarding the somewhat similar argument that “[m]oreover, the software applications loaded on to user’s [sic] smartphones also had to be altered so that an offered party can accept use of an offered ticket, and so that a software application on an offered party’s smartphone can display an image of an offered ticket that the party has a recorded right to use,” this fails for similar reasons as explained above. Specifically, this is another Alappat-type special purpose computer test argument, which as noted above is no longer good law and is no longer a standard used in the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis (ie: the Alice-Mayo test). Further, given the lack of any technical details regarding such software application programming in the original disclosure (which, as with most topics disclosed therein, provides no more than a results-based description of computer elements performing abstract steps absent any technical details as to how these computer elements accomplish these functions), this also constitutes no more than a bare assertion of an improvement as described in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), and thus also fails the evidentiary standards for setting forth an improvement to a technology (even if the asserted improvement were in fact an improvement to a technology, which Examiner again disputes).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that “[t]he fact that computer systems and software are involved in the claimed methods does not, in itself, mean that what the inventors have created fails to represent an improvement to computer functionality that can be claimed in a patent, Examiner did not previously and does not presently say otherwise. Of course computer elements and functionality may be claimed in a patent, but to be patentable, it must meet the standards of subject matter eligibility. For the reasons explained above and in the previous and present 101 rejections, the claims as presently drafted do not meet this standard. Relatedly, Applicant’s assertion that “[t]he real question is not whether the claimed systems and methods are implemented in databases and software running on computer systems, but instead whether what the inventors developed represents an improvement to computer functionality in the event ticketing space, which is the relevant technology,” Examiner disagrees in part. While a key consideration of Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B is indeed “whether what the inventors developed represents an improvement to computer functionality,” (1) this may apply to any technology relevant to the present application (here, the only relevant technology appears to be computer technology as presently claimed), and (2) “the event ticketing space” is not a technology, but rather a commercial, abstract field. As per the above-provided quotation of MPEP 2106.05(a), improvements to “the event ticketing field” represent abstract improvements rather than technological ones. As explained above, what Applicant describes and argues is an improvement to the abstract concept of event ticketing, merely claimed at a high level as being effectuated on and via computer elements, and such claims have long been held ineligible (see the seminal Alice). Applicant does not articulate and Examiner fails to see any technological improvement achieved in the invention as presently claimed, including software-based improvements to computer functionality.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments under the heading of “A. Step 2A, Prong 2,” Applicant states that “[a]s an initial matter, Applicant notes that the Examiner has not identified the alleged abstract idea to which the claims are directed in any meaningful or concise way. Instead, the Examiner simply lists all steps of method claim 1 as apparently corresponding to one or more alleged abstract ideas.” Examiner notes that this relates to recitation of abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong One rather than Prong Two, and further Examiner notes that this is all that is required: identifying those claim elements which recite abstract ideas, and explaining why this is the case (which the previous and present 101 rejections do in relation to the recited abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes). This is certainly identifying the recited abstract ideas in a “meaningful” way and the abstract ideas are certainly not “undefined” as argued, and while Examiner cannot know precisely what Applicant is demanding in relation to a “concise way,” this is not a requirement of the subject matter eligibility analysis. There is no such requirement to summarize the collectively recited abstract ideas by way of some summary statement. Rather, this appears to be Applicant reading their own subjective requirement into this analysis, and nothing in the MPEP supports such a requirement.
Applicant’s assertion that the analysis of the previous 101 rejection “ignores the fact that claim 1 is directed to a method that is implemented via software and database structures” is simply untrue, and the additional elements recited collectively for independent Claims 1 and 11 make this abundantly clear by including such software implementation: “the claim recites the additional elements of a memory, one or more processors configured to perform steps, electronic communication, and a ticket database” (Examiner’s emphases). Rather than ignore these features, Examiner instead considers them in their proper context within the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis. Applicant is encouraged to read office actions carefully to properly understand them and effectively respond to them. Further, as explained above, high-level computer and software-based implementation of an abstract concept (as in the present invention) does not render a claim subject matter eligible (again, see Alice).
