DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 the Application
Claims 1-21 were pending and were rejected in the previous non-final rejection.
Claims 1, 11, and 16-21 were amended, and claim 10 was cancelled.
Claims 1-9 and 11-21 remain pending and are examined in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Claims 16-20 are amended to remove “the step of” and “the steps of” language in response to the previous claim objections. These amendments overcome the objections, which are withdrawn.
However, see the current objection to claim 8.
35 USC § 101:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the § 101 rejection of claims 1-21 (pgs. 9-12, remarks filed 4/16/2026) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues (pgs. 9-10, remarks) that:
The amended claims are not only directed to patentable improvements in computer software, but also recite structure and steps for receiving payment and dispensing tickets that cannot be performed using the human mind, with or without pen and paper. As to the former, the new limitations calling for "an event organizer login portal that screens event organizers to determine their affiliation with a college," and the related step of "screening event organizer to determine their affiliation with a college," represent a significant improvement in computer software that enables the automatic exclusion of non-affiliated event organizers from the system. This provides a first level of screening that not only ensures that the revenue generated by the system and method stays within the college and its affiliates, but also prevents access by unaffiliated actors who might otherwise access the system with malicious intent.
The amended limitation reciting an event management portal for "analyzing the event information for unacceptable words, unacceptable subject matter, and/or unacceptable event organizers and comparing the event information against a stored database of restricted words and/or phrases" provides a second level of screening that is mainly directed to content. If an event organizer passes the first level of screening and gains entry to the system, the event that is being promoted will be subject to the second level of screening based on words, subject matter and/or the identity of the event organizer (who may be affiliated with the college but is subject to exclusion for other reasons). The combined first and second levels of screening represent significant improvements in computer software that can both exclude unaffiliated event organizers, and also exclude inappropriate events being promoted by affiliated event organizers.
The foregoing represent significant improvements in computer software that, combined with the remaining claim limitations, constitute patentable subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Applicant also cites Enfish and Ex Parte Desjardins supporting the above position. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the claimed invention provides improvements to computer software such that the claims are eligible under either Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B. Screening event organizers to prevent non-authorized users from creating events may improve the underlying abstract idea, but does not improve any specific technology. For example, the claims are not directed to an improved authentication mechanism, but instead just describe the general concept of “screening event organizers…” (i.e. the idea of a solution as in MPEP 2106.05(f)), and thus merely apply the abstract step of screening event organizers using generic computers programmed to apply the abstract idea. Similarly, analyzing the event data to provide another level of screening and reject an event with restricted words and/or phrases also describes the abstract idea itself, rather than an improvement to any particular technology. Thus, claims are not similar to Enfish (directed to a self-referential database that improved how computers store information and thus amounted to an improvement in computer capabilities) and the claims in Ex Parte Desjardins (improvements specific to machine learning technology), but instead apply a process for creating events and selling event tickets within a computer environment using generic computer implementation.
Applicant further argues (pgs. 11-12, remarks) that:
The attached Subject Matter Eligibility Declaration of Jacob Birg Under 37 CFR 1.132 explains how the invention provides a technical improvement in the technology of widespread dissemination of college event information and tickets. The facts presented in the Declaration are incorporated herein by reference. Additionally, the claims cover "a particular solution to a particular problem," namely, the independent screening of unaffiliated event organizers on the one hand, and the content of the event information on the other hand, using the computer- implemented system and method. Id. at 4, citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., Inc., 837 F. 3d 1299, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As explained in the Declaration, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but to solutions to technical problems in the acquisition and dissemination of information and tickets relating to college events. As explained in the amended versions of MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a), the requirements of subject matter eligibility are satisfied by “an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field.” (Ex. B, pp. 2-3, emphasis added).
Additionally, the Declaration explains why the claims as a whole cannot be practiced
using the human mind. Also, the newly added limitations calling for "an online user portal... for ordering, receiving payment, and dispensing one or more tickets to the selected college event; wherein the online user portal further comprises a payment receiver and a ticket dispenser" represent a practical application of the claimed system and method that cannot be performed using the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) and (III). For at least these reasons, the claim rejections under 35 USC §101 should be withdrawn.
