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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 03 February 2026. The Applicant has amended claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 13-16 and 18-20. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Reply to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed 03 February 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Claim Objections:
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 03 February 2026 have overcome the Objections to Claims previously set forth.
Claim Interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 03 February 2026 have avoid “processing system” being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 03 February 2026, with regard to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “…claims 1, 13, and 20 do not merely perform mental process…cannot reasonably be interpreted as reciting mental processes” (Remarks, page 5), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 recites “coupling the first user appoint data and the second user appointment data”, “identifying a geographic area…”, “assessing one or more categories of services…”, “ranking services…”, which are processes that could be implemented by a person in the mind. For example, a person, when given the user appointment data, could couple/link/coordinate the first user appointment data and second user appointment data, which is a routine operation before the invention of computers. Therefore, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “…the claims include additional features beyond “receiving…” and “pushing…” … claim 1 recites… “coupling…” such that “ranking…” …” (Remarks page 6), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
“A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application” (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The “coupling…” and “ranking…” are steps that could be performed by a person in the mind or using a pen and paper. The additional limitations of receiving… and pushing…amount to mere data gathering and post solution displaying, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology” (MPEP 2106.05(a) II.), Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “claim 1 recites “receiving first user…”, “receiving second user…”, “coupling…” and “ranking…” …incorporate the alleged abstract ideas into a practical application…” the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The “coupling…” and “ranking…” are steps that could be performed by a person in the mind or using a pen and paper. The additional limitations of receiving… and pushing…amount to mere data gathering and post solution displaying, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology” (MPEP 2106.05(a) II.), Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 13 and 20 recite similar language as claim 1 and the rejections under 35 U.S.C.101 are maintained for similar reasons above.
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 03 February 2026, with regard to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered. Applicant’s argument is moot because the argument is directed toward new limitations that have not been previously considered. As such, Applicant’s amendment has necessitated a new ground of rejection set forth in this office action.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an appointment-based navigation method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An appointment-based navigation method, comprising:
receiving first user appointment data associated with a first user by automatically scanning a first device associated with the first user, wherein the first user appointment data comprises a first at least one appointment;
receiving second user appointment data associated with a second user on a second device automatically scanning messages or calendar data stored on the second device, wherein the second user appointment data comprises a second at least one appointment;
coupling the first user appointment data and the second user appointment data;
identifying a geographic area associated with the at least one appointment based on the first user appointment data;
accessing one or more categories of services located in the identified geographic area;
ranking services in the one or more categories of services, wherein the ranking is based on the second user appointment data and one or more characteristics of the first user appointment data; and
pushing a navigation recommendation to the device associated with the first user based on the ranking of the services in the one or more categories of services.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “coupling…”, “identifying...”, “accessing…” and “ranking…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (e.g. a driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An appointment-based navigation method, comprising:
receiving first user appointment data associated with a first user by automatically scanning a first device associated with the first user, wherein the first user appointment data comprises a first at least one appointment;
receiving second user appointment data associated with a second user on a second device automatically scanning messages or calendar data stored on the second device, wherein the second user appointment data comprises a second at least one appointment;
coupling the first user appointment data and the second user appointment data;
identifying a geographic area associated with the at least one appointment based on the first user appointment data;
accessing one or more categories of services located in the identified geographic area;
ranking services in the one or more categories of services, wherein the ranking is based on the second user appointment data and one or more characteristics of the first user appointment data; and
pushing a navigation recommendation to the device associated with the first user based on the ranking of the services in the one or more categories of services.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving...” and “pushing...” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the receiving step from the device is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the identifying, accessing and ranking steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The pushing step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the result from the identifying, accessing and ranking steps), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of “receiving...” and “pushing...” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of “receiving...” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the background recites that the receiving data by automatically scanning a device is merely a conventional method of data gathering/acquisition MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “pushing...,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per Claim 13.
Claim 13, an apparatus claim (an appointment-based navigation system), includes limitations analogous to claim 1 a process claim (an appointment-based navigation method), but adds a processor, a memory and a communication circuitry. These generically recited computer elements and data collection elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because, they merely amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim 20.