Applicant’s reiterated assertions of an improvement to a technology under the heading of “A. Step 2A, Prong 2” are unpersuasive for the same reasons as addressed above. Particularly regarding the art-based assertions thereof (e.g., “[p]rior to the inventors making structural changes to ticketing databases, there was no place to record such information,” “[d]isplay-only rights did not exist, therefore it was not possible to record information in a ticketing database to reflect that an offered party has been granted display-only rights for an event ticket”), ignoring that subject matter eligibility under 101 is not the same standard as novelty under 102 or obviousness under 103 and further ignoring that this functionality fails to constitute an improvement to a technology at all, the previously cited Rojas reference renders these art-based assertions untrue. Similarly, the technological use of software to render an image of the event ticket to gain access to an event (including images for new barcodes after transfer of a ticket) is so well-established in the art prior to Applicant’s date of filing that Examiner cannot fathom how Applicant could reasonably conclude that this constitutes an improvement to a technology as of Applicant’s effective date of filing. That the transferee in this case is only a partial rights transferee rather than a recipient of the ticket and all associated rights in their entirety does nothing to make this otherwise (an abstract concept).
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant asserts that the claims recite additional elements which are not well-understood, routine, and conventional, specifically arguing that such features include the above-argued “new data structure for ticketing information databases that includes new fields that allow one to record information not previously recorded in ticket information databases.” Applicant misapprehends this standard and to what it applies, as well as failing to understand the distinction between abstract ideas and additional elements. Evidence of well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is required for those claim elements categorized as additional elements, and further sub-categorized as insignificant extra-solution activity (see, e.g., the Step 2B analyses of Example 46, Claim 1 of the October 2019 PEG Update, and of Example 47, Claim 2 and Example 48, Claim 1 of the July 2024 PEG Update). Even as presently amended, the independent claims contain no such limitations, and to the extent that such limitations are found in the dependent claims (e.g., Claim 7), proper evidence is provided illustrating the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature thereof. Even ignoring this (which Examiner states for clarity would be improper), as already explained above regarding Step 2A, Prong Two arguments, the asserted “new data structure” is not an additional element at all, but rather represents abstract record keeping. Whether any recited abstract ideas are well-understood, routine, and conventional is entirely irrelevant to this analysis (e.g., from MPEP 2106.05: “An inventive concept ‘cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.’ Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). What is claimed is essentially a sequence of abstract steps effectuated at a high level via computer (hardware and software) implementation, and the technological computer functionalities required to do so (e.g., storing, sending/receiving, and processing data) are among the most basic and ubiquitous capabilities of computers since their inception long prior to Applicant’s invention. There is no reasonable argument to be made that the claims embody other than well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments comparing Rojas to what Applicant asserts are “[e]xisting access control systems at virtually all concert, sporting and speaker event venues,” and Applicant’s subsequent assertions that “[i]t would require a complete redesign of existing event venue access control systems to implement and use an access control system as disclosed in Rojas” (a statement Applicant effectively refutes in admitting that “[t]his could be done by obtaining an identification number and verifying the obtained identification number in some fashion,” which as disclosed in Rojas may take the form of a ticket code or barcode in the same manner as Applicant’s present invention), even if Examiner were to take Applicant at their word that this is accurate (Examiner notes that this assertion is made entirely without any supporting evidence, and in Examiner’s personal experience, is untrue), are entirely irrelevant to 103 standards. Rojas is part of the prior art. To overcome 103 rejections, Applicant must successfully differentiate the present claims from the prior art, not differentiate cited prior art from the purported state of the art prior to that citation (or even at the time of the present invention). In other words, based on the previous 103 rejections, Applicant must differentiate the present invention from the combination of Rojas and Gosuin, not differentiate those references from what Applicant contemplates “[e]xisting access control systems” to include (not least of all because, as relates to the prosecution of the present invention, Rojas and Gosuin fall within the bounds of “[e]xisting access control systems”).
The presently amended independent claims recite nothing that was not already present in the previous claim set, and consequently addressed in the previous 103 rejections. For example, the independent claims as presently amended roll up limitations previously claimed in now-cancelled Claims 2-3. Given this, citations for these features are already on file and therefore it is particularly egregious that Applicant presents no arguments against these citations themselves. Rather, Applicant vaguely makes assertions as to what Rojas does and does not disclose, said assertions refuted by the citations provided in the previous 103 rejections.