In response to the subject matter eligibility declaration (“SMED”) filed with the response on 4/16/2026, the examiner does not find the presented evidence regarding § 101 eligibility to be persuasive. While the declaration describes various benefits resulting from the use of the claimed invention, they are improvements to the underlying abstract idea or benefits resulting from the business processes being implemented on one or more computers, rather than improvements to a specific technology or functioning of computers itself. For example, the claims do not recite any technical details that provide an improvement to how an event webpage/portal functions or is displayed, provide an improved user interface for electronic devices, or otherwise provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology/technological field. Instead, the alleged efficiency is brought about by merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computers or computer components (i.e. “A computer implemented system” comprising “an event organizer login portal,” “an event organizer portal accessible by at least one event organizer…including an event organizer login interface and a dedicated space for uploading the event information,” “an event management portal for receiving the event information from the event organizer portal,” “a central processing unit,” and “an online user portal accessible by individual users, including a user command menu…wherein the online user portal further comprises a payment receiver and a ticket dispenser” of claim 1; “A computer-implemented method… performed by a computer system comprising at least one processor,” and “providing an online user portal accessible by individual users, including a user command menu…wherein the online user portal further comprises a payment receiver and a ticket dispenser” of claim 11; and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium…comprising one or more computer- readable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to…,” and “provide individual users with an online user portal including a user command menu…wherein the online user portal further comprises a payment receiver and a ticket dispenser” of claim 21). The added steps for event organizers and content of the event information further describes the abstract idea itself, rather than providing a technological solution a technological problem.
Further, while the argued payment receiver and ticket dispenser of the user portal do not fall under the abstract idea identified at Step 2A Prong One, they must still be analyzed as additional elements under Step 2A Prong Two (to determine whether they are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application) and Step 2B (to determine whether or not they add significantly more than the abstract idea). However, both are generic computer components added after the fact to the abstract idea that do not represent an improvement to technology or otherwise integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two) or add significantly more (Step 2B). At most, these elements generally link the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Additionally, these elements are not even tied to the recited steps for receiving payment and dispensing tickets, which are steps that have long been capable of being performed by humans with the use of simple tools prior to the use of computers and describe sales activities or behaviors that also fall under “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Thus, even if the payment receiver and ticket dispenser (which seems to imply electronically outputting, displaying, or sending tickets to the user) were recited as receiving payment or dispensing tickets, they would not add anything more than applying the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Therefore, claims 1-9 and 11-21 as amended remain rejected under § 101. Please see the current § 101 rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-21 below, which is updated based on applicant’s amendments.
35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous § 103 rejections of claims 1-21 (pgs. 12-14, remarks filed 4/16/2026) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The prior art considered in combination does not teach, in combination with all of the other limitations of claim 1, the further limitations for a) “an event organizer login portal that screens event organizers to determine their affiliation with a college,” combined with b) “an event management portal for... analyzing the event information for unacceptable words, unacceptable subject matter, and/or unacceptable event organizers and comparing the event information against a stored database of restricted words and/or phrases,” as argued by applicant in pgs. 12-14 of the remarks. Claims 11 and 21 have also overcome the prior art for substantially the same reasons. See the reasons for novelty/non-obviousness below for further detail.
Therefore, the previous § 103 rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “the event portal,” which appears to be a typo that was intended to recite “the event management portal.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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:
“an event organizer login portal that screens event organizers to determine their affiliation with a college” of claim 1
“an event management portal for receiving the event information…analyzing the event or unacceptable words, unacceptable subject matter, and/or unacceptable event organizers and comparing the event information against a stored database of restricted words and/or phrases to determine whether to accept or reject the college event, and sending a rejection notice…” of claim 1
“the event management portal analyzes the event information by comparing…” of claims 6, 7 and 8 (note that “the event portal” of claim 8 is interpreted as being intended to read “the event management portal”)
The following portions of the specification appear to provide the corresponding structure for these elements in the specification (originally filed 2/17/2025):
Paragraph [27] showing the event organizer portal and event management portal are implemented on one or more processors of the computer system, paragraphs [30] and [34] showing the login functions of the event organizer portal, and paragraph [30] showing functions of the event management portal
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.
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 1-9 and 11-21 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.
