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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3, 14, and 18 recite “dynamically gathering and aggregating information,” where “dynamically” is a relative modifier that purports to distinguish the claimed gathering/aggregating from ordinary gathering/aggregating. However, the claim does not set forth any objective standard for “dynamically,” such as what event or events trigger updates (e.g., movement of the vehicle, passage of time, user input), how frequently information is refreshed, whether the information is updated continuously or periodically, or what degree of change is required. In the absence of an objective boundary for “dynamically,” the term is subjective and does not inform, with reasonable certainty, the scope of the claim. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Claim 7 “selects a point of interest” (singular) while a later limitation in claim 10 requires output about “selected points of interest” (plural). The claim therefore fails to define, with reasonable certainty, whether the required output is directed to one point of interest or multiple points of interest, rendering the claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: is the claim directed to one of the four statutory categories?
Yes, the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A, prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
idea?
No. The limitation: “(a) determining a current location of the vehicle; (b) identifying one or more points of interest located within a pre-determined range from the current location of the vehicle;” are directed to a mental process of judgment under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
No. The limitations: “(c) using an Artificial Intelligence ("AI") model, dynamically gathering and aggregating information about the identified points of interest; and (d) presenting to the user the information about the identified points of interest within the pre-determined range from the current location of the vehicle” are directed to mere instructions to apply an exception under MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception?
No. The limitations: “(c) using an Artificial Intelligence ("AI") model, dynamically gathering and aggregating information about the identified points of interest; and (d) presenting to the user the information about the identified points of interest within the pre-determined range from the current location of the vehicle” are directed to mere instructions to apply an exception under MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 (e) of filtering the identified points of interest by rating count and rating value before the step (c) 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 (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” is directed to a mental process of judgment under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
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 (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” is directed to a mental process of judgment 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, 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 (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” 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 (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” 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 7:
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 (i) 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 (d),” 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 (i) 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 (d),” 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 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 (d) of presenting to the user the information about the identified points of interest comprises telling a story about the selected points 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 (j) 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 (j) 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 (k) 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 (k) 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 14:
Step 1: is the claim directed to one of the four statutory categories?
Yes, the claim 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: “(a) determining a current location of the vehicle; (b) identifying one or more points of interest located within a pre-determined range from the current location of the vehicle;” are directed to a mental process of judgment under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, prong 2: Do the additional elements integrate into a practical application?
No. The limitations: “(c) using an Artificial Intelligence ("Al") model, dynamically gathering and aggregating information about the identified points of interest; and (d) presenting to the user the information about the identified points of interest within the pre-determined range from the current location of the vehicle” are directed to mere instructions to apply an exception under MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception?
No. The limitations: “(c) using an Artificial Intelligence ("Al") model, dynamically gathering and aggregating information about the identified points of interest; and (d) presenting to the user the information about the identified points of interest within the pre-determined range from the current location of the vehicle” are directed to mere instructions to apply an exception under MPEP 2106.05(f).
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).
Claim 18 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pre-Grant Patent 2020/0200556 (Boston et al; Boston).
Regarding claim 1 and analogous claims 14 and 18:
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. (a) determining 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. (a) determining a current location of the vehicle;].”
3. (b) identifying one or more points of interest located within a pre-determined range from the current location of the vehicle;
(Boston, ¶0029)
“For example, the user may be at his or her home (current location), and the computer processor(s) may determine a route from the current location to the first landmark. Route determinations may include retrieval and analysis of current traffic data and/or distance to a destination to determine an optimal route and/or order of landmark locations to visit [i.e. (b) identifying one or more points of interest located within a pre-determined range from the current location of the vehicle;].”
3. (c) using an Artificial Intelligence ("AI") model, dynamically 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. (c) using an Artificial Intelligence ("AI") model, dynamically gathering and aggregating information about the identified points of interest;].”
4. and (d) presenting to the user 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 (d) presenting to the user the information about the identified points of interest within the pre-determined range from the current location of the vehicle].”
Regarding claim 2:
Boston teaches:
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].”
Regarding claim 3:
Boston teaches:
1. further comprising a step (e) of filtering the identified points of interest by rating count and rating value before the step (c) of dynamically 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 (e) 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 (c) of dynamically gathering and aggregating information about the identified points of interest].”
Regarding claim 7:
Boston teaches:
1., further comprising a step (i) 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 (d).
(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 (i) 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 (d)].”
Regarding claim 8:
Boston teaches:
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].”
Regarding claim 9:
Boston teaches:
1. wherein the step (d) of presenting to the user the information about the identified points of interest comprises telling a story about the selected 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 (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 (d) of presenting to the user the information about the identified points of interest comprises telling a story about the selected points of interest].”
Regarding claim 10:
Boston teaches:
1. further comprising a step (j) 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.
“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].”
Regarding claim 11:
Boston teaches:
1. further comprising a step (k) 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].”
Regarding claim 12:
Boston teaches:
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 teaches:
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].”
Regarding claim 15:
Boston teaches:
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].”
Regarding claim 16:
Boston teaches:
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).”
Regarding claim 17:
Boston teaches:
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].”
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 4-6 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 US Pre-Grant Patent 2013/0262479 (Liang et al; Liang).
Regarding claim 4:
Boston does not explicitly teach; 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 with Liang. The motivation is to modify Boston’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:
Boston does not explicitly teach; 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 with Liang. The motivation is the same as claim 4.
Regarding claim 6:
Boston does not explicitly teach; 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 with Liang. The motivation is the same as claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-US Pre-Grant Patent 2014/0274145 (Cronin et al; Cronin)
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