For example, Applicant asserts that Rojas “does not even contemplate or disclose that display-only rights being granted to an offered party would enable the offered party to use a ticketing software application on a computer device to render…as recited in claim 1.” As no reasonable reading of Rojas or even the specific citations thereof provided in the relevant parts of the previous 103 rejections could support this assertion, Examiner’s best guess as to Applicant’s reasoning here is that Rojas does not use language of “display-only” in relation to the transfer of such rights. If this is the case, Applicant fails to understand that the same concept may be disclosed in a number of different ways and using different language. This is precisely what occurs in Rojas. As noted above, “display-only rights” is somewhat of a misnomer, and is interpreted in relation to the discussion above. Rojas discloses throughout (e.g., previously cited Paragraphs 0015-0016) that the ticket access rights held by the ticket purchaser may be lent (not just transferred) to another party, and further that such lent rights may be recalled in some embodiments by the ticket purchaser and recorded in the ticketing database (see, e.g., citations to original and presently amended Claim 8). Further, Rojas discloses that the holder of the ticket’s access rights may be granted access to the venue via verification of, e.g., “optical indicia (e.g., an optical code, such as a QR code, or other barcode or the like) displayed on a user device” (see, e.g., citations to original Claims 2-3). This discloses the lending of limited use rights (e.g., what Applicant calls “display-only rights”) from a ticket purchaser to an offered user, and further that the holder of such rights may use their personal device to display an image of the event ticket for verification to be allowed entry into a corresponding event. Applicant’s vague arguments fail to refute this. Further, while not embodied in the independent claims, the generation and use of a new barcode upon the transfer/lending of ticket access rights is claimed in various dependent claims, and is disclosed by a combination of Rojas and Gosuin in the manner provided in the previous and present 103 rejections.
Regarding new Claims 21-24, Applicant asserts their non-obviousness solely based on the arguments presented regarding independent Claims 1 and 11. As those arguments regarding independent Claims 1 and 11 are unpersuasive, these arguments are unpersuasive by extension. See 103 rejections below for more information.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 21 and 23 contain the following limitation: “sending the new barcode information to the ticketing software application so that an image of the event ticket that includes a barcode based on the new barcode information can be rendered on the computing device.” Within this limitation, the language “so that an image of the event ticket that includes a barcode based on the new barcode information can be rendered on the computing device” is interpreted as intended use rather than an affirmatively claimed step, and as such is not given patentable weight.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “…from an access control system” of Claims 22 and 24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For the purposes of this examination, this term will be interpreted in view of Paragraphs 0025, 0042, 0066, and 0073.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 contains the term “a ticket database.” It is unclear as drafted whether this ticket database is intended to relate back to the ticket database disclosed in Claim 1, upon which each of this claim depends, or whether this term is intended to recite a new ticket database. For the purposes of this examination, “a ticket database” will be interpreted as “the ticket database.”
Claims 23 and 24 claim “The method of claim” 14 and 23 respectively; however, Claim 14 is not a method claim but a system claim. As such, it is unclear as drafted what this “method” comprises, and further it is unclear as to what statutory category Claims 23-24 belong (and relatedly whether this language renders Claims 23-24 as impermissible hybrid claims). For the purposes of this examination, this language will be interpreted as “The system of claim” 14 and 23 respectively.”
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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, the limitations of receiving a request from a ticket owner to offer use of an event ticket owned by the ticket owner to an offered party; causing a communication conveying the offer of use of the event ticket to be sent to or presented to the offered party; receiving a communication from the offered party indicating that the offered party has accepted the offer to use the event ticket; and causing information in a ticket database relating to the event ticket to be updated to reflect that the offered party has been granted display-only rights for the event ticket which enable the offered party to gain access to the event venue, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of receiving a request from a ticket owner to offer use of an event ticket owned by the ticket owner to an offered party; causing a communication conveying the offer of use of the event ticket to be sent to or presented to the offered party; receiving a communication from the offered party indicating that the offered party has accepted the offer to use the event ticket; and causing information in a ticket database relating to the event ticket to be updated to reflect that the offered party has been granted display-only rights for the event ticket which enable the offered party to gain access to the event venue, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a memory, one or more processors configured to perform steps, electronic communication, a ticket database, and use a ticketing software application on a computing device to render an image of the event ticket on the computing device. A memory, one or more processors configured to perform steps, a ticket database, and use a ticketing software application on a computing device to render an image of the event ticket on the computing device, in the context of the claims as a whole, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Electronic communication, in the context of the claims as a whole, amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claims, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 4-5, 7-10, 14-15, and 17-24, describing various additional limitations to the method of Claim 1 or the system of Claim 11, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claims 1 and 11 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 4 and 14 disclose wherein causing information in the ticket database to be updated further comprises causing new barcode information for the event ticket to be generated and stored in the ticket database (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 5 and 15 disclose wherein causing information in the ticket database to be updated further comprises causing a version number associated with the event ticket that is stored in the ticket database to be updated to reflect the generation of new barcode information for the event ticket (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 7 and 17 disclose wherein the display-only rights for the event ticket granted to the offered party enable the offered party to use the ticketing software application on the computing device (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception) to render an image of the event ticket on the computing device that includes a barcode that is generated with the new barcode information (insignificant extra-solution activity) stored in the ticket database (further narrowing the abstract idea already set forth in earlier in Claims 7 and 17), which do not integrate the claims into a practical application. The limitation found to recite insignificant extra-solution activity is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as per the written description standards of 112(a) based on the high-level description of this functionality in at least Paragraphs 0039-0043, 0048, 0050, 0058, and 0061.
