DETAILED ACTION
Status
This communication is in response to Applicant’s “AMENDMENT” filed on September 3, 2025 (hereinafter “Amendment”). In the Amendment, Applicant amended Claims 1-5; cancelled no claim(s); and added Claim 6. No claim was previously cancelled. Therefore, Claims 1-6 are currently pending and presented for examination. Of the pending claims, Claims 1, 4 and 5 remain independent claims.
The present application (App. No. 18/624,405), which claims foreign priority to a Japanese patent application filed on June 2, 2023, is being examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ) since both applications were filed after March 16, 2013.
Original Claims 1-5 were presented by Applicant and, therefore, have been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits per MPEP § 819 and MPEP § 821.03.
Examiner notes that this U.S. patent application (U.S. App. No. 18/624,405) has published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0403917 of Tetsuro ISHII et al. (hereinafter “Ishii”).
Priority/Benefit Claim
This U.S. patent application (filed on April 2, 2024) claims foreign priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-091879, which was filed on June 2, 2023 with Japanese publication number: JP 2024173450. A certification document for Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-091879 has been electronically received at the USPTO on 5/07/2024. See MPEP § 215 for “a copy of the original foreign application with a certification by the patent office of the foreign country in which it was filed”. No English translation has been received.
No domestic benefit has been asserted in this application.
CPC Classification Notes
Examiner notes CPC classifications listed below:
G06Q 30/00 Commerce
G06Q 30/02 • Marketing Price estimation or determination…
G06Q 30/0241 •• Advertisements
G06Q 30/0251 ••• Targeted advertisements
G06Q 30/0255 •••• based on user history
G06Q 30/0259 •••• based on store location
G06Q 30/0261 •••• based on user location
G06Q 30/0265 •••• Vehicular advertisement
G06Q 30/0266 ••••• based on the position of the vehicle
Examiner Notes
Since correspondence incoming to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is electronically stored and scanned as black and white images, a dark color with sufficient resolution is required so that each scanned image is legible. This requires a high contrast, with black graphics or text, and a white background. Gray or low-resolution text and lines sharply reduces reproduction quality and, therefore, the Examiner kindly requests that Applicant submit future amended language (e.g., "Track Changes" text) using a “black and white” color with high-resolution when corresponding with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The Office will not accept future non-compliant amendment(s).
Response to Amendments
A Summary of the Response to Applicant’s Amendment:
Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome rejections to Claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 102; therefore, the Examiner asserts/maintains rejections to Claims 1-6 under §§ 101 and 102, as provided below.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see Examiner’s “Response to Arguments” provided below.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP § 2111). In view of this standard and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-6 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1: Claims 1-6 appear to satisfy Step 1 enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Step 2A: Claims 1-6 are rejected under § 101 because Applicant’s claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this finding is that Applicant’s claims recite targeting a user with advertising/marketing material (i.e., recited “proposal information”) of a facility (e.g., restaurant, store, supermarket, etc.) based on information about the user (e.g., current location of user in vehicle, what facility/business that the user has recently visited, as well as when (e.g., date/time) the user visited the facility/business) — see Ishii at ¶¶ [0004] and [0077] of Applicant’s published specification indicating advertising by “proposing” or “suggesting”, such as “propose visiting a facility that is suitable for a user” and “when the user does not visit the facility of the same genre as the first genre within a predetermined period of time, the proposal information is output…. As a result, it is possible to propose a visit to a facility suitable for the user” (Ishii at ¶¶ [0004] and [0077] with emphases added by Examiner); and “output the proposal information…at a time suitable for the user to visit the first facility” —Ishii at ¶ [0082] with emphases added by Examiner) — which is a form of targeted advertising/marketing or contextual advertising/marketing, as more particularly recited in Applicant’s pending claims save for recited (non-abstract claim elements):
each of Applicant’s recited steps/operations of acquiring, storing, displaying (i.e., causing a display to display), and not displaying (i.e., not causing a display to display);
(only Claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims) a system comprising (1) an information processing device comprising a hardware processor and a memory; and (2) a vehicle comprising an in-vehicle device mounted on the vehicle, a navigation system and a display;
(only Claim 4) a processor of a computer having the processor and a memory to execute;
(only Claim 5) a non-transitory storage medium storing a program that causes a processor of a computer having the processor and a memory to execute; and
(only Claim 6) the hardware processor storing.
However, targeting a user(s) with advertising/marketing material based on information about the user, as currently recited in Applicant’s pending claims and further explained below, is within a certain method of organizing human activity — (i) fundamental economic principle or practice; and/or (ii) commercial interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) provides examples of “fundamental economic principles or practices” and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) provides additional discussion and examples of commercial or legal interactions. This judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea exception) is not integrated into a practical application because each claim as a whole, having the combination of additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception and, therefore, the pending claims are “directed to” a judicial exception under USPTO Step 2A. More specifically, each claim as a whole does not appear to reflect the combination of additional elements as: (1) improving the functioning of a computer itself or improving another technology or technical field, (2) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine/manufacture that is integral to the claim, (3) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (4) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Instead, any improvement is to the underlying abstract idea of utilizing information about a user (e.g., facilities visited by the user, current location of user, etc.) to target the user with advertising/marketing material that is “suitable for the user” per Ishii at ¶¶ [0077] and [0082]. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12590, Slip. Op. 13 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract realm”). Although Applicant’s independent claims do mention: (-i-) matching positions/locations (e.g., cosine similarity, etc.); (-ii-) determining whether a stope time is “longer than a predetermined threshold period”, (-iii-) identifying whether a facility is within a predetermined [distance] range from a current vehicle position (e.g., Δ distance), as well as (-iv-) matching genres (e.g., cosine similarity, etc.), these technique encompasses mathematical concepts in the form of formulas, equations, and calculations which also have been determined to constitute abstract ideas. See Memorandum, "Grouping of Abstract Ideas" and cases cited in footnote 12, such as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50). As noted on page 4 of the “October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” issued by the USPTO, Examiner notes that a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim, in light of Applicant’s specification, encompasses one or more mathematical calculations. Applicant’s additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not appear to be integrated into a practical application since they embody mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, do no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a computer network environment with a server 200 in network communication with an in-vehicle device 100 with a display for user viewing, such as illustrated in Figure 1 of Applicant’s drawings}, and amount to no more than combining the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of acquiring, storing, displaying (causing a display to display), and not displaying (not causing a display to display), as further explained below. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2B: Under Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), Applicant’s instant claims do not recite limitations, taken individually and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because Applicant’s claims do not recite, as further explained in detail below, an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, an application with or by a particular machine, a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, unconventional steps confining the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Examiner notes that Claim 4 is drawn to a method; however, the method steps in Claim 4 do not recite, require, or indicate implementation by a particular machine since none of limitations recited in Applicant’s method claims are performed by any computer or processing device since recited use of “a processor of a computer having the processor and a memory” encompasses a situation where the computer processor does no more than assist/help a person perform such steps/processes or thoughts when the person is using the computer processor. Even if a computer/machine was implied in independent Claim 4, Applicant’s claim limitations taken individually and in combination would be merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer processor and would require no more than generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a computer network environment with a server 200 in network communication with an in-vehicle device 100 with a display for user viewing, such as illustrated in Figure 1 of Applicant’s drawings}, and having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of acquiring, storing, displaying (causing a display to display), and not displaying (not causing a display to display), as further explained below. Examiner also notes that albeit limitations recited in Claims 1, 3 and 6 are performed by “a hardware processor” of “an information processing device” while independent Claim 5 is executed by a generically-recited “a processor of a computer having the processor and a memory”, these claim limitations taken individually and in combination are merely instructions to implement Applicant’s abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to generally link Applicant’s abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a computer network environment with a server 200 in network communication with an in-vehicle device 100 with a display for user viewing, such as illustrated in Figure 1 of Applicant’s drawings}, and no more than a combination of the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of acquiring, storing, displaying (causing a display to display), and not displaying (not causing a display to display), as further explained below. As mentioned above, the claim elements in addition to the abstract idea arguably include: each of Applicant’s recited steps/operations of acquiring, storing, displaying (i.e., causing a display to display), and not displaying (i.e., not causing a display to display); (only Claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims) a system comprising (1) an information processing device comprising a hardware processor and a memory; and (2) a vehicle comprising an in-vehicle device mounted on the vehicle, a navigation system and a display;(only independent Claim 4) a processor of a computer having the processor and a memory to execute; (only independent Claim 5) a non-transitory storage medium storing a program that causes a processor of a computer having the processor and a memory to execute; and (Claim 6) the hardware processor storing.
However, each of these components is recited at a high level of generality that taken individually and in combination perform corresponding generic computer functions of acquiring, storing, displaying (causing a display to display), and not displaying (not causing a display to display) — there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology since the additional elements taken individually and collectively merely provide generic computer implementations known to the industry. Furthermore, Examiner notes that none of the processes/steps recited in Applicant’s pending claims taken individually and in combination impose a meaningful limit on the claim’s scope since none of recited processes/steps taken individually and in combination involve activity that amounts to more than generic computer functions/activity. The steps/processes of acquiring, storing, displaying (causing a display to display), and not displaying (not causing a display to display), as currently recited individually and in combination in Applicant’s claims, are considered to be generic computer functions since they involve having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use previously known to the industry — each of the recited steps of “acquiring” encompasses a data retrieving or input/loading function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)}; each of the recited steps of acquiring and “identifying” encompasses a data recognition/inquiry function or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Content Extraction”, for data recognition}; each of the steps of “storing” encompasses a data saving or depositing function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Cyberfone”; and Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Content Extraction”, for data storage}; and each of the recited steps of displaying (recited “causing the display… to display”) and not displaying (recited “not causing the display… to display”) encompasses a data transmittal/output function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014)}. Also it may be worth being mindful of the “July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” document, at page 7, second and sixth bullet points (July 30, 2015) regarding various well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer. Employing well-known computer functions (e.g., storing information, displaying images on a display, etc.) individually and in combination to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the computer-implemented abstract idea in Flook (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978)) to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims do not satisfy Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Consequently, based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. For information regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, please see Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instructional materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes guidance, memoranda, and updates regarding SME under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraph(s) of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form(s) the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-6 are rejected under America Invents Act (AIA ) 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0271560 of Hanan AHMED (hereinafter “Ahmed”).
Regarding Claim 1, Ahmed discloses a system comprising: a vehicle comprising an in-vehicle device mounted on the vehicle, a navigation system and a display (e.g., Figure 1 of Ahmed; and Ahmed at ¶¶ [0004], [0013] and [0015]–[0016]); and an information processing device comprising a hardware processor and a memory, the hardware processor configured to (e.g., Figure 1 of Ahmed; and Ahmed at ¶¶ [0004], [0013] and [0015]–[0016]):
acquire first position information indicating a current position of the vehicle in real time from the in-vehicle device mounted on the vehicle, the current position of the vehicle acquired by the navigation system mounted on the vehicle (e.g., “vehicles…with built in navigation systems” and “onboard GPS device” —Ahmed at ¶¶ [0002] and [0024]; “provides a user with a relevant, informative map display… adaptive to… shift with travel” —Ahmed at ¶ [0031]; “users can see a map populated with relevant POIs while the user travels” —Ahmed at ¶ [0049]; Ahmed at ¶¶ [0031] and [0037]; “provides a user with a relevant, informative map display… that shift[s] with travel” —Ahmed at ¶ [0031]; “users can see a map populated with relevant POIs while the user travels” and “dynamically update a map with relevant POIs” —Ahmed at ¶¶ [0049] and [0030]);
determine whether the current position indicated by the acquired first position information matches a second position indicated by second position information stored in a first database in the memory, the second position indicating a location of a facility, the first database storing, for a plurality of facilities, position information and genre information correlated to each of the plurality of facilities (e.g., determining match between vehicle’s current position and facility location/position — “provides a user with a relevant, informative map display… adaptive to states and parameters that shift with travel” —Ahmed at ¶ [0031]; “users can see a map populated with relevant POIs while the user travels” and “dynamically update a map with relevant POIs” —Ahmed at ¶¶ [0049] and [0030]; “determining that a predefined event indicating a stop at one of the POIs of the type has occurred” —Ahmed at ¶ [0006]; and Ahmed at ¶¶ [0031], [0037], [0046] and [0048]–[0049]);
in a case where the current position matches the second position, determine whether the vehicle stops at the current position for longer than a predetermined threshold period (e.g., “determines 501 that a vehicle has stopped” —Ahmed at ¶ [0048]; “determining… a stop at one of the POIs of the type has occurred” —Ahmed at ¶ [0006]; “users can see a map populated with relevant POIs while the user travels” and “dynamically update a map with relevant POIs” —Ahmed at ¶¶ [0049] and [0030]; “determining that a predefined event indicating a stop at one of the POIs of the type has occurred” —Ahmed at ¶ [0006]; and Ahmed at ¶¶ [0031], [0034], [0037], [0046] and [0048]–[0049]);
in a case where the vehicle stops at the current position for longer than the predetermined threshold period, store identification information and genre information on the facility correlated to the vehicle in a second database in the memory (e.g., “determines… vehicle has stopped” —Ahmed at ¶ [0048]; “determining… a stop at one of the POIs of the type has occurred” —Ahmed at ¶ [0006]; “user profile associated with a known vehicle occupant” and “user preferences…associated with a user profile” and “updating may be dynamic and ongoing” —Ahmed at ¶¶ [0006], [0032] and [0049]; as well as Ahmed at ¶¶ [0030]–[0034] and [0046]–[0049]);
identify, by referring to the first database, a first facility that is within a predetermined range from the current position of the vehicle, and that is a candidate for making a proposal to a user of the vehicle to visit (e.g., determining that the distance between a facility/business and a vehicle is currently within a predetermined distance for target marketing to a user in the vehicle — e.g., Ahmed at ¶¶ [0005], [0030]–[0034], [0036]–[0038] and [0046]–[0049]; “user profile associated with a known vehicle occupant” and “updating may be dynamic and ongoing” —Ahmed at ¶¶ [0006] and [0049]; “X type within 2 miles of the vehicle may be displayed” —Ahmed at ¶ [0045]; as well as “within 8 miles of the vehicle should be displayed” —Ahmed at ¶ [0044]);
acquire a first genre to which the first facility belongs by referring to the first database (e.g., “grocery stores of a certain brand or type” —Ahmed at ¶ [0034]; “POIs of the same brand or type (sharing certain characteristics)” —Ahmed at ¶ [0040]; “POI vendor/type” —Ahmed at ¶ [0043]; “restaurants of X type” —Ahmed at ¶ [0045]; and Ahmed at ¶¶ [0006], [0030]–[0031], [0034], [0040] and [0048]–[0049]; and “shared characteristic includes a type of good or service sold at the selected POI” —Claim 14 of Ahmed);
acquire a second genre to which belongs a facility stored in the second database, visited by the user using the vehicle within a predetermined period up to a present time (e.g., “a predefined event indicating a stop at one of the POIs of the type has occurred” —Ahmed at ¶ [0006]; “user has stopped for groceries” or “user has parked/stopped at the selected restaurant” —Ahmed at ¶¶ [0034] and [0046]; “grocery stores of a certain brand or type” —Ahmed at ¶ [0034]; “POIs of the same brand or type (sharing certain characteristics)” —Ahmed at ¶ [0040]; “POI vendor/type” —Ahmed at ¶ [0043]; “restaurants of X type” —Ahmed at ¶ [0045]; “shared characteristic includes a type of good or service sold at the selected POI” —Claim 14 of Ahmed; and Ahmed at ¶¶ [0006], [0030]–[0031], [0034], [0040] and [0048]–[0049]);
determine whether the first genre matches the second genre (e.g., determining if 1st and 2nd genres match — Ahmed at ¶¶ [0005]–[0006], [0030]–[0034], [0036]–[0038], [0040] and [0046]–[0049]);
cause a display of the in-vehicle device to display proposal information proposing that the user visit the first facility when the processor has determined that the first genre does not match the second genre (e.g., Ahmed at ¶¶ [0005]–[0006], [0030]–[0034], [0036]–[0038], [0040] and [0046]–[0049]); and
not cause the display of the in-vehicle device to display the proposal information when the processor has determined that the first genre matches the second genre (e.g., if 1st and 2nd genres match, then do not output proposal information — Ahmed at ¶¶ [0005]–[0006], [0030]–[0034], [0036]–[0038], [0040] and [0046]–[0049]).
Regarding Claim 2, Ahmed discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein: a plurality of the first genre exists (e.g., “grocery stores of a certain brand or type” —Ahmed at ¶ [0034]; “POIs of the same brand or type (sharing certain characteristics)” —Ahmed at ¶ [0040]; “POI vendor/type” —Ahmed at ¶ [0043]; “restaurants of X type” —Ahmed at ¶ [0045]; Ahmed at ¶¶ [0006], [0030]–[0031], [0034], [0040] and [0048]–[0049]; “relevance parameter…. adaptive to states and parameters that shift with travel” —Ahmed at ¶ [0031]; and “shared characteristic includes a type of good or service sold at the selected POI” —Claim 14 of Ahmed); and the predetermined period is set in advance for each of the plurality of first genres (e.g., Ahmed at ¶¶ [0023], [0031], [0034], [0046] and [0049]).
Regarding Claim 3, Ahmed discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to: acquire an interval at which the user has visited a facility belonging to the first genre using the vehicle (e.g., Ahmed at ¶¶ [0023], [0031], [0034], [0046] and [0049]); and set the predetermined period such that a time interval from a beginning to the present time coincides with the interval that was acquired (e.g., Ahmed at ¶¶ [0023], [0031], [0034], [0046] and [0049]).
Regarding Claim 4, Ahmed discloses an information processing method that is executed by a processor of a computer having the processor and a memory (e.g., Figure 1 of Ahmed; and Ahmed at ¶¶ [0014]–[0015]), the method comprising respective processes/steps as recited in Claim 1, and, therefore, Claim 4 is rejected on the same basis(es) as applied above with respect to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, Ahmed discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing a program that causes a processor of a computer having the processor and a memory to execute (e.g., Figure 1 of Ahmed; and Ahmed at ¶¶ [0014]–[0015]) respective method processes/steps as recited in Claim 1, and, therefore, Claim 5 is rejected on the same basis(es) as applied above with respect to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Ahmed discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein: the hardware processor stores in the second database, in addition to the identification information and the genre information on the facility, a date and a time at which the vehicle visited the facility correlated to the vehicle (e.g., “user profile associated with a known vehicle occupant” and “updating may be dynamic and ongoing” —Ahmed at ¶¶ [0006] and [0049]; and Ahmed at ¶¶ [0023], [0031], [0034], [0046] and [0049]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Amendment filed on September 3, 2025, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner notes further recitation above to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0271560 of Hanan AHMED (“Ahmed”) in an effort to assist Applicant given Applicant’s amendments and arguments in “Amendment”.
Applicant's Arguments in the Amendment
(Pages 7-8) Applicant asserts that the pending claims, as currently amended, are drawn to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
(Pages 8-9) Applicant asserts that the independent claims, as currently amended, are not anticipated by Ahmed.
Examiner’s Response to Applicant's Arguments
Please see updated/modified § 101 rejections above regarding pending claims being drawn to ineligible subject matter in view of considering all relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole including amended portions of the independent claims. Each of Applicant’s pending claims does not appear to reflect the combination of additional elements as: (1) improving the functioning of a computer itself or improving another technology or technical field, (2) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine/manufacture that is integral to the claim, (3) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (4) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Examiner notes Applicant’s claim limitations do not improve upon the technical field that the abstract idea is applied nor do they improve upon any other technical field. In addition, Examiner notes Applicant’s claimed limitations do not improve upon the functioning of the computer itself. Therefore, Applicant's arguments amount to no more than a speculative/conclusory allegation that “any abstract idea…is integrated into a practical application” to support an invention under § 101. Examiner notes that the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas cannot be circumvented by limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, based upon consideration of all relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, the pending claims are drawn to ineligible subject matter and, therefore, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding § 102, please see citations to prior art reference Ahmed in the § 102 rejections above regarding amended portions of Applicant’s claims. Examiner notes that during patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation”. In view of this standard, Examiner asserts § 102 rejections to Applicant’s amended claims, as noted above. In addition, Examiner notes that patent documents are relevant as prior art for all they contain and that “[a] reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments” —MPEP § 2123.
Conclusion
The following references are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, and are being made of record albeit the references are not relied upon as a basis for rejection in this Office action:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0258123 of KOBAYASHI et al. (hereinafter “KOBAYASHI” for “At this time, when the acquired crowding level is higher than the predetermined threshold value, the server device 300 extracts a store (predetermined recommended store) with a crowding level lower than that of the destination store from among the other stores that belong to the same genre as the destination store and that do not belong to the same affiliated group as the destination store. After that, the server device 300 generates an advertisement (proposal advertisement) that proposes to change the destination of the vehicle from the destination store to the predetermined recommended store and then sends the generated proposal advertisement to the mobile terminal 100” —KOBAYASHI at ¶ [0032]; and “…shown in FIG. 4, since four stores belong to the same genre, the information on the four stores (advertiser ID field, store name field, store location field, in-store crowding field, and waiting group field) are associated with one genre ID” —KOBAYASHI at ¶ [0050].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0111127 of MISAKI et al. (hereinafter “Misaki”) for “The category of the store is classified depending on, for example, the business category (for example, convenience store, gasoline station, supermarket, DIY store, restaurant, and bookstore) and/or the classification of the merchandise and the service to be dealt with. Alternatively, member stores, which participate in an identical franchise system, are included in one category in some cases. The classification method, which is used when the category is decided, can be appropriately selected provided that the user 3 can put a plurality of stores in the same class (user 3 can recognize the plurality of stores as choices or options respectively). In this embodiment, the stores A to D are the stores of the same type. The user 3 can purchase the same merchandise or enjoy the same service in any one of the stores A to D” —Misaki at ¶ [0038].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0232564 of Blackhurst et al. (hereinafter “Blackhurst”) for “targeted advertising serving application (72 of FIG. 2) is configured to ignore advertisements that are for the same product or service (e.g., the customer recently purchased a gas grill, so gas grill advertisements will not be displayed). However, the targeted advertising serving application 72 may be configured to look for attribute matches between the advertisements and products or services that are associated with (related to but not the same) the specific product or service (e.g., the customer recently purchases a gas grill, so gas grill accessories advertisements should be displayed to the customer)” —Blackhurst at ¶ [0070].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0180382 of Bhagwan et al. (hereinafter “Bhagwan”) for “targeting a user with advertisements and/or other types of promotional information by leveraging prior purchase information derived from a user's purchase activity…. Based on this information, selected advertisements that are to be served to a user are selected in a manner that avoids duplicating promotional material associated with the prior or recent purchase from the same vendor. In some embodiments, advertisements corresponding to a prior or recent purchase may be served to the user when the ads are associated with a different vendor from the vendor that previously sold the item to the user…. such ads being served from alternative vendors may only be served when such vendors are offering promotions associated with the purchased item at a lower price.” — Bhagwan at ¶ [0004]; and “for a limited period of time. That is, a time window may govern the lifespan of the purchase tag. This ensures that the purchase tag expires at some point in the future thereby enabling the user to receive ads from the same vendor and the same product. In some embodiments the time window may be based on the item, category of the item, the purchase history of the recipient, the seller, or some combination thereof. In some embodiments, for example, it can be determined that a user purchased the item on day X, then 2 weeks later purchased the item again. This determination can serve as a basis for the timing window which can reflect that the user does not need the item for at least 2 weeks from receiving the item” —Bhagwan at ¶ [0088].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0010958 of Perrow et al. (hereinafter “Perrow”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0198607 of Badger et al. (hereinafter “Badger”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0288354 of Flinn et al. (hereinafter “Flinn”) for “personal history can be used to infer preferences of the user 200, as well as tuning adaptive recommendations and suggestions by avoiding recommending or suggesting objects 212 that have already been recently viewed or completed by the user 200” —Bhagwan at ¶ [0146].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0133336 of Altman et al. (hereinafter “Altman”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0086356 of Glassman et al. (“Glassman”).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Mathew Syrowik whose telephone number is 313-446-4862. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM (Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf, can be reached at telephone number 517-270-3948. 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 Patent Center. Status information of published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, please contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or by email at EBC@uspto.gov. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conference using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please email Mathew.Syrowik@USPTO.gov or applicant may use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form. For additional information or questions, please contact the Inventors Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199 (toll free), 571-272-1000 (local), or 1-800-877-8339 (TDD/TTY).
/Mathew Syrowik/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621