DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is a non-final, first office action in response to the application filed 30 April 2024.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 25 July 2024 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, the Applicant claims, “acquiring a point ID and parking time information from the first server, the point ID corresponding to the user riding on a vehicle parked in the parking lot, the parking time information indicating parking time at which the user parks the vehicle in a predetermined parking position in the parking lot…” The Applicant has rendered this claim indefinite and unclear for failing to particularly define their claimed invention. In particular, the claim refers to a user “riding on a vehicle,” which would mean the vehicle is moving, however the Applicant’s claim continues stating “vehicle parking in the parking lot,” which would mean the vehicle is parked (i.e. stopped). Thus, the claim is indefinite and unclear, as it remains unclear as to whether the vehicle is parked in the parking lot, or if the user is riding the vehicle; as these options are contradictory, the claim in unclear. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read, “acquiring a point ID and parking time information from the first server, the point ID corresponding to the user of a vehicle parked in the parking lot…” Claims 2-11 depend on claim 1, and are rejected for inheriting its deficiencies. Claims 12 and 13 recite similar limitations and are rejected for similar reasons.
With respect to claim 12, the Applicant claims, “when the parking time is after a time of a lunch time on the basis of the purchase information and the parking time information about the user who corresponds to the point ID, transmitting recommendation information to the first server to cause an information terminal of the user who corresponds to the point ID to display the recommendation information, the recommendation information including first position information and third position information, the first position information representing at least one of stores each of whose frequency of use by the user is equal to or higher than a given level, the third position information representing at least one coffee shop.” The Applicant has rendered this claim indefinite and unclear for failing to particularly define their claimed invention. In particular, the Applicant’s claim has referred to a “first position” and a “third position,” however no “second position” has been defined previously in the claim, thus rendering it unclear as to how there can be a “third position” if no “second position” exists. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read, “when the parking time is after a time of a lunch time on the basis of the purchase information and the parking time information about the user who corresponds to the point ID, transmitting recommendation information to the first server to cause an information terminal of the user who corresponds to the point ID to display the recommendation information, the recommendation information including first position information and second position information, the first position information representing at least one of stores each of whose frequency of use by the user is equal to or higher than a given level, the second position information representing at least one coffee shop.”
With respect to claim 6, the Applicant claims, “wherein the meal time period includes a lunch time.” The term “lunch time” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lunch time” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, “lunch time” is a subjective term, as any user, including those parking the cars, those running the running the parking lot, those running a restaurant, those running stores, those running coffee shops, and other parties, will all have their own definition of what constitutes “lunch time,” or if the party even considers “lunch time” as existing. As the Applicant ahs set forth no special definition of the term, or set forth any boundaries for how one would reasonably be apprised of the scope of the invention, the Applicant has rendered this claim indefinite and unclear. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the term “lunch time” to mean “time to eat during the day.” The Examiner notes that claims 7, 8, 9, and 12 additionally all recite the term “lunch time,” similarly fail to define the term, and as such, are rejected for similar reasons and will be interpreted in a similar manner.
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 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite acquiring a point ID and parking time information from the first server, the point ID corresponding to the user riding on a vehicle parked in the parking lot, the parking time information indicating parking time at which the user parks the vehicle in a predetermined parking position in the parking lot, a vehicle number indicating the vehicle and the parking time information being determined by the parking lot management system by using a vehicle image showing the vehicle acquired by a camera installed in the parking lot, the corresponding point ID being determined by the parking lot management system on the basis of the vehicle number; and, when the parking time is included in a meal time period on the basis of the purchase information and the parking time information about the user who corresponds to the point ID, transmitting recommendation information to the first server to cause an information terminal of the user who corresponds to the point ID to display the recommendation information, the recommendation information including first position information and second position information, the first position information representing at least one of stores each of whose frequency of use by the user is equal to or higher than a given level, the second position information representing at least one restaurant.
The limitations of acquiring a point ID and parking time information from the first server, a vehicle number indicating the vehicle and the parking time information being determined by the parking lot management system by using a vehicle image showing the vehicle acquired by a camera installed in the parking lot, and transmitting recommendation information to the first server to display the recommendation information including first position information representing at least one of stores each of whose frequency of use by the user is equal to or higher than a given level and second position information representing at least one restaurant; as drafted under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses elements that can be performed in the human mind, and managing commercial activities (advertising, business relations). That is, other than reciting the use of generic computer elements (management system, camera, information terminal, first server, second server, memory, processor), the claims recite an abstract idea. In particular, acquiring a point ID and parking time information, determining a vehicle number indicating the vehicle and the parking time information, and providing recommendation information including first position information representing at least one of stores each of whose frequency of use by the user is equal to or higher than a given level and second position information representing at least one restaurant; encompasses elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, acquiring a point ID and parking time information from the first server, a vehicle number indicating the vehicle and the parking time information being determined by the parking lot management system by using a vehicle image showing the vehicle acquired by a camera installed in the parking lot, and transmitting recommendation information to the first server to display the recommendation information including first position information representing at least one of stores each of whose frequency of use by the user is equal to or higher than a given level and second position information representing at least one restaurant; which encompasses acquiring user identifying information and parking information, and providing advertisements for nearby services to the user based on the user and parking information; which is the management of commercial activity (advertising, business relations). Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in an ordered combination, that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer elements (management system, camera, information terminal, first server, second server, memory, processor) as a tool to carry out the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 2-11, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea. In particular, the claims further recite the point ID is stored to correlation with the vehicle number; which further recites elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation), and managing commercial activity (managing business; and thus, elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 2). In addition, the claims further recite transmitting the recommendation from a server to the information terminal; which is deemed extrasolution activity, that is well understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”), and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 3). In addition, the claims further recite transmitting a route from the parking position to the stores entrance to a user, which further encompass managing business relations (business relations); this elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 4). In addition, the claims further recite the content of map information (e.g. doesn’t include a restaurant when the parking time is outside the meal time, includes a coffee shop), which merely narrows the field of use; and thus, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claims 5 and 8). In addition, the claims further recite that the meal time is a lunch time and a predetermined amount of time before, which merely narrows the field of use; and thus, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claims 6 and 7). In addition, the claims further recite the content of the map information (coffee shop and not a restaurant) when the time is after lunch, which merely narrows the field of use; and thus, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 9). In addition, the claims further recite the type of user (driver, family member), which merely narrows the field of use; and thus, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claims 10 and 11).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites acquiring a point ID and parking time information from the first server, the point ID corresponding to the user riding on a vehicle parked in the parking lot, the parking time information indicating parking time at which the user parks the vehicle in a predetermined parking position in the parking lot, a vehicle number indicating the vehicle and the parking time information being determined by the parking lot management system by using a vehicle image showing the vehicle acquired by a camera installed in the parking lot, the corresponding point ID being determined by the parking lot management system on the basis of the vehicle number; and, when the parking time is after a time of a lunch time on the basis of the purchase information and the parking time information about the user who corresponds to the point ID, transmitting recommendation information to the first server to cause an information terminal of the user who corresponds to the point ID to display the recommendation information, the recommendation information including first position information and third position information, the first position information representing at least one of stores each of whose frequency of use by the user is equal to or higher than a given level, the third position information representing at least one coffee shop.
The limitations of acquiring a point ID and parking time information from the first server, a vehicle number indicating the vehicle and the parking time information being determined by the parking lot management system by using a vehicle image showing the vehicle acquired by a camera installed in the parking lot, and transmitting recommendation information to the first server to display the recommendation information including first position information representing at least one of stores each of whose frequency of use by the user is equal to or higher than a given level and second position information representing least one coffee shop; as drafted under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses elements that can be performed in the human mind, and managing commercial activities (advertising, business relations). That is, other than reciting the use of generic computer elements (management system, camera, information terminal, first server, second server), the claims recite an abstract idea. In particular, acquiring a point ID and parking time information, determining a vehicle number indicating the vehicle and the parking time information, and providing recommendation information including first position information representing at least one of stores each of whose frequency of use by the user is equal to or higher than a given level and second position information representing at least one coffee shop; encompasses elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, acquiring a point ID and parking time information from the first server, a vehicle number indicating the vehicle and the parking time information being determined by the parking lot management system by using a vehicle image showing the vehicle acquired by a camera installed in the parking lot, and transmitting recommendation information to the first server to display the recommendation information including first position information representing at least one of stores each of whose frequency of use by the user is equal to or higher than a given level and second position information representing at least one coffee; which encompasses acquiring user identifying information and parking information, and providing advertisements for nearby services to the user based on the user and parking information; which is the management of commercial activity (advertising, business relations). Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in an ordered combination, that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer elements (management system, camera, information terminal, first server, second server, memory, processor) as a tool to carry out the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadeghi (US 2017/0323227 A1) (hereinafter Sadeghi), in view if Yoshizu (US 2014/0129132 A1) (hereinafter Yoshizu).