Claims 8 and 18 disclose receiving a request from the ticket owner to revoke the offered party’s ability to use the event ticket (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and causing information in the ticket database relating to the event ticket to be updated to reflect that the offered party can no longer use the ticketing software application on the computing device to render an image of the event ticket on the computing device (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception) that can be used to gain access to the event venue (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 9 and 19 disclose causing new barcode information for the event ticket to be generated and stored in the ticket database after receipt of the request to revoke the offered party's ability to use the event ticket (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 10 and 20 disclose causing a version number associated with the event ticket that is stored in a ticket database to be updated to reflect that new barcode information for the event ticket was generated after receipt of the request to revoke the offered party’s ability to use the event ticket (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 21 and 23 disclose receiving a request for barcode information for the event ticket from the ticketing software application on the computing device (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and sending the new barcode information to the ticketing software application so that an image of the event ticket that includes a barcode based on the new barcode information can be rendered on the computing device (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 22 and 24 disclose receiving a request for barcode information for the event ticket from an access control system (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception) of an event venue (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and sending the new barcode information for the event ticket to the access control system at the event venue to allow the access control system to verify that barcode information for the event ticket that is being presented to the access control system at the event venue matches the new barcode information stored in the ticket database (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-11, 14-15, and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas (PGPub 20230394898) (hereafter, “Rojas”) in view of Gosuin (PGPub 20160321568) (hereafter, “Gosuin”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Rojas discloses:
a memory (¶ 0062-0064; Figs. 1A-1B; the memory may contain computer program instructions that the processing unit may execute in order to implement one or more aspects of the present disclosure);
one or more processors configured to perform steps (¶ 0062-0064; Figs. 1A-1B; the access control system may include one or more processing units which may execute instructions in order to implement one or more aspects of the present disclosure);
receiving a request from a ticket owner to offer use of an event ticket owned by the ticket owner to an offered party (¶ 0008, 0015-0018, 0093; Fig. 3; a user (who may be referred to as an access control owner or access controller) may be enabled to lend/transfer one or more access rights (e.g., a top tier access right, a sub-tier access right, a sub-sub-tier access right, and so one) to another user (who may be referred to as the recipient or receiving user); an access right specification may be received from the user via the access rights user interface. For example, the access right specification may specify one or more user selected access rights, and corresponding access rights loan and/or recall specifications; an access rights loan specification may specify an access right that the user controls, an access right loan recipient, an access right loan start state, and/or an access right loan end date);
causing an electronic communication conveying the offer of use of the event ticket to be sent to or presented to the offered party (¶ 0095; Fig. 3; a notification may be transmitted for display to a specified recipient of a given access right loan; the notification may be transmitted to a recipient device for display by the dedicated application, a browser, or the like and/or to an electronic address associated with the recipient (e.g., an email address, short messaging service address, and/or the like)); and
causing information in a ticket database relating to the event ticket to be updated to reflect that the offered party has been granted display-only rights for the event ticket which enable the offered party to use a ticketing software application on a computing device to render an image of the event ticket on the computing device that can be used to gain access to the event venue (¶ 0015-0018, 0024, 0032, 0059, 0095; Fig. 3; if the access right loan/recall specification is permitted, the corresponding database record may be updated to record the access rights loan(s) and/or recall(s); a user (who may be referred to as an access control owner or access controller) may be enabled to lend/transfer one or more access rights (e.g., a top tier access right, a sub-tier access right, a sub-sub-tier access right, and so one) to another user (who may be referred to as the recipient or receiving user); if the access right loan/recall specification is permitted, the corresponding database record may be updated to record the access rights loan(s) and/or recall(s); the UDE may be utilized to establish a verified and public proof of ownership of whatever rights were provided to the user to the content represented by the UDE (e.g., a license to use and display the underlying content asset); when the user arrives at a venue entrance, the user device may present the unique user device identifier and/or user identifier to a venue scanner; for example, the user device may (e.g., via the application hosted on the user device) present the unique user device identifier and/or user identifier, as well as a timestamp of the current time, encoded in a visual indicia (e.g., a barcode, such as a QR code or linear barcode)).
