Status of Claims
0. This is a Final office action in response to communication received on November 07, 2025. Claims 1, 3-8, and 10 are pending and examined herein.
Claim Objection
1. As per claim 10, it recites “a storage unit on which are stored a map database and a facility information database,” however there is a grammatical issue with the above noted underlined recitation. The Examiner suggests “a storage unit on which are stored”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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, 3-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Next using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidances (hereinafter 2019 PEG) the rejection as follows has been applied.
Under step 1, analysis is based on MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1, 3-6, and 10 are an apparatus; claim 7 is a method; and claim 8 is a non-transitory CRM. Thus, each claim 1, 3-8, and 10, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories (i.e., useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of 35 U.S.C. §101.
Under Step 2A Prong One, per MPEP 2106.04, prong one asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement."
Next, per 2019 PEG, to determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (I) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and (II) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG. If the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I, analysis should proceed to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
(I) An abstract idea as recited per abstract recitation of claims 1, 3-8, and 10 [i.e. recitation with the exception of additional elements, which are first considered under step 2A prong two when claim(s) is/are reconsidered as a whole and exclusively under step 2B inquiries below, i.e. under step 2A prong one the Examiner considered claim recitation other than the additional elements (which once again are expressly noted below) to be the abstract recitation] (II) is that of providing location based content which is changed based on the number of times it is provided which is certain methods of organizing human activity (but for its implementation in network based environment - which is considered further under prong two and step 2B analysis as set forth below).
The phrase "Certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Further, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
Therefore, the identified limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of 2019 PEG, thus analysis now proceeds to Prong Two in order to evaluate whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, per MPEP 2106.04, prong two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’).
Next, per 2019 PEG, Prong Two represents a change from prior guidance. The analysis under Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (I) Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (II) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.
Accordingly, the examiner will evaluate whether the claims recite one or more additional element(s) that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception by considering them both individually and as a whole.
The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea, i.e. additional elements, as recited in claims 1, 3-8, and 10 at least are content output device comprising a memory configured to store instructions, a speaker, a display device, and a processor configured to execute the instructions, a vehicle, audio content, display content (claims 1 and 7-8); additionally a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, wherein the program causes computer to execute instructions (per claim 8); and storage unit on which data is stored in databases, position sensor (per claim 10). Remaining claims either recite the same additional element(s) as already noted above or simply lack recitation of an additional element, in which case note prong one as set forth above.
As would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter PHOSITA), the additional elements are generic computer components. The additional elements are simply utilized as generic tools to implement the abstract idea or plan as "apply it" instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are generic as they are described at a high level of generality, see at least as-filed Figs. 1-3 and their associated disclosure. The processor executing the "apply it" instruction is further connected to one or more device merely sending/receiving data over a network, note 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). Gathered or obtained data is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the processor analyzes gathered data, such as position of the vehicle, to provide location based tailored ads. Thus, the process is similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group) - certain result here is tailored content set based on information about the vehicle’s position (Int. Ventures v. Cap One Bank ‘382 patent). The abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment such as collecting data via a network and analyzing data via a generic processor to provide personalized marketing content such as ads, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of providing location based content which is changed based on the number of times the content is provided which is certain methods of organizing human activity (prong one) is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Under step 2B, per MPEP 2106.05, as it applies to claims 1, 3-8, and 10, the Examiner will evaluate whether the foregoing additional elements analyzed under prong two, when considered both individually and as a whole provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). The abstract idea of providing location based content which is changed based on the number of times it is provided which is certain methods of organizing human activity implemented using mathematical concepts - has not been applied in an eligible manner. The claim elements in addition to the abstract idea are simply being utilized as generic tools to execute "apply it" instructions as they are described at a high level of generality. Additionally, the abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Id. or note step 2A prong two).
Regarding, insignificant solution activity such as data gathering or post solution activity such as displaying on interface, the Examiner relies on court cases and publications that demonstrate that such a way to gather data and display information is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry or art, at least note as follows:
(i) 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) [similarly here user's data is received and based on analysis targeted promotions are to be transmitted over a network];
(ii) Affinity v DirecTV - "The court rejected the argument that the computer components recited in the claims constituted an “inventive concept.” It held that the claims added “only generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database,’” and that “recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims purported to improve the functioning of the computer itself or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.” Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359)." [similarly here as a post solution promotions are communicated or displayed to user on an interface]; and
(iii) Regarding location of a device ascertained via a sensor, it is simply being gathered from what appears to be a generic built in component of the device (which examiner interprets from the state of the art as it is not described in the as-filed spec. of the instant application), nevertheless, in view of compact prosecution the Examiner provides evidence that it is well-known or well-understood, routine, conventional activity see the following publications:
- (a) Pub. No.: US 2010/0273452 paras. [0073] note "The location determination routine 94 is operable to determine a geographic location of the target device 14 using GPS sensors or any other conventional means of determining geographic location."; and [0091] note "In one aspect, a recovery module 116 may further include a parental control module. In such an aspect, the parental control module may allow for disablement of the wireless device at specific locations (e.g. school, church, etc.). Further, the parental control module may provide for a web-based interface to control at least a portion of data/voice interactions with specific wireless devices. For example, specific web content may be restricted and/or specific numbers may be blocked. Still further, the parental control module may allow for detection of whether specific locations have been visited. For example, the module may determine if the device (and presumably the child) visited a library or a mall after school, or if the child left the service coverage area. In another aspect, the parental control module may be used to remotely disable at least a portion of the functionalities of an associated wireless device."
- (b) Pub. No.: US 2009/0288012 note [0148] note "If at any time during the initialization of any of these transaction configurations a step fails, for example one party uses the conveyed transaction identifier with the transaction authority, but the authority has no record of the transaction, or the transaction is not in the correct pending state, or there are some other conditions on the transaction which cannot be met such as the transaction violating the conditions of parental controls put in place by the guardian of a user who is a minor, then the violations are stored at the transaction authority 102 for security and debugging purposes and appropriate messages are sent to the parties."; and [0298] note "The user's location can be determined by the system using one or more well-understood methods such as GPS, triangulation, or by determining if they are near parts of the system such as short range transmitter access points which have had their locations determined, either by some automated means such as global positioning system (GPS) or by having had its location entered into the system manually."
- (c) Pub. No.: US 2012/0101881 paras. [0254] note "In some implementations, the app may include an indication of the location (e.g., name of the merchant store, geographical location, information about the aisle within the merchant store, etc.) of the user, e.g., loll. The app may provide an indication of a pay amount due for the purchase of the product, e.g., 1012. In some implementations, the app may provide various options for the user to pay the amount for purchasing the product( s ). For example, the app may utilize the GPS coordinates to determine the merchant store within the user is present, and direct the user to a website of the merchant."; [0258] note "In some implementations, the app may provide the L-PROMO with the GPS location of the user. Based on the GPS location of the user, the L-PROMO may determine the context of the user (e.g., whether the user is in a store, doctor's office, hospital, postal service office, etc.). Based on the context, the user app may present the appropriate fields to the user, from which the user may select fields and/or field values to send as part of the purchase order transmission."
- (d) Pub. No.: US 2011/0029370 paras. [0060] note "Various techniques may be employed to reduce the probability of fraud in the reporting of presence at a store. In some embodiments, an assertion of presence at a store may be validated against various criteria such as the last known location of the mobile phone and the time since the last known location and/or error radius of the mobile phone (which in some embodiments may be required to be instantaneous and/ or received within a short time threshold, such as ten seconds). If it is determined that it is unlikely that the mobile phone traveled from the last known location since the time of the last report, the assertion may be rejected. In some embodiments, multiple sequential locational reports and/or assertions of presence in stores, and the times thereof, may be analyzed to determine whether it is plausible that the reports are accurate, and the assertion may be rejected if it is determined not to be plausible, e.g. if it requires a rapidity of transit that is infeasible, for example a velocity in excess of 80 miles per hour for over short (e.g. less than two hour) periods of time."; also see [0021]; [0030]-[0034]; and [0037].
- (e) Roeding Pub. No.: US 2011/0029370 Al [0021] note "determine where the consumers are based upon the locations of their mobile phones 101. Many mobile phones 101 are equipped with global positioning system (GPS) units 212 that provide precise location information. The cell phones can transmit this information to the system and the server can determine how close a consumer is to a store 301. The system can also determine if the consumer is within the store 301. If GPS is not available, various other location detection mechanisms can be used to determine the location of the consumer and distance 309 from the store 301"; [0027]-[0032]; [0037].
Therefore the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Witkemper (Pub. No.: US 2014/0032104A1) referred to hereinafter as Witkemper.
As per claims 1, 7, and 8, Witkemper discloses
- as per claim 1, a content output device comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; a speaker; a display device; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to (see [0070]; [0073]; [0090]-[0093]):
- as per claim 7, content output method comprising: providing: a memory configured to store instructions; a speaker; a display device; and a processor configured to execute the instructions in the memory to perform steps of (see [0070]; [0073]; [0090]-[0093]):
- as per claim 8, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program, the program causing a computer to execute processing of (see [0073]; [0080]-[0081]; [0091]):
- as per claim limitations of claims 1, 7, and 8:
(a) acquire facility information based on a position of a vehicle (see [0024]; [0074]; [0076]-[0079]; [0129]-[0132]);
(b) extract words from the facility information, and generate an audio content including one or more sentences using the words (see [0135]-[0136];[0146]);
(c) generate a display content by arranging at least a part of the words included in the audio content (see [0043]);
(d) cause the audio content to be output by the speaker (see [0043]; [0128]; [0135]); and
(e) cause the display content to be output by the display device (see [0043]; [0128]; [0132]);
(f) wherein the processor changes the audio content to be generated to include more detailed information as a number of times of outputting the audio content related to the facility increases (see [0043]; [0128]; [0130]-[0132] – range setter is number of times and based on distance granularity of content is increased regarding a POI), and
(g) wherein the processor changes the display content to be generated in response to a change of the audio content (see [0043]; [0130]-[0132]; [0136]).
2. (canceled).
As per claim 3, (previously presented) The content output device according to claim 1, wherein the processor increases a detail level of the audio content as the number of times of outputting the audio content increases (see [0043]; [0128]; [0130]-[0132] – range setter is number of times as it can be set as (1) 5km, (2) 4km, (3) 3km, etc. as the number of range set value increase the granularity or detail increases, and also includes distance based, i.e. shorter the distance, granularity of content is increased regarding a POI).
As per claim 5, (previously presented) The content output device according to claim 1, wherein the processor generates the display content using the words identical to the audio content (see [0043]; [0060]; [0067]; [0136]).
As per claim 6, (previously presented) The content output device according to claim 5, wherein the processor generates the display content by arranging the words identical to the audio content (see [0043]; [0130]-[0132]; [0136]).
As per claim 10, (previously presented) The content output device of claim 1, further comprising: a storage unit on which are stored a map database and a facility information database; and a vehicle position sensor; wherein the processor is further configured to execute instructions to: determine a position of a vehicle in which the content output device is located from the vehicle position sensor; and acquire the facility information from the facility information database stored on the storage unit based on the position of the vehicle and the stored map database (see Figs. 1-5 and their associated disclosure; [0024]; [0073]; [0080]-[0084]; [0100]-[0105]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Witkemper, in view of Ueda et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0076696A1) referred to hereinafter as Ueda.
As per claim 4, Witkemper teaches the claim limitations of claim 1. Witkemper suggests, [0005] and [0131], however Witkemper expressly does not teach wherein the display content includes a first output date of the audio content and the display content, and a last output date of the audio content and the display content. Ueda teaches wherein the display content includes a first output date of the audio content and the display content, and a last output date of the audio content and the display content (see Fig. 2A, 6, and their associated disclosure; [0041]-[0043]; [0047]-[0049]; [0068]-[0072]).
Therefore it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Witkemper in view of Ueda with motivation to arrange and/or select content in prioritized manner using the output content data such as date and/or time, see at least Ueda [0068]-[0072].
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
5. Objection to title and Indefiniteness rejections are withdrawn. Recitation of new claim 10 resulted in a claim objection.
Regarding 101, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the applicant appears to have argued against prong one analysis by incorporating additional elements, however analysis under prong one is based on abstract recitation which squarely invokes certain methods of organizing human activity as the content being displayed by incrementally increasing the amount content based on increasing frequency about a facility, under BRI In light of the as-filed spec. would indeed be considered commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations (emphasis added).
Next, the Applicant argues against prong two by stating that somehow the claims now set forth execution of abstract idea beyond “apply it” instruction, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the updated rejection of prong two in its entirety “claim elements in addition to the abstract idea, i.e. additional elements, as recited in claims 1, 3-8, and 10 at least are content output device comprising a memory configured to store instructions, a speaker, a display device, and a processor configured to execute the instructions, a vehicle, audio content, display content (claims 1 and 7-8); additionally a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, wherein the program causes computer to execute instructions (per claim 8); and storage unit on which data is stored in databases, position sensor (per claim 10). Remaining claims either recite the same additional element(s) as already noted above or simply lack recitation of an additional element, in which case note prong one as set forth above.
As would be readily apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter PHOSITA), the additional elements are generic computer components. The additional elements are simply utilized as generic tools to implement the abstract idea or plan as "apply it" instructions (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are generic as they are described at a high level of generality, see at least as-filed Figs. 1-3 and their associated disclosure. The processor executing the "apply it" instruction is further connected to one or more device merely sending/receiving data over a network, note 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). Gathered or obtained data is considered insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the processor analyzes gathered data, such as position of the vehicle, to provide location based tailored ads. Thus, the process is similar to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group) - certain result here is tailored content set based on information about the vehicle’s position (Int. Ventures v. Cap One Bank ‘382 patent). The abstract idea is intended to be merely carried out in a technical environment such as collecting data via a network and analyzing data via a generic processor to provide personalized marketing content such as ads, however fail to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide any additional element that integrates the abstract idea (prong one), into a practical application (prong two) upon considering the additional elements both individually and as a combination or as a whole as they fail to provide: an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; or an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; or an additional element that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or an additional element that applies or uses the judicial exception, again, in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception as explained above.
Thus, the abstract idea of providing location based content which is changed based on the number of times the content is provided which is certain methods of organizing human activity (prong one) is not integrated into a practical application upon consideration of the additional element(s) both individually and as a combination (prong two).
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.”
Next, the Applicant argues step 2B, however the arguments are unpersuasive. Under step 2B the analysis is limited to additional elements considered singularly and in combination, not the abstract recitation, yet, the Applicant argues increase in the amount of content with increase in the content presentation frequency how it is organized using facility information about which the information is outputted or presented is indeed an abstract recitation. Further, merely gathering data such as location is considered insignificant extra solution activity such as pre-solution activity and presenting or outputting such information is considered post-solution activity such as displaying information as determined in prong two for which the Examiner furnished evidence as follows to demonstrate that such activities are indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional, note as follows:
“Regarding, insignificant solution activity such as data gathering or post solution activity such as displaying on interface, the Examiner relies on court cases and publications that demonstrate that such a way to gather data and display information is indeed well-understood, routine, or conventional in the industry or art, at least note as follows:
(i) 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) [similarly here user's data is received and based on analysis targeted promotions are to be transmitted over a network];
(ii) Affinity v DirecTV - "The court rejected the argument that the computer components recited in the claims constituted an “inventive concept.” It held that the claims added “only generic computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database,’” and that “recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims purported to improve the functioning of the computer itself or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.” Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359)." [similarly here as a post solution promotions are communicated or displayed to user on an interface]; and
(iii) Regarding location of a device ascertained via a sensor, it is simply being gathered from what appears to be a generic built in component of the device (which examiner interprets from the state of the art as it is not described in the as-filed spec. of the instant application), nevertheless, in view of compact prosecution the Examiner provides evidence that it is well-known or well-understood, routine, conventional activity see the following publications:
- (a) Pub. No.: US 2010/0273452 paras. [0073] note "The location determination routine 94 is operable to determine a geographic location of the target device 14 using GPS sensors or any other conventional means of determining geographic location."; and [0091] note "In one aspect, a recovery module 116 may further include a parental control module. In such an aspect, the parental control module may allow for disablement of the wireless device at specific locations (e.g. school, church, etc.). Further, the parental control module may provide for a web-based interface to control at least a portion of data/voice interactions with specific wireless devices. For example, specific web content may be restricted and/or specific numbers may be blocked. Still further, the parental control module may allow for detection of whether specific locations have been visited. For example, the module may determine if the device (and presumably the child) visited a library or a mall after school, or if the child left the service coverage area. In another aspect, the parental control module may be used to remotely disable at least a portion of the functionalities of an associated wireless device."
