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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 1, 2025, was filed after the mailing date of the application on February 18, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 is drawn to a machine and claims 2-12 are drawn to a process, each of which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites/describes the following steps:
“transmit ticket selection information,” “initiate a payment process.”
Claim 2 recites/describes the following steps:
“…transmitting, ticket selection information…;” and “…initiate a payment process.”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth receiving ticket selections and initiating a payment process, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Each of the depending claims 3-12 likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any elements recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “a system comprising: one or more circuits to communicate with a server computer system over a network,” “perform a messaging application” “receive a link,” “launch an abbreviated version of a client application… the abbreviated version to implement less than a full version of the client application,” (claim 1); and “transmitting, by a server application, a link to a messaging application performed by a client device,” “selection of the link,” “cause the client device to launch an abbreviated version of a client application, the abbreviated version to implement less than a full version of the client application;” (claim 2); “an application programming interface (API)” (claims 4 and 10); “ a webhook,” (claim 6); “a websocket,” (claim 7); and “an app clip” (claim 11).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a system comprising: one or more circuits to communicate with a server computer system over a network,” “perform a messaging application” “receive a link,” “launch an abbreviated version of a client application… the abbreviated version to implement less than a full version of the client application,” (claim 1); and “transmitting, by a server application, a link to a messaging application performed by a client device,” “selection of the link,” “cause the client device to launch an abbreviated version of a client application, the abbreviated version to implement less than a full version of the client application;” (claim 2); “an application programming interface (API)” (claims 4 and 10); “ a webhook,” (claim 6); “a websocket,” (claim 7); and “an app clip” (claim 11), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
Remaining dependent claims 3, 5, 8, 9, and 12, either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a system comprising: one or more circuits to communicate with a server computer system over a network,” “perform a messaging application” “receive a link,” “launch an abbreviated version of a client application… the abbreviated version to implement less than a full version of the client application,” (claim 1); and “transmitting, by a server application, a link to a messaging application performed by a client device,” “selection of the link,” “cause the client device to launch an abbreviated version of a client application, the abbreviated version to implement less than a full version of the client application;” (claim 2); “an application programming interface (API)” (claims 4 and 10); “ a webhook,” (claim 6); “a websocket,” (claim 7); and “an app clip” (claim 11), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Remaining dependent claims 3, 5, 8, 9, and 12, either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rodriguez et al. (US 2021/0152503 A1), hereinafter Rodriguez.
Regarding claim 1, Rodriguez discloses a system comprising: one or more circuits to communicate with a server computer system over a network (Par. [0064]), the one or more circuits to:
perform a messaging application to receive a link from the server computer system (Par. [0344], such embedded application extensions and/or one-time scripts can be downloaded from a server, or can be directly attached to user-selectable chat messages or suggested responses (links); Par. [0115], an embedded application can provide selectable data (e.g., words, links, buttons, etc.) to be displayed in the chat interface and chat conversation); and
launch an abbreviated version of a client application in response to selection of the link in the messaging application (Par. [0115], the embedded application can provide the selectable data to the messaging application, and the messaging application can display the selectable data in the chat interface and chat conversation), the abbreviated version to implement less than a full version of the client application (Par. [0133], in connection with an “App Clip” downloaded for a specific transaction and is offered by Apple or some other company. An “App Clip” relates to a one-time use or portion of a full application that is downloaded on-demand to a user device typically perform a single function like a payment),
transmit ticket selection information to the server computer system (Par. [0410], a travel bot may have the ability to make travel arrangements via messaging application 103, e.g., by enabling purchase of travel and hotel tickets within the messaging app; Par. [0428], a ticketing service may provide a bot that can book event tickets), and
cause the messaging application to initiate a payment process (Par. [0278], if the embedded application is a shopping application (e.g., travel app, e-commerce app, etc.), and the suggestion event is that the user has navigated to a “purchase” user interface, the suggested response items may include “pay with credit card,” “pay with bank account,” “pay with cash,” etc. based on the user's profile).