Claim 20, an apparatus claim (non-transitory computer readable medium), includes limitations analogous to claim 1 a process claim (an appointment-based navigation method), but adds a processing system. These generically recited computer elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because, they merely amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 13.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreier (US20230384102) in view of Takasu (JP2009014536, the paragraph numbers are cited based on the attached machine translated copy) and further in view of Cao (US20160364823).
As to claim 1, Schreier teaches an appointment-based navigation method, comprising:
Receiving first user appointment data associated with a first user by automatically scanning a first device associated with the first user, wherein the user appointment data comprises a first at least one appointment (Schreier para 0008: … determine one or more driving behaviors of the driver based on the driving data, receive, from the mobile device, data regarding a calendar of the driver, identify a plurality of appointments in the calendar of the driver; para 0020: route selection system may interface with a driver's mobile device to provide customized navigation based on the driver's calendar or tasks list… access the driver's calendar and parse the data to identify locations and times for each appointment in the driver's calendar);
identifying a geographic area associated with the first at least one appointment based on the user appointment data (Schreier, para 0008: determine a route comprising multiple destinations for the driver based on the vehicle location… and the plurality of appointments in the calendar of the driver; para 0020: route selection system may access the driver's calendar and parse the data to identify locations and times for each appointment in the driver's calendar).
Schreier does not explicitly teach receiving second user appointment data associated with a second user on a second device automatically scanning messages or calendar data stored on the second device, wherein the second user appointment data comprises a second at least one appointment; coupling the first user appointment data and the second user appointment data; accessing one or more categories of services located in the identified geographic area; ranking services in the one or more categories of services, wherein the ranking is based on the second user appointment data and one or more characteristics of the first user appointment data; and pushing a navigation recommendation to the device associated with the first user based on the ranking of the services in the one or more categories of services.
Takasu is directed to provide a route to a parking lot that matches a user's desire. Takasu teaches the navigation device searches for parking lots around a destination in accordance with predetermined search conditions and display methods, and allows the user to assign priorities to the searched parking lots… (see at least Takasu para 0023) …after receiving the destination input in S100, if the user selects an image instructing the user to perform a "surrounding parking lot search," the determination in S102 becomes YES, and then input of search conditions and display method is received (S108). Specifically, an input screen for search conditions for nearby parking lots and a display method for search results is displayed, and input of search conditions and a display method is accepted. Search criteria for nearby parking lots include parking fees, distance to nearby facilities, width of the road facing the entrance/exit, parking lot structure, and number of parking spaces… users can enter search criteria based on their preferences, such as being within 500 meters of the station... Users can also specify how search results are displayed, such as by lowest price, by shortest distance to nearby facilities, or by the number of parking spaces available, according to their preferences (see at least Takasu para 0030-0040, para 0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schreier so as to include accessing one or more categories of services located in the identified geographic area; ranking services in the one or more categories of services, wherein the ranking is based on the second user appointment data and one or more characteristics of the first user appointment data; and pushing a navigation recommendation to the device associated with the first user based on the ranking of the services in the one or more categories of services in view of Takasu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that searching, ranking and displaying the parking lots near the destination with user preferred conditions of Takasu can be used in Schreier, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Schreier and Takasu because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing the user with the service, such as parking, that suits the user’s preferences best.
Cao is directed to a ride-sharing computer to receive a ride-sharing request from a rider. Cao teaches collecting travel data and appointments from a calendar from a first mobile device of a first user and from a second mobile device of a second user, and to determine a first travel pattern associated with the first user and a second travel pattern associated with the second user and a carpool matching module to determine a match between the first and second travel patterns, and to generate a carpool proposal directed at the first and second users, wherein one of the travel patterns is a common portion of the other travel pattern proximally the same time for spatially and temporally common on-demand carpooling; and a ride-sharing vehicle and having a mobile device coupled to the computer, wherein the mobile device picks up the first and second users based on the carpool proposal (see at least Cao, abstract, para 0106, claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schreier so as to include receiving second user appointment data associated with a second user on a second device automatically scanning messages or calendar data stored on the second device, wherein the second user appointment data comprises a second at least one appointment; coupling the first user appointment data and the second user appointment data in view of Cao et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that receiving second user appointment data and coupling the appointment data of first and second users of Cao can be used in Schreier, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Schreier and Cao because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method for car sharing which could reduce the number of vehicles on the road so as to save money for the users and decrease pollution to the environment.
As to claim 2, Schreier in view of Takasu and Cao teaches the method of claim 1.
Schreier further teaches wherein the device associated with the first user is a mobile device (Schreier para 0020: …receive data regarding a calendar of the driver from the driver's mobile device).
As to claim 4, Schreier in view of Takasu and Cao teaches the method of claim 1.
Schreier further teaches wherein the navigation recommendation comprises one or more routes to an appointment location in the geographic area (Schreier para 0017: the route selection system may integrate calendar information, …, and driver preferences to provide drivers with customized navigation to various destinations or locations corresponding to appointments, meetings, or other events in a driver's calendar, also see para 0022).
As to claim 5, Schreier in view of Takasu and Cao teaches the method of claim 1.
Takasu further teaches receiving location information of the first device associated with the first user, wherein the location information is indicative of the first device being at a location of a first service of the ranked services for a first category of the one or more categories of services (Takasu para 0032: when the destination is reached, the determination in Sl06 becomes YES, and this process ends, also see para 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schreier so as to include receiving location information of the device associated with the user, wherein the location information is indicative of the device being at a location of a first service of the ranked services for a first category of the one or more categories of services in view of Takasu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Schreier and Takasu because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing the user with the service, such as parking, that suits the user’s preferences best.
As to claim 8, Schreier in view of Takasu and Cao teaches the method of claim 1.
Schreier further teaches wherein an application operating on the device scans messages on the first device to identify the first user appointment data (Schreier para 0020: route selection system may interface with a driver's mobile device to provide customized navigation based on the driver's calendar or tasks list… access the driver's calendar and parse the data to identify locations and times for each appointment in the driver's calendar).
As to claim 9, Schreier in view of Takasu and Cao teaches the method of claim 1.
Takasu further teaches comprising receiving preference data associated with the first user, wherein the preference data comprises user preference inputs relating to the one or more categories of services (Takasu para 0033: …users can enter search criteria based on their preferences, such as parking fees of less than 200 yen per 30 minutes, being within 500 meters of the station…).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schreier so as to include receiving preference data associated with the user, wherein the preference data comprises user preference inputs relating to the one or more categories of services in view of Takasu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Schreier and Takasu because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing the user with the service, such as parking, that suits the user’s preferences best.
As to claim 10, Schreier in view of Takasu and Cao teaches the method of claim 9.
Takasu further teaches wherein ranking the services in the one or more categories of services is based at least in part on the user preference inputs (Takasu para 0073: …search results were displayed in a list according to the user's preference, such as in order of lowest price, shortest distance to nearby facilities, or largest number of parking spaces; also see para 0015, para 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schreier so as to include ranking the services in the one or more categories of services is based at least in part on the user preference inputs in view of Takasu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Schreier and Takasu because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing the user with the service, such as parking, that suits the user’s preferences best.
As to claim 11, Schreier in view of Takasu and Cao teaches the method of claim 1.
Schreier further teaches wherein the user appointment data comprises action item data, wherein the action item data comprises one or more tasks on a task list (Schreier para 0021: Appointments in the driver's calendar may include any meetings or appointments, such as meetings at work ( e.g., team meetings, conference calls, video or teleconferences, etc.), lunch appointments, doctors' appointments, parent-teacher meetings, and the like…; also see para 0022-0023 for multiple destinations).
As to claim 12, Schreier in view of Takasu and Cao teaches the method of claim 11.
Takasu further teaches wherein ranking the services in the one or more categories of services is based at least in part on the action item data (Takasu para 0002: …display the parking lots found in order of various criteria, such as lowest fee or shortest distance from the destination, along with detailed information about the parking lot, and set the parking lot selected by the user as the destination to provide route guidance, also see para 0014-0015, para 0023, para 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schreier so as to include wherein ranking the services in the one or more categories of services is based at least in part on the action item data in view of Takasu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Schreier and Takasu because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing the user with the service, such as parking, that suits the user’s preferences best.
As to claim 13, claim 13 an apparatus claim (appointment-based navigation system) includes limitations analogous to claim 1, a process claim (appointment-based navigation method). Schreier further teaches a calendar application on the mobile application…processors and storage units (Schreier para 0020, para 0031 and para 0035). For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 13 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schreier in combination with Takasu and Cao.
As to claim 14, Schreier in view of Takasu and Cao teaches the system of claim 13.
Takasu further teaches wherein the services comprise parking services, and wherein the navigation recommendation comprises automatic selection of a top-ranked parking service based on the one or more characteristics of the user appointment data and navigation to the top-ranked parking service (Takasu para 0027: the navigation device 1 in this embodiment searches for parking lots around a destination in accordance with predetermined search conditions and display methods, and allows the user to assign priorities to the searched parking lots. When priorities are assigned in this way, route guidance is performed with the parking lot with the highest priority set as the destination; also see para 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schreier so as to include parking services, and wherein the navigation recommendation comprises automatic selection of a top-ranked parking service based on the one or more characteristics of the user appointment data and navigation to the top-ranked parking service in view of Takasu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Schreier and Takasu because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing the user with the service, such as parking, that suits the user’s preferences best.
As to claim 15, Schreier in view of Takasu and Cao teaches the system of claim 13.
Schreier further teaches wherein the navigation recommendation is pushed to the user device at a pre-set period of time before the at least one appointment (Schreier para 0054: after determining a route for a driver, the route selection manager 213 may generate a route for the driver that is outputted on the display 214 of the route selection device 212 or transmitted to the driver at his or her mobile device 220, para 0057: estimated arrival times).
As to claim 16, Schreier in view of Takasu and Cao teaches the system of claim 15.
Schreier further teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by a processor, are configured to: push an updated navigation recommendation to the user device at a second pre-set period of time before the at least one appointment, wherein the second pre-set period of time is dynamic and based on generating an estimate of travel time to the at least one appointment using the navigation recommendation (Schreier para 0025-0026:… update the multi-stop route to include the location of the new meeting or appointment… and may modify the route to include the new destination, resulting in a modified route comprising the new destination, para 0057: estimated arrival times).
As to claim 17, Schreier in view of Takasu and Cao teaches the system of claim 13.
Schreier further teaches wherein the navigation recommendation comprises a prompt to select between two different recommended services of the one or more categories of services in the ranking (Schreier para 0028).
As to claim 18, Schreier in view of Takasu and Cao teaches the system of claim 13.
Schreier further teaches wherein the navigation recommendation causes the user device to generate a graphical user interface (Schreier para 0045).
Takasu further teaches wherein the navigation recommendation causes the user device to generate a graphical user interface (Takasu para 0026) and the services and respective associated rankings (Takasu para 0033, para 0049).
Yet, Schreier modified by Takasu does not explicitly teach displaying representations of the services and associated rankings on a map.
However, Takasu does teach a map display process that displays on the display screen of the display device a current location cursor that indicates the current location superimposed on a map of the area around the vehicle's position, a map matching process that corrects the vehicle's position to a point on the road, a destination search process that searches for a destination in accordance with search conditions input by the user through operation of the input device 11, a route search process that searches for the optimal guide route from the current location to the destination, a route guidance process that provides driving guidance in accordance with the guide route, and an estimated arrival time display process that periodically calculates and displays the estimated arrival time for arriving at the destination based on the current location and the guide route.… The navigation device 1 in this embodiment searches for parking lots around a destination in accordance with predetermined search conditions and display methods, and allows the user to assign priorities to the searched parking lots (Takasu para 0026-0027, also see para 0015, para 0033). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the representations of the services and associated rankings being displayed on a map for the benefit of allowing the user to have an intuitive view of the relevant information.
As to claim 19, Schreier in view of Takasu and Cao teaches the system of claim 18.
Takasu further teaches wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by a processor, are configured to: receive a user input from the user device based on interaction with the graphical user interface, wherein the user input comprises a selection of a service of the services in the ranking; and transmit an updated navigation recommendation based on the received user input (Takasu para 0027, para 0033).
As to claim 20, claim 20 an apparatus claim (non-transitory, computer readable media) includes limitations analogous to claim 1, a process claim (appointment-based navigation method). Schreier further teaches processors and storage units (Schreier para 0031 and para 0035). For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 20 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schreier in combination with Takasu and Cao.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreier in view of Takasu and Cao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Publicover (US20200242924).
As to claim 3, Schreier in view of Takasu and Cao teaches the method of claim 1.
Schreier further teaches the route selection system prompting the driver through a mobile application on the mobile device (Schreier para 0028).
Schreier modified by Takasu and Cao does not teach wherein the navigation recommendation comprises a prompt to receive a discount for a first service in a first category of the one or more categories of services in the identified geographic area.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Publicover teaches …users may be offered special drop off parking spaces that provide incentives such as rebates and/or reduced rate or free parking (Publicover para 0114) ...users can be offered financial incentives, such as parking discounts and/or rewards points for confirming that they intend to leave at the predicted or specified time and/or actually have vacated a parking space before a specified time (Publicover para 0143, also see para 0172).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schreier so as to include wherein the navigation recommendation comprises a prompt to receive a discount for a first service in a first category of the one or more categories of services in the identified geographic area in view of Publicover et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing incentives such as rebates and/or reduced rate or free parking to users of Publicover can be used in Schreier, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Schreier and Publicover because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing the user with options to choose a parking lot/garage which has lower rate.
As to claim 7, Schreier in view of Takasu and Cao teaches the method of claim 1.
Schreier further teaches wherein the first user appointment data is indicative of a doctor’s appointment (Schreier para 0021-0023).
Publicover further teaches wherein the navigation recommendation ranks a first parking garage higher than a second parking garage based on accessibility data for the second parking garage being indicative of a higher likelihood of stair use relative to the first parking garage (Publicover para 0170 for selecting parking by giving priority to avoidance of stairs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schreier so as to wherein the navigation recommendation ranks a first parking garage higher than a second parking garage based on accessibility data for the second parking garage being indicative of a higher likelihood of stair use relative to the first parking garage in view of Publicover et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Schreier and Publicover because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing the user with options to choose a parking lot/garage which suit the user’s preferences and personal condition.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreier in view of Takasu and Cao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oba (US20250206355).
As to claim 6, Schreier in view of Takasu teaches the method of claim 5.
Schreier modified by Takasu and Cao does not teach transmitting information to a system of the first service to cause the system to generate a reward based on the location information, wherein the reward is generated when the device is co-located with the first service based on the location information.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Oba teaches the action planning unit 62 creates an action plan for the vehicle 1. For example, the action planning unit 62 creates the action plan by performing processing of path planning and path following (Oba para 0128)…the reward and punishment granting unit 113 gives an incentive or penalty to the driver on the basis of the monitoring result of the driver by the DMS 30 or the like. Specifically, for example, the reward and punishment granting unit 113 gives the incentive or penalty to the driver on the basis of the monitoring result of whether or not the driver has followed the measure-taking method presented by the action planning unit 62 and selected by the driver (Oba para 0158-0161).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schreier so as to include transmitting information to a system of the first service to cause the system to generate a reward based on the location information, wherein the reward is generated when the device is co-located with the first service based on the location information in view of Oba et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that giving the incentive to the driver on the basis of the monitoring result of the driver has followed the measure-taking method presented by the action planning unit of Oba can be used in Schreier, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Schreier and Oba because this would have achieved the desirable result of encouraging the user to follow the travel plan for the benefit of increased safety and time/fuel savings.
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.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on 571-272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights