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 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this communication, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed on behalf of this case.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 16-18 recite “the step of comparing” but appear they should recite “a step of comparing” since there does not appear to be any previous comparing step in the preceding claims.
Claim 19 similarly recites “further comprising the steps of storing…analyzing event …and notifying” but should recite “further comprising
Claim 20 similarly recites “further comprising the steps of receiving payment…and dispensing the one or more tickets” but should recite “further comprising payment from at least one of the individual users for the one or more tickets and dispensing the one or more tickets” since these steps are not previously recited in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-21 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 1-10 recite “A computer-implemented system…comprising: an event organizing -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 (at least ten geographical regions as per claim 11), including:
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;
analyzing the event information for each college event 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 and storing the event information for each college event that is accepted from each of the geographical regions using the at least one processor;
sorting the stored event information from all of the geographical regions according to subcategories within the event information categories; and
providing 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, and for ordering 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 event information from event organizers, storing and organizing the event information, and presenting the 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 event information from event organizers, storing and organizing the event information, and presenting the event information to users for selection and purchase - which describes sales activities or behaviors) and managing interactions between people (i.e. receiving event information from event organizers, storing and organizing the event information, and presenting the event information to users for selection and purchase – which describes managing events and ticket sales interactions between event organizers and users/buyers, and organizing social interactions), 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…” step amounts to an observation, while the “analyzing the event information…to determine,” “sorting,” and “selecting…and ordering” steps would be considered evaluations, judgments, and opinions. 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 event information from event organizers, storing and organizing the event information, and presenting the event information to users for selection and purchase) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “an event organizer portal accessible by at least one event organizer,” “an event organizer login interface and a dedicated space for uploading the event information,” and “an event management portal for receiving the event information from the event organizer portal,” and “an online user portal accessible by individual users, including a user command menu” 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” 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” 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 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 also used to perform generic computer functions including receiving information/user input, and uploading or sending (transmitting) 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. 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 event information from event organizers, storing and organizing the event information, and presenting the event information to users for selection and purchase) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “an event organizer portal accessible by at least one event organizer,” “an event organizer login interface and a dedicated space for uploading the event information,” and “an event management portal for receiving the event information from the event organizer portal,” and “an online user portal accessible by individual users, including a user command menu” 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” 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” of claim 21). As indicated above, the event organizer portal, event management portal, central processing unit (claim 1), online user portal (claims 1, 11, 21), and at least one processor/computing device (claims 11, 21) are used to perform generic computer functions for receiving information/user input, uploading or sending (transmitting) information, and storing information, which amounts to the use of computers in their ordinary capacity. Further, 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, which amounts to 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). Considering the additional elements above as an ordered combination does not alter the analysis above or add significantly more.
Dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20:
Dependent claims 2-10 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) and amounts to mere instructions to further apply this abstract step using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “the event management portal” of claims 6-8).
Dependent claim 10 specifies “wherein the online user portal further comprises a payment receiver and a ticket dispenser” which links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment but does not add anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1-21 are ineligible under § 101.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5 and 9-15, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130173317 A1 to Higgy in view of US 20110320227 A1 to Thomas et al. (Thomas), and further in view of NPL Reference U (hereinafter “Corq” - see current PTO-892 and attached PDF of https://corq.app/ captured via archive.org on March 5, 2021).
Claim 1: Higgy teaches:
A computer-implemented system for widespread dissemination of […] event information for multiple geographical regions (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),
With respect to the limitations:
storing the event information for accepted […] events from the multiple geographical regions, and
sorting the stored event information according to subcategories within the event information categories; and
Higgy teaches after approval, the event is offers for tentative ticket reservations/sales to consumers (Higgy: ¶ 0059-0060; also see Fig. 6 showing events displayed on dashboard), but does not explicitly teach storing and sorting event information according to subcategories within the event information. However, Thomas teaches storing and sorting stored event information according to types, i.e. categories of event information (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 for publication to users of the network-based system 110. The event information stored in the events database 154 may change frequently as new event listings for upcoming events are added and then removed when the tickets for such events listings are purchased”; and ¶ 0081-0086 showing filtering, searching, and sorting event listings according to the characteristics of events and search criteria corresponding to event listings). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include storing and sorting the events information by specific types of data as taught by Thomas in the events management system of Higgy, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation of “ to make ticket transactions more efficient and cost-effective for sellers and buyers in an online marketplace for tickets for upcoming events” (Thomas: ¶ 0004).
Higgy, as modified above, further teaches:
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)
Higgy/Thomas teach all of the limitations above, and therefore teach all of the features of claim 1 except that the events correspond to “college events” as required by the claimed invention.
However, Corq teaches an events app tailored to discovering/organizing college events across hundreds of college campuses, i.e. geographical regions (Corq: Pg. 1 showing “Corq pinpoints over 130,000 college and university events a year from more than 250 campuses across North America”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the events app focused on college campus events of Corq in the events management system of Higgy/Thomas with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to enable users to “Discover amazing events and groups around campus from your favorite mobile device” and “find your niche and get involved on campus through organizations and groups dedicated to your interests” (Corq: Pg. 1).
Claim Interpretation Note(s):
The term “widespread” amounts to the use of relative terminology. MPEP 2173.05(b) makes clear that the use of relative terminology in claim language, including terms of degree, does not automatically render the claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and that acceptability of the claim language depends on whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed, in light of the specification. In this instance, “widespread” would be reasonably understood by one of ordinary skill in the art such that the claim is not indefinite. For example, making the college event information available over the internet or an online event booking system would read on “widespread.”
The term “geographical regions” is understood to cover any two or more physical areas. Note that the size/scope of each “geographical region” is not recited in the claim. E.g. a geographical region may represent a location (e.g. venue, stadium, commercial space), neighborhood, city, state, geographic region of country (e.g. northeast, Midwest, etc.)), or any other type of region representing a physical area.
Claim 2: Higgy/Thomas/Corq teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitation, Higgy does not explicitly teach, however, Corq teaches:
wherein the multiple geographical regions comprise at least 25 geographical regions (Corq: Pg. 1 showing “over 130,000 college and university events a year from more than 250 campuses across North America”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the events app being focused on college campus events across more than 250 campuses of Corq in the events management system of Higgy/Thomas/Corq with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 3: Higgy/Thomas/Corq teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitation, Higgy/Thomas do not explicitly teach, however, Corq teaches:
wherein the multiple geographical regions comprise at least 50 geographical regions (Corq: Pg. 1 showing “over 130,000 college and university events a year from more than 250 campuses across North America”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the events app being focused on college campus events across more than 250 campuses of Corq in the events management system of Higgy/Thomas/Corq with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 4: Higgy/Thomas/Corq teach claim 1. Higgy, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the event information categories further comprise an event capacity (Higgy: Fig. 3C showing event proposal information including “capacity” information; note om ¶ 0057 that the information of Figs. 2C and 33 (the Performer Events Dashboard and Venue Operator Dashboard) “can be incorporated here to describe the promoter dashboard”; also note the “event capacity” category included in the event information is not necessarily one of the selected “multiple event categories” in previous claim 1)
Claim 5: Higgy/Thomas/Corq teach claim 1. Higgy, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the event information categories further include identification of an event host or event organizer (Higgy: ¶ 0053 “As part of the promoter registration process, the event booking system may prompt the performer to populate fields related to contact information, verification of identity” and Fig. 4C showing the event proposals from the promoter included “Sender Name, i.e. identification of the event organizer; also see Fig. 4B showing promoter identification information such as name, address, phone number, email…)
Claim 9: Higgy/Thomas/Corq teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitation, Higgy teaches a dashboard showing ticket prices for events (Higgy: Fig.6, ¶ 0063), but does not explicitly teach the following. However, Thomas teaches:
wherein the event information categories further include a seating arrangement for the event and an indication of ticket prices for each remaining available seat (Thomas: ¶ 0086-0091 showing after selecting an event, the buyer is presented with an interactive event venue seat map showing each available seat and the ticket price associated with each available seat on the seat map)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the interactive venue seat map interface including prices of individual seats of Thomas in the events management system of Higgy/Thomas/Corq with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 10: Higgy/Thomas/Corq teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitation, Higgy teaches an online user portal wherein a user may browse and purchase tickets (Higgy: Fig. 6, ¶ 0063), but does not explicitly teach the following. However, Thomas teaches:
wherein the online user portal further comprises a payment receiver and a ticket dispenser (Thomas: ¶ 0092, ¶ 0132 showing buyer places order using entered payment method, and receives email confirmation; ¶ 0056, ¶ 0114 showing notification, e.g. email, SMS, or message to subscriber account, sent to buyers for downloading and printing the electronic tickets)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the functionality for purchasing and downloading/receiving tickets from the website of Thomas in the events management system of Higgy/Thomas/Corq with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 11: See the rejection of claim 1 above teaching analogous limitations, but for claim 11 being directed to “A computer-implemented method” (i.e. different statutory category). Higgy further teaches A computer-implemented method for widespread dissemination of college event information for multiple geographical regions including at least ten geographical regions, the method being performed by a computer system comprising at least one processor (Higgy: ¶ 0009-0011, ¶ 0026-0032, Fig. 1 showing event booking system including server for carrying out disclosed functions/operations; see Figs. 4C, Fig. 6 showing at least ten geographic regions associated with venues).
Claim 12: See the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim 13: See the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claim 14: See the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claim 15: See the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claim 19: Higgy/Thomas/Corq teach claim 11. Higgy, as modified above, further teaches:
further comprising the steps of storing contact information for the individual users (Higgy: Fig. 5, ¶ 0062 showing fan registration page wherein user enters contact info, e.g. phone number, email, social media),
analyzing event preferences for each of the individual users (Higgy: Fig. 5 showing event preferences for the registered user and received, including primary genres, venue or venue type, etc.), and
With respect to the remaining limitation:
notifying the individual users of upcoming college events that fall within the event preferences for each of the individual users
The combination of Higgy/Thomas/Corq above teaches an event management system, wherein the upcoming events being college events (see Corq). Higgy further teaches sending notifications to individual users who have already made tentative ticket reservations when a threshold has been achieve/the event is booked (Higgy: ¶ 0042), but does not explicitly teach notifying the users of upcoming events that match their event preferences/interests.
However, Thomas teaches notifying users of events that meet their preferences (Thomas: ¶ 0058 “The user also may customize a subscriber account with one or more notification preferences. For example, the user may configure the subscriber account to receive notifications, change notifications, and/or discontinue notifications. In some cases, the user may request to receive promotions via an e-mail newsletter featuring events happening in a particular location”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the functionality for notifying users when an event meets their preferences/interests of Thomas in the events management system of Higgy/Thomas/Corq with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 20: Higgy/Thomas/Corq teach claim 11. With respect to the following limitation, Higgy teaches an online user portal wherein a user may browse and purchase tickets (Higgy: Fig. 6, ¶ 0063), but does not explicitly teach the following. However, Thomas teaches:
further comprising the steps of 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 (Thomas: ¶ 0092, ¶ 0132 showing buyer places order using entered payment method, and receives email confirmation; ¶ 0056, ¶ 0114 showing notification, e.g. email, SMS, or message to subscriber account, sent to buyers for downloading and printing the electronic tickets)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the functionality for purchasing and downloading/receiving tickets from the website of Thomas in the events management system of Higgy/Thomas/Corq with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 21: See the rejection of claim 1 above teaching analogous limitations but for claim 21 being directed to “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…” Higgy teaches an internet server for implementing the invention (Higgy: Fig. 1, ¶ 0021), but to the extent Higgy does not explicitly teach the above, Thomas teaches “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…” (Thomas: ¶ 0164 “one or more operations of the logic flow 600 may comprise, or be implemented as, executable computer program instructions stored in an article of manufacture and/or computer-readable storage medium. The article and/or computer-readable storage medium may store executable computer program instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform methods and/or operations in accordance with the described embodiments”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the events managements system of Higgy to include performing the methods and/or operations on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions executed by a processor as taught by Thomas, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 6-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130173317 A1 to Higgy in view of US 20110320227 A1 to Thomas et al. (Thomas), further in view of NPL Reference U (hereinafter “Corq” - see current PTO-892 and attached PDF of https://corq.app/ captured via archive.org on March 5, 2021), and further in view of US 20080250334 A1 to Price.
Claim 6: Higgy/Thomas/Corq teach claim 1. With respect to the limitation:
wherein the event management portal 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
Higgy teaches rejecting an event by a venue operator as per claim 1 above (Higgy: ¶ 0039, ¶ 0058-0059), but Higgy/Thomas/Corq do not explicitly teach rejection of event information based on specific words/phrases.
However, Price teaches 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 at same time or place, which corresponds to words and/or phrases), 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the use of a fraud prevention module for analysis of event postings and automatic removal of inappropriate/duplicative events of Price in the events management system of Higgy/Thomas/Corq with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to prevent fraudulent or duplicative event postings (Price: ¶ 0031, ¶ 0061) and address the issue that “It is difficult at best to determine what events are taking places locally without searching through newspapers, banners, word of mouth, flyers, and multiple websites” (Price: ¶ 0002).
Note: Amending claim 6 to compare the words and/or phrases in the event information against a stored database (or table) of specific restricted words and/or phrases would 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.
Claim 7: Higgy/Thomas/Corq teach claim 1. With respect to the limitation:
wherein the event management portal 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
Higgy teaches rejecting an event by a venue operator as per claim 1 above (Higgy: ¶ 0039, ¶ 0058-0059), and Corq teaches the events pertaining college events (Corq: Pg. 1) as per above, but Higgy/Thomas/Corq do not explicitly teach rejection of event information based on an approved/disapproved event type. However, Price teaches “A fraud prevention module 164 may include analysis of posted events, which may be approved/disapproved automatically per a monitoring and approval(s) table or they may be approved/disapproved individually, for instance. The user posts an event using the event posting page. In an embodiment, the user fills out each of the blanks in order to post, including the security code and their email address. The system may automatically search the posting for any inappropriate content. If there is inappropriate content, the user may be sent a message with a warning against such postings and the event is not posted” (Price: ¶ 0031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the use of a fraud prevention module for analysis of event postings and automatic approval/disapproval including rejection of inappropriate or duplicative event postings of Price in the events management system of Higgy/Thomas/Corq with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to prevent fraudulent or duplicative event postings (Price: ¶ 0031, ¶ 0061) and address the issue that “It is difficult at best to determine what events are taking places locally without searching through newspapers, banners, word of mouth, flyers, and multiple websites” (Price: ¶ 0002).
Claim 8: Higgy/Thomas/Corq teach claim 5. With respect to the following limitations, Higgy teaches approving/ rejecting an event by a venue operator as per claim 1 above (Higgy: ¶ 0039, ¶ 0058-0059), and Corq teaches the events pertaining college events (Corq: Pg. 1) as per above, but Higgy/Thomas/Corq do not explicitly teach rejection of event information based on the following. However, Price teaches:
wherein the event portal 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 (Price: see Fig. 3 showing tables used to support event creations, wherein ¶ 0040 shows user accounts table indicating whether a user is banned from posting; see ¶ 0031 showing analysis of posted events, which may be approved/disapproved automatically per a monitoring and approval(s) table and showing that a user may be banned from further postings when inappropriate events content is repeated posted)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the analysis of event information to prevent banned users from posting events of Price in the events management system of Higgy/Thomas/Corq with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to prevent fraudulent or duplicative event postings (Price: ¶ 0031, ¶ 0061) and address the issue that “It is difficult at best to determine what events are taking places locally without searching through newspapers, banners, word of mouth, flyers, and multiple websites” (Price: ¶ 0002).
Claims 16-18: See the rejections of claims 6-8 above, respectively.
Conclusion
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, 8:00 - 5:00 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