DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 submitted on 01/02/2026 are pending and have been examined. Claims 1-4 have been amended and claims 5 and 6 have been newly added.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent application No. JP2023-098037, filed on 06/14/2023.
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 a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1
Claims 1-3, 5, and 6 are directed to a machine and claim 4 is directed to a process (see MPEP 2106.03).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 1, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
provides information to a user traveling in the vehicle,
receive a destination of the user;
determine whether a first shop is present, the first shop being located on a route to the destination of the user; and
in response to the determining that the first shop is present,
calculate a first time length and a second time length, the first time length being a time required from a time the user starts selecting an item to order of the first shop to a time an operation to order the item is completed, the second time length being a time required for the first shop to prepare the item after an order is accepted,
calculate a third time length including at least the first time length and the second time length,
output information to propose to the user to order at the first shop by a time that is the third time length back from an estimated time of an arrival of the user at the first shop, and
receive the destination from the user,
transmit the destination, and
present a prompt to propose to the user to order at the first shop upon receiving the information.
The above limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that it recites a commercial interaction. Claim 4 recites similar limitations as claim 1.
Thus, under Prong 1 of Step 2A, claims 1 and 4 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claim 1 includes the following additional elements that are bolded:
A vehicle including an in-vehicle terminal and an information processing device that provides information to a user traveling in the vehicle,
wherein the information processing device comprises a processor configured to:
receive a destination of the user from the in-vehicle terminal;
determine whether a first shop is present, the first shop being located on a route to the destination of the user with a mobile ordering system; and
in response to the determining that the first shop is present,
calculate a first time length and a second time length, the first time length being a time required from a time the user starts selecting an item to order in the mobile ordering system of the first shop to a time an operation to order the item is completed, the second time length being a time required for the first shop to prepare the item after an order is accepted,
calculate a third time length including at least the first time length and the second time length,
output information to the in-vehicle terminal to propose to the user to order at the first shop using the mobile ordering system by a time that is the third time length back from an estimated time of an arrival of the user at the first shop, and
the in-vehicle terminal is configured to:
receive the destination from the user,
transmit the destination to the processor, and
present a prompt to propose to the user to order at the first shop upon receiving the information from the information processing device.
Claim 4 includes the same additional elements as claim 1.
The additional elements recited in claims 1 and 4 merely invoke such elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment of computer terminals (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h). These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Fig. 2 and ¶¶0031-0036).
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and, thus, claims 1 and 4 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As noted above, while the recitation of the additional elements in independent claims 1 and 4 are acknowledged, claims 1 and 4 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 and 4 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1 and 4 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05).
As such, independent claims 1 and 4 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 merely further define the abstract limitations of claims 1 and 4 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 4. Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 do not introduce any further additional elements.
Thus, dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng et al. (US 2020/0151800 A1 [previously cited]) in view of Ramanujam et al. (US 2015/0348112 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tseng et al., hereinafter, Tseng, discloses a vehicle including an in-vehicle terminal and an information processing device that provides information to a user traveling in the vehicle (Figs. 1 and 2; ¶0021[With continuing reference to FIG. 1, the computing platform 104 may be configured to allow a user of vehicle 102 to place an online order for goods via the HMI controls 118 using a software application stored in the storage 106 e.g. as a part of the vehicle applications 108 previously installed] in view of ¶0013[Referring to FIG. 1, an example block topology of a vehicle system 100 of one embodiment of the present disclosure is illustrated. A vehicle 102 may include various types of automobile, crossover utility vehicle (CUV), sport utility vehicle (SUV), truck, recreational vehicle (RV), boat, plane, or other mobile machine for transporting people or goods]), wherein the information processing device comprises a processor configured to:
a destination of the user from the in-vehicle terminal (¶0023[The ETT 204 may be calculated via the navigation controller 126 using location data from the GNSS controller 124 and the address information of the shop 202. A route from the current location of the vehicle 102 and the shop 202 may be calculated by the navigation controller 126.] in view of Abstract[A vehicle includes a controller, programmed to responsive to user input to pick up an item at a shop, calculate an estimated time of arrival (ETA) to the shop]);
determine a first shop, the first shop being the destination of the user with a mobile ordering system (Fig. 2; ¶0022[As illustrated in FIG. 2, an estimated travel time (ETT) 204 represents the period of time that it takes the vehicle 102 to travel to the shop 202.]); and
in response to the determining that the first shop is present, calculate a first time length and a second time length, the first time length being a time required from a time the user starts selecting an item to order in the mobile ordering system of the first shop to a time an operation to order the item is completed, the second time length being a time required for the first shop to prepare the item after an order is accepted (Fig. 2; ¶¶0021-0022[Due to the perishable nature of the goods/items, one of the purposes of the present embodiment is to send the order to the shop 202 at a calculated time that allows the shop 202 to prepare the goods and have the goods ready at substantially the same time as the vehicle 102 arrives… The waiting time 214 represents the time period that customers is waiting or predictively will be waiting before being serviced at the shop 202… The processing time 216 represents the period of time it takes the shop 202 to actually prepare the goods ordered, e.g. usually after the waiting time 214. In general, the more goods that is ordered, the longer the processing time 216 is. The processing time 216 may be calculated by the computing platform 104 using software. Each item that is available for online ordering via the software may be pre-assigned a processing time. For instance, a breakfast sandwich may be assigned a processing time of 2 minutes and an ice tea may be assign a processing time of 1 minute to prepare. Depending on what items the user orders, a total processing time 216 may be calculated. Having obtained the waiting time 214 and the processing time 216 for the goods, the computing platform 104 may calculate the total preparation time 206 by summing the waiting time 214 and the processing time 216.] in view of ¶0025[at operation 302, the computing platform 104 receives a user input placing a pre-order to pick up at the shop 202.]; Examiner interprets the waiting and processing times as first and second times),
calculate a third time length including at least the first time length and the second time length (Fig. 2; ¶¶0021-0022[Due to the perishable nature of the goods/items, one of the purposes of the present embodiment is to send the order to the shop 202 at a calculated time that allows the shop 202 to prepare the goods and have the goods ready at substantially the same time as the vehicle 102 arrives… The waiting time 214 represents the time period that customers is waiting or predictively will be waiting before being serviced at the shop 202… The processing time 216 represents the period of time it takes the shop 202 to actually prepare the goods ordered, e.g. usually after the waiting time 214. In general, the more goods that is ordered, the longer the processing time 216 is. The processing time 216 may be calculated by the computing platform 104 using software. Each item that is available for online ordering via the software may be pre-assigned a processing time. For instance, a breakfast sandwich may be assigned a processing time of 2 minutes and an ice tea may be assign a processing time of 1 minute to prepare. Depending on what items the user orders, a total processing time 216 may be calculated. Having obtained the waiting time 214 and the processing time 216 for the goods, the computing platform 104 may calculate the total preparation time 206 by summing the waiting time 214 and the processing time 216.]; Examiner notes that the waiting time is comparable to the first time length, processing time is comparable to the second time length and the sum of both, or preparation time, is comparable to the third time length),
output information to the in-vehicle terminal to propose to the user to order at the first shop using the mobile ordering system by a time that is the third time length back from an estimated time of an arrival of the user at the first shop (Fig. 2[element 208]; ¶0024[As the vehicle 102 traverses the route and the ETT 204 approaches the preparation time 206, the computing platform 104 may be configured to send the order out to the shop 202 via the TCU 174 within a grace period 208 immediately before the ETT 204 reaches the preparation time 206... Before submitting the order online to the shop 202, the computing platform 104 may prompt a message via the HMI controls 118 to ask for a final confirmation from the user to place the order.]; Examiner notes that asking for final confirmation is comparable to propose to the user to start ordering), and
the in-vehicle terminal is configured to (Figs. 1 and 2; ¶0021):
the destination from the user (¶0023[The ETT 204 may be calculated via the navigation controller 126 using location data from the GNSS controller 124 and the address information of the shop 202. A route from the current location of the vehicle 102 and the shop 202 may be calculated by the navigation controller 126.] in view of Abstract[A vehicle includes a controller, programmed to responsive to user input to pick up an item at a shop, calculate an estimated time of arrival (ETA) to the shop]),
transmit the destination to the processor (Figs. 1 and 2; ¶0023[The ETT 204 may be calculated via the navigation controller 126 using location data from the GNSS controller 124 and the address information of the shop 202. A route from the current location of the vehicle 102 and the shop 202 may be calculated by the navigation controller 126.] in view of Abstract [A vehicle includes a controller, programmed to responsive to user input to pick up an item at a shop, calculate an estimated time of arrival (ETA) to the shop] and ¶0019[The mobile device 140 may be provided with a processor 148 configured to perform instructions, commands, and other routines in support of the processes such as navigation, telephone, wireless communication, and multi-media processing]), and
present a prompt to propose to the user to order at the first shop upon receiving the information from the information processing device (Fig. 2[element 208]; ¶0024[As the vehicle 102 traverses the route and the ETT 204 approaches the preparation time 206, the computing platform 104 may be configured to send the order out to the shop 202 via the TCU 174 within a grace period 208 immediately before the ETT 204 reaches the preparation time 206... Before submitting the order online to the shop 202, the computing platform 104 may prompt a message via the HMI controls 118 to ask for a final confirmation from the user to place the order.]; Examiner notes that asking for final confirmation is comparable to propose to the user to start ordering).
Although Tseng discloses a destination of a user, Tseng does not explicitly disclose receive a destination of a user.
However, Ramanujam et al., hereinafter, Ramanujam, teaches receiving a user’s destination (Fig. 3; ¶0050[In one example, the user 330 may enter into the autonomous vehicle 310. The user 330 may be an owner of the autonomous vehicle 310 and/or authorized to use the autonomous vehicle 310. The user 330 may enter a destination via a console inside the autonomous vehicle 310 (e.g., a touch screen device). The destination may include an address, a name of a business (e.g., a restaurant, bank), geographical coordinates, etc. The autonomous vehicle 310 may determine a starting location, such as a current location of the autonomous vehicle 310. For example, the autonomous vehicle 310 may use a global positioning system (GPS) to determine its starting location. The autonomous vehicle 310 may send the starting location and the destination to the server 320.]).
Although Tseng discloses determining a shop, Tseng does not explicitly disclose determining whether a shop is present the shop being located on a route to a destination.
However, Ramanujam teaches determining whether a shop is present on a route to a destination (¶0055[When the autonomous vehicle 310 is driving to the destination, the server 320 may send one or more advertisements 324 to the autonomous vehicle 310. The advertisements 324 may be displayed on a display screen inside the autonomous vehicle 310. The advertisements 324 may be for the entities that are located in proximity to the route. In other words, the server 320 may select advertisements for the products or services provided by the entities located in proximity to the route, wherein the products or services are of interest to the user 330, as indicated in the user profile 322. In one example, the advertisements 324 may be related to sales or discounts for products or services that are related to the user profile 322. The advertisements 324 may include promotional offers or coupons for the user 330 for a business entity associated with the advertisement 324. Therefore, when the user 330 is traveling to the destination, the user 330 may be provided with advertisements 324 for business entities that are enroute to the destination.]).
Although Tseng discloses a destination of a user, Tseng does not explicitly disclose receive a destination of a user.
However, Ramanujam teaches receiving a user’s destination (Fig. 3; ¶0050[In one example, the user 330 may enter into the autonomous vehicle 310. The user 330 may be an owner of the autonomous vehicle 310 and/or authorized to use the autonomous vehicle 310. The user 330 may enter a destination via a console inside the autonomous vehicle 310 (e.g., a touch screen device). The destination may include an address, a name of a business (e.g., a restaurant, bank), geographical coordinates, etc. The autonomous vehicle 310 may determine a starting location, such as a current location of the autonomous vehicle 310. For example, the autonomous vehicle 310 may use a global positioning system (GPS) to determine its starting location. The autonomous vehicle 310 may send the starting location and the destination to the server 320.]).
The system of Ramanujam is applicable to the system of Tseng as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to improving driving user experience. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shop determination as disclosed by Tseng to include determining a shop on route to a destination as taught by Ramanujam. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Tseng in order to allow an entity's advertisement to be provided to a customer (¶0018).
Regarding Claim 2, Tseng in view of Ramanujam teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, Tseng further discloses wherein the processor is configured to determine the first time length based on at least one of the number of occupants in the vehicle in which the user is riding, times of day during which the user makes the order, and whether the user has a coupon usable for the order (Fig. 2[Examiner notes that element 210 of Fig. 2 shows determining first time based on the time of the day]; ¶0022[The preparation time 206 may further include a current/predicted waiting time period 214 at the shop 202 and an estimated goods processing time 216. The waiting time 214 represents the time period that customers is waiting or predictively will be waiting before being serviced at the shop 202. In general, the more popular the shop 202 is, the longer the waiting time 214 is. For instance, the computing platform 104 may obtain the current/predicted waiting time 214 from publicly available sources 210 such as Google Maps®, website of the shop 202, or the like. As reflected in the source 210, in the present example, the current status 212 for shop 202 between 9 and 10 am is “a little busy” with an average waiting time of 5-10 minutes.]).
Regarding Claim 4, Tseng discloses an information processing method for providing information to a user traveling in a vehicle, the information processing method comprising (Figs. 1 and 2; ¶0021[With continuing reference to FIG. 1, the computing platform 104 may be configured to allow a user of vehicle 102 to place an online order for goods via the HMI controls 118 using a software application stored in the storage 106 e.g. as a part of the vehicle applications 108 previously installed]):
by an in-vehicle terminal, a destination from the user (Fig. 1; ¶0023[The ETT 204 may be calculated via the navigation controller 126 using location data from the GNSS controller 124 and the address information of the shop 202. A route from the current location of the vehicle 102 and the shop 202 may be calculated by the navigation controller 126.] in view of Abstract [A vehicle includes a controller, programmed to responsive to user input to pick up an item at a shop, calculate an estimated time of arrival (ETA) to the shop]);
transmitting, by the in-vehicle terminal, the destination to an information processing device (Figs. 1 and 2; ¶0023[The ETT 204 may be calculated via the navigation controller 126 using location data from the GNSS controller 124 and the address information of the shop 202. A route from the current location of the vehicle 102 and the shop 202 may be calculated by the navigation controller 126.] in view of Abstract [A vehicle includes a controller, programmed to responsive to user input to pick up an item at a shop, calculate an estimated time of arrival (ETA) to the shop] and ¶0019[The mobile device 140 may be provided with a processor 148 configured to perform instructions, commands, and other routines in support of the processes such as navigation, telephone, wireless communication, and multi-media processing]);
by the information processing device, the destination of the user from the in- vehicle terminal (Figs. 1 and 2; ¶0023[The ETT 204 may be calculated via the navigation controller 126 using location data from the GNSS controller 124 and the address information of the shop 202. A route from the current location of the vehicle 102 and the shop 202 may be calculated by the navigation controller 126.] in view of Abstract [A vehicle includes a controller, programmed to responsive to user input to pick up an item at a shop, calculate an estimated time of arrival (ETA) to the shop]);
determining, by the information processing device, a first shop, the first shop being the destination of the user with a mobile ordering system (Fig. 2; ¶0022[As illustrated in FIG. 2, an estimated travel time (ETT) 204 represents the period of time that it takes the vehicle 102 to travel to the shop 202.]); and
in response to the determining that the first shop is present, by the information processing device, calculating a first time length and a second time length, the first time length being a time required from a time the user starts selecting an item to order in the mobile ordering system of the first shop to a time an operation to order the item is completed, the second time length being a time required for the first shop to prepare the item after an order is accepted (Fig. 2; ¶¶0021-0022[Due to the perishable nature of the goods/items, one of the purposes of the present embodiment is to send the order to the shop 202 at a calculated time that allows the shop 202 to prepare the goods and have the goods ready at substantially the same time as the vehicle 102 arrives… The waiting time 214 represents the time period that customers is waiting or predictively will be waiting before being serviced at the shop 202… The processing time 216 represents the period of time it takes the shop 202 to actually prepare the goods ordered, e.g. usually after the waiting time 214. In general, the more goods that is ordered, the longer the processing time 216 is. The processing time 216 may be calculated by the computing platform 104 using software. Each item that is available for online ordering via the software may be pre-assigned a processing time. For instance, a breakfast sandwich may be assigned a processing time of 2 minutes and an ice tea may be assign a processing time of 1 minute to prepare. Depending on what items the user orders, a total processing time 216 may be calculated. Having obtained the waiting time 214 and the processing time 216 for the goods, the computing platform 104 may calculate the total preparation time 206 by summing the waiting time 214 and the processing time 216.]; Examiner notes that the waiting time is comparable to the first time length, processing time is comparable to the second time length and the sum of both, or preparation time, is comparable to the third time length),
calculating a third time length including at least the first time length and the second time length (Fig. 2; ¶¶0021-0022[Due to the perishable nature of the goods/items, one of the purposes of the present embodiment is to send the order to the shop 202 at a calculated time that allows the shop 202 to prepare the goods and have the goods ready at substantially the same time as the vehicle 102 arrives… The waiting time 214 represents the time period that customers is waiting or predictively will be waiting before being serviced at the shop 202… The processing time 216 represents the period of time it takes the shop 202 to actually prepare the goods ordered, e.g. usually after the waiting time 214. In general, the more goods that is ordered, the longer the processing time 216 is. The processing time 216 may be calculated by the computing platform 104 using software. Each item that is available for online ordering via the software may be pre-assigned a processing time. For instance, a breakfast sandwich may be assigned a processing time of 2 minutes and an ice tea may be assign a processing time of 1 minute to prepare. Depending on what items the user orders, a total processing time 216 may be calculated. Having obtained the waiting time 214 and the processing time 216 for the goods, the computing platform 104 may calculate the total preparation time 206 by summing the waiting time 214 and the processing time 216.]; Examiner notes that the waiting time is comparable to the first time length, processing time is comparable to the second time length and the sum of both, or preparation time, is comparable to the third time length), and
outputting information to the in-vehicle terminal to propose to the user to order at the first shop using the mobile ordering system by a time that is the third time length back from an estimated time of an arrival of the user at the first shop (Fig. 2[element 208]; ¶0024[As the vehicle 102 traverses the route and the ETT 204 approaches the preparation time 206, the computing platform 104 may be configured to send the order out to the shop 202 via the TCU 174 within a grace period 208 immediately before the ETT 204 reaches the preparation time 206... Before submitting the order online to the shop 202, the computing platform 104 may prompt a message via the HMI controls 118 to ask for a final confirmation from the user to place the order.]; Examiner notes that asking for final confirmation is comparable to propose to the user to start ordering), and
presenting a prompt, by the in-vehicle terminal, to propose to the user to order at the first shop upon receiving the information from the information processing device (Fig. 2[element 208]; ¶0024[As the vehicle 102 traverses the route and the ETT 204 approaches the preparation time 206, the computing platform 104 may be configured to send the order out to the shop 202 via the TCU 174 within a grace period 208 immediately before the ETT 204 reaches the preparation time 206... Before submitting the order online to the shop 202, the computing platform 104 may prompt a message via the HMI controls 118 to ask for a final confirmation from the user to place the order.]; Examiner notes that asking for final confirmation is comparable to propose to the user to start ordering).
Although Tseng discloses a destination from a user, Tseng does not explicitly disclose receiving a destination.
Although Tseng discloses a destination from a user, Tseng does not explicitly disclose receiving a destination.
However, Ramanujam teaches receiving a user’s destination (Fig. 3; ¶0050[In one example, the user 330 may enter into the autonomous vehicle 310. The user 330 may be an owner of the autonomous vehicle 310 and/or authorized to use the autonomous vehicle 310. The user 330 may enter a destination via a console inside the autonomous vehicle 310 (e.g., a touch screen device). The destination may include an address, a name of a business (e.g., a restaurant, bank), geographical coordinates, etc. The autonomous vehicle 310 may determine a starting location, such as a current location of the autonomous vehicle 310. For example, the autonomous vehicle 310 may use a global positioning system (GPS) to determine its starting location. The autonomous vehicle 310 may send the starting location and the destination to the server 320.]).
Although Tseng discloses determining a shop, Tseng does not explicitly disclose determining whether a shop is present the shop being located on a route to a destination.
However, Ramanujam teaches determining whether a shop is present on a route to a destination (¶0055[When the autonomous vehicle 310 is driving to the destination, the server 320 may send one or more advertisements 324 to the autonomous vehicle 310. The advertisements 324 may be displayed on a display screen inside the autonomous vehicle 310. The advertisements 324 may be for the entities that are located in proximity to the route. In other words, the server 320 may select advertisements for the products or services provided by the entities located in proximity to the route, wherein the products or services are of interest to the user 330, as indicated in the user profile 322. In one example, the advertisements 324 may be related to sales or discounts for products or services that are related to the user profile 322. The advertisements 324 may include promotional offers or coupons for the user 330 for a business entity associated with the advertisement 324. Therefore, when the user 330 is traveling to the destination, the user 330 may be provided with advertisements 324 for business entities that are enroute to the destination.]).
The system of Ramanujam is applicable to the system of Tseng as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to improving driving user experience. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shop determination as disclosed by Tseng to include determining a shop on route to a destination as taught by Ramanujam. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Tseng in order to allow an entity's advertisement to be provided to a customer (¶0018).
Regarding Claim 5, Tseng in view of Ramanujam teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, Tseng further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to the determining whether the first shop is present (Fig. 2; ¶0022[As illustrated in FIG. 2, an estimated travel time (ETT) 204 represents the period of time that it takes the vehicle 102 to travel to the shop 202.]).
Although Tseng discloses determining a shop, Tseng does not explicitly disclose determine whether to propose to the user to order prior to the determining.
However, Ramanujam teaches determining whether to propose a user to order prior to determining a store (¶0026[the server may identify an entity (e.g., a business entity) that is located in proximity to the autonomous vehicle's route, wherein the entity provides products or services of interest to the passenger within the autonomous vehicle. The server may identify the products or services that interest the passenger based on the passenger's interest profile. The server may select an advertisement for the entity that is located in proximity to the autonomous vehicle's route. In other words, the server may select the advertisement for the products or services of interest to the passenger within the autonomous vehicle. In addition, the server may track the autonomous vehicle's position on the route, such that the server may transmit the advertisement to the autonomous vehicle when the autonomous vehicle is within a defined distance from the entity when driving along the route to the destination.]).
The system of Ramanujam is applicable to the system of Tseng as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to improving driving user experience. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shop determination as disclosed by Tseng to include determining a shop on route to a destination as taught by Ramanujam. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Tseng in order to allow an entity's advertisement to be provided to a customer (¶0018).
Regarding Claim 6, Tseng in view of Ramanujam teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, Tseng further discloses wherein the information processing device is configured to receive items to order from the user in response to the user selecting the items to order at the first shop (¶0021[The computing platform 104 may be configured to allow the user to place a pre-order to the computing platform 104 by selecting the goods via the HMI controller 118 before starting the trip. The pre-order will be put on hold until a calculated time when the computing platform 104 places the order online to the shop 202.]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng in view of Ramanujam in view of Napper et al. (US 8,732,028 B2 [previously cited]).
Regarding Claim 3, Tseng in view of Ramanujam teaches the vehicle according to claim 1, Tseng further discloses wherein the processor is configured to send the order for the selected item to the first shop when a time arrives that is the time when the user completes the operation to order and that is the second time length back from the estimated time of the arrival of the user at the first shop (Fig. 2; ¶0024[As the vehicle 102 traverses the route and the ETT 204 approaches the preparation time 206, the computing platform 104 may be configured to send the order out to the shop 202 via the TCU 174 within a grace period 208 immediately before the ETT 204 reaches the preparation time 206. As an example, the grace period 208 may be a predefined fixed period of time (e.g. 5 minutes).]).
Although Tseng discloses sending the order for an item to a shop, Tseng in view of Ramanujam does not explicitly teach sending the order for an item to a shop when a time arrives that is later than a time when the user completes an operation to order.
However, Napper et al., hereinafter, Napper, teaches sending an order for an item to a shop at a later time than when the user completes the operation to order (Fig. 2; Col. 7, lines 21-43[At step 202, an order for goods is received. The order will be associated with a provider location where the order is to be processed, as well as being associated with a user who is to pick up the order. For example, the order may specify the provider location by allowing the user to select from a list of provider locations when submitting the order. The list may be based on the user's present location. In some embodiments, the order may be entered into the user's data processing system, such as a home computer or a networked mobile wireless telecommunication computing device such as a smartphone, and the user's data processing system may complete all of the steps of the method 200. In other embodiments, the order may be received at a data processing system associated with the provider, and the method 200 would be executed by the data processing system associated with the provider.]; Examiner notes that specifying the order retails prior to sending the order is comparable to completing the operations to order prior to sending an order to a shop).
The system of Napper is applicable to the system of Tseng in view of Ramanujam as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are all targeted to scheduling of order processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the order transmission as taught by Tseng in view of Ramanujam to include sending an order for an item at a later time than when the user completes the operation to order as taught by Napper. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Tseng in view of Ramanujam in order to substantially coincide with arrival of the user at the provider location (Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on page 5 of the remarks filed 01/02/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC § 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Accordingly, the 112(f) interpretation is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 5-6 of the remarks filed 01/02/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC § 101 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 5-6 that the amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to the MPEP 2106.04, the question of whether a claim is “directed to” a judicial exception in Step 2A is now evaluated using a two-prong inquiry. Prong One asks if the claim “recites” an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Under that prong, the mere inclusion of a judicial exception such as a method of organizing human activity in a claim means that the claim “recites” a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.04 [“The mere inclusion of a judicial exception such as a mathematical formula (which is one of the mathematical concepts identified as an abstract idea in MPEP § 2106.04(a)) in a claim means that the claim "recites" a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One.”]). Additionally, MPEP 2106.04 instructs examiners to refer to the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities, and mental processes) in order to identify abstract ideas. As noted above and in the previous office action, the claims recite order preparation. This is an abstract idea because it is a concept of business relations which makes it a method of organizing human activity (i.e., one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Applicant argues on page 6 of the remarks that the amended claims do not represent well-understood, routine, or conventional activity for in-vehicle terminals. Examiner did not previously state that claim 1 was routine, conventional, or well-known. However, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1 and 4 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Accordingly, Examiner maintains that the invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the 35 USC §101 rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 6-8 of the remarks filed 01/02/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC § 102/103 rejections have been fully considered but are mostly moot in view of the new 103 rejection of the amended claims.
Applicant argues on pages 6-7 of the remarks that Tseng does not disclose “the first time length being a time required from a time the user starts selecting an item to order in a mobile ordering system of a first shop located on a route to a destination of the user to a time an operation to order the item is completed.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tseng discloses a waiting time that represents a “time period that customers is waiting or predictively will be waiting before being serviced at the shop,” see ¶¶0021-0022. Examiner notes that a time length that customers wait prior to being serviced is comparable to a time length from a time that a user begins selection of an item to order, to a time “an operation to order” the item is completed. As per MPEP 2111, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Applicant’s arguments regarding the first time length are a narrow interpretation of the claims. Furthermore, according to the MPEP 2111.01(II), it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification when interpreting the claims under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Furthermore, Tseng describes an estimated travel time representing the time it takes for a user to travel to a shop using their vehicle, see ¶0022 of Tseng. This is comparable to a shop being the destination of a user. Tseng does not explicitly disclose the newly amended receiving a destination and determining whether a shop is present located on a route to a destination. However, the newly cited reference Ramanujam teaches receiving a destination from a user terminal and determining whether shops are on a route to a destination, see ¶¶0050-0055 of Ramanujam. The system of Ramanujam is applicable to the system of Tseng as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to improving driving user experience. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shop determination as disclosed by Tseng to include determining a shop on route to a destination as taught by Ramanujam.
Accordingly, references Tseng and Napper have been maintained and reference Ramanujam has been added in view of the claim amendments.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHOORA LADONI whose email is Ahoora.Ladoni@uspto.gov and telephone number is (703) 756-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0900–1700 ET.
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.
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/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.
/AHOORA LADONI/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689