Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claim(s)
This action is a non-final office action in response to application 19/066,110 filed on 02/27/2025. Claim(s) 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: Independent Claim 1, recites an entity that is able to allocate tickets to users based on interest in an artist.
Independent Claim 1, as a whole recite limitation(s) that are directed to an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial interactions (e.g., sales activities and/or business relations), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions).
Independent Claim 1, recite(s) “receiving authentication credentials, the authentication credentials comprising identification information associated with a user,” “validating the authentication credentials received,” “receiving, ticket distribution criteria information, the ticket distribution criteria information comprising event identification information associated with an event, a ticket allocation quantity associated with the event, identification information associated with at least one content service, and one or more ticket distribution requirements for the event associated with the at least one content service,” “receiving, content service analytics information associated with the user,” “determining, based on the content service analytics information, that the user satisfies the one or more ticket distribution requirements for the event,” “generating, based on determining that the user satisfies the one or more ticket distribution requirements for the event, available ticket allocation information associated with the user for the event,” and “transmitting, the generated available ticket allocation information,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial interactions (e.g., sales activities and/or business relations), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions. For instance Independent Claim 1, is similar to an entity receiving user credentials, artist, and ticket information, which the entity is able to determine if the user satisfies a ticket distribution and then allocate available ticket information to a user. The mere recitation of generic computer components (Claim 1: an event ticketing management service system, a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a user system, an artist system, and a content service system) do not take the claims out of the enumerated group of certain methods of organizing human activity. Therefore, Independent Claim 1 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because Independent Claim 1 as a whole describes how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of “receiving,” “validating,” “receiving,” “receiving,” “determining,” “generating,” and “transmitting,” information in a computer environment, respectively. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are as follows (Claim 1: an event ticketing management service system, a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a user system, an artist system, and a content service system). Examiner, notes that the event ticketing management service system, processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, user system, artist system, and content service system, respectively, are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements are merely receiving, validating, receiving, receiving, determining, generating, and transmitting, information which, is merely using the additional elements in their ordinary capacity to transmit allocated tickets based on artist and content information thus amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, similar to, TLI Communications, where the court found that there was no improvement upon computers or technology when mere gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result. Here, in this case the system will receive authentication credentials from a user (e.g., gathering). The system will receive ticket distribution criteria information ,ticket distribution criteria information, ticket allocation quantity, identification information, and one or more ticket distribution requirements for the event (e.g., gathering). The system can also receive content service analytics information (e.g., gathering). The system can then determine if the user satisfies the ticket distribution requirements and generate available ticket allocation information associated with the user for the event (e.g., analyzing). The system can then transmit the generated available ticket allocation information (e.g., displaying) thus merely gathering information then determining if a user satisfies ticket distribution requirements, and based on if the ticket distribution is satisfied then transmitting the ticket allocation to the user are not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or technology of determining and presenting tickets to users.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Each of the above limitations simply implement an abstract idea that is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which, is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, when viewed in combination these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted previously, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply,” the abstract idea in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 5-16: The various metrics of Dependent Claim(s) 2-3 and 5-16 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to Independent Claim 1 respectively, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 4: The additional limitation of “receiving,” is further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity processes, as described in Independent Claim 1. The application program interface is recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Claim 4 recite(s) “wherein the content service analytics information nis received,” step(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial interactions (e.g., sales activities and/or business relations), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions).
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely receiving, content information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 4 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) 2-16 above do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) in the dependent claim(s) above are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s), which, do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-16 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins et al. (US 10,776,723 B1) in view of Garcia (US 2015/0332384 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hopkins et al., teaches a method for managing ticket distribution performed by an event ticketing management service system, the event ticket management service system comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the event ticketing management service system to perform the method, the method comprising (Column 12, Lines 49-67) and (Column 13, Lines 1-23)(Hopkins et al. teaches a proactive ticket reservation system that includes one or more processors and one or more computer-readable memory. Hopkins et al., also, teaches a non-transitory machine readable-readable storage medium for performing the acts and to implement the various techniques):
receiving authentication credentials from a user system, the authentication credentials comprising identification information associated with a user of the user system. (Column 28, Lines 1-15)(Hopkins et al. teaches a customer can log into the customer account via a website based on entering the customer credentials such username and password information (e.g., credentials) using the customer device (e.g., user system))
validating the authentication credentials received from the user system. (Column 28, Lines 1-15)(Hopkins et al. teaches in response to receiving the customer information then the system can identify the customer being associated with the customer account)
receiving, from an artist system associated with an artist, ticket distribution criteria information, the ticket distribution criteria information comprising event identification information associated with an event, a ticket allocation quantity associated with the event,
receiving, from a content service system associated with the at least one content service, content service analytics information associated with the user. (Column 20, Lines 23-46); (Column 21, Lines 36—67); (Column 22, Lines 37-67); and (Column 23, Lines 1-20 and 30-39)(Hopkins et al. teaches qualification criterion (e.g., analytics information) can be used to determine if a customer satisfies a location criterion, such that the customer is associated with a location that is within a threshold distance from a venue where the upcoming event is to occur. The qualifying customers that satisfy the one or more qualification criteria can be evaluated and the customers that have streamed a certain artist for a certain length of time)
determining, based on the content service analytics information, that the user satisfies the one or more ticket distribution requirements for the event. (Column 20, Lines 23-46); (Column 21, Lines 36—67); (Column 22, Lines 37-67); (Column 23, Lines 1-20, 30-39, and 65-67); and (Column 24, Lines 1-30)(Hopkins et al. teaches qualification criterion (e.g., analytics information) can be used to determine if a customer satisfies a location criterion, such that the customer is associated with a location that is within a threshold distance from a venue where the upcoming event is to occur. The qualifying customers that satisfy the one or more qualification criteria can be evaluated and the customers that have streamed a certain artist for a certain length of time (e.g., one or more ticket distribution requirements). The system can select the subset of customers that are to be assigned the tickets from the total number of tickets and the customers ranked the highest score based on the most minutes or hours of content that was streamed over the last year (e.g., one or more ticket distribution requirements))
generating, based on determining that the user satisfies the one or more ticket distribution requirements for the event, available ticket allocation information associated with the user for the event. (Column 23, Lines 65-67); and (Column 24, Lines 1-30)(Hopkins et al. teaches the system can select the subset of customers that are to be assigned the tickets from the total number of tickets and the customers ranked the highest score based on the most minutes or hours of content that was streamed over the last year (e.g., one or more ticket distribution requirements). The system can select the top 25 customers identified that have the higher scores)
transmitting, to the user system, the generated available ticket allocation information. (Column 25, Lines 34-55); and (Column 26, Lines 5-16 and 46-64)(Hopkins et al. teaches assigning to the customers in the subset selected. An electronic notification can be transmitted over the network to a customer in the subset selected, which the customers are able to select the number of tickets in the set of tickets that have been assigned to that customer)
With respect to the above limitations: while Hopkins et al. teaches a system that includes artist and customers. The system can determine the length of streaming time the customer has spent for an artist and the geographic location of the customer. The system can then allocate a certain amount of tickets to the selected customers that satisfy certain conditions based on an predetermined number of total tickets. However, Hopkins et al., doesn’t explicitly that the artist provides user identification information and the one or more distribution rules for the tickets.
But, Garcia in the analogous art of tickets for artist tours, teaches receiving, from an artist system associated with an artist identification information associated with at least one content service, and one or more ticket distribution requirements for the event associated with the at least one content service. (Paragraph(s) 0075-0076 and 0091)(Garcia teaches a data structure that can include a first user which is an artist. The information from the first user(s)/artists can include tour dates and geographic parameter rules (e.g., one or more ticket distribution requirements for the event associated with the at least one content service). The information can also include user identification of the artist account (e.g., artist identification information associated with at least one content service)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using a system that can allocate tickets to customers based on streaming time and geographic location information of Hopkins et al., by incorporating the teachings of storing artist data that includes artist identification information and geographical parameters of Garcia, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to improve the connection of the fans with the artist. (Garcia: Paragraph 0022)
Regarding Claim 5, Hopkins et al./Garcia, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and wherein the at least one content service comprises at least one music streaming service. (Column 6, Lines 9-28)(Hopkins et al. teaches the ticket system can provide additional services such as streaming services to stream content such audio and video. The customer can stream music audio files.)
Regarding Claim 6, Hopkins et al./Garcia, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and wherein the at least one content service comprises at least one music download service. (Column 6, Lines 9-38); (Column 7, Lines 65-67); and (Column 8, Lines 1-22 and 28-38)( at least one content service comprises at least one music streaming service. (Column 6, Lines 11-20)(Hopkins et al. teaches the ticket system can provide additional services such as electronic marketplace(s) for purchasing content (e.g., at least one music download service). The customer can conduct an electronic transaction for an music item for a particular artist, which can be stored a s a digital audio file or a physical medium for download streaming services to stream content such audio and video)
Regarding Claim 7, Hopkins et al./Garcia, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and wherein validating the authentication credentials received from the user system comprises validating the authentication credentials received from the user system with the content service system. (Column 28, Lines 1-15)(Hopkins et al. teaches a customer can log into the customer account via a website based on entering the customer credentials such username and password information (e.g., credentials) using the customer device (e.g., user system). Hopkins et al., further, teaches in response to receiving the customer information then the system can identify the customer being associated with the customer account)
Regarding Claim 8, Hopkins et al./Garcia, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and wherein the one or more ticket distribution requirements for the event associated with the at least one content service comprise an indication of a specified total ticket allocation number for the event. (Column 9, Lines 18-21)(teaches a provider of the ticket reservation service can receive a total number of tickets that have been allocated to the provider for the event)
Regarding Claim 9, Hopkins et al./Garcia, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and where the one or more ticket distribution requirements for the event associated with the at least one content service comprise an indication of a specified ticket allocation for the user. (Column 24, Lines 14-30)(teaches that the system can determine that out of 100 tickets that 25 of the top customers should receive tickets. The system can then determine that each of the customers are to have at least four tickets proactively reserved for them (e.g., indication of a specified ticket allocation for the user))
Regarding Claim 10, Hopkins et al./Garcia, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and wherein the one or more ticket distribution requirements comprise an indication of a threshold ranking of user listening frequency with the at least one content service. (Column 22, Lines 37-53)(Hopkins et al. teaches the system can compute respective scores (e.g., ranking) for the plurality of customers. The score can be based on the streaming data relating to the content associated with the artist that was streamed by the individual customer. The score can be determined based on a weighted formulate that computes the score as a function of the amount of time (e.g., user listening frequency with the at least one content service) the content associated with the artist has been streamed by an individual customer)
Regarding Claim 11, Hopkins et al./Garcia, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 10 and wherein determining that the user satisfies the one or more ticket distribution requirements for the event comprises determining that user of the user system is within the threshold ranking of user listening frequency with the content service. (Column 22, Lines 37-53); (Column 23, Lines 65-67); and (Column 24, Lines 1-30)(Hopkins et al. teaches the system can compute respective scores (e.g., ranking) for the plurality of customers. The score can be based on the streaming data relating to the content associated with the artist that was streamed by the individual customer. The score can be determined based on a weighted formulate that computes the score as a function of the amount of time (e.g., user listening frequency with the at least one content service) the content associated with the artist has been streamed by an individual customer. Hopkins et al., further, teaches the system can select the subset of customers that are to be assigned the tickets from the total number of tickets and the customers ranked the highest score based on the most minutes or hours of content that was streamed over the last year (e.g., satisfies the one or more ticket distribution requirements for the event comprises determining that user of the user system is within the threshold ranking of user listening frequency). The system can select the top 25 customers identified that have the higher scores)
Regarding Claim 12, Hopkins et al./Garcia, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and wherein the one or more ticket distribution requirements comprise an indication of a geographic area associated with the event. (Column 20, Lines 23-46); (Column 21, Lines 36—67); (Column 22, Lines 37-67); and (Column 23, Lines 1-20 and 30-39)(Hopkins et al. teaches qualification criterion can be used to determine if a customer satisfies a location criterion, such that the customer is associated with a location that is within a threshold distance from a venue where the upcoming event is to occur)
Regarding Claim 13, Hopkins et al./Garcia, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 12 and wherein determining that the user satisfies the one or more ticket distribution requirements for the event comprises determining that user is associated with a location within the geographic area. (Column 20, Lines 23-51)(Hopkins et al. teaches qualification criterion can be used to determine if a customer satisfies a location criterion, such that the customer is associated with a location that is within a threshold distance from a venue where the upcoming event is to occur)
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins et al. (US 10,776,723 B1) in view of Garcia (US 2015/0332384 A1) and further in view of Snyder (US 2023/0091215 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Hopkins et al./Garcia, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Hopkins et al./Garcia, do not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises transmitting, to the content service, based on the identification information associated with the at least one content service, an analytics information request, the analytics information requires comprising the identification information associated with the user.
But, Snyder in the analogous art of booking artist based streaming information, teaches wherein the method further comprises transmitting, to the content service, based on the identification information associated with the at least one content service, an analytics information request, the analytics information requires comprising the identification information associated with the user. (Paragraph(s) 0047-0048)(Snyder teaches a computer is able to receive consumption data associated with a recording artist. The consumption data is retrieved from one or more media platforms and can include the degree of media consumed for a recording artist (e.g., identification information associated with the at least one content service) and the demographic data associated with the consumers of the media data (e.g., analytics information requires comprising the identification information associated with the user). The degree of media consumed includes the number of streams for the media)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using a system that can allocate tickets to customers based on streaming time and geographic location information of Hopkins et al. and storing artist data that includes artist identification information and geographical parameters of Garcia, by incorporating the teachings of a computer receiving data that includes streaming information and demographic information for the consumers of Snyder, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to improve dictate which consumers should receive booking information for an artist within a geo-location. (Snyder: Paragraph(s) 0002, 0020, 0029)
Regarding Claim 3, Hopkins et al./Garcia/Snyder, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 2.
However, Hopkins et al./Garcia, do not explicitly teach wherein the content service analytics information is received in response to analytics information request.
But, Snyder in the analogous art of booking artist based streaming information, teaches wherein the content service analytics information is received in response to analytics information request. (Paragraph(s) 0030, 0047-0048 and 0051)(Snyder teaches a computer is able to receive consumption data associated with a recording artist. The consumption data is retrieved from one or more media platforms and can include the degree of media consumed for a recording artist and the demographic data associated with the consumers of the media data. The degree of media consumed includes the number of streams for the media. Snyder, further, teaches an software application that includes an API to retrieve media data from the music streaming platforms to then automatically initiate and send inquiry notification to consumers. The API can provide an inquiry to a platform/software applications for information)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using a system that can allocate tickets to customers based on streaming time and geographic location information of Hopkins et al. and storing artist data that includes artist identification information and geographical parameters of Garcia, by incorporating the teachings of a computer using an API to receive data that includes streaming information and demographic information for the consumers of Snyder, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to improve dictate which consumers should receive booking information for an artist within a geo-location. (Snyder: Paragraph(s) 0002, 0020, 0029)
Regarding Claim 4, Hopkins et al./Garcia/Snyder, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 3.
However, Hopkins et al./Garcia, do not explicitly teach wherein the content service analytics information is received from an exposed application program interface of the content service.
But, Snyder in the analogous art of booking artist based streaming information, teaches wherein the content service analytics information is received from an exposed application program interface of the content service. (Paragraph(s) 0030, 0047-0048 and 0051)(Snyder teaches a computer is able to receive consumption data associated with a recording artist. The consumption data is retrieved from one or more media platforms and can include the degree of media consumed for a recording artist and the demographic data associated with the consumers of the media data. The degree of media consumed includes the number of streams for the media. Snyder, further, teaches an software application that includes an API (e.g., exposed application program interface) to retrieve media data from the music streaming platforms to then automatically initiate and send inquiry notification to consumers. The API can provide an inquiry to a platform/software applications for information)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using a system that can allocate tickets to customers based on streaming time and geographic location information of Hopkins et al. and storing artist data that includes artist identification information and geographical parameters of Garcia, by incorporating the teachings of a computer using an API to receive data that includes streaming information and demographic information for the consumers of Snyder, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to improve dictate which consumers should receive booking information for an artist within a geo-location. (Snyder: Paragraph(s) 0002, 0020, 0029)
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins et al. (US 10,776,723 B1) in view of Garcia (US 2015/0332384 A1) and further in view of Niu (CN 111242330 A).
Regarding Claim 14, Hopkins et al./Garcia, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 13.
However, Hopkins et al./Garcia, do not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises transmitting a request to the artist system for ticket distribution criteria information.
Niu, in the analogous art of verifying passwords, wherein method further comprises identifying the location associated with the user based on the validation of the authentication credentials received from the user system. (Page 8, “After the dynamic password is generated…,” “The server sends pop-up…,” and “After the server receives the dynamic password…,”)(Niu teaches a dynamic password (e.g., authentication credentials) is generated and sent to a device. The user can then enter the dynamic password into the pop-window of the display on the mobile device. After the server receives the dynamic password it can match it with the dynamic password sent by the password device itself. If the match is successful, then the reservation target information and the location information mee t the preset conditions, and the user is considered near the conference room (e.g., identifying the location of the user))
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using a system that can allocate tickets to customers based on streaming time and geographic location information of Hopkins et al. and storing artist data that includes artist identification information and geographical parameters of Garcia, by incorporating the teachings of a computer validating a password, which the system can determine a match and the user is near a certain location of Niu, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to improve identity verification. (Page 8, “According to the embodiment…,”)
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins et al. (US 10,776,723 B1) in view of Garcia (US 2015/0332384 A1) and further in view of Liu (US 2013/0073324 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Hopkins et al./Garcia, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Hopkins et al./Garcia, do not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises transmitting a request to the artist system for ticket distribution criteria information.
But, Liu in the analogous art of booking artist for shows, teaches wherein the method further comprises transmitting a request to the artist system for ticket distribution criteria information. (Paragraph(s) 0036, 0052, and 0065-0068)(Liu teaches an artist device can be used to register with a coordination database using a coordination server. The artist can set the artist standards, which the standards can include geographic locations of interest, ticket volume ranges, ticket price ranges, venue type, and tie period for a tour or online listing. The server can determine the artist standards are met by the server pulling from the database or receiving the information from the user device)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using a system that can allocate tickets to customers based on streaming time and geographic location information of Hopkins et al. and storing artist data that includes artist identification information and geographical parameters of Garcia, by incorporating the teachings of a server receiving artist standards for booking a show of Liu, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to prevent the system from devoting unnecessary resource for booking artist that are not in demand. (Liu: Paragraph 0005)
Regarding Claim 16, Hopkins et al./Garcia, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 15.
However, Hopkins et al./Garcia, do not explicitly teach wherein the receiving the content service analytics information is responsive to the request.
But, Liu in the analogous art of booking artist for shows, teaches wherein the receiving the content service analytics information is responsive to the request. (Paragraph(s) 0036, 0052, and 0065-0068)(Liu teaches an artist device can be used to register with a coordination database using a coordination server. The artist can set the artist standards (e.g., analytics information), which the standards can include geographic locations of interest, ticket volume ranges, ticket price ranges, venue type, and tie period for a tour or online listing. The server can determine the artist standards are met by the server pulling from the database or receiving the information from the user device)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using a system that can allocate tickets to customers based on streaming time and geographic location information of Hopkins et al. and storing artist data that includes artist identification information and geographical parameters of Garcia, by incorporating the teachings of a server receiving artist standards for booking a show of Liu, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to prevent the system from devoting unnecessary resource for booking artist that are not in demand. (Liu: Paragraph 0005)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Spotify Will Now Give You Personalized Concert Recommendations In Your Area,” by Wil Fulton, November 12, 2015, (hereinafter Spotify). Spotify teaches an app that determines artist/music you are into, and the app will deliver concert recommendations in your area that are synced up with your audio interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A HEFLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3524. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Jeff 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.
/B.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628