DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is a non-final, first office action in response to the application filed 6 June 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 June 2025 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12093850. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, the current application states:
providing, via a real-time ticket exchange server, a first ticket for a first section of the stadium to a first client device of a first user, wherein a specific seat within the first section is not assigned for the first ticket until after the first client device arrives at the first section of the stadium;
in response to detecting that the first client device is physically located at the first section of the stadium, selecting a seat within the first section from a set of available seats within the first section and assigning the seat to the first ticket based on groups of tickets sold for the first section that have not yet been assigned seats such that the selected seat does not prevent any group of tickets from being able to be seated in consecutive seats within the section; and
unlocking the seat in response to detecting, via the first client device of the first user, a presence of the first user at the seat.
Claim 1 of 12346843 states:
providing, via a real-time ticket exchange server, a first ticket for a first section of the stadium to a first client device of a first user in response to a request for the first ticket from the first user, wherein a specific seat within the first section is not assigned for the first ticket until after the first client device arrives at the first section of the stadium;
in response to detecting that the first client device is physically located at the first section of the stadium, selecting a seat within the first section from a set of available seats within the first section and assigning the seat to the first ticket based on groups of tickets sold for the first section that have not yet been assigned seats such that the selected seat does not prevent any group of tickets from being able to be seated in consecutive seats within the section;
unlocking the seat in response to detecting, via the first client device of the first user, a presence of the first user at the seat; and
after determining that the first user surrendered the seat and in response to detecting that a second client device associated with a second ticket that is assigned to the seat after the first user surrenders the seat is physically located at the seat, unlocking the seat.
Claim 1 of 12346843 differs since it further recites additional claim limitations including after determining that the first user surrendered the seat and in response to detecting that a second client device associated with a second ticket that is assigned to the seat after the first user surrenders the seat is physically located at the seat, unlocking the seat. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 1 of 12346843 by removing these limitations, resulting generally in the claims of the present application since the claims of the present application and the claim recited in 12346843 actually perform a similar function. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claims 2, 9, and 16 and the current states, “wherein assigning the seat in the first section comprises assigning an available seat closest to a front of the first section.” Claim 2 of US 12346843 recites substantially the same limitation.
With respect to claims 3, 10, and 17 and the current states, “wherein assigning the seat comprises determining that the first section is full and assigning the seat to the first user in a second section of the stadium, the second section including seats with higher values than seats in the first section.” Claim 3 of US 12346843 recites substantially the same limitation.
With respect to claims 4, 11, and 18 and the current states, “wherein assigning the seat in the first section comprises determining that the first ticket is part of the group of tickets and assigning the seat as one of a set of seats associated with the group of tickets together in the first section.” Claim 4 of US 12346843 recites substantially the same limitation.
With respect to claims 5, 12, and 19 and the current states, “wherein the first ticket is for an event comprising a sporting event, concert, music festival, conference, musical, play, movie, or show.” Claim 5 of US 12346843 recites substantially the same limitation.
With respect to claims 6, 13, and 20 and the current states, “wherein a deposit for the seat is refunded to the first user after the first user surrenders the seat.” Claim 6 of US 12346843 recites substantially the same limitation.
With respect to claims 7 and 14 and the current states, “wherein a late fee is charged to the first user if the first user is does not surrender the seat by a predetermined time.” Claim 7 of US 12346843 recites substantially the same limitation.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12093850. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, the current application states:
providing, via a real-time ticket exchange server, a first ticket for a first section of the stadium to a first client device of a first user, wherein a specific seat within the first section is not assigned for the first ticket until after the first client device arrives at the first section of the stadium;
in response to detecting that the first client device is physically located at the first section of the stadium, selecting a seat within the first section from a set of available seats within the first section and assigning the seat to the first ticket based on groups of tickets sold for the first section that have not yet been assigned seats such that the selected seat does not prevent any group of tickets from being able to be seated in consecutive seats within the section; and
unlocking the seat in response to detecting, via the first client device of the first user, a presence of the first user at the seat.
Claim 1 of 12093850 states:
providing, via a real-time ticket exchange server configured to monitor a use of each seat in a stadium during an event at the stadium, a first ticket for a first section of the stadium to a first client device of a first user in response to a request for the first ticket from the first user and a second ticket for the first section of the stadium to a second client device of a second user in response to a request for the second ticket from the second user,
wherein a specific seat within the first section is not assigned for the first ticket until after the first client device arrives at the first section of the stadium and is not assigned for the second ticket until after the second client device arrives at the first section of the stadium
in response to detecting that the first client device is physically located at the first section of the stadium, selecting a seat within the first section from a set of available seats within the first section and assigning the seat to the first ticket based on groups of tickets sold for the first section that have not yet been assigned seats such that the selected seat does not prevent any group of tickets from being able to be seated in consecutive seats within the section
unlocking the seat in response to detecting, via the first client device of the first user, a presence of the first user at the seat;
receiving, via the real-time ticket exchange server, an indication from the first user surrendering the seat prior to a completion of the event and locking the seat in response;
after receiving the indication that the first user surrendered the seat and in response to detecting that the second client device is physically located, unlocking the seat
Claim 1 of 12093850 differs since it further recites additional claim limitations including the exchange server configured to monitor a use of each seat in a stadium during an event at the stadium, providing a second ticket for the first section of the stadium to a second client device of a second user in response to a request for the second ticket from the second user, receiving an indication from the first user surrendering the seat prior to a completion of the event and locking the seat in response, and after determining that the first user surrendered the seat and in response to detecting that a second client device associated with a second ticket that is assigned to the seat after the first user surrenders the seat is physically located at the seat, unlocking the seat. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 1 of 12093850 by removing these limitations, resulting generally in the claims of the present application since the claims of the present application and the claim recited in 12093850 actually perform a similar function. It is well settled that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claims 2, 9, and 16 and the current states, “wherein assigning the seat in the first section comprises assigning an available seat closest to a front of the first section.” Claim 2 of US 12093850 recites substantially the same limitation.
With respect to claims 3, 10, and 17 and the current states, “wherein assigning the seat comprises determining that the first section is full and assigning the seat to the first user in a second section of the stadium, the second section including seats with higher values than seats in the first section.” Claim 3 of US 12093850 recites substantially the same limitation.
With respect to claims 4, 11, and 18 and the current states, “wherein assigning the seat in the first section comprises determining that the first ticket is part of the group of tickets and assigning the seat as one of a set of seats associated with the group of tickets together in the first section.” Claim 4 of 12093850 recites, “accessing group data describing a group of tickets in the first section including the first ticket and a plurality of client devices of a plurality of users associated with the tickets; in response to detecting that a client device of the plurality of client devices is located at the first section in the stadium, determining seat availability in the first section; and assigning seats in the first section to each user of the plurality of users based on the seat availability, the seats positioned together within the first section.” As shown and emphasized here, though the claims are not identical, they both are directed towards the same concept. That is, accessing group data describing a group of tickets in the first section, including the first ticket (i.e., “wherein assigning the seat in the first section comprises determining that the first ticket is part of the group of tickets,”), and assigning seats in the first section to each user of the plurality of users based on the seat availability, the seats positioned together within the first section (i.e., “assigning the seat as one of a set of seats associated with the group of tickets together in the first section.”). As shown here, claim 4 of 12093850 substantially recites claim 4 of the current application.
With respect to claims 5, 12, and 19 and the current states, “wherein the first ticket is for an event comprising a sporting event, concert, music festival, conference, musical, play, movie, or show.” Claim 5 of US 12093850 recites substantially the same limitation.
With respect to claims 6, 13, and 20 and the current states, “wherein a deposit for the seat is refunded to the first user after the first user surrenders the seat.” Claim 6 of US 12093850 recites substantially the same limitation.
With respect to claims 7 and 14 and the current states, “wherein a late fee is charged to the first user if the first user is does not surrender the seat by a predetermined time.” Claim 7 of US 12093850 recites substantially the same limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over the prior art of record and 35 USC 101. In this case, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter of the parent applications 18/806995 and 17/109089, which were allowed and issued as US 12346843 B1 and US 12093850 B1, respectfully. As such, the claims are found allowable for the same reasons as the US 12346843 and US 12093850, and are directed towards patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101 for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571)-272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Michael Harrington
Primary Patent Examiner
18 August 2026
Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights