Application Serial No.

: 16/041,804
Response to Final Office Action mailed on November 05, 2020 and
Advisory Action mailed on July 16, 2021

AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS

This listening of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the
application.

1. A method for electronic ticket recognition and acceptance, wherein the

method includes the steps of comprising;
creating myEticket myeticket Profile profile, wherein the myEticket myeticket
Profile profile is created by:
downloading myEticket myeticket [[App ]]app on the platform specific app
store App Store;
starting [[the ]]a configuration process after downloading the myEticket
myeticket [[App ]]app;[[ and]]
providing an instruction to receive an identification information, wherein the
identification information is associated with an identity of the user;
extracting a user information from the received identification information,
sending [[an ]]one time password (OTP) to a mobile number to authenticate
the mobile number based on the extracted user information;
creating a dedicated email ID for user under same mobile number by the
myEticket myeticket [[App ]]app; and
authenticating the created myEticket myeticket Profile profile by an
authorized security officer for full activation of the myEticket myeticket Profile
profile.

2. The present invention method according to claim 1, wherein mobile

computing devices are used to display an optical symbol that is read by scanning
devices deployed at a check in gate.
Application Serial No.: 16/041,804
Response to Final Office Action mailed on November 05, 2020 and
Advisory Action mailed on July 16, 2021

3. The present invention method according to claim 1, further

comprisingincluding; purchasing, by a wireless portable computing device, an
electronic ticket from a ticketing server.

4. A system for electronic ticket recognition and acceptance, wherein the system
comprising:
circuitry configured to:
create creation of myEticket myeticket Profile profile, wherein
the myEticket myeticket Profile profile is created by the
circuitry, and
the circuitry is further configured to:[[;]]
download downloading myEticket App myeticket app
on the platform specific App Store app store;
starting the configuration start a configuration process
after downloading the myEticket myEticket myeticket
[[App ]]app on the platform;
provide an instruction to receive an identification
information, wherein the identification information is
associated with an identity of the user;

extract a user information from the received

identification information,
sending an OTP to a mobile number to authenticate
[[the ]] a mobile number by sending an OTP to a mobile;
create creating a dedicated email ID for user under
same mobile number by the myEticket myeticket[[ App]] app;
and
Application Serial No.: 16/041,804
Response to Final Office Action mailed on November 05, 2020 and
Advisory Action mailed on July 16, 2021

authentication authenticate of the created myEticket

myeticket Profile profile by an authorized security officer for
full activation of myEticket myeticket Profile profile.
Application Serial No.: 16/041,804
Response to Final Office Action mailed on November 05, 2020 and
Advisory Action mailed on July 16, 2021

REMARKS

Claims 1-4 are currently amended. Support for the amendments to the
claims can be found at least, for example, at paragraphs [0019-25] of the
Specification as originally filed. Thus, Claims 1-4 are pending in the present
application. Reconsideration and allowance of the above-identified application are
respectfully requested.

Claims 1 and 4 were objected because of informalities. Claim 4 is rejected

under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Claims 1-4 were rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 101. Claims 1-4 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over
U.S. 2014/0095227 (hereinafter, “Parker”) in view of U.S. 2014/0236767
(hereinafter, “Duggal”) and U.S. 2005/0198534 (hereinafter, “Matta”). The
Applicant respectfully traverses the above rejection at least for the reasons
previously set fourth during prosecution and at least based on the following
remarks.

Claim Objection

The Office Action, on page 2, asserts “[c]laims 1 and 4 are objected to for not being
in the proper form, specifically there are multiple occurrences of capitalization in the
claims.”

In response, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 and 4 have been
amended to provide into correct form. Therefore, applicant respectfully request that
the above claim objection for claims 1 and 4 be withdrawn.

Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C § 112

The Office Action, on page 3, asserts “[c]laim 4 indicates that the claim is directed to
system for electronic ticket recognition and acceptance. The single claim that claims
an apparatus is indefinite…as vague ad indefinite under §112, second paragraph.”
Application Serial No.: 16/041,804
Response to Final Office Action mailed on November 05, 2020 and
Advisory Action mailed on July 16, 2021

In view the above, the Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 has
been amended as set forth above. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully requests the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 be withdrawn.

Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C § 101

The Office Action, at page 3, states, “Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
because each of said claims includes two statutory classes of Invention: an apparatus
and a process. It must be clear from the wording of a claim that it is drawn to one or
the other of mutually exclusive statutory classes of invention.”

In view of the above, the Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 4 has
been suitably amended as set forth above.

Further, the Office Action, at page 4, states, “Claim1 is rejected under 35

U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without
significantly more of electronic ticket recognition and acceptance.” The Applicant
respectfully traverses the rejection for at least the following reasons.

The Applicant respectfully submits that the features of amended independent

claim 1 includes sufficient technical details directed to a machine, which is one of the
statutory categories of invention, and does not describe an abstract concept, or a
concept similar to those found by the courts to be Abstract, such as a method of
organizing human activity.

Regarding step 2B, On December 2015, the office released a document setting
forth examples (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/defaults/files/documents/ieg-
bus-meth-exs-dec2016.pdg) with respect to abstract ideas that are to be used in
conjunction with the 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance. Under example 35 (Verifying
Application Serial No.: 16/041,804
Response to Final Office Action mailed on November 05, 2020 and
Advisory Action mailed on July 16, 2021

A Bank Customer’s identity to permit an ATM Transaction) at page 5 the document

provides:

the combination of the steps (e.g., the ATM providing a random code,
the mobile communication device’s generation of the image having
encrypted code data in response to the random code, the ATM’s
decryption and analysis of the code data, and the subsequent
determination of whether the transaction should proceed based on the
analysis of the code data) operates in a non-conventional and non-
generic way to ensure that the customer’s identity is verified in a secure
manner that is more than the conventional verification process
employed by an ATM alone. In combination, these steps do not
represent merely gathering data for comparison or security purposes,
but instead set up a sequence of events that address unique problems
associated with bank cards and ATMs (e.g., the use of stolen or
skimmed bank cards and/or customer information to perform
unauthorized transactions). Thus, like in BASCOM, the claimed
combination of additional elements presents a specific, discrete
implementation of the abstract idea. Further, the combination of
obtaining information from the mobile communication device (instead
of ATM keypad) and using the image (instead of PIN) to verify the
customer’s identity by matching identification information does not
merely select information by content or source, in contrast to Electric
Power, but instead describes a process that differs from the routine and
conventional sequence of events normally conducted by ATM
verification, such as entering a PIN, similar to the unconventional
sequence of events in DDR. The additional elements in claim 2 thus
represents significantly more (i.e. provide an inventive concept)
because they are a practical implementation of the abstract idea of fraud
prevention that performs identity verification in a non-conventional and
non-generic way, though the steps use well-known components (a
processor and mobile communication device)

With respect to example 35 (Verifying A Bank Customer’s identity to permit an

ATM transaction), the claimed process with the improved fraud prevention, similar to
the patent eligible invention in DDR, was found to be patent eligible because it
Application Serial No.: 16/041,804
Response to Final Office Action mailed on November 05, 2020 and
Advisory Action mailed on July 16, 2021

allowed the computer to perform non-conventional sequence of events using well-

known components for a customer verification which resulted in secured ATM
transaction. These are improvements in the technology of ATM transaction. Similar
to example 35, and as previously explained, the claimed subject matter in
independent claims 1 and 4 of the present application provides secure verification of
the passengers at security checkpoint and reduces complexity of security check by a
system by performing verification of the passengers with the use of registration
process and authentication process in the system. See Specification at paragraphs
[0019-22] as originally filed. Thus, the instant claims effect an “improvement in the
technology of verification system”. Therefore, the Applicant submits that taking all
the claim elements of independent claims 1 and 4 individually, and in combination,
independent claims 1 and 4 as a whole amount to significantly more than the alleged
abstract idea.

For at least these reasons, the second part of the two-port analysis found in the
instructions points to patent-eligible subject matter in claims 1 and 4. Therefore, the
Applicant respectfully requests the rejection of claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
be withdrawn.

Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C § 103

A. Rejection of Independent claims 1 and 4

Applicant respectfully submits that Parker, Duggal, and Matta, either alone or
in combination, do not teach or suggest at least, for example, the newly presented
features of “providing an instruction to receive an identification information, wherein
the identification information associated with an identity of the user; extracting a user
information from the received identification information, sending an one time
password (OTP) to a mobile number to authenticate the mobile number based on the
extracted user information,” as recited in amended independent claim 1.
Application Serial No.: 16/041,804
Response to Final Office Action mailed on November 05, 2020 and
Advisory Action mailed on July 16, 2021

Further, the Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 4 recites inter
alia features similar to features as recited in amended independent claim 1.
Therefore, amended independent claims 1 and 4 are not taught or suggested by the
combination of Parker, Duggal, and Matta.

B. Rejection of Claims 2 and 3

The Applicant respectfully submits that claims 2 and 3 are also not taught,
suggested, or rendered obvious over the combination of Parker, Duggal, and Matta
based at least on the dependent on amended independent claim 1.

Further, each of dependent claims 2 and 3 separately recites subject matter not
described or suggested by any of the cited references, whether taken individually
or in combination.
Application Serial No.: 16/041,804
Response to Final Office Action mailed on November 05, 2020 and
Advisory Action mailed on July 16, 2021

Conclusion

Therefore, in light of at least the forgoing, Applicant respectfully believes

that the present application is in condition for allowance. As a result, Applicant
respectfully requests timely issuance of a notice of Allowance for the pending
claims.

Applicant appreciates the Examiner’s consideration of these Amendments

and Remarks and cordially invites the Examiner to call the undersigned, should
the Examiner have any questions, comments, or suggestions.