With respect to claim 1, Sadeghi teaches:
Acquiring a point ID and parking time information from the first server, the point ID corresponding to the user riding on a vehicle parked in the parking lot, the parking time information indicating parking time at which the user parks the vehicle in a predetermined parking position in the parking lot (See at least paragraphs 18, 22, 45, 50, 71, 73, and 88 which describe acquiring the parking time and user identifier, such as the vehicle license plate number).
A vehicle number indicating the vehicle and the parking time information being determined by the parking lot management system by using a vehicle image showing the vehicle acquired by a camera installed in the parking lot (See at least paragraphs 22, 42, 43, 50, 81 which describe using a camera installed in a parking lot to determine the vehicle license plate and the parking time).
The corresponding point ID being determined by the parking lot management system on the basis of the vehicle number (See at least paragraphs 71, 73, 81, and 88 which describe determining the user ID based on the vehicle license plate number).
When the parking time information about the user who corresponds to the point ID, transmitting recommendation information to the first server to cause an information terminal of the user who corresponds to the point ID to display the recommendation information, the recommendation information including first position information, the first position information representing at least one of store (See at least paragraphs 22, 125, and 126 which describe transmitting advertisements to nearby stores to a user device, wherein the system uses the parking time and user identification to determine the advertised store, and wherein stores).
Sadeghi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Sadeghi does not explicitly disclose the following, however Yoshizu teaches:
When the parking time is included in a meal time period on the basis of the purchase information and the parking time information about the user who corresponds to the point ID, transmitting recommendation information to the first server to cause an information terminal of the user who corresponds to the point ID to display the recommendation information, the recommendation information including first position information and second position information, the first position information representing at least one of stores each of whose frequency of use by the user is equal to or higher than a given level, the second position information representing at least one restaurant (See at least paragraphs 7-10, 13, 86-88, 92-96, 118-128, and 130 which describe providing advertisements to a user for nearby stores and restaurants when they park their vehicle, wherein stores are picked based on the historic frequency of visits being high, and restaurants are advertised based on the time of day).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of advertising nearby stores to a user’s device after they’re parked, wherein the parking lot uses cameras to identify the vehicle and using this to identify the user, and wherein the parking time is also determined of Sadeghi, with the system and method of providing advertisements to a user for nearby stores and restaurants when they park their vehicle, wherein stores are picked based on the historic frequency of visits being high, and restaurants are advertised based on the time of day of Yoshizu. By providing advertisements to the user’s device for nearby restaurants based on historic frequency of visits and restaurants based on the time of day the recommendation system will predictably be able to provide advertisements relevant to the user, thus increasing the likelihood of sales conversions.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Sadeghi and Yoshizu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Sadeghi teaches:
Wherein the point ID is stored to correlate with the vehicle number in the parking lot management system (See at least paragraphs 71, 73, 81, and 88 which describe the parking lot system storing the user ID and linking it to a vehicle license plate number).
With respect to claim 3, Sadeghi/Yoshizu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Sadeghi teaches:
Wherein the recommendation information is transmitted from the first server to the information terminal (See at least paragraphs 22, 125, and 126 which describe a server transmitting advertisements to nearby stores to a user device, wherein the system uses the parking time and user identification to determine the advertised store).
With respect to claim 6, Sadeghi/Yoshizu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Sadeghi teaches:
Wherein the meal time period includes a lunch time (See at least paragraphs 7-10, 13, 86-88, 92-96, 118-128, and 130 which describe providing advertisements to a user for nearby stores and restaurants when they park their vehicle, wherein stores are picked based on the historic frequency of visits being high, and restaurants are advertised based on the time of day, including for lunch).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of advertising nearby stores to a user’s device after they’re parked, wherein the parking lot uses cameras to identify the vehicle and using this to identify the user, and wherein the parking time is also determined of Sadeghi, with the system and method of providing advertisements to a user for nearby stores and restaurants when they park their vehicle, wherein stores are picked based on the historic frequency of visits being high, and restaurants are advertised based on the time of day of Yoshizu. By providing advertisements to the user’s device for nearby restaurants based on historic frequency of visits and restaurants based on the time of day the recommendation system will predictably be able to provide advertisements relevant to the user, thus increasing the likelihood of sales conversions.
With respect to claim 10, Sadeghi/Yoshizu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Sadeghi teaches:
Wherein the user includes a driver of the vehicle (See at least paragraphs 12, 24, 50, 54, 87, and 132 which describe the user as the driver of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of advertising nearby stores to a user’s device after they’re parked, wherein the parking lot uses cameras to identify the vehicle and using this to identify the user, and wherein the parking time is also determined of Sadeghi, with the system and method of providing advertisements to a driver for nearby stores and restaurants when they park their vehicle, wherein stores are picked based on the historic frequency of visits being high, and restaurants are advertised based on the time of day of Yoshizu. By providing advertisements to a driver, an advertising system will predictably be able to reach users who drive to a geographic area near stores and restaurants, and thus, increase the likelihood of sales conversions.
With respect to claim 13, Sadeghi teaches:
A second server relating to a commercial facility, the second server including a memory in which purchase information about purchase information about purchase by a user in the commercial facility is stored to correlate with a point ID of the user; and a hardware processor connected to the memory to execute processing, the processing (See at least paragraphs 22, 26, 37, and 71-73 which describe a server that stores user information, including reservations and parking information, which relates users and user vehicles together).
Acquiring a point ID and parking time information from the first server, the point ID corresponding to the user riding on a vehicle parked in the parking lot, the parking time information indicating parking time at which the user parks the vehicle in a predetermined parking position in the parking lot (See at least paragraphs 18, 22, 45, 50, 71, 73, and 88 which describe acquiring the parking time and user identifier, such as the vehicle license plate number).
A vehicle number indicating the vehicle and the parking time information being determined by the parking lot management system by using a vehicle image showing the vehicle acquired by a camera installed in the parking lot (See at least paragraphs 22, 42, 43, 50, 81 which describe using a camera installed in a parking lot to determine the vehicle license plate and the parking time).
The corresponding point ID being determined by the parking lot management system on the basis of the vehicle number (See at least paragraphs 71, 73, 81, and 88 which describe determining the user ID based on the vehicle license plate number).
When the parking time information about the user who corresponds to the point ID, transmitting recommendation information to the first server to cause an information terminal of the user who corresponds to the point ID to display the recommendation information, the recommendation information including first position information, the first position information representing at least one of store (See at least paragraphs 22, 125, and 126 which describe transmitting advertisements to nearby stores to a user device, wherein the system uses the parking time and user identification to determine the advertised store, and wherein stores).
Sadeghi discloses all of the limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Sadeghi does not explicitly disclose the following, however Yoshizu teaches:
When the parking time is included in a meal time period on the basis of the purchase information and the parking time information about the user who corresponds to the point ID, transmitting recommendation information to the first server to cause an information terminal of the user who corresponds to the point ID to display the recommendation information, the recommendation information including first position information and second position information, the first position information representing at least one of stores each of whose frequency of use by the user is equal to or higher than a given level, the second position information representing at least one restaurant (See at least paragraphs 7-10, 13, 86-88, 92-96, 118-128, and 130 which describe providing advertisements to a user for nearby stores and restaurants when they park their vehicle, wherein stores are picked based on the historic frequency of visits being high, and restaurants are advertised based on the time of day).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of advertising nearby stores to a user’s device after they’re parked, wherein the parking lot uses cameras to identify the vehicle and using this to identify the user, and wherein the parking time is also determined of Sadeghi, with the system and method of providing advertisements to a user for nearby stores and restaurants when they park their vehicle, wherein stores are picked based on the historic frequency of visits being high, and restaurants are advertised based on the time of day of Yoshizu. By providing advertisements to the user’s device for nearby restaurants based on historic frequency of visits and restaurants based on the time of day the recommendation system will predictably be able to provide advertisements relevant to the user, thus increasing the likelihood of sales conversions.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadeghi and Yoshizu as applied to claims 1 and 3 as stated above, and further in view of McGuire et al. (US 2016/0349059 A1) (hereinafter McGuire).
With respect to claim 4, Sadeghi/Yoshizu discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3 as stated above. Sadeghi and Yoshizu do not explicitly disclose the following, however McGuire teaches:
Wherein the transmitting of the recommendation information includes transmitting, from the first server to the information terminal, map information representing a route from the parking position to the at least one of stores via an entrance connecting the commercial facility and the parking lot (See at least paragraphs 16, 33, 66, 101, 111, and 125 which describe providing recommendations for point of interests, such as stores in a mall, to a user in a map interface with directions to the points of interest from a parking lot of the mall, when the user parks their vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of advertising nearby stores to a user’s device after they’re parked, wherein the parking lot uses cameras to identify the vehicle and using this to identify the user, and wherein the parking time is also determined of Sadeghi, with the system and method of providing advertisements to a user for nearby stores and restaurants when they park their vehicle, wherein stores are picked based on the historic frequency of visits being high, and restaurants are advertised based on the time of day of Yoshizu, with the system and method of providing recommendations for point of interests, such as stores in a mall, to a user in a map interface with directions to the points of interest from a parking lot of the mall, when the user parks their vehicle of McGuire. By providing directions to points of interest in a map interface from a user’s parking space to a location in a mall, an advertising system will be able to guide the user to the desired location, thus predictably increasing the sales conversion likelihood.
Claim 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadeghi, Yoshizu, and McGuire as applied to claims 1, 3, and 4 as stated above, and further in view of Chin et al. (US 2017/0241788 A1) (hereinafter Chin).
With respect to claim 5, Sadeghi/Yoshizu/McGuire discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 3, and 4 as stated above. Sadeghi, Yoshizu, and McGuire do not explicitly disclose the following, however Chin teaches:
Wherein, when the parking time is outside the meal time period, the map information indicates the first position of the at least one of stores without indicating the second position of the at least one restaurant (See at least paragraphs 34, 35, 42, and 50 which describe recommending places of interest to a user based on the parking time of the user, wherein if the time is outside a meal/lunch time, then the recommendations will exclude restaurants and include only other points).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of advertising nearby stores to a user’s device after they’re parked, wherein the parking lot uses cameras to identify the vehicle and using this to identify the user, and wherein the parking time is also determined of Sadeghi, with the system and method of providing advertisements to a user for nearby stores and restaurants when they park their vehicle, wherein stores are picked based on the historic frequency of visits being high, and restaurants are advertised based on the time of day of Yoshizu, with the system and method of providing recommendations for point of interests, such as stores in a mall, to a user in a map interface with directions to the points of interest from a parking lot of the mall, when the user parks their vehicle of McGuire, with the system and method of recommending places of interest to a user based on the parking time of the user, wherein if the time is outside a meal/lunch time, then the recommendations will exclude restaurants and include only other points of Chin. By excluding places, such as restaurants, when outside a specific time period, an advertising system will predictably only recommend relevant businesses, thus increasing the likelihood of sales conversions.
With respect to claim 8, Sadeghi/Yoshizu/McGuire discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 3, and 4 as stated above. Sadeghi, Yoshizu, and McGuire do not explicitly disclose the following, however Chin teaches:
Wherein, when the parking time is after a lunch time, the map information indicates the first position of the at least one of stores without indicating the second position of the at least one restaurant (See at least paragraphs 34, 35, 42, and 50 which describe recommending places of interest to a user based on the parking time of the user, wherein if the time is outside a meal/lunch time, then the recommendations will exclude restaurants and include only other points).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of advertising nearby stores to a user’s device after they’re parked, wherein the parking lot uses cameras to identify the vehicle and using this to identify the user, and wherein the parking time is also determined of Sadeghi, with the system and method of providing advertisements to a user for nearby stores and restaurants when they park their vehicle, wherein stores are picked based on the historic frequency of visits being high, and restaurants are advertised based on the time of day of Yoshizu, with the system and method of providing recommendations for point of interests, such as stores in a mall, to a user in a map interface with directions to the points of interest from a parking lot of the mall, when the user parks their vehicle of McGuire, with the system and method of recommending places of interest to a user based on the parking time of the user, wherein if the time is outside a meal/lunch time, then the recommendations will exclude restaurants and include only other points of Chin. By excluding places, such as restaurants, when outside a specific time period, an advertising system will predictably only recommend relevant businesses, thus increasing the likelihood of sales conversions.
With respect to claim 9, Sadeghi/Yoshizu/McGuire discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 3, and 4 as stated above. In addition, McGuire teaches:
Wherein, when the parking time is after a lunch time, the map information indicates a third position of at least one coffee shop (See at least paragraphs 16, 33, 66, 101, 111, and 125 which describe providing recommendations for point of interests, such as stores in a mall, to a user in a map interface with directions to the points of interest from a parking lot of the mall, when the user parks their vehicle, and wherein the points of interest include a coffee shop).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of advertising nearby stores to a user’s device after they’re parked, wherein the parking lot uses cameras to identify the vehicle and using this to identify the user, and wherein the parking time is also determined of Sadeghi, with the system and method of providing advertisements to a user for nearby stores and restaurants when they park their vehicle, wherein stores are picked based on the historic frequency of visits being high, and restaurants are advertised based on the time of day of Yoshizu, with the system and method of providing recommendations for point of interests, such as stores in a mall and a coffee shop, to a user in a map interface with directions to the points of interest from a parking lot of the mall, when the user parks their vehicle of McGuire. By providing directions to points of interest in a map interface from a user’s parking space to a location in a mall, an advertising system will be able to guide the user to the desired location, thus predictably increasing the sales conversion likelihood.
McGuire discloses all of the limitations of claim 9 as stated above. Sadeghi, Yoshizu, and McGuire do not explicitly disclose the following, however Chin teaches:
Wherein, when the parking time is after a lunch time, the map information indicates a third position together with the first position of the at least one of stores without indicating the second position of the at least one restaurant (See at least paragraphs 34, 35, 42, and 50 which describe recommending places of interest to a user based on the parking time of the user, wherein if the time is outside a meal/lunch time, then the recommendations will exclude restaurants and include only other points).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of advertising nearby stores to a user’s device after they’re parked, wherein the parking lot uses cameras to identify the vehicle and using this to identify the user, and wherein the parking time is also determined of Sadeghi, with the system and method of providing advertisements to a user for nearby stores and restaurants when they park their vehicle, wherein stores are picked based on the historic frequency of visits being high, and restaurants are advertised based on the time of day of Yoshizu, with the system and method of providing recommendations for point of interests, such as stores in a mall, to a user in a map interface with directions to the points of interest from a parking lot of the mall, when the user parks their vehicle of McGuire, with the system and method of recommending places of interest to a user based on the parking time of the user, wherein if the time is outside a meal/lunch time, then the recommendations will exclude restaurants and include only other points of Chin. By excluding places, such as restaurants, when outside a specific time period, an advertising system will predictably only recommend relevant businesses, thus increasing the likelihood of sales conversions.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadeghi and Yoshizu as applied to claim 1 as stated above, and further in view of Chin.
With respect to claim 7, Sadeghi/Yoshizu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Sadeghi and Yoshizu do not explicitly disclose the following, however Chin teaches:
Wherein the meal time period includes a lunch time and a time period a predetermined time before the lunch time (See at least paragraphs 17-19, 34, 35, 42, and paragraph 50 which describe providing advertisements to user devices when they park their vehicle for nearby points of interest, wherein the points include a restaurant based on the parking time being within a meal time and a time around the meal time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of advertising nearby stores to a user’s device after they’re parked, wherein the parking lot uses cameras to identify the vehicle and using this to identify the user, and wherein the parking time is also determined of Sadeghi, with the system and method of providing advertisements to a user for nearby stores and restaurants when they park their vehicle, wherein stores are picked based on the historic frequency of visits being high, and restaurants are advertised based on the time of day of Yoshizu, with the system and method of providing advertisements to user devices when they park their vehicle for nearby points of interest, wherein the points include a restaurant based on the parking time being within a meal time and a time around the meal time of Chin. By utilizing a meal time and time around the meal time to determine recommendations to make to the user, an advertising system will predictably be able to provide only relevant advertisements, thus increasing the likelihood of sales conversions.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadeghi and Yoshizu as applied to claim 1 as stated above, and further in view of Bennett (US 2014/0087760 A1) (hereinafter Bennett).
With respect to claim 11, Sadeghi/Yoshizu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Sadeghi and Yoshizu do not explicitly disclose the following, however Bennett teaches:
Wherein the user includes an occupant of the vehicle managed as a family member of a driver of the vehicle (See at least paragraphs 28-35, 38, 43, 46-48, 50, and 54 which describe recommending stores and restaurants to users when they park a vehicle, wherein the users include a driver of the vehicle and passengers of the vehicle, and wherein the users can be family members).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of advertising nearby stores to a user’s device after they’re parked, wherein the parking lot uses cameras to identify the vehicle and using this to identify the user, and wherein the parking time is also determined of Sadeghi, with the system and method of providing advertisements to a user for nearby stores and restaurants when they park their vehicle, wherein stores are picked based on the historic frequency of visits being high, and restaurants are advertised based on the time of day of Yoshizu, with the system and method of recommending stores and restaurants to users when they park a vehicle, wherein the users include a driver of the vehicle and passengers of the vehicle, and wherein the users can be family members of Bennett. By recommending points of interests to drivers and their family members that use a vehicle, an advertising service will predictably increase the relevance of ads to recipients based on providing advertisements to whoever is in a vehicle, and thus increasing the likelihood of sales conversions.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadeghi, in view if Yoshizu, and further in view of McGuire.
With respect to claim 12, Sadeghi teaches:
Acquiring a point ID and parking time information from the first server,