Regarding claim 2, Rodriguez discloses a method comprising:
transmitting, by a server application, a link to a messaging application performed by a client device, selection of the link in the messaging application to cause the client device to launch an abbreviated version of a client application (Par. [0344], such embedded application extensions and/or one-time scripts can be downloaded from a server, or can be directly attached to user-selectable chat messages or suggested responses (links)), the abbreviated version to implement less than a full version of the client application (Par. [0114], the embedded application can be a “lightweight” (e.g., reduced-feature or reduced-functionality) version of a full application that executes on the user device or on a different devices. The lightweight version is a version of the full application that requires less storage space, memory to execute, etc., can be executed without launching the full application, and may have a subset (e.g., fewer than the full set) of the features and/or functions of the full application);
transmitting, by the abbreviated version of the client application, ticket selection information to the server application (Par. [0410], a travel bot may have the ability to make travel arrangements via messaging application 103, e.g., by enabling purchase of travel and hotel tickets within the messaging app; Par. [0428], a ticketing service may provide a bot that can book event tickets); and
causing, by the abbreviated version of the client application, the messaging application to initiate a payment process (Par. [0278], if the embedded application is a shopping application (e.g., travel app, e-commerce app, etc.), and the suggestion event is that the user has navigated to a “purchase” user interface, the suggested response items may include “pay with credit card,” “pay with bank account,” “pay with cash,” etc. based on the user's profile).
Regarding claim 4, Rodriquez discloses he method of claim 2. Rodriguez also discloses further comprising: requesting, by the abbreviated version of the client application, creation of an order using an application programming interface (API) to communicate with the client application (Par. [0037], a standard API can be used between messaging application and embedded application, allowing a large variety of embedded applications to be provided by many different providers).
Regarding claim 5, Rodriquez discloses he method of claim 2. Rodriquez also discloses further comprising: notifying, by the abbreviated version of the client application, the messaging application with respect to one or more seat selections identified in the ticket selection information (Par. [0134], such an embedded application can receive user input from member users that specifies times, places, and events at which to reserve places (e.g., including user selections of seats, tables, or other places in a graphical display)).
Regarding claim 7, Rodriguez discloses he method of claim 2. Rodriguez also discloses further comprising: subscribing, by the abbreviated version of the client application, to a websocket (Par. [0297], display the contents of a web page at the particular link in the user interface of the web browser. Use of appropriate communication protocols can be included (e.g., websockets)) that is to provide one or more updates to the abbreviated version of the client application with respect to at least one of ticket availability or seat availability (Par. [0430], e.g., the bot may send a message “Tickets for the movie Space and Starts are $12 each. Shall I go ahead and book?”).
Regarding claim 8, Rodriguez discloses he method of claim 2. Rodriguez also discloses wherein the message application is a text messaging application (Par. [0066], A bot is an automated service, implemented on one or more computers, that users interact with primarily through text, e.g., via messaging application 103).
Regarding claim 9, Rodriguez discloses he method of claim 2. Rodriguez also discloses wherein the link is transmitted, by the server application, to the messaging application in response to an identification of an event received from the messaging application (Par. [0337], suggested responses can refer to one of these lists and not the other list, e.g., based on content of chat messages and/or one or more other suggestion events), and the ticket selection information is to identify one or more tickets to the event (Par. [0410], a travel bot may have the ability to make travel arrangements via messaging application 103, e.g., by enabling purchase of travel and hotel tickets within the messaging app, making hotel reservations within the messaging app).
Regarding claim 10, Rodriguez discloses he method of claim 2. Rodriguez also discloses wherein the abbreviated version of the client application is to transmit the ticket selection information by using an application programming interface (API) (Par. [0037], a standard API can be used between messaging application and embedded application, allowing a large variety of embedded applications to be provided by many different providers) to communicate the ticket selection information to the client application on the client device, and the client application is to forward the ticket selection information to the server application (Par. [0410], a travel bot may have the ability to make travel arrangements via messaging application 103, e.g., by enabling purchase of travel and hotel tickets within the messaging app; Par. [0428], a ticketing service may provide a bot that can book event tickets; Par. [0278], if the embedded application is a shopping application (e.g., travel app, e-commerce app, etc.), and the suggestion event is that the user has navigated to a “purchase” user interface, the suggested response items may include “pay with credit card,” “pay with bank account,” “pay with cash,” etc. based on the user's profile).
Regarding claim 11, Rodriguez discloses he method of claim 2. Rodriguez also discloses wherein the abbreviated version of the client application is an app clip (Par. [0114], the embedded application can be a “lightweight” (e.g., reduced-feature or reduced-functionality) version of a full application that executes on the user device or on a different devices. The lightweight version is a version of the full application that requires less storage space, memory to execute, etc., can be executed without launching the full application, and may have a subset (e.g., fewer than the full set) of the features and/or functions of the full application).
Regarding claim 12, Rodriguez discloses he method of claim 2. Rodriguez also discloses wherein the selection of the link is received by the messaging application from a user (Par. [0344], such embedded application extensions and/or one-time scripts can be downloaded from a server, or can be directly attached to user-selectable chat messages or suggested responses (links)).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn (US 2024/0223711 A1) in view of Salles (US 2016/0291815 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Rodriguez discloses he method of claim 2. Rodriguez also discloses further comprising: displaying, by the abbreviated version of the client application, and updating, by the abbreviated version of the client application (Par. [0114], the embedded application can be a “lightweight” (e.g., reduced-feature or reduced-functionality) version of a full application that executes on the user device or on a different devices. The lightweight version is a version of the full application that requires less storage space, memory to execute, etc., can be executed without launching the full application, and may have a subset (e.g., fewer than the full set) of the features and/or functions of the full application).
Rodriguez does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a seat map depicting available seats; and updating the seat map based at least in part on one or more seat updates received from the server application. Salles teaches a seat map depicting available seats; and updating the seat map based at least in part on one or more seat updates received from the server application (Par. [0075]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ticketing system of Rodriguez to include the seat map display abilities of Salles to teach “displaying, by the abbreviated version of the client application, a seat map depicting available seats; and updating, by the abbreviated version of the client application, the seat map based at least in part on one or more seat updates received from the server application,” 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn (US 2024/0223711 A1) in view of Spindler et al. (US 2025/0119493 A1), hereinafter Spindler.
Regarding claim 6, Rodriguez discloses he method of claim 2. Rodriguez does not explicitly disclose wherein a webhook is used to transmit the ticket selection information to the server application. Spindler teaches wherein a webhook is used to transmit the ticket selection information to the server application (Par. [0214], the security code packet may be transmitted from a first endpoint (e.g., webhook 1100 c) in the automation layer 1100 to a second endpoint at a third party authenticator (e.g., an API provided by the third party authenticator), as described in detail in FIG. 11 . For example, transmitting the security code packet to the authentication service provider may include using a first application programming interface corresponding to a first application (e.g., SNAP layer 1100, SNAP layer 1208, etc.) to communicate with a second application programming interface corresponding to a second application (e.g., the third party authenticator, cellular network authenticator, etc.) associated with the authentication service provider. The transmission may be configured to request validation of the client device to access content at the at least one link and to execute purchases associated with the one or more transactions of interest).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ticketing system of Rodriguez to include the webhook abilities of Spindler as a need exists for new and useful systems and methods for providing secure access and authentication when using mobile devices to access and/or purchase content (Spindler, Par. [0006]). The implementation of webhooks to a ticketing system as taught in Rodriguez would ensure such methods for providing secure access and authentication when using mobile devices to access and/or purchase content.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Donner et al. (US 7,577,619 B1) discloses a system for receiving a communication from the event customer, the communication including a request to obtain admittance to at least one event, the communication also including an identifier associated with the event customer, admitting the event customer at the point of sale system after verification of the request, and updating a database indicating that the request was processed. The method also includes determining first predetermined criteria associated with the event indicative of at least one other event customer not attending the event, releasing an allocation associated with the at least one other event customer, and notifying at least another of the event customers to perform the upgrade and/or reallocation.
Handoyo et al. "Ticketing chatbot service using serverless NLP technology." 2018 5th International Conference on Information Technology, Computer, and Electrical Engineering (ICITACEE). IEEE, 2018. The contribution of this research is to conduct some scenarios that happen in ordering tickets. This research conduct that chatbot can help acts as customer service, based on the conducted scenario and show an F-measure score of 89.65%.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571)270-7792. 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.
/Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3628