- (b) Pub. No.: US 2009/0288012 note [0148] note "If at any time during the initialization of any of these transaction configurations a step fails, for example one party uses the conveyed transaction identifier with the transaction authority, but the authority has no record of the transaction, or the transaction is not in the correct pending state, or there are some other conditions on the transaction which cannot be met such as the transaction violating the conditions of parental controls put in place by the guardian of a user who is a minor, then the violations are stored at the transaction authority 102 for security and debugging purposes and appropriate messages are sent to the parties."; and [0298] note "The user's location can be determined by the system using one or more well-understood methods such as GPS, triangulation, or by determining if they are near parts of the system such as short range transmitter access points which have had their locations determined, either by some automated means such as global positioning system (GPS) or by having had its location entered into the system manually."
- (c) Pub. No.: US 2012/0101881 paras. [0254] note "In some implementations, the app may include an indication of the location (e.g., name of the merchant store, geographical location, information about the aisle within the merchant store, etc.) of the user, e.g., loll. The app may provide an indication of a pay amount due for the purchase of the product, e.g., 1012. In some implementations, the app may provide various options for the user to pay the amount for purchasing the product( s ). For example, the app may utilize the GPS coordinates to determine the merchant store within the user is present, and direct the user to a website of the merchant."; [0258] note "In some implementations, the app may provide the L-PROMO with the GPS location of the user. Based on the GPS location of the user, the L-PROMO may determine the context of the user (e.g., whether the user is in a store, doctor's office, hospital, postal service office, etc.). Based on the context, the user app may present the appropriate fields to the user, from which the user may select fields and/or field values to send as part of the purchase order transmission."
- (d) Pub. No.: US 2011/0029370 paras. [0060] note "Various techniques may be employed to reduce the probability of fraud in the reporting of presence at a store. In some embodiments, an assertion of presence at a store may be validated against various criteria such as the last known location of the mobile phone and the time since the last known location and/or error radius of the mobile phone (which in some embodiments may be required to be instantaneous and/ or received within a short time threshold, such as ten seconds). If it is determined that it is unlikely that the mobile phone traveled from the last known location since the time of the last report, the assertion may be rejected. In some embodiments, multiple sequential locational reports and/or assertions of presence in stores, and the times thereof, may be analyzed to determine whether it is plausible that the reports are accurate, and the assertion may be rejected if it is determined not to be plausible, e.g. if it requires a rapidity of transit that is infeasible, for example a velocity in excess of 80 miles per hour for over short (e.g. less than two hour) periods of time."; also see [0021]; [0030]-[0034]; and [0037].
- (e) Roeding Pub. No.: US 2011/0029370 Al [0021] note "determine where the consumers are based upon the locations of their mobile phones 101. Many mobile phones 101 are equipped with global positioning system (GPS) units 212 that provide precise location information. The cell phones can transmit this information to the system and the server can determine how close a consumer is to a store 301. The system can also determine if the consumer is within the store 301. If GPS is not available, various other location detection mechanisms can be used to determine the location of the consumer and distance 309 from the store 301"; [0027]-[0032]; [0037].
Therefore the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.”
Therefore the Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection.
Regarding, although the Examiner does not necessarily agree that Ueda did not teach the claim limitation as previously claimed, due to the extensive nature of the amendment, the Examiner conducted an updated search. With the exception of claim 4 for which Ueda is relied upon as secondary reference, the Examiner has relied on Witkemper to teach the claims as amended. As such, the Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by extensive claim amendments. Therefore the Examiner respectfully maintains the prior art based rejection.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and all the references on PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited should be duly noted by the Applicant as they can be subsequently used during prosecution, at least note the following:
*Being presented initially
- US 2014/0142842 see Abstract note “a traveling movement with a navigation device, one pertaining surrounding area respectively is acquired by use of the surrounding-area parameters and the respective current location of the navigation device. By way of the stored coordinates, at least one of the stored places of interest is determined which is situated in the acquired surrounding area. The additional information stored with respect to the determined place of interest is outputted by way of a user”
- US2021/0306421 see Abstract note “present disclosure relate to a method (300) and a system (103) for delivering content to a Human Machine Interface (HMI) (101) of a vehicle (100). The system (103) receives a content to be delivered from a third-party application server (104), and vehicle and other data when an event occurs. Once the content is received, the system (103) determines a driver distraction score for the content based on the received data and one or more driver distraction rules defined by an OEM server (102). Further, the system (103) creates a content package based on the driver distraction score and the received data. Further, the system assigns a priority score to the content package based on a type of event. Thereafter, the system delivers the content package to the vehicle for providing to the HMI”
- US2010/0138151A1 see Abstract note “route guide method includes collecting state information of respective points of interest (POIs) and storing the collected state information in a state information database, extracting state information of one or more candidate POIs with reference to the State information database according to a request for the state information of the one or more candidate POIs, and applying the extracted State information of the candidate POIs to routes to the respective POIs to guide a user along the routes to the respective candidate POIs”; [0051] “FIG. 4 shows state information of name-based POI displayed on the navigation device 30 as an enlarged view, e.g., by clicking a ‘detail’ button on the screen of the navigation device 30. In this view, an opening time, an estimated arrival time, an average sightseeing time, admission fee, an available capacity of a parking zone, the number of visitors on the current day, a ranking of recommendation on the current day, and event information are displayed. If a real-time image for representation is included in the state information on the screen or direct searching is available, the navigation device 30 may be configured such that buttons for ‘viewing a real-time image’ and ‘direct search’ are activated. However, when the estimated arrival time is over the closing time of POI, the button ‘direct search’ may be inactivated.”
*Previously presented
- US8532851 " The display instruction circuit 12 is a circuit that allows the display of the operation information, advertisement information, and guidance information in predetermined order in one of the display sequences stored in the display sequence storage circuit 14. During normal operations, the display instruction circuit 12 causes the advertisement information and guidance information to be displayed in a display sequence used for a display during normal operations which are stored in the display sequence storage circuit 14."
- JP2018084611A "the level of detail of the guidance content only needs to be set so that the level of detail is higher as the guidance is more detailed, and may be adjusted according to the amount of information in the same type of guidance in addition to the above-described mode. Further, the degree of detail may not be two stages as described above. For example, Table 1 shows an example of guidance contents when the map direction is automatically switched in addition to the first direction and the second direction. In this example, when the map direction is automatically switched, an example in which the level of detail is lower than the first direction and the level of detail is higher than the second direction is shown. That is, for voice guidance, an example is shown in which only some of the items (for example, the traveling direction and the remaining distance) are guided instead of all items."
- JP2016184242A Information Guidance System “PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide an information guidance system that can offer an appropriate guidance in real time with matched displays and sounds in providing emergency information or operation information on unfixed (not routine) transportation. SOLUTION: A data generating unit 53 generates display data and voice data as data to be contained in data information, based on received information received at an information receiving unit 51 of an information processing unit 50. Further, the generated data information can be provided for guidance to users of a facility in the form of visual display and sound via an information guidance terminal 80 in the facility. In that guidance, generating not only display data but also voice data by the data generating unit 53 achieves real-time audio guidance consistent with displayed contents even when the guidance is for providing emergency information or operation information on unfixed (not routine) transportation.”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIPEN M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 08:30-17:00 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571)270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/DIPEN M PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621