Rojas does not explicitly disclose but Gosuin does disclose receiving a communication from the offered party indicating that the offered party has accepted the offer to use the event ticket (¶ 0050-0053, 0062; Figs. 4-5; the identification of the selected recipient is transmitted from the client device back to the tertiary ticket marketplace; the tertiary ticket marketplace receives the identification message and processes the selection; the tertiary ticket marketplace generates a message to the identified recipients to accept or reject the transfer; once the transfer is determined, the tertiary ticket marketplace stores the identification of the new recipient, together with the ticket identifier, in a database record associated with the event; in some embodiments, the second purchaser must confirm the transfer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the event ticket transfer and validation techniques of Gosuin with the event ticket right transfer system of Rojas because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Gosuin are applicable to the base device (Rojas), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Rojas in view of Gosuin discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 11. Rojas does not explicitly disclose but Gosuin does disclose wherein causing information in the ticket database to be updated further comprises causing new barcode information for the event ticket to be generated and stored in the ticket database (¶ 0006, 0028, 0058, 0061-0062, 0067, 0072; Fig. 5; the method includes determining, after recording the record of the request, that the first party has released the first right, and updating the rights database to reallocate the first right from the first party to the second party; responsive to successfully updating the rights database, notifying the first party that the first right has been revoked and notifying the second party that the first right has been allocated to the second party; the method includes voiding a ticket held by the first party; a virtual ticket is a ticket serial number or identifier, which may be presented to the user in a graphical form, e.g., as a bar code or QR code; the ticket vendor issues the requested tickets; the tickets are assigned a serial number; the ticket serial numbers are then recorded in a database record for sold tickets (or allocated tickets), in association with the event and the seats; the database record includes information identifying the party acquiring the tickets (e.g., ticket purchaser) or otherwise associating the tickets with them; when the ticket holder will not attend, the queue manager re-issues the ticket to a second party; the original ticket is cancelled and a new ticket is issued to the second party; a ticket may be canceled, for example, by voiding the ticket’s serial number; a new ticket may be issued, for example, by generating a new ticket serial number, updating the venue's gate authority to allow entry for a ticket associated with the new ticket serial number, and issuing a ticket with the serial number; the ticket may be issued by printing a physical ticket or displaying on a portable device with a bar code or QR code with the serial number).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Rojas in view of Gosuin discloses the limitations of Claims 4 and 14. Rojas does not explicitly disclose but Gosuin does disclose wherein causing information in the ticket database to be updated further comprises causing a version number associated with the event ticket that is stored in the ticket database to be updated to reflect the generation of new barcode information for the event ticket (¶ 0006, 0028, 0058, 0061-0062, 0067, 0072; Fig. 5; the method includes determining, after recording the record of the request, that the first party has released the first right, and updating the rights database to reallocate the first right from the first party to the second party; responsive to successfully updating the rights database, notifying the first party that the first right has been revoked and notifying the second party that the first right has been allocated to the second party; the method includes voiding a ticket held by the first party; a virtual ticket is a ticket serial number or identifier, which may be presented to the user in a graphical form, e.g., as a bar code or QR code; the ticket vendor issues the requested tickets; the tickets are assigned a serial number; the ticket serial numbers are then recorded in a database record for sold tickets (or allocated tickets), in association with the event and the seats; the database record includes information identifying the party acquiring the tickets (e.g., ticket purchaser) or otherwise associating the tickets with them; when the ticket holder will not attend, the queue manager re-issues the ticket to a second party; the original ticket is cancelled and a new ticket is issued to the second party; a ticket may be canceled, for example, by voiding the ticket’s serial number; a new ticket may be issued, for example, by generating a new ticket serial number, updating the venue's gate authority to allow entry for a ticket associated with the new ticket serial number, and issuing a ticket with the serial number; the ticket may be issued by printing a physical ticket or displaying on a portable device with a bar code or QR code with the serial number).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Rojas in view of Gosuin discloses the limitations of Claims 4 and 14. Rojas additionally discloses wherein the display-only rights for the event ticket granted to the offered party enable the offered party to use the ticketing software application on the computing device to render an image of the event ticket on the computing device that includes a barcode that is generated with the barcode information stored in the ticket database (¶ 0015-0018, 0024, 0032, 0059, 0095; Fig. 3; a user (who may be referred to as an access control owner or access controller) may be enabled to lend/transfer one or more access rights (e.g., a top tier access right, a sub-tier access right, a sub-sub-tier access right, and so one) to another user (who may be referred to as the recipient or receiving user); if the access right loan/recall specification is permitted, the corresponding database record may be updated to record the access rights loan(s) and/or recall(s); the UDE may be utilized to establish a verified and public proof of ownership of whatever rights were provided to the user to the content represented by the UDE (e.g., a license to use and display the underlying content asset); when the user arrives at a venue entrance, the user device may present the unique user device identifier and/or user identifier to a venue scanner; for example, he user device may (e.g., via the application hosted on the user device) present the unique user device identifier and/or user identifier, as well as a timestamp of the current time, encoded in a visual indicia (e.g., a barcode, such as a QR code or linear barcode)). Rojas does not explicitly disclose but Gosuin does disclose wherein the barcode is generated with the new barcode information stored in the ticket database (¶ 0006, 0028, 0058, 0061-0062, 0067, 0072; Fig. 5; the method includes determining, after recording the record of the request, that the first party has released the first right, and updating the rights database to reallocate the first right from the first party to the second party; responsive to successfully updating the rights database, notifying the first party that the first right has been revoked and notifying the second party that the first right has been allocated to the second party; the method includes voiding a ticket held by the first party; a virtual ticket is a ticket serial number or identifier, which may be presented to the user in a graphical form, e.g., as a bar code or QR code; the ticket vendor issues the requested tickets; the tickets are assigned a serial number; the ticket serial numbers are then recorded in a database record for sold tickets (or allocated tickets), in association with the event and the seats; the database record includes information identifying the party acquiring the tickets (e.g., ticket purchaser) or otherwise associating the tickets with them; when the ticket holder will not attend, the queue manager re-issues the ticket to a second party; the original ticket is cancelled and a new ticket is issued to the second party; a ticket may be canceled, for example, by voiding the ticket’s serial number; a new ticket may be issued, for example, by generating a new ticket serial number, updating the venue's gate authority to allow entry for a ticket associated with the new ticket serial number, and issuing a ticket with the serial number; the ticket may be issued by printing a physical ticket or displaying on a portable device with a bar code or QR code with the serial number).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Rojas in view of Gosuin discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 11. Rojas additionally discloses:
receiving a request from the ticket owner to revoke the offered party’s ability to use the event ticket (¶ 0008, 0017, 0093, 0022; Fig. 3; the access credential owner may withdraw such transfer at any time or in compliance with specified withdrawal rules; a recall request regarding the first access from the access right controller; if a determination is made that the recipient of the lent access right has not yet used the access right to access the event venue, the access right owner may be permitted to recall the access right and may be permitted to enter the event venue); and
causing information in the ticket database relating to the event ticket to be updated to reflect that the offered party can no longer use the event ticket; wherein using the event ticket comprises using the ticketing software application on the computing device to render an image of the event ticket on the computing device that can be used to gain access to the event venue (¶ 0008, 0015-0018, 0023-0024, 0032, 0059, 0095; Fig. 3; recording an indication in a database regarding the recall of the recallable first access right and enable the access right controller to utilize the recallable first access right associated with a first physical location, and disabling the first user's ability to utilize the recallable first access right associated with a first physical location; if the access right loan/recall specification is permitted, the corresponding database record may be updated to record the access rights loan(s) and/or recall(s); a notification may be transmitted to the recipient of the lent (and now recalled) access right indicating that the access right has been recalled and may no longer be used by the recipient; a user (who may be referred to as an access control owner or access controller) may be enabled to lend/transfer one or more access rights (e.g., a top tier access right, a sub-tier access right, a sub-sub-tier access right, and so one) to another user (who may be referred to as the recipient or receiving user); if the access right loan/recall specification is permitted, the corresponding database record may be updated to record the access rights loan(s) and/or recall(s); the UDE may be utilized to establish a verified and public proof of ownership of whatever rights were provided to the user to the content represented by the UDE (e.g., a license to use and display the underlying content asset); when the user arrives at a venue entrance, the user device may present the unique user device identifier and/or user identifier to a venue scanner; for example, he user device may (e.g., via the application hosted on the user device) present the unique user device identifier and/or user identifier, as well as a timestamp of the current time, encoded in a visual indicia (e.g., a barcode, such as a QR code or linear barcode)).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Rojas in view of Gosuin discloses the limitations of Claims 8 and 18. Rojas does not explicitly disclose but Gosuin does disclose further comprising causing new barcode information for the event ticket to be generated and stored in the ticket database after receipt of a request to revoke rights (¶ 0006, 0028, 0058, 0061-0062, 0067, 0072; Fig. 5; the method includes determining, after recording the record of the request, that the first party has released the first right, and updating the rights database to reallocate the first right from the first party to the second party; responsive to successfully updating the rights database, notifying the first party that the first right has been revoked and notifying the second party that the first right has been allocated to the second party; the method includes voiding a ticket held by the first party; a virtual ticket is a ticket serial number or identifier, which may be presented to the user in a graphical form, e.g., as a bar code or QR code; the ticket vendor issues the requested tickets; the tickets are assigned a serial number; the ticket serial numbers are then recorded in a database record for sold tickets (or allocated tickets), in association with the event and the seats; the database record includes information identifying the party acquiring the tickets (e.g., ticket purchaser) or otherwise associating the tickets with them; when the ticket holder will not attend, the queue manager re-issues the ticket to a second party; the original ticket is cancelled and a new ticket is issued to the second party; a ticket may be canceled, for example, by voiding the ticket’s serial number; a new ticket may be issued, for example, by generating a new ticket serial number, updating the venue's gate authority to allow entry for a ticket associated with the new ticket serial number, and issuing a ticket with the serial number; the ticket may be issued by printing a physical ticket or displaying on a portable device with a bar code or QR code with the serial number). Rojas additionally discloses wherein the request to revoke rights is the request to revoke the offered party's ability to use the event ticket (¶ 0008, 0017, 0093, 0022; Fig. 3; the access credential owner may withdraw such transfer at any time or in compliance with specified withdrawal rules; a recall request regarding the first access from the access right controller; if a determination is made that the recipient of the lent access right has not yet used the access right to access the event venue, the access right owner may be permitted to recall the access right and may be permitted to enter the event venue).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Rojas in view of Gosuin discloses the limitations of Claims 9 and 19. Rojas does not explicitly disclose but Gosuin does disclose causing a version number associated with the event ticket that is stored in a ticket database to be updated to reflect that new barcode information for the event ticket was generated after receipt of the request to revoke the offered party’s ability to use the event ticket (¶ 0006, 0028, 0058, 0061-0062, 0067, 0072; Fig. 5; the method includes determining, after recording the record of the request, that the first party has released the first right, and updating the rights database to reallocate the first right from the first party to the second party; responsive to successfully updating the rights database, notifying the first party that the first right has been revoked and notifying the second party that the first right has been allocated to the second party; the method includes voiding a ticket held by the first party; a virtual ticket is a ticket serial number or identifier, which may be presented to the user in a graphical form, e.g., as a bar code or QR code; the ticket vendor issues the requested tickets; the tickets are assigned a serial number; the ticket serial numbers are then recorded in a database record for sold tickets (or allocated tickets), in association with the event and the seats; the database record includes information identifying the party acquiring the tickets (e.g., ticket purchaser) or otherwise associating the tickets with them; when the ticket holder will not attend, the queue manager re-issues the ticket to a second party; the original ticket is cancelled and a new ticket is issued to the second party; a ticket may be canceled, for example, by voiding the ticket’s serial number; a new ticket may be issued, for example, by generating a new ticket serial number, updating the venue's gate authority to allow entry for a ticket associated with the new ticket serial number, and issuing a ticket with the serial number; the ticket may be issued by printing a physical ticket or displaying on a portable device with a bar code or QR code with the serial number).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 21 and 23, Rojas in view of Gosuin discloses the limitations of Claims 4 and 14. Rojas additionally discloses:
receiving a request for barcode information for the event ticket from the ticketing software application on the computing device (¶ 0008, 0015-0018, 0088, 0093, 0096; Fig. 3; a user (who may be referred to as an access control owner or access controller) may be enabled to lend/transfer one or more access rights (e.g., a top tier access right, a sub-tier access right, a sub-sub-tier access right, and so one) to another user (who may be referred to as the recipient or receiving user); an access right specification may be received from the user via the access rights user interface; the process may be executed in whole or in part using access control system, a user device, and/or other device or system disclosed herein; the process detects that an access rights user interface has been requested; the access rights user interface may be configured to display access rights associated with the user and the status of such accessed rights; for example, the access rights user interface may be provided by a dedicated application related to ticketing hosted on the user's device (e.g., downloaded from an app store); in response to the user interface being accessed (e.g., in response to a request by a user), the application may transmit a corresponding message to the system over a network; by way of further example, the access rights user interface may be accessed from the access control system by a browser hosted on the user device); and
sending the new barcode information to the ticketing software application so that an image of the event ticket that includes a barcode based on the new barcode information can be rendered on the computing device (¶ 0008, 0015-0018, 0024, 0059, 0093, 0095; Fig. 3; a user (who may be referred to as an access control owner or access controller) may be enabled to lend/transfer one or more access rights (e.g., a top tier access right, a sub-tier access right, a sub-sub-tier access right, and so one) to another user (who may be referred to as the recipient or receiving user); a notification may be transmitted for display to a specified recipient of a given access right loan; the UDE may be utilized to establish a verified and public proof of ownership of whatever rights were provided to the user to the content represented by the UDE (e.g., a license to use and display the underlying content asset); when the user arrives at a venue entrance, the user device may present the unique user device identifier and/or user identifier to a venue scanner; for example, he user device may (e.g., via the application hosted on the user device) present the unique user device identifier and/or user identifier, as well as a timestamp of the current time, encoded in a visual indicia (e.g., a barcode, such as a QR code or linear barcode)).
Regarding Claims 22 and 24, Rojas in view of Gosuin discloses the limitations of Claims 21 and 23. Rojas additionally discloses:
receiving a request for barcode information for the event ticket from an access control system of an event venue (¶ 0008, 0015-0018, 0024, 0032, 0036-0039, 0043, 0054, 0059, 0072-0073, 0080; Fig. 2; when the user arrives at a venue entrance (which may be an initial entrance to a venue building or area, or may be an interior entrance to a specific seating or other area within the venue, such as a VIP area), the user device may present the unique user device identifier and/or user identifier to a venue scanner, optionally encoded (e.g., encrypted and converted from the digital realm to an optical, radiofrequency, and/or audio representation). For example, the user device may (e.g., via the application hosted on the user device) present the unique user device identifier and/or user identifier, as well as a timestamp of the current time, encoded in a visual indicia (e.g., a barcode, such as a QR code or linear barcode), encoded in an electronic signal (e.g., via Bluetooth, Wifi, NFC, or the like), and/or encoded in an audio signal; optionally, in order for a determination to be made that the user is to be authenticated/verified as having access rights to the event or to a given venue entrance, an identifier associated with the event venue scanner needs to be received (e.g., in association with the user identifier and the user device identifier) and verified); and
sending the new barcode information for the event ticket to the access control system at the event venue to allow the access control system to verify that barcode information for the event ticket that is being presented to the access control system at the event venue matches the new barcode information stored in the ticket database (¶ 0008, 0015-0018, 0024, 0032, 0036-0039, 0043, 0054, 0059, 0072-0073, 0080; Fig. 2; when the user arrives at a venue entrance (which may be an initial entrance to a venue building or area, or may be an interior entrance to a specific seating or other area within the venue, such as a VIP area), the user device may present the unique user device identifier and/or user identifier to a venue scanner, optionally encoded (e.g., encrypted and converted from the digital realm to an optical, radiofrequency, and/or audio representation). For example, the user device may (e.g., via the application hosted on the user device) present the unique user device identifier and/or user identifier, as well as a timestamp of the current time, encoded in a visual indicia (e.g., a barcode, such as a QR code or linear barcode), encoded in an electronic signal (e.g., via Bluetooth, Wifi, NFC, or the like), and/or encoded in an audio signal; optionally, in order for a determination to be made that the user is to be authenticated/verified as having access rights to the event or to a given venue entrance, an identifier associated with the event venue scanner needs to be received (e.g., in association with the user identifier and the user device identifier) and verified).
Discussion of Prior Art Cited but Not Applied
For additional information on the state of the art regarding the claims of the present application, please see the following documents not applied in this Office Action (all of which are prior art to the present application):
PGPub 20230086191 – “Systems And Methods For Token Content Unlocking, Biometric Authentication Using Privacy-Protecting Tokens, Ownership-Based Limitations Of Content Access, Policy-Based Time Capsule Technology, And Content Lock Mechanisms,” Jakobsson, disclosing a system for the transfer and potential revocation of tokens representing access rights
PGPub 20190349360 – “Provisioning Transferable Access Tokens,” Yeddula et al, disclosing a system for the transfer of limited time or limited use access tokens, such as to a concert venue
PGPub 20240086905 – “Mitigation of Cryptographic Asset Attacks,” Esquibel et al, disclosing a system for the transfer and potential revocation of tokens representing access rights
Asokan et al, Visitor Access Management in Personal Wireless Networks, Seventh IEEE ISM ’05, disclosing techniques for the provisioning and revocation of access rights to a physical space
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 MARK C CLARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-2:30pm 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/MARK C CLARE/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights