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 . This office action is in response to an amendment filed on 11/20/25. Claims 1-4 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez (US 10,545,028 Bl) and in view of Nakamoto (JP2023083356A).
Regarding Claim 1 Sanchez teaches An information processing device (Pg. 4 – Col. 1 – lines 44-45 – “an electronic device for recommending points of interest (PO Is) to a mobile device user is provided” ) configured to communicate with a vehicle via network, (Pg. 10 – Col. 13 – lines 3-6- “For example, one hardware module may perform an operation and store the output of that operation in a memory device to which it may be communicatively coupled” & See Also Pg. 5 – [col. 3 & 4 ] – lines 66-67 and lines 1-3 – “In additional or alternative embodiments, the mobile device 104 may be attached to or otherwise temporarily or permanently disposed at a vehicle (not shown) operated by the user 102” (equates to configured to communicate with a vehicle via network, as the first quote shows the hardware modules being connected in communication with one another wherein the mobile device collected the data is connected to the vehicle as seen by the second quote.) ) the vehicle including a display, (Pg. 7 – [Col. 8 ] – lines 20-23- “include a user interface application 148 configured to receive user input and display notifications and recommendations, such as, e.g., recommendations generated by the POI recommender”) a drive system, (Pg. 5 – Col. 3 and col 4 lines 67 & lines - “the mobile device 104 may be attached to or otherwise temporarily or permanently disposed at a vehicle (not shown) operated by the user 102”) and a navigation system, (Pg. 7 – Co. 8 – lines – 58-63 – “the log of location data may be analyzed (e.g., by location data analyzer 140) to identify a route (e.g., 60 route 106) traveled by the user and a plurality of POis ( e.g., POis 108-126) visited by the user. For instance, the route may be identified by mapping each position and associated time stamp recorded in the log” ) the information processing device comprising a memory configured to store living area data of a user of the vehicle, (Pg. 5 – [col. 4 – lines – 11-13 – “The route 106 may be a round trip route from the home base location 128 to one or more POI and back to the home base location 128” & See Also Pg. 5 – col. 3 – lines 54- 55– “The memory 136 may additionally include a location data log 138”) history data of a plurality of genres of facilities that the user has visited by the vehicle in the past, 9Pg. 6 – col. 6 – lines 64-67 & Pg. 7 – Col. 7 – lines 1- 2 – “For example, user 102 may have a high user preference score for both Organic Supermarket 112 and French Café 118, as determined by the user preference score generator 142. A high user preference score may be, e.g., a user preference score above a certain user preference score threshold.” & See Also Pg. 4 – Col. 1 – lines 60-62 – “the user preference score being based at least on: (i) a number of visits by the user to each POI” ) and facility data of a plurality of facilities: (Pg. 7 – Col. 8- lines 58-60 – “At block 206, the log of location data may be analyzed (e.g., by location data analyzer 140) to identify a route (e.g., route 106) traveled by the user and a plurality of POis” ) and a processor configured to: acquire, from the vehicle, the history data in response to an activation of the drive system or the navigation system of the vehicle acquire, from the vehicle, a current position of the vehicle(pg. 4 – Col 1 – lines 27-29 – “periodically capturing location data indicating a current position of a mobile device associated with a user,” & See Also Pg. 9 – [Co. 12 – lines 22-23] – “processor or a group of processors) may be configured by software ( e.g., an application or application portion) as a” (equates to and a processor configured to: acquire, from the vehicle, the history data in response to an activation of the drive system or the navigation system of the vehicle acquire, from the vehicle, a current position of the vehicle as the quote shows the navigation system activation via the capturing of the current vehicle position and the processor being configured to run the implementations of the art disclosed herein.)) acquiring from the memory, the a living area data , the history data and the facility data; (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “a route traveled by the user and a plurality of POis visited by the user may be identified.” & See Also Pg. 5 – col. 3 – lines 48-52 – “Additionally, a given route 106 may include a "home base" 128 that forms the start and end point of route 106.” & See Also Pg. 2 – Fig. 1 – 136 ad 138 (equates to acquiring from the memory, the a living area data , the history data and the facility data; as the first quote shows the history of the places visited by the user and the facility data as the poi’s were visited by the user, and the second quote shows the attainment of the living area data, wherein the figure cited show the memory storing the location log allowing each of these data types to be accessed.)) determine whether the current position is outside the acquired living area data, wherein in a case where the current position is outside the acquired living area data, the processor is further configured to: Pg. 5 – Col. 4 – lines 20-22 – “While traveling along the route 106, the user 102 may stop and visit one or more POis 108-126 located proximate to the route 106.” & See Also Pg. 5 – col. 3 – lines 48-52 – “Additionally, a given route 106 may include a "home base" 128 that forms the start and end point of route 106.” (equates to determine whether the current position is outside the acquired living area data, wherein in a case where the current position is outside the acquired living area data, the processor is further configured to: as the first quote shows the user traveling to various locations 108-126 and the second quote shows the art’s understanding of a home base being separate from the travelled to locations and thus identifying the user being away from the living area. )) identify a proposed genre from among the plurality of genres the proposed genre being a genre for which a total number of visits is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value based on the acquired history data (Pg. 6 – col. 6 – lines 64-67 & Pg. 7 – Col. 7 – lines 1- 2 – “For example, user 102 may have a high user preference score for both Organic Supermarket 112 and French Café 118, as determined by the user preference score generator 142. A high user preference score may be, e.g., a user preference score above a certain user preference score threshold.” & See Also Pg. 4 – Col. 1 – lines 60-62 – “the user preference score being based at least on: (i) a number of visits by the user to each POI” & See Also Pg. 4 – Col. 2 - “recommend a POI for the user based at least on the predicted user preference score of the POI.” (equates to identify a proposed genre from among the plurality of genres the proposed genre being a genre for which a total number of visits is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value based on the acquired history data as the first quote shows a threshold value being above a given threshold thus dictating a “high user preference score”. The second quote shows how the user preference score is based on the number of visits. The third quote shows how POI or genre of proposal is recommended based on a user preference score. ) ) determine facilities located within a predetermined range from the current position based on the acquired facility data; (Pg. 4 – Col. 1 – lines 33 – 36 – “Additionally, the method may include generating a user preference score for each POI visited by the user based at least on: (i) a number of visits by the user to each POI and (ii) a distance traveled by the user to visit each POI” & See Also Pg. 8 – Col. 11 – lines 1-8 – “Additionally or alternatively, the recommended POI may be based on the proximity of the POI to an updated current position of the mobile device (i.e., by proxy, the current location of the user). For example, among several unvisited POis with high predicted 5 user preference scores, the closest POI or PO Is to the current location of the user may be selected for recommendation to the user.” (equates to determine facilities located within a predetermined range from the current position based on the acquired facility data as a number of visits of the POI data is considered and similarly the distance travelled by the user to the POI is considered and thus a predetermined range is established as a score is generated based on the proximity wherein the score corresponds to a given range of distance the user is from the poi.)) determine a proposed facility that belongs to the proposed genre from among facilities located in the predetermined range from the current position; (Pg. 4 – Col. 1 – lines 33 – 36 – “Additionally, the method may include generating a user preference score for each POI visited by the user based at least on: (i) a number of visits by the user to each POI and (ii) a distance traveled by the user to visit each POI” & See Also Pg. 8 – Col. 11 – lines 1-8 – “Additionally or alternatively, the recommended POI may be based on the proximity of the POI to an updated current position of the mobile device (i.e., by proxy, the current location of the user). For example, among several unvisited POis with high predicted 5 user preference scores, the closest POI or PO Is to the current location of the user may be selected for recommendation to the user.” (equates to determine a proposed facility that belongs to the proposed genre from among facilities located in the predetermined range from the current position as the first quote shows how the user preference score is generated based on a distance away from the user where the second quote shows specifically the current position of the mobile device, in possession of the user, wherein the POI’s that are deemed to be closer, within the predetermine range of POI’s being generated, are weighted more heavily and thus used for recommendation to the user. ) ) and display, via the display, including a name, a genre, a distance from the current position corresponding to the proposed facility (Pg. 8 – Col. 10 – lines 49-55 – “At block 212, a POI may be recommended for a user (e.g., by the POI recommender 146) based at least on the predicted user preference score for the POI. The recommendation may be displayed to the user by the mobile device, e.g., via a user interface (such as, e.g., user interface 132) supported by a user interface application (such as, e.g., user interface application 148).” & See Also Pg. 5 – Col. 4 – lines 35 – 40 – “the POis 108-126 may be categorized by type of POI. For instance, Bob's Gym 108, Joe's Gym 114, and Yoga Gym 122 may all be categorized as Gyms, while Main Street Supermarket 110, Organic Supermarket 112, and Harvest Supermarket 124 may all be categorized as Supermarkets” & see also Pg. 8 – Col. 10 – line 51-60- “The recommendation may be displayed to the user by the mobile device, e.g., via a user interface (such as, e.g., user interface 132) supported by a user interface application (such as, e.g., user interface appli- 55 cation 148). In particular, unvisited POis with high predicted user preference scores (e.g., user preference scores above a certain threshold user preference score) may be recommended for the user. The recommended POI may additionally be based on the proximity of the POI to one or more 60 routes traveled by the user.” (equates to and display, via the display, including a name, a genre, a distance from the current position corresponding to the proposed facility as the first quote shows the display of poi data being done on the user interface, wherein the second quote shows the names and grouping of genres and thus the display of genres and names of proposed facilities being executed here, and the last quote showing the recommendations being display based on proximity and thus a distance is displayed in this step.))
Yet Sanchez fails to teach, and display, via the display, a list.
Nakamoto teaches and display, via the display, a list. (Pg. 4 – [0039] – “Specifically, information for displaying the names of facilities and the like included in the stop-off history 15 and the destination history 16 in a list on the display unit 57 may be generated”) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Sanchez to include and display, via the display, a list as this allows for a variety of information to be displayed succinctly and easily viewable for the user.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include and display, via the display, a list as this limitations allows for simple way to group a variety of data and display it to the user, allowing for easily understood sorting of data to be had by the user.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez as shown above and in view of Nakamoto (JP2023083356A).
Regarding Claim 2 Sanchez-Nakamoto teaches The information processing device according to claim 1, as previously mapped above.
Yet Sanchez fails to teach wherein the predetermined threshold value is set for each genre of the plurality of genres.
Nakamoto teaches wherein the predetermined threshold value is set for each genre of the plurality of genres. (Pg. 6 – [0051] – “Also, the predetermined number n, which is the threshold value, may be set to a different value for each genre. By doing so, it is possible to prevent bias in discrimination results due to the total number of points included in the genre” ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Sanchez to include wherein the predetermined threshold value is set for each genre of the plurality of genres as this limitation allows for better recommendation of genres to be had in that not every genre gets an equal amount of visitation and ensuring that each category has its own prescribed threshold allows for each genre to be considered evenly rather than a single genre domination the proposals provided.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the predetermined threshold value is set for each genre of the plurality of genres as this limitation ensures each genre being provided is weighted based on the amounts of visits for each genre and this ensures that the recommendation is not overly biased to a genre that the user visits more than any other kind.
Regarding Claim 3 Sanchez-Nakamoto teaches ()Sanchez discloses the following limitations: ) The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to identify as the proposed genre (Pg. 4 – Col. 1 – Lines 25…29-32 – “recommending points of interest (PO Is)… recording a log of the location data captured over a period of time and analyzing the log of the location data to identify: (i) a route traveled by the user and (ii) a plurality of points of interest (POis) visited by the user.” & See Also Pg. 1 – Abstract – “A point of interest (POI) may be recommended for a mobile device user based on habits and routines of the user” & See Also Pg. 5 – Col. 4 – lines 28-30 – “Of course, the POis may include other kinds of businesses such as malls, retail stores, movie theaters, or any other type of business” (equates to wherein the processor is further configured to identify as the proposed genre as the second quote shows POI or a genre being recommended or proposed. And the first quote being able to show the identification of the proposed genre of as the variety of Poi are analyzed and thus the type of location can be inferred from said analyzation. )) a genre for which a total number of visits is equal to or larger than the predetermined threshold value (Pg. 6 – col. 6 – lines 64-67 & Pg. 7 – Col. 7 – lines 1- 2 – “For example, user 102 may have a high user preference score for both Organic Supermarket 112 and French Café 118, as determined by the user preference score generator 142. A high user preference score may be, e.g., a user preference score above a certain user preference score threshold.” & See Also Pg. 4 – Col. 1 – lines 33 – 36 – “Additionally, the method may include generating a user preference score for each POI visited by the user based at least on: (i) a number of visits by the user to each POI” (equates to a genre for which a total number of visits is equal to or larger than the predetermined threshold value as the first quote shows the user preference score being associated with being greater than a threshold and the second quote showing the user preference score being based on number of visits.) )
Yet Sanchez fails to teach a genre for which a total number of visits in a first time frame corresponding to the same time period as a second time frame in which the current position was acquired.
Nakamoto teaches a genre for which a total number of visits in a first time frame corresponding to the same time period as a second time frame in which the current position was acquired. (Pg. 3 – [0017] – “The point information further includes the date and time of the visit or the date and time of search, and the discriminating unit discriminates the point of visit, etc., into a candidate for a stop-off site and a candidate for a destination based on the point information for which the date and time of the visit or the date and time of the search are within a predetermined period. You may By doing so, it is possible to discriminate between stop-off place candidates and destination candidates based on the history within a predetermined period. Since the behavior pattern of the user may change over time, it is possible to further improve the accuracy of discrimination between the stopover candidate and the destination candidate by dividing the period.” & See Also Pg. 9 – [0087] – “point information further includes information on the number of visits to the point, and the destination/stop-off point determination unit 14 also considers the information on the number of visits, and distinguishes the point of visit or the like into a stop-off point candidate and a destination candidate.” & See Also Pg. 3 – [0025] – “As is well known, the GPS receiving unit 53 receives radio waves transmitted from a plurality of GPS (Global Positioning System) satellites, obtains current position information (current position information), and outputs the current position information to the control unit 51” (equates to a genre for which a total number of visits in a first time frame corresponding to the same time period as a second time frame in which the current position was acquired as the first quote shows how the point information of the art is collected alongside the time frame information of the visit, wherein a predetermined period is specified within the date and time thus allowing a same time frame to be viewed in the point information, wherein the number of visit can be seen to be calculated by the second quote. And the last quote showing that the GPS is taking the current position thus based on the current position point information regarding each number of visits and same time frame can be attained.)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the device disclosed by Sanchez to include a genre for which a total number of visits in a first time frame corresponding to the same time period as a second time frame in which the current position was acquired as this allows precise recommending to be done based on the time the location of the user is being taken at and thus allowing for better Poi recommendations based on the time in which the user is seeking the service.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a genre for which a total number of visits in a first time frame corresponding to the same time period as a second time frame in which the current position was acquired. as having time sensitive data regarding the genre for proposal gives the device a better chance to accurately reflect where the user would want to go based on the time of day, and what they have previously done during that time of day.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez-Nakamoto as shown above and in view of MORITA et al. (US 2025/0168599 Al).
Regarding Claim 4 Sanchez-Nakamoto teaches (Sanchez discloses the following limitations) The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to identify as the proposed genre (Pg. 4 – Col. 1 – Lines 25…29-32 – “recommending points of interest (PO Is)… recording a log of the location data captured over a period of time and analyzing the log of the location data to identify: (i) a route traveled by the user and (ii) a plurality of points of interest (POis) visited by the user.” & See Also Pg. 1 – Abstract – “A point of interest (POI) may be recommended for a mobile device user based on habits and routines of the user” (equates to wherein the processor is configured to identify as the proposed genre as the second quote shows POI or a genre being recommended or proposed, and the first quote showing an analyzation of the poi in which a type of poi can be recommended.)) a genre in which the number of visits is equal to or larger than the predetermined threshold value (Pg. 6 – col. 6 – lines 64-67 & Pg. 7 – Col. 7 – lines 1- 2 – “For example, user 102 may have a high user preference score for both Organic Supermarket 112 and French Café 118, as determined by the user preference score generator 142. A high user preference score may be, e.g., a user preference score above a certain user preference score threshold.” & See Also Pg. 4 – Col. 1 – lines 33 – 36 – “Additionally, the method may include generating a user preference score for each POI visited by the user based at least on: (i) a number of visits by the user to each POI” (equates to a genre in which the number of visits is equal to or larger than the predetermined threshold value as the first quote shows the user preference score being associated with being greater than a threshold and the second quote showing the user preference score being based on number of visits.) )
Yet Sanchez fails to teach on a first day, the first day having the same attribute as a second day on which the current position was acquired.
Morita teaches on a first day,( Pg. 24 – [0102] – “The activity data generating unit 1033 acquires the location-on-that-day information of the extracted user. Here, when acquiring the location-on-that-day information, the activity data generating unit 1033 detects which area the user visited the survey spot has been during a predetermined period (for example, preceding and subsequent periods every 12 hours) relative to the visiting timing.” & See Also Pg. 19 – [0014] – “FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating an example of clustering made by factoring in a dwell time, the number of visits, and the like, in addition to the commonality of the spots visited by the user” & See Also Pg. 14 – Fig. 13 – S133 – “Clustering of location-on-that-day data” (equates to on a first day as the quotes shows a collection of location information pertaining to a day of the user.)) the first day having the same attribute as a second day on which the current position was acquired. (Pg. 24 – [0102] – “The activity data generating unit 1033 acquires the location-on-that-day information of the extracted user. Here, when acquiring the location-on-that-day information, the activity data generating unit 1033 detects which area the user visited the survey spot has been during a predetermined period (for example, preceding and subsequent periods every 12 hours) relative to the visiting timing.” & See Also Pg. 19 – [0014] – “FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating an example of clustering made by factoring in a dwell time, the number of visits, and the like, in addition to the commonality of the spots visited by the user” & See Also Pg. 14 – Fig. 13 – S133 – “Clustering of location-on-that-day data” & See Also Pg. 24 – [0107] – “In step S132, the activity data generating unit 1033 acquires location information (also referred to as the daily- location information) during a survey period (i.e. a period corresponding to "daily") of the extracted user” (equates to the first day having the same attribute as a second day on which the current position was acquired as the first quote shows the location of the current position being collected wherein this location is associated with a day, and the last quote shows how daily location information is simultaneously collected while being associated with the same attribute day. The data is subsequently clustered and is based on the number of visits for the daily location and location-on-that-day data.) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the device disclosed by Sanchez to include on a first day, the first day having the same attribute as a second day on which the current position was acquired as this allows for location data on similar days to be collected and compared against one another to allow for the best possible recommendation based on locations visited on the same day.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include on a first day, the first day having the same attribute as a second day on which the current position was acquired.as this ensures the daily attribute is considered when recommending POI to the user allowing the device to better grasp the daily habits of the user.
Response to Arguments
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-4. Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 2-3, “The Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed subject matter interacts with physical components such as the vehicle's drive system, the in-vehicle navigation system, the processor, the memory, and the in-vehicle display. The claimed device communicates with in-vehicle devices to acquire the vehicle's current position, acquires history data upon activation of the vehicle drive system or navigation system, and outputs proposal data to the in-vehicle display. The Applicant respectfully submits that these features are not mental processes and cannot be performed by the human mind.
Furthermore, the claimed device involves additional features of acquiring the history data in response to an activation of the drive system or the navigation system of the vehicle; determining whether the current position is outside the acquired living area data based on the acquired current position of the vehicle; determining and displaying a proposed facility when the current position is outside the acquired living area data. At least these additional features of amended claim 1 integrate the alleged judicial exception into the practical application of proposing in response to real-time vehicle signals (e.g., activation of the drive system) and real- time vehicle location, and allowing facility proposal when the vehicle is located outside the user's living area data, with proposals tailored to the user's travel history. In addition, the meaningful features of identifying a proposed genre for which a total number of visits is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value, and displaying a facility located in a predetermined range from the current position provide a tangible technical benefit over generic recommendation systems that push suggestions irrespective of vehicle state, vehicle location, or user's travel history. These features enable suppression of unnecessary proposals in familiar regions (e.g., the stored living area data) and targeted proposals that the driver is likely to benefit based on the stored travel history (see, e.g., the present specification at paragraphs [0041]-[0043] and [0045]).
These additional features provide a tangible benefit by minimizing driver distraction, preventing user annoyance, and enhancing user convenience and relevance of in-vehicle guidance. The claimed device thus provides a clear practical application in the field of proposal via in-vehicle interface, and offers a technical solution for presenting information to a driver based on vehicle state, vehicle location, and user's historical preference. This results in an improvement to vehicle HMI behavior, improving system responsiveness and relevance of facility proposals while driving (see, e.g., the present specification at paragraphs [0041]-[0043] and [0048]-[0050]). Thus, when viewed as a combination, the additional elements yield a claim as a whole that amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea.
For at least the reasons discussed above, the Applicant submits that the features of
amended claim 1 are technical and patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 2-4 depend from independent claim 1. The Applicant submits that claims 2-4 are directed to patent-eligible subject matter for at least the same reasons as discussed with regard to independent claim 1.” - As to point A the examiner agrees with the applicant. The inclusion of the limitation “upon activation of the vehicle drive system or navigation system” adds an element of control to the claim that otherwise contains steps of data gathering, and generic computer components being incorporated to run an otherwise mental but the activation or control of switching on of the ignition or navigation system of the vehicle cannot be practically performed in the human mind.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 102 & 103 rejection of claims 1-4 applicant’s amendments to the claim changes the scope. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 4, “The Office Action rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) over Sanchez, US 10,545,028 (hereinafter "Sanchez").
The Applicant submits that Sanchez fails to anticipate the subject matter of claim 1 for at least the reasons discussed below.
Amended claim 1 indicates that the processor is configured to determine whether the current position is outside the acquired living area. In a case where the current position is outside the acquired living area, the processor is configured to identify a proposed genre.
In contrast, Sanchez merely describes that points of interest are recommended for a user based on the current location of the user. The recommendation is based on the proximity of the unvisited point of interest to the current location of the user (see paragraphs [0010] and [0026] of Sanchez). That is, Sanchez does not disclose the feature "in a case where the current position is outside the acquired living area, the processor is configured to identify a proposed genre", as recited in amended claim 1. Accordingly, the Applicant submits that the subject matter of amended claim 1 is a distinction over the disclosure of Sanchez.
Anticipation requires the disclosure, in a single art reference, of each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as in the claim. Because at least one claimed element is not present in Sanchez, the subject matter of amended claim 1 is not anticipated by the cited art.
In view of the amendments to the claims, and for the reasons discussed above, the Applicant submits that the rejection of claim 1 is overcome, and respectfully requests the reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection.” - As to point A the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that Sanchez does not teach “in a case where the current position is outside the acquired living area, the processor is configured to identify a proposed genre”. During Patent Examination, pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (see MPEP 2111). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the aforementioned amendment is for the device to be detected as being outside of a zone in which a home of the user is identified as staying at and providing point of interest recommendations to the user based on the detection. Sanchez teaches a detection and concept of a home base in which the user can travel along a trajectory that removes the user from the home base area and then provide poi data to the user based on the location the user is within the trajectory, wherein the position of the user is outside of the home base (as mapped above in claim 1). Therefor the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicants arguments and assert that Sanchez teaches “in a case where the current position is outside the acquired living area, the processor is configured to identify a proposed genre”. See At least: determine whether the current position is outside the acquired living area data, wherein in a case where the current position is outside the acquired living area data, the processor is further configured to: Pg. 5 – Col. 4 – lines 20-22 – “While traveling along the route 106, the user 102 may stop and visit one or more POis 108-126 located proximate to the route 106.” & See Also Pg. 5 – col. 3 – lines 48-52 – “Additionally, a given route 106 may include a "home base" 128 that forms the start and end point of route 106.” (equates to determine whether the current position is outside the acquired living area data, wherein in a case where the current position is outside the acquired living area data, the processor is further configured to: as the first quote shows the user traveling to various locations 108-126 and the second quote shows the art’s understanding of a home base being separate from the travelled to locations and thus identifying the user being away from the living area. )) identify a proposed genre from among the plurality of genres the proposed genre being a genre for which a total number of visits is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value based on the acquired history data (Pg. 6 – col. 6 – lines 64-67 & Pg. 7 – Col. 7 – lines 1- 2 – “For example, user 102 may have a high user preference score for both Organic Supermarket 112 and French Café 118, as determined by the user preference score generator 142. A high user preference score may be, e.g., a user preference score above a certain user preference score threshold.” & See Also Pg. 4 – Col. 1 – lines 60-62 – “the user preference score being based at least on: (i) a number of visits by the user to each POI” & See Also Pg. 4 – Col. 2 - “recommend a POI for the user based at least on the predicted user preference score of the POI.” (equates to identify a proposed genre from among the plurality of genres the proposed genre being a genre for which a total number of visits is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value based on the acquired history data as the first quote shows a threshold value being above a given threshold thus dictating a “high user preference score”. The second quote shows how the user preference score is based on the number of visits. The third quote shows how POI or genre of proposal is recommended based on a user preference score. ) )
Applicant argues on page 5, “The Office Action rejects claims 2-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Sanchez and Nakamoto, JP 2023-083356 (hereinafter "Nakamoto"). The Office Action rejects claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Sanchez and Morita et al., US 2025/0168599 (hereinafter "Morita").
Claims 2-4 depend from independent claim 1 and, thus, include all the features recited in claim 1.
Amended claim 1 indicates that the processor is configured to determine whether the current position is outside the acquired living area. In a case where the current position is outside the acquired living area, the processor is configured to identify a proposed genre.
Based on the reasons discussed above, Sanchez does not teach the feature "in a case where the current position is outside the acquired living area, the processor is configured to identify a proposed genre", as recited in amended claim 1.
In addition, as is best understood, the teachings of Nakamoto and Morita fail to remedy the deficiencies identified in Sanchez as discussed with regard to amended claim 1, because the teachings of Nakamoto and Morita are silent with respect to the feature "determining whether the current position is outside the acquired living area".
A proper prima facie case of obviousness requires that the asserted combination of references teaches or suggests each and every element in the claims. Because at least one claimed element is not present in the combination of Sanchez, Nakamoto, and Morita, the subject matter of amended claim 1 would not have been obvious over the cited art.
Claims 2-4 depend from independent claim 1 and, thus, would not have been obvious over the art of record for at least the same reasons as discussed with regard to amended claim 1 ” - As to point C see point B
Applicant argues on page 6 – “Because the dependent claims are allowable for at least the same reasons as the claim(s) from which they depend, the Applicant submits that further remarks regarding the asserted relationship between any of the claims and the cited references are not necessary in view of their allowability. The Applicant's silence as to the Office Action's comments is not indicative of being in acquiescence to the stated grounds of rejection.” – As to point D see point B
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (Drozd et al.) US 11461792 B1
A method and system is provided for identifying local businesses visited by a user. Location and movement data for a user is analyzed to identify points of interest (POIs) visited by a user, and POIs which were not visited while the user travelled to the visited POIs. The POIs are categorized as corresponding to local businesses or national/global businesses, and local business metrics are generated according to frequencies in which the user visits local businesses and/or passes over national/global businesses in favor of local businesses.
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 REECE ANTHONY WAKELY whose telephone number is (571)272-3783. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-6:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1/16/26