DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn.
Claims 11-19 have been examined.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B over the phone on 03/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 are directed to Species A: Represented by the specification ¶0066. Since Species B is elected, therefore, Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species.
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct Species:
Species A: Represented by the first preferred embodiment in Specification ¶0066; and
Species B: Represented by the second preferred embodiment in Specification ¶0069.
The species are independent or distinct because claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no claims are generic.
There is an examination and search burden for these patentably distinct species due to their mutually exclusive characteristics. The species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the species are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election of the species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the species to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
A telephone call was made to Mr. David Weiss on 03/04/2026 to request an oral election to the above restriction requirement.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Following claims contain typographical error, the “ticketing system” should be “ticketing computer system”. An appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites “receiving, ...hosted by the ticketing system; ” “determining whether a public key...usable with the ticketing system via the network interface...”.
Claims12, 14 and 17-19 recite “determining whether a second public key...usable with the ticketing system...”.
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 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
In the instant case, claims 11-19 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claim(s) recite(s) ticketing service access control. Specifically, the claims recite “receiving, at a ... over a ... via a ..., a request from a ... of a user for access to a ... hosted by the ...; determining, using the ..., whether the ... is associated with a human or an automated program by at least: determining whether a public key was received in association with a cryptographically verifiable token associated with the user and configured to be only usable with the ... via the ..., the ... comprising a ..., a timestamp, a verifiable credential comprising a ... comprising a namespace component that identifies a decentralized identifier method, a signature, and a uniform resource identifier that associates the user with a decentralized identifier document; at least partly in response to determining that the ...was not received via the network interface: adversely affecting a position of the request from the ... in a ticket request queue; enabling the... to utilize the ...; at least partly in response to the user acquiring a first event ticket via the ..., associating the first event ticket with the user in a first record; and at least partly in response to reading, by an ..., an authentication code from a device associated with the user, authenticating the user to access a venue.”, which is “commercial or legal interactions” within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for ticketing service access control. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of ticketing computer system, network, network interface, first device, ticket acquisition user interface, cryptographically verifiable token, JSON Web token, pairwise-pseudonymous decentralized identifier using the merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processors and memories are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ticketing service access control) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using ticketing computer system, network, network interface, first device, ticket acquisition user interface, cryptographically verifiable token, JSON Web token, pairwise-pseudonymous decentralized identifier, processing device steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 12, 14 and 17-19 describe handling the second request. Dependent claim 13 describes requesting token from the user. Dependent claims 15-16 describe authentication code. These claims further recite the abstract idea of the certain methods of organizing human activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the use of ticketing computer system, network, network interface, first device, ticket acquisition user interface, cryptographically verifiable token, JSON Web token, pairwise-pseudonymous decentralized identifier, processing device merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims simply recite the concept of ticketing service access control. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.
The use of a ticketing computer system, network, network interface, first device, ticket acquisition user interface, cryptographically verifiable token, JSON Web token, pairwise-pseudonymous decentralized identifier, processing device as tools to implement the abstract idea does not render the claim patent eligible because it does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Application Publication US20220321354A1 (“Ladd et al.”) in view of US Application Publication US20250148466A1 (“Kokaji et al.”), in further view of US Application Publication US20160078370A1 (“McEwen et al.”) and US20200313897A1 (“Health et al.”).
Regarding claim 11, Ladd et al. discloses:
receiving, at a computer system over a network via a network interface, a request from a first device of a user for access to a service hosted by the computer system; (Fig. 3A step 302; ¶0053)
determining, using the ticketing computer system, whether the first device is associated with a human or an automated program by at least: (3A step 304; ¶0054)
determining whether a public key was received in association with a cryptographically verifiable token associated with the user and configured to be only usable with the ticketing system via the network interface, (Fig. 3A step 314; ¶0057)
enabling the first device to utilize the service; (Fig. 3A step 306; ¶0054)
Ladd et al. does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a computer system is a ticketing computer system,
wherein the service is a ticket acquisition user interface;
the cryptographically verifiable token comprising a JSON Web token, a timestamp, a verifiable credential comprising a pairwise-pseudonymous decentralized identifier comprising a namespace component that identifies a decentralized identifier method, a signature, and a uniform resource identifier that associates the user with a decentralized identifier document;
at least partly in response to determining that the cryptographically verifiable token was not received via the network interface:
adversely affecting a position of the request from the first device in a ticket request queue;
at least partly in response to the user acquiring a first event ticket via the ticket acquisition user interface, associating the first event ticket with the user in a first record; and
at least partly in response to reading, by an access control device, an authentication code from a device associated with the user, authenticating the user to access a venue.
However, Kokaji et al. discloses:
wherein a computer system is a ticketing computer system, (Fig. 7 item 10)
wherein the service is a ticket acquisition user interface; (Figs. 8-10 and 14-15)
at least partly in response to the user acquiring a first event ticket via the ticket acquisition user interface, associating the first event ticket with the user in a first record; and (¶0087)
at least partly in response to reading, by an access control device, an authentication code from a device associated with the user, authenticating the user to access a venue. (Fig. 12; ¶¶0076-79)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Using a Zero-Knowledge Proof to Prove Knowledge that a Website visitor is a Legitimate Human User of Ladd et al. by including a ticketing system in accordance with the teaching of Kokaji et al.. This modification enables the modified system to support events ticketing transaction.
Ladd et al. and Kokaji et al. do not explicitly disclose:
the cryptographically verifiable token comprising a JSON Web token, a timestamp, a verifiable credential comprising a pairwise-pseudonymous decentralized identifier comprising a namespace component that identifies a decentralized identifier method, a signature, and a uniform resource identifier that associates the user with a decentralized identifier document;
at least partly in response to determining that the cryptographically verifiable token was not received via the network interface:
adversely affecting a position of the request from the first device in a ticket request queue;
However, McEwen et al. discloses:
at least partly in response to determining that the cryptographically verifiable token was not received via the network interface:
adversely affecting a position of the request from the first device in a ticket request queue; (¶0055, claim 1 “a queue engine that,…” and claim 6)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ladd et al. and Kokaji et al. by including of handling taken is not received situation in accordance with the teaching of McEwen et al.. This modification enables the system to handle missing token situation fairly and smoothly.
Ladd et al., Kokaji et al. and McEwen et al. do not explicitly disclose:
the cryptographically verifiable token comprising a JSON Web token, a timestamp, a verifiable credential comprising a pairwise-pseudonymous decentralized identifier comprising a namespace component that identifies a decentralized identifier method, a signature, and a uniform resource identifier that associates the user with a decentralized identifier document;
However, Heath et al. discloses:
the cryptographically verifiable token comprising a JSON Web token, a timestamp, a verifiable credential comprising a pairwise-pseudonymous decentralized identifier comprising a namespace component that identifies a decentralized identifier method, a signature, and a uniform resource identifier that associates the user with a decentralized identifier document; (¶0044)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ladd et al., Kokaji et al. and McEwen et al. by including JWT comprising pairwise pseudonymous decentralized identifier in accordance with the teaching of Heath et al.. This modification enables the combined system to support pairwise pseudonymous decentralized identifier which enhances user privacy.
Regarding claim 15, Ladd et al. in view of Kokaji et al., and in further view of McEwen et al. and Heath et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Kokaji et al. further discloses:
wherein the authentication code is encoded in a QR optical code that periodically refreshes. (Fig. 21; ¶0093)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Using a Zero-Knowledge Proof to Prove Knowledge that a Website visitor is a Legitimate Human User of Ladd et al. by encoding a QR code for the ticket in accordance with the teaching of Kokaji et al.. This modification provides an easy, efficient and contactless way for users to enter the venue.
Regarding claim 16, Ladd et al. in view of Kokaji et al., and in further view of McEwen et al. and Heath et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Kokaji et al. further discloses:
wherein the authentication code is encoded in an optical code. (Fig. 21; ¶0076 and ¶0093)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Using a Zero-Knowledge Proof to Prove Knowledge that a Website visitor is a Legitimate Human User of Ladd et al. by encoding a QR code for the ticket in accordance with the teaching of Kokaji et al.. This modification provides an easy, efficient and contactless way for users to enter the venue.
Claims 12, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Application Publication US20220321354A1 (“Ladd et al.”) in view of US Application Publication US20250148466A1 (“Kokaji et al.”), in further view of US Application Publication US20160078370A1 (“McEwen et al.”), US20200313897A1 (“Health et al.”) and US20160234264A1 (“Coffman et al.”).
Regarding claim 12, Ladd et al. in view of Kokaji et al., and in further view of McEwen et al. and Heath et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ladd et al. further discloses:
receiving, at the ticketing computer system over the network via the network interface, a request from a second device of a second user for access to a ticket acquisition user interface for a second event; (Fig. 3A step 302; ¶0053)
determining, using the ticketing computer system, whether the second device is associated with a human or an automated program by at least: (3A step 304; ¶0054)
determining whether a second public key was received in association with a second cryptographically verifiable token associated with the second user and configured to be only usable with the ticketing system via the network interface, the second cryptographically verifiable token associated with the second user comprising a second verifiable credential and a second uniform resource identifier that associates the second user with a second decentralized identifier document; (Fig. 3A step 314; ¶0057)
at least partly in response to determining that the second cryptographically verifiable token associated with the second user was received via the network interface: (Fig. 3A steps 312; ¶0057)
confirming a validity of the second verifiable credential utilizing the second public key, wherein the second public key is validated by matching the second public key against a corresponding public key stored on a remote system; (Fig. 3A steps 314; ¶0057)
at least partly in response to confirming the validity of the second verifiable credential utilizing the second public key, determining that the second user is a human and not an automated program; (¶0053 and ¶0057)
at least partly in response to determining that the request from the second device for access to the ticket acquisition user interface is from the second user and not the automated program, enabling the second device to utilize the ticket acquisition user interface; (Fig. 3A steps 306; ¶0054)
Kokaji et al. discloses:
at least partly in response to the second user, acquiring a ticket for the second event via the ticket acquisition user interface, associating the second event ticket with the second user in a second record; and (¶0087)
at least partly in response to reading, by a second access control device, an authentication code from a device associated with the second user, authenticating the second user to access a second venue. (Fig. 12; ¶¶0076-79)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Using a Zero-Knowledge Proof to Prove Knowledge that a Website visitor is a Legitimate Human User of Ladd et al. by including associating sold ticket with the user in the ticketing system in accordance with the teaching of Kokaji et al.. This modification enables the modified system to track the ownership of the sold ticket.
Ladd et al., Kokaji et al., McEwen et al. and Heath et al. do not explicitly disclose:
determining that tickets for the second event are not yet available;
at least partly in response to determining that tickets for the second event are not yet available placing the second user in a virtual waiting room for a first period of time;
However, Coffman et al. discloses:
determining that tickets for the second event are not yet available; (¶0034)
at least partly in response to determining that tickets for the second event are not yet available placing the second user in a virtual waiting room for a first period of time; (¶0034)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ladd et al., Kokaji et al., McEwen et al. and Heath et al. by including virtual waiting room in accordance with the teaching of Coffman et al.. This modification enables the combined system to provide a better user experience and better manage the event queue.
Regarding claim 14, Ladd et al. in view of Kokaji et al., and in further view of McEwen et al. and Heath et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ladd et al. further discloses:
receiving, at the ticketing computer system over the network via the network interface, a request from a second device of a second user for access to a ticket acquisition user interface for a second event; (Fig. 3A step 302; ¶0053)
determining, using the ticketing computer system, whether the second device is associated with a human or an automated program by at least: (3A step 304; ¶0054)
determining whether a second public key was received in association with a second cryptographically verifiable token associated with the second user and configured to be only usable with the ticketing system via the network interface, the second cryptographically verifiable token associated with the second user comprising a second verifiable credential and a second uniform resource identifier that associates the second user with a second decentralized identifier document; (Fig. 3A step 314; ¶0057)
at least partly in response to determining that the second cryptographically verifiable token associated with the second user was received via the network interface: (Fig. 3A steps 312; ¶0057)
confirming a validity of the second verifiable credential utilizing the second public key, wherein the second public key is validated by matching the second public key against a corresponding public key stored on a remote system comprising a peer-to-peer network; (Fig. 3A steps 314; ¶0057)
at least partly in response to confirming the validity of the second verifiable credential utilizing the second public key, determining that the second user is a human and not an automated program; (Fig. 3A steps 314; ¶0057)
at least partly in response to determining that the request from the second device for access to the ticket acquisition user interface is from the second user and not the automated program, enabling the second device to utilize the ticket acquisition user interface; (Fig. 3A steps 306; ¶0054)
Kokaji et al. discloses:
at least partly in response to the second user, determined to be the second user, acquiring a ticket for the second event via the ticket acquisition user interface, associating the second event ticket with the second user in a second record; and (¶0087)
at least partly in response to reading, by a second access control device, an authentication code from a device associated with the second user, authenticating the second user to access a second venue. (Fig. 12; ¶¶0076-79)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Using a Zero-Knowledge Proof to Prove Knowledge that a Website visitor is a Legitimate Human User of Ladd et al. by including associating sold ticket with the user in the ticketing system in accordance with the teaching of Kokaji et al.. This modification enables the modified system to track the ownership of the sold ticket.
Ladd et al., Kokaji et al., McEwen et al. and Heath et al. do not explicitly disclose:
determining that tickets for the second event are not yet available;
at least partly in response to determining that tickets for the second event are not yet available placing the second user in a virtual waiting room for a first period of time;
However, Coffman et al. discloses:
determining that tickets for the second event are not yet available; (¶0034)
at least partly in response to determining that tickets for the second event are not yet available placing the second user in a virtual waiting room for a first period of time; (¶0034)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ladd et al., Kokaji et al., McEwen et al. and Heath et al. by including virtual waiting room in accordance with the teaching of Coffman et al.. This modification enables the combined system to provide a better user experience and better manage the event queue.
Regarding claim 17, Ladd et al. in view of Kokaji et al., and in further view of McEwen et al. and Heath et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ladd et al. further discloses:
receiving, at the ticketing computer system over the network via the network interface, a request from a second device of a second user for access to a ticket acquisition user interface for a second event; (Fig. 3A step 302; ¶0053)
determining, using the ticketing computer system, whether the second device is associated with a human or an automated program by at least: (3A step 304; ¶0054)
determining whether a second public key was received in association with a second cryptographically verifiable token associated with the second user and configured to be only usable with the ticketing system via the network interface, the second cryptographically verifiable token associated with the second user comprising a second verifiable credential and a second uniform resource identifier that associates the second user with a second decentralized identifier document; (Fig. 3A step 314; ¶0057)
at least partly in response to determining that the second cryptographically verifiable token associated with the second user was received via the network interface: (Fig. 3A steps 312; ¶0057)
confirming a validity of the second verifiable credential utilizing the second public key, wherein the second public key is validated by matching the second public key against a corresponding public key stored on a remote system; (Fig. 3A steps 314; ¶0057)
at least partly in response to confirming the validity of the second verifiable credential utilizing the second public key, determining that the second user is a human and not an automated program; (Fig. 3A steps 314; ¶0057)
at least partly in response to determining that the request from the second device for access to the ticket acquisition user interface is from the second user and not the automated program, enabling the second device to utilize the ticket acquisition user interface; (Fig. 3A steps 306; ¶0054)
wherein the second verifiable credential is issued to the second user at least partly in response to the second user providing accurate responses to one or more questions regarding previous ticketed events the second user has attended. (¶0058)
Kokaji et al. discloses:
at least partly in response to the second user, determined to be the second user, acquiring a ticket for the second event via the ticket acquisition user interface, associating the second event ticket with the second user in a second record, (¶0087)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Using a Zero-Knowledge Proof to Prove Knowledge that a Website visitor is a Legitimate Human User of Ladd et al. by associating sold ticket with the user in the ticketing system in accordance with the teaching of Kokaji et al.. This modification enables the modified system to track the ownership of the sold ticket.
Ladd et al., Kokaji et al., McEwen et al. and Heath et al. do not explicitly disclose:
determining that tickets for the second event are not yet available;
at least partly in response to determining that tickets for the second event are not yet available placing the second user in a virtual waiting room for a first period of time;
However, Coffman et al. discloses:
determining that tickets for the second event are not yet available; (¶0034)
at least partly in response to determining that tickets for the second event are not yet available placing the second user in a virtual waiting room for a first period of time; (¶0034)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ladd et al., Kokaji et al., McEwen et al. and Heath et al. by including virtual waiting room in accordance with the teaching of Coffman et al.. This modification enables the combined system to provide a better user experience and better manage the event queue.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Application Publication US20220321354A1 (“Ladd et al.”) in view of US Application Publication US20250148466A1 (“Kokaji et al.”), in further view of US Application Publication US20160078370A1 (“McEwen et al.”), US20200313897A1 (“Health et al.”), US20160234264A1 (“Coffman et al.”) and US Grant Publication US12271507B2 (“Ogura”).
Regarding claim 13, Ladd et al. in view of Kokaji et al., and in further view of McEwen et al. and Heath et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ladd et al., Kokaji et al., McEwen et al. and Heath et al. do not explicitly disclose:
placing the user in a virtual waiting room for a specified period of time, and then transmitting a request to the first device for the cryptographically verifiable token.
However, Coffman discloses:
placing the user in a virtual waiting room for a specified period of time, (¶0034)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ladd et al., Kokaji et al., McEwen et al. and Heath et al. by including virtual waiting room in accordance with the teaching of Coffman et al.. This modification enables the combined system to provide a better user experience and better manage the event queue.
Ladd et al., Kokaji et al., McEwen et al., Heath et al. and Coffman et al. do not explicitly disclose:
for a specified period of time, and then transmitting a request to the first device for the cryptographically verifiable token.
However, Ogura discloses:
for a specified period of time, and then transmitting a request to the first device for the cryptographically verifiable token. (Fig. 7 steps S101-2 and S100-3; col 6 lines 55-59; col 8 lines 10-13)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ladd et al., Kokaji et al. McEwen et al., Heath et al. and Coffman et al. by including a time to trigger user token request in accordance with the teaching of Ogura. This modification enables the combined system to start processing request when the event becomes available.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Application Publication US20220321354A1 (“Ladd et al.”) in view of US Application Publication US20250148466A1 (“Kokaji et al.”), in further view of US Application Publication US20160078370A1 (“McEwen et al.”), US20200313897A1 (“Health et al.”), US20160234264A1 (“Coffman et al.”) and US Grant Publication US11533619B1 (“Kahn”).
Regarding claim 18, Ladd et al. in view of Kokaji et al., and in further view of McEwen et al. and Heath et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ladd et al. further discloses:
receiving, at the ticketing computer system over the network via the network interface, a request from a second device of a second user for access to a ticket acquisition user interface for a second event; (Fig. 3A step 302; ¶0053)
determining, using the ticketing computer system, whether the second device is associated with a human or an automated program by at least: (3A step 304; ¶0054)
determining whether a second public key was received in association with a second cryptographically verifiable token associated with the second user and configured to be only usable with the ticketing system via the network interface, the second cryptographically verifiable token associated with the second user comprising a second verifiable credential and a second uniform resource identifier that associates the second user with a second decentralized identifier document; (Fig. 3A step 314; ¶0057)
at least partly in response to determining that the second cryptographically verifiable token associated with the second user was received via the network interface: (Fig. 3A steps 312; ¶0057)
confirming a validity of the second verifiable credential utilizing the second public key, wherein the second public key is validated by matching the second public key against a corresponding public key stored on a remote system comprising a peer-to-peer network; (Fig. 3A steps 314; ¶0057)
at least partly in response to confirming the validity of the second verifiable credential utilizing the second public key, determining that the second user is a human and not an automated program; (Fig. 3A steps 314; ¶0057)
at least partly in response to determining that the request from the second device for access to the ticket acquisition user interface is from the second user and not the automated program, enabling the second device to utilize the ticket acquisition user interface; (Fig. 3A steps 306; ¶0054)
Kokaji et al. discloses:
at least partly in response to the second user, determined to be the second user, acquiring a ticket for the second event via the ticket acquisition user interface, associating the second event ticket with the second user in a second record, (¶0087)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Using a Zero-Knowledge Proof to Prove Knowledge that a Website visitor is a Legitimate Human User of Ladd et al. by associating sold ticket with the user in the ticketing system in accordance with the teaching of Kokaji et al.. This modification enables the modified system to track the ownership of the sold ticket.
Ladd et al., Kokaji et al., McEwen et al. and Heath et al. do not explicitly disclose:
determining that tickets for the second event are not yet available;
at least partly in response to determining that tickets for the second event are not yet available placing the second user in a virtual waiting room for a first period of time;
wherein the second verifiable credential is bound to a unique digital wallet identifier signed using a private key and/or a PIN code.
However, Coffman et al. discloses:
determining that tickets for the second event are not yet available; (¶0034)
at least partly in response to determining that tickets for the second event are not yet available placing the second user in a virtual waiting room for a first period of time; (¶0034)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ladd et al., Kokaji et al., McEwen et al. and Heath et al. by including virtual waiting room in accordance with the teaching of Coffman et al.. This modification enables the combined system to provide a better user experience and better manage the event queue.
Ladd et al., Kokaji et al., McEwen et al., Heath et al. and Coffman et al. do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the second verifiable credential is bound to a unique digital wallet identifier signed using a private key and/or a PIN code.
However, Kahn discloses:
wherein the second verifiable credential is bound to a unique digital wallet identifier signed using a private key and/or a PIN code. (col 35 lines 3-8 and col 36 lines 6-10)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ladd et al., Kokaji et al., McEwen et al., Heath et al. and Coffman et al. by storing the credential on a digital wallet in accordance with the teaching of Kahn et al.. This modification allows the credential to be stored securely while it be accessed quick and easily.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Application Publication US20220321354A1 (“Ladd et al.”) in view of US Application Publication US20250148466A1 (“Kokaji et al.”), in further view of US Application Publication US20160078370A1 (“McEwen et al.”), US20200313897A1 (“Health et al.”), US20160234264A1 (“Coffman et al.”) and US20150032627A1 (“Dill et al.”).
Regarding claim 19, Ladd et al. in view of Kokaji et al., and in further view of McEwen et al. and Heath et al. discloses all limitations as described above. Ladd et al. further discloses:
receiving, at the ticketing computer system over the network via the network interface, a request from a second device of a second user for access to a ticket acquisition user interface for a second event; (Fig. 3A step 302; ¶0053)
determining, using the ticketing computer system, whether the second device is associated with a human or an automated program by at least: (3A step 304; ¶0054)
determining whether a second public key was received in association with a second cryptographically verifiable token associated with the second user and configured to be only usable with the ticketing system via the network interface, the second cryptographically verifiable token associated with the second user comprising a second verifiable credential and a second uniform resource identifier that associates the second user with a second decentralized identifier document (Fig. 3A step 314; ¶0057);
at least partly in response to determining that the second cryptographically verifiable token associated with the second user was received via the network interface: (Fig. 3A steps 312; ¶0057)
confirming a validity of the second verifiable credential utilizing the second public key, wherein the second public key is validated by matching the second public key against a corresponding public key stored on a remote system; (Fig. 3A steps 314; ¶0057)
at least partly in response to confirming the validity of the second verifiable credential utilizing the second public key, determining that the second user is a human and not an automated program; (Fig. 3A steps 314; ¶0057)
at least partly in response to determining that the request from the second device for access to the ticket acquisition user interface is from the second user and not the automated program, enabling the second device to utilize the ticket acquisition user interface; (Fig. 3A steps 306; ¶0054)
Kokaji et al. discloses:
at least partly in response to the second user, determined to be the second user, acquiring a ticket for the second event via the ticket acquisition user interface, associating the second event ticket with the second user in a second record. (¶0087)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Using a Zero-Knowledge Proof to Prove Knowledge that a Website visitor is a Legitimate Human User of Ladd et al. by associating sold ticket with the user in the ticketing system in accordance with the teaching of Kokaji et al.. This modification enables the modified system to track the ownership of the sold ticket.
Ladd et al., Kokaji et al., McEwen et al. and Heath et al. do not explicitly disclose:
determining that tickets for the second event are not yet available;
at least partly in response to determining that tickets for the second event are not yet available placing the second user in a virtual waiting room for a first period of time;
wherein the second cryptographically verifiable token is configured to expire after a specified period of time in a range of 3 to 60 minutes;
However, Coffman et al. discloses:
determining that tickets for the second event are not yet available; (¶0034)
at least partly in response to determining that tickets for the second event are not yet available placing the second user in a virtual waiting room for a first period of time; (¶0034)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ladd et al., Kokaji et al., McEwen et al. and Heath et al. by including virtual waiting room in accordance with the teaching of Coffman et al.. This modification enables the combined system to provide a better user experience and better manage the event queue.
Ladd et al., Kokaji et al., McEwen et al., Heath et al. and Coffman et al. do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the second cryptographically verifiable token is configured to expire after a specified period of time in a range of 3 to 60 minutes;
However, Dill et al. discloses:
wherein the second cryptographically verifiable token is configured to expire after a specified period of time in a range of 3 to 60 minutes; (Fig. 4 item 412; ¶0041 and ¶0055)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined system of Ladd et al., Kokaji et al., McEwen et al., Heath et al. and Coffman et al. by implementing time limited token in accordance with the teaching of Dill et al.. This modification improves the token security and enhances token management.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20200211099A1 (“Smith et al.”) discloses systems and methods for decentralized distribution of verifiable information, such as financial information, without requiring resort to centralized information system at the time of a query or other request for information. A decentralized method includes the steps of creating a digital wallet, issuing/receiving an issued verifiable digital credential signed by a credential issuer acting as a trust anchor for a claim contained in the verifiable digital credential, storing the verifiable digital credential within the digital wallet, receiving a request for verified information, and providing the verifiable digital credential, including the claim, from the digital wallet. The verification of information may occur as a zero-knowledge proof such that a required standard is verified as satisfied without disclosing more information about a consumer or other user than is absolutely necessary.
US20200014538A1 (“Liu”) discloses a method of facilitating authentication of a user. The method may include performing at least one of generating and receiving, using a processor, a primary cryptographic identifier consisted of a primary public key and a primary private key. Further, the method may include generating, using the processor, a global static user identifier corresponding to the user based on the primary public key. Further, the method may include generating, using the processor, a digital signature corresponding to a service based on a unique identifier associated with the service and the primary cryptographic identifier. Further, the method may include generating, using the processor, a key generation seed based on the digital signature and the global static user identifier. Further, the method may include generating, using the processor, a secondary cryptographic identifier including a secondary public key based on the key generation seed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGYING ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-5308. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am - 5:00pm ET.
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, John W Hayes can be reached on 571-272-6708. 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.
/YINGYING ZHOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3697