Claims 1 recites “analyzing the event information for unacceptable words, unacceptable subject matter, and/or unacceptable event organizers,” and claims 11 and 21 each recite substantially similar limitations. These limitations render claims 1, 11, and 21 indefinite because “unacceptable” is a subjective term, and neither of the claims or the specification provide an definite objective standard for measuring the scope of the term. Thus, there is no objective boundary or metric that would enable one of ordinary skill to in the art to determine when a word, subject matter, or event organizer would be considered “unacceptable.”
While the claim discusses “comparing the event information against a stored database of restricted words and/or phrases,” this function as recited is not tied to the determination of whether a word, subject matter, or event organizer is unacceptable such that is provides an objective standard. Furthermore, while the specification (as filed 2/17/2025) in paragraphs ¶ 8, ¶ 30, and ¶ 38-40 discuss that this can be done by comparing words, subject matter, or event organizers against a list of event organizers, the paragraphs still do not provide an explicit definition or single objective standard for measuring when something is deemed “unacceptable.”
See MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV), showing “A claim term that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893, 167 USPQ 280, 289 (CCPA 1970). Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); see also Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1373, 112 USPQ2d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding the claim phrase "unobtrusive manner" indefinite because the specification did not "provide a reasonably clear and exclusive definition, leaving the facially subjective claim language without an objective boundary").” Further, “[T]he applicant may overcome a rejection by amending the claim to remove the subjective term, or by providing evidence that the meaning of the term can be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the disclosure. However, "[f]or some facially subjective terms, the definiteness requirement is not satisfied by merely offering examples that satisfy the term within the specification." DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1261, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1108 (Fed. Cir. 2014).” (id.).
For the purposes of further examination, “unacceptable” is interpreted in claims 1, 11, and 21 as covering any words, subject matter, or event organizers that fail to meet any kind of standard or are rejected/not acceptable for any reason.
In addition to removing or replacing the subjective term in the claims, applicant may alternatively amend the claims to specify how a word, subject matter, or event organizer is determined to be unacceptable (e.g. by comparing the words, subject matter, or event organizer in the event information to a list of disapproved words, disapproved subject matter, or disapproved event organizers and determining that words, subject matter, or event organizers in the event information matching the lists are unacceptable, as discussed in ¶ 8).
Claims 2-9 and 12-20 depend from claims 1 and 11 and thus are also rejected under § 112(b).
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 1-9 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-9 recite “A computer-implemented system…comprising: an event organizer login portal…an event organizer portal…an event management portal….a central processing unit…an online portal…” (i.e. a machine); claims 11-20 recite “A computer-implemented method….” (i.e. a process); and claim 21 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium… comprising one or more computer-readable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to…” (i.e. an article of manufacture). These claims fall under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter and as a result, pass Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test. However, “Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” See MPEP 2106.04. Accordingly, the examiner continues the subject matter eligibility analysis below.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1, 11, and 21 all recite similar limitations for: for widespread dissemination of college event information for multiple geographical regions and dispensing college event tickets (at least ten geographical regions as per claim 11), including:
screening event organizers to determine their affiliation with a college;
receiving event information for college events from at least one event organizer for each of the geographical regions,
the event information including multiple event information categories, the event information categories including at least a geographical region name, a description of the college event, a date and time for the event, a location for the event, and at least one ticket price for attending the event;
receiving the event information…;
analyzing the event information for each college event for unacceptable words, unacceptable subject matter, and/or unacceptable event organizers and comparing the event information against a stored database of restricted words and/or phrases to determine whether to accept or reject the college event, and sending a rejection notice to the at least one event organizer for each college event that is rejected;
receiving the event information for all college events that are accepted,
storing the event information for accepted college events from the multiple geographical regions, and
sorting the stored event information according to subcategories within the event information categories;
providing/outputting the stored event information for one or more of the event information categories and/or subcategories, for selecting a college event from the one or more event information categories and/or subcategories,
ordering, receiving payment, and dispensing one or more tickets to the selected college event
The limitations of independent claims 1, 11, and 21 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (i.e. receiving college event information from screened event organizers, storing and organizing the college event information, and presenting the college event information to users for selection and purchase) for the reasons discussed in the following continued Step 2A Prong One analysis. Note that “An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), claim limitations which recite commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category of judicial exceptions. Therefore, since the processes described by the limitations above amount to a commercial interaction (i.e. receiving college event information from screened event organizers, storing and organizing the college event information, and presenting the college event information to users for selection and purchase - which describes sales activities or behaviors) and managing interactions between people (i.e. receiving college event information from screened event organizers, storing and organizing the college event information, and presenting the college event information to users for selection and purchase – which describes managing events and ticket sales interactions between event organizers and users/buyers), the claims fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
As described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[T]he "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” and “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” The limitations recited by the representative independent claims 1, 11, and 21 above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and but for the use of generic computer components, cover concepts (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) that can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by the human mind with the aid of simple tools such as pen and paper. For example, the “receiving event information…,” “receiving the event information…,” and “receiving the event information…” steps amount to observations, while the “screening one or more event organizers,” “analyzing the event information…and comparing the event information…to determine…and sending a rejection notice…,” “storing the event information…,” (e.g. via pen and paper) “sorting the stored event information,” and “selecting,” “ordering,” “receiving payment,” steps would be considered evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Furthermore, note that the steps for sending a rejection notice, storing event information, sorting event information, and selecting/ordering could easily be performed by a person with the use of pen and paper or via verbal communication – and dispensing a ticket, but for the recitation of generic computers, is analogous to a person providing a ticket to a buyer after receiving payment. Therefore, as the processes above described by the representative independent claims 1, 11 and 21 can be characterized as mental processes (i.e. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), but for the recitation of generic computer components in the claims, the claims fall under the “mental processes” category of judicial exceptions (i.e. abstract ideas).
As claims 1, 11, and 21 are identified by the examiner as reciting limitations that fall under more than one abstract idea grouping (i.e. “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes”), the examiner considers the limitations together as a single abstract idea for the purposes of the Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B analysis, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) recited in claims 1, 11, and 21 is not integrated into a practical application because the claims, considered as a whole, recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. receiving college event information from screened event organizers, storing and organizing the college event information, and presenting the college event information to users for selection and purchase) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “A computer implemented system” comprising “an event organizer login portal,” “an event organizer portal accessible by at least one event organizer…including an event organizer login interface and a dedicated space for uploading the event information,” “an event management portal for receiving the event information from the event organizer portal,” “a central processing unit,” and “an online user portal accessible by individual users, including a user command menu…wherein the online user portal further comprises a payment receiver and a ticket dispenser” of claim 1; “A computer-implemented method… performed by a computer system comprising at least one processor,” and “providing an online user portal accessible by individual users, including a user command menu…wherein the online user portal further comprises a payment receiver and a ticket dispenser” of claim 11; and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium…comprising one or more computer- readable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to…,” and “provide individual users with an online user portal including a user command menu…wherein the online user portal further comprises a payment receiver and a ticket dispenser” of claim 21). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.”
The event organizer login portal, event organizer portal including a login interface and uploading space, event management portal, central processing unit (claim 1), online user portal (claims 1, 11, 21), and at least one processor or computing device (claims 11, 21) are used to perform generic computer functions including receiving information/user input, uploading or sending (transmitting) information, and storing information, which amounts to the use of computers in their ordinary capacity. Furthermore, the user portal including a command menu to access and display event information (i.e. output information) and receive user inputs read on the use of generic user interfaces in their ordinary capacity. The limitations specifying that the online user portal includes a payment receiver and a ticket dispenser merely adds generic computer components after the fact, and at best generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As per MPEP 2106.05(f), The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, but instead also indicates that the claims recite mere instructions apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or computer components. Nothing in claims 1, 11, or 21 indicates that the invention is directed to an improvement in any particular technology or in the functioning of any of the recited computers themselves (e.g. the claims do not improve how a computer receives, transmits, or displays data, but instead use these generic computing functions when implementing the abstract on computers). Therefore, because the claims, considered as a whole, do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 11, and 21 do not include additional elements, whether considered alone or as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) because as mentioned above, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. receiving college event information from screened event organizers, storing and organizing the college event information, and presenting the college event information to users for selection and purchase) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “A computer implemented system” comprising “an event organizer login portal,” “an event organizer portal accessible by at least one event organizer…including an event organizer login interface and a dedicated space for uploading the event information,” “an event management portal for receiving the event information from the event organizer portal,” “a central processing unit,” and “an online user portal accessible by individual users, including a user command menu…wherein the online user portal further comprises a payment receiver and a ticket dispenser” of claim 1; “A computer-implemented method… performed by a computer system comprising at least one processor,” and “providing an online user portal accessible by individual users, including a user command menu…wherein the online user portal further comprises a payment receiver and a ticket dispenser” of claim 11; and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium…comprising one or more computer- readable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to…,” and “provide individual users with an online user portal including a user command menu…wherein the online user portal further comprises a payment receiver and a ticket dispenser” of claim 21). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.”
As discussed above, the event organizer login portal, event organizer portal including a login interface and uploading space, event management portal, central processing unit (claim 1), online user portal (claims 1, 11, 21), and at least one processor or computing device (claims 11, 21) are used to perform generic computer functions including receiving information/user input, uploading or sending (transmitting) information, and storing information, and merely uses computers in their ordinary capacity to apply the abstract idea within a computer environment. Furthermore, the user portal including a command menu to access and display event information (i.e. output information) and receive user inputs read on the use of generic user interfaces in their ordinary capacity. The limitations specifying that the online user portal includes a payment receiver and a ticket dispenser merely adds generic computer components after the fact, and at best generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more, but instead also indicates that the claims recite mere instructions apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or computer components. Nothing in claims 1, 11, or 21 indicates that the invention is directed to an improvement in any particular technology or in the functioning of any of the recited computers themselves (e.g. the claims do not improve how a computer receives, transmits, or displays data, but instead use these generic computing functions when implementing the abstract on computers) – and considering the additional elements above as an ordered combination does not alter the analysis above or add significantly more. Therefore, claims 1, 11, and 21 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent Claims 2-9 and 12-20:
Dependent claims 2-9 and 12-20 are directed to the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 11 above as they do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-5, 9, and 12-20 do not add any additional elements but merely further describe the abstract idea above by reciting limitations for: wherein the multiple geographical regions comprise at least 25 geographical regions (claims 2 and 12); wherein the multiple geographical regions comprise at least 50 geographical regions (claims 3 and 13); wherein the event information categories further comprise an event capacity (claims 4 and 14); wherein the event information categories further include identification of an event host or event organizer (claims 5 and 15); wherein the event information categories further include a seating arrangement for the event and an indication of ticket prices for each remaining available seat (claim 9); comparing the event information to specific words and/or phrases to trigger sending of a rejection notice (claim 16), comparing the event information to a list of approved event types, or a list of disapproved event types, to determine whether to accept or reject the college event (claim 17), and comparing the event information to a list of approved event organizers, or a list of disapproved event organizers, to determine whether to accept or reject the college event (claim 18); storing contact information…analyzing event preferences…and notifying the individual users of upcoming college events… (claim 19); and receiving payment from at least one of the individual users for the one or more tickets and dispensing the one or more tickets to the at least one individual user (claim 20).
Dependent claims 6-8 recite additional steps describing the abstract idea (“analyzes the event information by comparing the event information to specific words and/or phrases that, if present, will trigger sending of a rejection notice,” of claim 6 “analyzes the event information by comparing the event information to a list of approved event types, or a list of disapproved event types, to determine whether to accept or reject the college event” of claim 7 and “analyzes the event information by comparing the event information to a list of approved event organizers, or a list of disapproved event organizers, to determine whether to accept or reject the college event” of claim 8), but adds mere instructions to further apply these abstract steps using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “the event management portal” of claims 6-8).
Therefore, claims 1-9 and 11-21 are ineligible under § 101.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art for the following reasons:
The combination of Higgy, Thomas, and Corq fails to teach the newly added limitations pertaining to i) an event organizer login portal that screens event organizers to determine their affiliation with a college, and ii) an event management portal for... analyzing the event information for unacceptable words, unacceptable subject matter, and/or unacceptable event organizers and comparing the event information against a stored database of restricted words and/or phrases to determine whether to accept or reject the college event, and the closest identified prior art would not have found the claimed invention obvious in view of the closest prior art (both previously cited and newly cited).
A detailed analysis of the most relevant prior art is discussed below.
US 20130173317 A1 to Higgy teaches A computer-implemented event organizing/booking system (Higgy: Fig. 1, ¶ 0026-0032 showing event booking system providing access to venue operators, event promoters/organizers, and fans; see Fig. 6 showing events in a plurality of different geographical areas), comprising: an event organizer portal accessible by at least one event organizer for each of the multiple geographical regions (Higgy: Fig. 4C, ¶ 0057 showing promoter events dashboard accessed by promoters, i.e. event organizers; see ¶ 0029 clarifying that “Promoter” is defined to be independent from performers and venue operators and includes entities that want to organize an event; Fig. 4C showing the venues selected can include multiple geographic regions/cities) for receiving event information for a […] event from the event organizer (Higgy: ¶ 0053-0057 showing receiving event information for a new event proposal from the event promoter, i.e. organizer); the event organizer portal including at least an event organizer login interface (Higgy: ¶ 0053 showing “At 400, the promoter logs in or registers with the event booking system if it has not already done so”, and see Fig. 4B showing registration user interface for creating user name and password) and a dedicated space for uploading the event information (Higgy: Fig. 4C, ¶ 0053-0057 showing promoter enters event proposal information such as requested venue, performer, date, time, required staff/services, etc.), the event information including multiple event information categories (Higgy: Fig. 4C see various data entry fields under “Create New Event Proposal”, which describes “multiple event information categories”), the event information categories including at least a geographical region name (Higgy: Fig. 4C and ¶ 0053-0, see each of the venues selected from includes city name such as “San Mateo,” “Oakland,” “Cupertino,” or “San Francisco” CA), a description of the […] event (Higgy: Fig. 4C see “Event Description”), a date and time for the event (Higgy: Fig. 4C showing event date selection and event time selection), a location for the event (Higgy: Fig. 4C, ¶ 0053-0057 see venue selection, i.e. location for the event; Fig. 4C showing the venue location including an address of each venue), and at least one ticket price for attending the event (Higgy: Fig. 3C, ¶ 0048 showing event proposal information includes a ticket price; note that ¶ 0057 clarifies that the description of Figs. 2C and 3C, i.e. the Performer Events Dashboard and Venue Operator Dashboard, “can be incorporated here to describe the promoter dashboard”); an event management portal (Higgy: Fig. 3C, ¶ 0019, ¶ 0048 venue operator dashboard) for receiving the event information from the event organizer portal (Higgy: ¶ 0056 and Fig. 4A step 408-410 showing the event proposal information generated via the promoter dashboard is sent to the venue operator), analyzing the event information to determine whether to accept or reject the […] event (Higgy: ¶ 0056 sending proposal to venue operator such that the venue operator can make a decision and ¶ 0059 showing “the event proposal may be sent to both the venue operator and performer simultaneously for approval, rejection, or counter-proposal”; alternatively, see ¶ 0056, ¶ 0047 showing a threshold may be set in which the event will be cancelled if a threshold number of ticket reservations are not received), and sending a rejection notice to the event organizer portal if the event is rejected (Higgy: ¶ 0058 “The venue operator may also deny the event request without making a counterproposal in which case the event booking system will notify the promoter (414)”); a central processing unit (Higgy: Fig. 1, ¶ 0026-0032 showing internet server 12) for receiving the event information for all […] events that are accepted (Higgy: ¶ 0059-0060 showing after approval, the event is offers for tentative ticket reservations/sales to consumers); and an online user portal accessible by individual users, including a user command menu (Higgy: Fig. 6 and ¶ 0063 “FIG. 6 depicts an embodiment of a dashboard that allows registered fans to browse events for which tentative ticket reservations are being offered, accept tentative ticket reservations, track the progress of an event towards reaching the tentative ticket threshold, and purchase tickets for confirmed events”) for accessing and displaying the stored event information for one or more of the event information categories and/or subcategories (Higgy: Fig. 6, ¶ 0063 showing “a dashboard that allows registered fans to browse events for which tentative ticket reservations are being offered, accept tentative ticket reservations, track the progress of an event towards reaching the tentative ticket threshold, and purchase tickets for confirmed events (events for which a threshold has been reached)”; as per Fig. 6 various data about the venue, location , date and time, and description of each event is included), for selecting a […] event from the one or more event information categories and/or subcategories categories (Higgy: Fig. 6/¶ 0063 above, showing dashboard/user interface where user may select an event), and for ordering one or more tickets to the selected […] event (Higgy: Fig. 6/¶ 0063 showing ability to purchase or accept tentative reservations).
US 20110320227 A1 to Thomas et al. (Thomas) teaches storing and sorting stored event information according to types, i.e. categories of event information by creating and storing the event information in an events database, which may be filtered/searched/sorted according to event characteristics and search criteria corresponding to event listings (Thomas: ¶ 0061 showing “After receiving the required event information and instructions from the seller to publish an event listing, the network-based system 110 may create an active event and store the event information in the events database 154…” and ¶ 0081-0086 showing filtering, searching, and sorting event listings).
Previously cited NPL Reference U “Corq” teaches a platform for organizing and finding events on college campuses across North America, and was cited as teaching an events app tailored specifically to discovering/organizing college events across hundreds of college campuses, i.e. geographical regions (see https://web.archive.org/web/20210305013451/https://corq.app/ as cited on the 10/21/2025 office action and corresponding PTO-892).
US 20080250334 A1 to Price was previously cited as teaching automatically searching an event posting filled out and posted by a user for duplicative or inappropriate content, and if there is duplicative or inappropriate content (e.g. comparing event against another event), the user may be sent a message with a warning against such postings and the event is not posted (Price: ¶ 0029-0031; also see Fig. 7, ¶ 0026, ¶ 0082-0087 showing various blank fields of the event posting is filled out using words and/or phrases which the system scans for inappropriate/duplicative postings) – and the current claims were amended as suggested by the examiner to compare the words and/or phrases in the event information against a stored database (or table) of specific restricted words and/or phrases to overcome the cited “Price” reference above, as price identifies event information that is inappropriate but does not reference the analyzed event information against any particular database or table of specific restricted words and/or phrases.
US 20110270926 A1 to Boyd et al. (Boyd) teaches that a user may verify a .edu email address (e.g., johnsmith@harvard.edu) thereby confirming the user is associated with the school and either @harvard.edu or harvard.edu or other indication is displayed on the user's profile for other users to view (Boyd: ¶ 0041) and further teaches functionality for users creating and posting electronic invitations or meeting requests (Boyd: ¶ 0010, ¶ 0028-0030) – however Boyd does not tie the verification that the user is affiliated with the school to screen event organizers.
US 20190163815 A1 to Pidathala et al. (Pidathala) teaches receiving a textual post from a user and analyzing the post for words and/or phrases in comparison to one or more databases containing words/phrases for profanity detection, in order to determine whether or not the post should be published (Pidathala: ¶ 0009-0011, ¶ 0018-0020, ¶ 0034), but is not tied specifically to event creation.
However, while the references may individually teach some concepts of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to further modify the existing combination of Higgy, Thomas, and Corq with the additional prior art references above and arrive at claimed invention including (in combination with all of the other limitations of claim 1) the further limitations for i) an event organizer login portal that screens event organizers to determine their affiliation with a college, and ii) an event management portal for... analyzing the event information for unacceptable words, unacceptable subject matter, and/or unacceptable event organizers and comparing the event information against a stored database of restricted words and/or phrases to determine whether to accept or reject the college event.
Other relevant NPL References cited herein include Lavania (NPL Reference U cited on current PTO-892) which teaches a college event management system implemented on a mobile application which allows users to log in and register for events, and pay with their mobile device (Pgs. 1090-1093); Jeny (NPL Reference V, current PTO-892) which teaches a college event management system allowing admins to login and add events and users to register/login, view events, book events, and view their booked events (Pgs. 1434-1438); and Deepika (NPL Reference W, current PTO-892) which generally teaches a college communications app for registering for events on college campuses (Pgs. 1-3). However, none of these additional NPL reference cure the deficiencies of the prior art discussed above.
Therefore, claim 1 is novel and non-obvious over the prior art. Claims 11 and 21 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 1 but are embodied as a method and non-transitory computer-readable medium, and are also novel/non-obvious over the prior art. Claims 2-9 and 12-20 depend from claims 1 and 11, respectively.
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 Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 - 4:00 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.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights