DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 22nd, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Although Applicant contends that the claimed invention integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by reciting a processor, a display, a vehicle location, points of interest, and an artificial intelligence model (Remarks, pg. 3), the identified claim elements merely implement the judicial exception using generic computer components to collect, analyze, and present information. The recited artificial intelligence model is invoked only as a tool for gathering and aggregating information regarding identified points of interest and is not claimed in a manner that improves the functioning of the computer, the artificial intelligence model itself, or any other technology or technical field. Likewise, determining a current vehicle location, identifying nearby points of interest, and presenting the resulting information on a display constitute insignificant data gathering and output activities that facilitate performance of the abstract idea rather than impose a meaningful limit upon it. As such, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Applicant’s reliance on the 2019 PEG and Berkheimer is likewise unpersuasive (Remarks, pg. 2-3). Merely identifying additional claim elements or asserting that they constitute a practical application does not establish eligibility absent an explanation of how those elements meaningfully limit the judicial exception. Accordingly, Applicant’s discussion of conventionality does not overcome the rejection. To the extent Applicant asserts that the Office failed to consider the dependent claims individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims have been considered and do not recite additional elements that alter the eligibility analysis, as they likewise fail to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception or effect an improvement to computer functionality or other technology (Remarks, pg. 3).
Applicant contends that Boston fails to disclose presenting a plurality of point-of-interest categories, receiving a user selection of a point-of-interest category, and identifying points of interest matching the selected category (Remarks, pg. 4-5). However, while Boston teaches presenting location-related information to a vehicle user, determining the vehicle’s location, and identifying nearby points of interest, the secondary reference Polidi teaches presenting selectable point-of-interest categories to a user, receiving selection of one of the displayed categories, and filtering or identifying points of interest corresponding to the selected category within a geographic area relative to the user’s location. Accordingly, the cited combination teaches or at least suggests the amended limitations.
Applicant further argues that the cited references fail to disclose the recited categories including landmarks, restaurants, and scenic views (Remarks, pg. 5). This argument is likewise unpersuasive as the new reference Polidi expressly discloses categories including landmarks, restaurants, and tourist spots. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the recited “scenic views” reasonably encompass scenic attractions or tourist spots because both identify destinations selected for sightseeing or scenic value. Applicant has not identified, nor does the specification provide, any special definition of the term “scenic views” that would require a narrower construction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17, and 19-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1 and analogous claim 14:
Step 1: is the claim directed to one of the four statutory categories?
Yes. Claim 1 is directed to a method; claim 14 is directed to an article of manufacture.
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
idea?
Yes. The limitations: “(c)determining, by a processor, a current location of the vehicle; (d) identifying, by the processor, one or more points of interest matching the selected point of interest category and located within a pre-determined range from the current location of the vehicle;” are directed to a mental process of judgment merely using the computer as a tool under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
No. The limitations: “(a) presenting to the user, at a display, a plurality of point of interest categories, the point of interest categories including landmarks, restaurants and scenic views;(b) receiving from the user a selected point of interest category from the plurality of point of interest categories; (e) using an Artificial Intelligence ("Al") model, dynamically gathering and aggregating information about the identified points of interest; and(f) presenting to the user, at the display, the information about the identified points of interest within the pre-determined range from the current location of the vehicle” are directed to mere data gathering under MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception?
No. The limitations: “(a) presenting to the user, at a display, a plurality of point of interest categories, the point of interest categories including landmarks, restaurants and scenic views;(b) receiving from the user a selected point of interest category from the plurality of point of interest categories; (e) using an Artificial Intelligence ("Al") model, dynamically gathering and aggregating information about the identified points of interest; and(f) presenting to the user, at the display, the information about the identified points of interest within the pre-determined range from the current location of the vehicle” are directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “receiving or transmitting data over a network” under MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 2:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
idea?
Yes, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
No. The limitation: “wherein the AI model comprises a chatbot” is directed to field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception?
No. The limitation: “wherein the AI model comprises a chatbot” is directed to field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding claim 3:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
idea?
Yes. The limitation: “further comprising a step (a) of filtering the identified points of interest by rating count and rating value before the step (e) of dynamically gathering and aggregating information about the identified points of interest” is directed to a mathematical concept under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Regarding claim 4:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
idea?
Yes. The limitation: “further comprising a step (h) of selecting a best result among the filtered points of interest based on the rating count and the rating value, wherein the best result among the filtered points of interest is a highest rated point of interest with a number of user reviews greater than a predetermined threshold” is directed to a mental process of judgment under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Regarding claim 5:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
idea?
Yes. The limitation: “further comprising a step (i) of selecting a next-best result among the filtered points of interest based on the rating count and the rating value, wherein the next-best result among the filtered points of interest is a next-highest rated point of interest with a minimum number of user reviews greater than the predetermined threshold” is directed to a mental process of judgment under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Regarding claim 6:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
idea?
Yes, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
No. The limitation: “step (j) of sending the best result from the filtered points of interest to the Al model with a request for additional information about the best result among the filtered points of interest within the pre-determined range from the location of the vehicle” is directed to mere data gathering under MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception?
No. The limitation: “step (j) of sending the best result from the filtered points of interest to the Al model with a request for additional information about the best result among the filtered points of interest within the pre-determined range from the location of the vehicle” is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “receiving or transmitting data over a network” under MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 7:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
idea?
Yes, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
No. The limitation: “further comprising a step (k) of receiving from the user a user input selecting a point of interest among the identified points of interest that were presented to the user at step (f)” is directed to mere data gathering under MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception?
No. The limitation: “further comprising a step (k) of receiving from the user a user input selecting a point of interest among the identified points of interest that were presented to the user at step (f)” is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “receiving or transmitting data over a network” under MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 8:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1.
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
No. The limitation: “wherein the user input comprises a pressing of a button on a display screen of a vehicle driving assisting system or a voice command over an audio system of the vehicle” is directed to extra-solutional activity under MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception?
No. The limitation: “wherein the user input comprises a pressing of a button on a display screen of a vehicle driving assisting system or a voice command over an audio system of the vehicle” is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional method of “A Web browser’s back and forward button functionality” under MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 9:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes. The limitation: “wherein the step (f) of presenting to the user the information about the identified points of interest comprises telling a story about the selected point of interest” is directed to a mental process of observation and opinion under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Regarding claim 10:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1.
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
No. The limitation: “further comprising a step (l) of receiving from the user a user input selecting at least one of a voice, a voice tone, or a vocal timbre for telling the story about the selected points of interest” is directed to field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. The limitation: “further comprising a step (l) of receiving from the user a user input selecting at least one of a voice, a voice tone, or a vocal timbre for telling the story about the selected points of interest” is directed to field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding claim 11:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1.
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
No. The limitation: “further comprising a step (m) of presenting directions to the user for navigating the vehicle to the selected point of interest” is directed to mere data gathering and outputting under MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. The limitation: “further comprising a step (m) of presenting directions to the user for navigating the vehicle to the selected point of interest” is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional method of “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” under MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 12:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1.
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
Yes. The limitation: “wherein the navigating the vehicle to the selected point of interest is performed by presenting directions to the user for driving the vehicle to the selected point of interest” is directed to mere data gathering and outputting under MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the limitation: “or by self-driving the vehicle to the selected point of interest” is directed to field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Yes. The limitation: “wherein the navigating the vehicle to the selected point of interest is performed by presenting directions to the user for driving the vehicle to the selected point of interest” is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” under MPEP 2106.05(d).
Further, the limitation: “or by self-driving the vehicle to the selected point of interest” is directed to field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding claim 13:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 1.
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
No. The limitation: “wherein the information about the identified points of interest is presented to the user via a Text-to-Speech (,,TTS") technology” is directed to field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. The limitation: “wherein the information about the identified points of interest is presented to the user via a Text-to-Speech (,,TTS") technology” is directed to field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding claim 15:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 14.
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
No. The limitation: “wherein the computer program product is executed on a smartphone” is directed to field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. The limitation: “wherein the computer program product is executed on a smartphone” is directed to field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding claim 16:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 14.
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
No. The limitation: “wherein the computer program product is executed on a computer of the vehicle” is directed to field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. The limitation: “wherein the computer program product is executed on a computer of the vehicle” is directed to field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding claim 17:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, the claim is dependent on claim 14.
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
No. The limitation: “A vehicle comprising the computer program product of claim 14” is directed to field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. The limitation: “A vehicle comprising the computer program product of claim 14” is directed to field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding claim 19:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes. The limitation: “following step (f) the method comprises prompting the user to request further information in connection with the story about the selected point of interest” is directed to methods of organizing human activity under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Regarding claim 20:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes. The limitation is dependent on claim 14.
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
No. The limitation: “further comprising a step (g) of receiving from the user a user input selecting a point of interest among the identified points of interest that were presented to the user at step (f), and presenting to the user, at the display, information about other identified points of interest as the vehicle travels to the selected point of interest” is directed to mere data gathering and outputting under MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. The limitation: “further comprising a step (g) of receiving from the user a user input selecting a point of interest among the identified points of interest that were presented to the user at step (f), and presenting to the user, at the display, information about other identified points of interest as the vehicle travels to the selected point of interest” is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” under MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 21:
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes. The limitation is dependent on claim 1.
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
No. The limitation: “further comprising the step of presenting to the user, at the display, information about other identified points of interest as the vehicle travels to the selected point of interest” is directed to mere data gathering and outputting under MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. The limitation: “further comprising the step of presenting to the user, at the display, information about other identified points of interest as the vehicle travels to the selected point of interest” is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” under MPEP 2106.05(d).
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 1-3, 7-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pre-Grant Patent 2020/0200556 (Boston et al; Boston) in view of U.S. Patent 6,542,814 (Polidi et al; Polidi).
Regarding claim 1 and analogous claim 14:
Boston teaches:
1. A computer-implemented method for presenting information about a point of interest to a user of a vehicle, said method comprising the steps of:
(Boston, ¶0014)
“The device may include one or more devices of the vehicle (e.g., a navigation system of the vehicle), and/or the user's device(s), which may be configured to communicate with a vehicle's devices. In another embodiment, information (e.g., pre-recorded information) about the surrounding area may be searched for on a network (e.g., the Internet), for example, by one or more devices of the vehicle and/or by a corresponding application running on a user device. Non-limiting examples of such information may include historical events which took place nearby a given landmark, nearby restaurants of a given type, and things to do (e.g., sports games to attend, concerts to attend, etc.), combinations thereof, and/or the like. Moreover, the information may, in addition to historical events, include points-of-interest (POIs) and associated events such as restaurants, shows, trivia, combinations thereof, and/or the like [i.e. A computer-implemented method for presenting information about a point of interest to a user of a vehicle, said method comprising the steps of:].”
2. (c) determining, by a processor, a current location of the vehicle;
(Boston, ¶0029)
“The computer processor(s) may determine that the first landmark option is selected for viewing by the user, and may determine a route from a current location to a first location of the first landmark option [i.e. (c) determining, by a processor, a current location of the vehicle;].”
3. (d) identifying, by the processor, one or more points of interest matching the selected point of interest category and located within a pre-determined range from the current location of the vehicle;
(Boston, ¶0023, Fig. 1)
“Accordingly, in FIG. 1, the user may desire to view various landmarks. Accordingly, the user may provide a first set of inputs that include preferences and/or requests to see landmarks and/or locations within a given distance of the landmarks [i.e. (d) identifying, by the processor, one or more points of interest matching the selected point of interest category]. The computer processor(s) may determine a set of landmark options based at least in part on the first set of inputs. For example, the computer processor(s) may query one or more databases or systems [i.e. and located within a pre-determined range from the current location of the vehicle;].”
Examiner notes that a point-of-interest category could reasonably include a “Landmark” or a “Location Near Landmark.”
4. (e) using an Artificial Intelligence ("Al") model, gathering and aggregating information about the identified points of interest;
(Boston, ¶0047)
“As noted, embodiments of devices and systems (and their various components) described herein can employ artificial intelligence (AI) to facilitate automating one or more features described herein (e.g., determining routes, providing tour information, navigating a route, combinations thereof, and/or the like). The components can employ various AI-based schemes for carrying out various embodiments/examples disclosed herein [i.e. (e) using an Artificial Intelligence ("Al") model, gathering and aggregating information about the identified points of interest;].”
5. and (f) presenting to the user, at the display, the information about the identified points of interest within the pre-determined range from the current location of the vehicle.
(Boston, ¶0050)
“FIG. 2 is a schematic illustration of an example implementation 200 of presenting relevant local information in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure. In the example of FIG. 2, relevant information for a landmark and/or location of interest or an area of a landmark or an area of a route may be presented via a display 210 of a vehicle and/or a user device [i.e. and (f) presenting to the user, at the display, the information about the identified points of interest within the pre-determined range from the current location of the vehicle].”
Boston does not explicitly teach:
1. (a) presenting to the user, at a display, a plurality of point of interest categories, the point of interest categories including landmarks, restaurants and scenic views;
2. (b) receiving from the user a selected point of interest category from the plurality of point of interest categories;
Polidi teaches:
1. (a) presenting to the user, at a display, a plurality of point of interest categories, the point of interest categories including landmarks, restaurants and scenic views;
(Polidi, col. 5:22-28)
“When the omnidirectional option is selected (338), the search is conducted within a predetermined or user-defined radius of the current location (339). As shown in FIG. 4B, POI's meeting the category criteria within circle 431 defined by radius 432 of vehicle location 434 are displayed, irrespective of the vehicle's direction of travel [i.e. presenting to the user, at a display, a plurality of point of interest categories,].”
(Polidi, col. 1:14-21)
“Typically vehicle navigation systems employ a map database wherein information such as digitized road segments, points of interest ("POI's"), landmarks, and similar location data are stored. Examples of points of interest and landmarks noteworthy to a user might include restaurants, hotels, motels, convention halls, tourist spots, museums, parking lots and automobile service facilities [i.e. the point of interest categories including landmarks, restaurants and scenic views;].”
2. (b) receiving from the user a selected point of interest category from the plurality of point of interest categories;
(Polidi, col. 5: 38-44)
“For example, the POI's selected by the user may be limited in one embodiment by both category and name, e.g. all fast food restaurants named Anderson's. The omnidirectional search option, therefore, enables the user to search for POI's or a selected category of POI in all directions when the user's vehicle lies in a densely digitized area [i.e. receiving from the user a selected point of interest category from the plurality of point of interest categories;].”
One of ordinary skill, at the time of the invention’s filing, would have been motivated to modify Boston with Polidi. The motivation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the category-based point-of-interest selection and filtering techniques of Polidi into Boston’s vehicle information presentation system in order to allow a user to efficiently limit displayed points of interest to a desired type, thereby reducing irrelevant search results and improving the usability of the navigation interface, as “what is further needed is a vehicle navigation system which can more intelligently display information regarding points of interest (Polidi, col. 2: 5-7).”
Regarding claim 2:
Boston and Polidi teach:
1. wherein the AI model comprises a chatbot.
(Boston, ¶0014)
“In various embodiments, the users may provide one or more commands (e.g., voice commands, textual commands, and the like) such as “what city am I in?” The response to such commands may be combined with navigation instructions and/or integrated with a personal assistant (e.g., virtual personal assistant) that may be provided by one or more user devices or the vehicle 110 devices that may be configured to provide instantaneous information for a driver or passengers [i.e. wherein the AI model comprises a chatbot].”
One of ordinary skill, at the time of the invention’s filing, would have been motivated to modify Boston with Polidi. The motivation is the same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3:
Boston and Polidi teach:
1. further comprising a step (a) of filtering the identified points of interest by rating count and rating value before the step (e) of gathering and aggregating information about the identified points of interest.
(Boston, ¶0016)
“For example, if the passengers and/or drivers are interested in food, they can be given information about high-rating local restaurants in the area [i.e. further comprising a step (a) of filtering the identified points of interest by rating count] (e.g., the story behind a restaurant's origination, the types of unique food offerings, comparisons to other restaurants in the area, combinations thereof, and/or the like) [i.e. and rating value before the step (e) of gathering and aggregating information about the identified points of interest].”
One of ordinary skill, at the time of the invention’s filing, would have been motivated to modify Boston with Polidi. The motivation is the same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 7:
Boston and Polidi teach:
1. further comprising a step (k) of receiving from the user a user input selecting a point of interest among the identified points of interest that were presented to the user at step (f).
(Boston, ¶0054)
“At block 404, the process flow 400 may include determining that the first landmark option is selected by a user. In one embodiment, the users may select the first landmark option using any suitable input at a vehicle device or a user device (e.g., a mobile phone) [i.e. further comprising a step (k) of receiving from the user a user input selecting a point of interest among the identified points of interest that were presented to the user at step (f)].”
One of ordinary skill, at the time of the invention’s filing, would have been motivated to modify Boston with Polidi. The motivation is the same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 8:
Boston and Polidi teach:
1. wherein the user input comprises a pressing of a button on a display screen of a vehicle driving assisting system or a voice command over an audio system of the vehicle.
(Boston, ¶0059)
“The vehicle 500 includes a cabin having a display 530 in electronic communication with the controller 506. The display 530 may be a touchscreen that displays information to the passengers of the vehicle and/or functions as an input, such as whether or not the rider is authenticated [i.e. wherein the user input comprises a pressing of a button on a display screen of a vehicle driving assisting system].”
One of ordinary skill, at the time of the invention’s filing, would have been motivated to modify Boston with Polidi. The motivation is the same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 9:
Boston and Polidi teach:
1. wherein the step (f) of presenting to the user the information about the identified points of interest comprises telling a story about the selected point of interest.
(Boston, ¶0016)
“For example, if the passengers and/or drivers are interested in food, they can be given information about high-rating local restaurants in the area (e.g., the story behind a restaurant's origination, the types of unique food offerings, comparisons to other restaurants in the area, combinations thereof, and/or the like) [i.e. wherein the step (f) of presenting to the user the information about the identified points of interest comprises telling a story about the selected points of interest].”
One of ordinary skill, at the time of the invention’s filing, would have been motivated to modify Boston with Polidi. The motivation is the same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 10:
Boston and Polidi teach:
1. further comprising a step (l) of receiving from the user a user input selecting at least one of a voice, a voice tone, or a vocal timbre for telling the story about the selected point of interest.
(Boston, ¶0052)
“For example, content related to a location may be associated with a given location based at least in part on an address, a zip code, GPS coordinates, a city, and/or other location identifying information. The content may be presented using the vehicle's display 352 and/or audio system, or the user device's display and/or audio system [i.e. further comprising a step (j) of receiving from the user a user input selecting at least one of a voice].”
One of ordinary skill, at the time of the invention’s filing, would have been motivated to modify Boston with Polidi. The motivation is the same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 11:
Boston and Polidi teach:
1. further comprising a step (m) of presenting directions to the user for navigating the vehicle to the selected point of interest.
(Boston, ¶0052)
“For example, content related to a location may be associated with a given location based at least in part on an address, a zip code, GPS coordinates, a city, and/or other location identifying information. The content may be presented using the vehicle's display 352 and/or audio system, or the user device's display and/or audio system [i.e. further comprising a step (k) of presenting directions to the user for navigating the vehicle to the selected point of interest].”
One of ordinary skill, at the time of the invention’s filing, would have been motivated to modify Boston with Polidi. The motivation is the same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12:
Boston and Polidi teach:
1. wherein the navigating the vehicle to the selected point of interest is performed by presenting directions to the user for driving the vehicle to the selected point of interest or by self-driving the vehicle to the selected point of interest.
(Boston, ¶0052)
“For example, content related to a location may be associated with a given location based at least in part on an address, a zip code, GPS coordinates, a city, and/or other location identifying information. The content may be presented using the vehicle's display 352 and/or audio system, or the user device's display and/or audio system [i.e. wherein the navigating the vehicle to the selected point of interest is performed by presenting directions to the user for driving the vehicle].”
Regarding claim 13:
Boston and Polidi teach:
1. wherein the information about the identified points of interest is presented to the user via a Text-to-Speech (“TTS") technology.
(Boston, ¶0052)
“In another embodiment, the audio may or may not be pre-recorded. For example, the audio may be automatically electronically generated from the text of a website (e.g., Wikipedia, online travel sites, and the like) [i.e. wherein the information about the identified points of interest is presented to the user via a Text-to-Speech (“TTS") technology].”
One of ordinary skill, at the time of the invention’s filing, would have been motivated to modify Boston with Polidi. The motivation is the same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 15:
Boston and Polidi teach:
1. wherein the computer program product is executed on a smartphone.
(Boston, ¶0023)
“Alternatively or additionally, the computer processor(s) may determine one or more routes having the landmarks based at least in part on the first set of inputs. Selections may be made using a display and/or microphone of the vehicle 110 and/or using a mobile application executing on a user device, such as a smartphone [i.e. wherein the computer program product is executed on a smartphone].”
One of ordinary skill, at the time of the invention’s filing, would have been motivated to modify Boston with Polidi. The motivation is the same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 16:
Boston and Polidi teach:
1. wherein the computer program product is executed on a computer of the vehicle.
(Boston, ¶0021)
“To generate the route 120, one or more computer processors coupled to at least one memory of a computer system (such as one or more remote servers, the vehicle 110, etc. [i.e. wherein the computer program product is executed on a computer of the vehicle.]) may determine a first set of inputs indicative of desired landmark preferences (e.g., touristic preferences, food preferences, sports preferences, and the like).”
One of ordinary skill, at the time of the invention’s filing, would have been motivated to modify Boston with Polidi. The motivation is the same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 17:
Boston and Polidi teach:
1. A vehicle comprising the computer program product of claim 14.
(Boston, ¶0019)
“In the environmental context 100 shown in FIG. 1, a vehicle 110 (which may include a conventional vehicle or an autonomous vehicle) may drive to a first location with a view of a first landmark such as a stadium 112, and may optionally stop at a suitable location and wait for a user to view the first landmark either within the car or outside of the car [i.e. A vehicle comprising the computer program product of claim 14].”
One of ordinary skill, at the time of the invention’s filing, would have been motivated to modify Boston with Polidi. The motivation is the same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 19:
Boston and Polidi teach:
1. wherein, following step (f) the method comprises prompting the user to request further information in connection with the story about the selected point of interest.
(Boston, ¶0056)
“In one embodiment, a tour route history associated with the user and associated with a location may be determined, and a percentage of tour routes taken by the user in the location may be determined based on the tour route. In one embodiment, a second tour route may be based on the tour route history. The second tour route may then be taken by the user [i.e. wherein, following step (f) the method comprises prompting the user to request further information]. The source tour route may be more suitable than the first tour route according to the user's preferences [i.e. in connection with the story about the selected point of interest].”
One of ordinary skill, at the time of the invention’s filing, would have been motivated to modify Boston with Polidi. The motivation is the same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 21:
Boston and Polidi teach:
1. further comprising the step of presenting to the user, at the display, information about other identified points of interest as the vehicle travels to the selected point of interest
(Boston, ¶0032)
“If so, then a determination may be made by the vehicle 110 and/or one or more connected servers on whether any other landmark options are available within a given radius of the location of the user and the vehicle 110. If so, then the options may be presented at a user device or a display of the vehicle 110. If not, then the process may end.”
One of ordinary skill, at the time of the invention’s filing, would have been motivated to modify Boston with Polidi. The motivation is the same as claim 1.
Claims 4-6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pre-Grant Patent 2020/0200556 (Boston et al; Boston) in view of in view of U.S. Patent 6,542,814 (Polidi et al; Polidi), further in view of US Pre-Grant Patent 2013/0262479 (Liang et al; Liang).
Regarding claim 4:
Liang teaches:
1. further comprising a step (f) of selecting a best result among the filtered points of interest based on the rating count and the rating value, wherein the best result among the filtered points of interest is a highest rated point of interest with a number of user reviews greater than a predetermined threshold.
(Liang, ¶0046)
“For example, a user may go to a cafe (e.g. Starbucks.RTM.). The system (mobile device and/or upstream server) identifies the user stay, which is identified, for example, by the start time, the end time, and the location. The system (mobile device and/or upstream server) queries the database of POIs by the location. It may return a list of nearby POIs, which include the cafe, a grocery store, a postal office, etc. The system (mobile device and/or upstream server) further generates a ranking score for each POI [i.e. further comprising a step (f) of selecting a best result among the filtered points of interest based on the rating count and the rating value].”
(Liang, ¶0062)
“For an embodiment, the popularity of the POI includes at least one of a number of reviews and ratings of the POI, a number of check-ins associated with the POI [i.e. wherein the best result among the filtered points of interest is a highest rated point of interest]. For an embodiment, the popularity of the POI includes at least one of a number of reviews and ratings of the POI, a number of check-ins associated with the POI [i.e. with a number of user reviews greater than a predetermined threshold].”
Examiner interprets the overall metric of “highest-rated point of interest” as linked to the metric “Place Popularity.”
One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, would have been motivated to modify Boston and Polidi with Liang. The motivation is to modify Boston and Polidi’s selection and ranking of points of interest to incorporate Liang’s minimum review count eligibility because Boston’s use of user-review ratings is vulnerable to small-sample noise. As Liang states, “…the confidence level is an indicator on how accurate the matching of the user stay and the POI is. The larger the confidence level is, the more accurate the matching is (Liang, ¶0046).”
Regarding claim 5:
Liang teaches:
1. further comprising a step (g) of selecting a next-best result among the filtered points of interest based on the rating count and the rating value, wherein the next-best result among the filtered points of interest is a next-highest rated point of interest with a minimum number of user reviews greater than the predetermined threshold.
(Liang, ¶0046)
“For at least some embodiments, the confidence level is based on the difference of the ranking scores between the selected POI and the second best POI. If the difference is too small, the system is not (less) confident. If the difference is large enough, the system is confident [i.e. further comprising a step (g) of selecting a next-best result among the filtered points of interest based on the rating count and the rating value, wherein the next-best result among the filtered points of interest is a next-highest rated point of interest with a minimum number of user reviews greater than the predetermined threshold].”
One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, would have been motivated to modify Boston and Polidi with Liang. The motivation is the same as claim 4.
Regarding claim 6:
Liang teaches:
1. further comprising a step (h) of sending the best result from the filtered points of interest to the Al model with a request for additional information about the best result among the filtered points of interest within the pre-determined range from the location of the vehicle.
(Liang, ¶0048))
“For an embodiment, the ranking scoring is additionally influenced by personal places of a user of a mobile device associated with the user stay. For an embodiment, the personal places includes at least one of home/work of the user, prior user corrected POI, number of previous visits by the user, context information of the user, such as, internet or location searches by the user [i.e. further comprising a step (h) of sending the best result from the filtered points of interest to the Al model with a request for additional information about the best result among the filtered points of interest within the pre-determined range from the location of the vehicle].”
One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, would have been motivated to modify Boston and Polidi with Liang. The motivation is the same as claim 4.
Regarding claim 20:
Boston and Polidi teach:
1. further comprising a step (g) of receiving from the user a user input selecting a point of interest among the identified points of interest that were presented to the user at step (f), [and presenting to the user, at the display, information about other identified points of interest as the vehicle travels to the selected point of interest.]
(Polidi, col. 6: 7-12)
“In a specific embodiment as illustrated by FIG. 5A, a "POI Category" GUI screen 500 is presented in user interface 502 in response to appropriate user manipulation of selected ones of keys 506-518. GUI 500 permits selection of a filtering mechanism to control the categories and names of displayed POI's.”
Liang teaches:
1. [further comprising a step (g) of receiving from the user a user input selecting a point of interest among the identified points of interest that were presented to the user at step (f),] and presenting to the user, at the display, information about other identified points of interest as the vehicle travels to the selected point of interest.
(Liang, ¶0037)
“Based on the visited locations, additional points of interest can be recommended and/or suggested to the user. The locations traveled and the time spent at or between locations can be used to identify user stays of the user [i.e. and presenting to the user, at the display, information about other identified points of interest as the vehicle travels to the selected point of interest].”
One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, would have been motivated to modify Boston and Polidi with Liang. The motivation is the same as claim 4.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL JUSTIN BREENE whose telephone number is (571)272-6320. 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, Michael J Huntley can be reached on 303-297-4307. 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.
/P.J.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2129
/MICHAEL J HUNTLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2129
Prosecution Insights