DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
2. The amendment filed on 12/11/2024 has been entered and fully considered.
3. Claim 6 has been canceled.
4. Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
5. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 12/11/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Examiner’s Note
7. Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all of part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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.
Claim 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to method (i.e., a process).
Claim 10 is directed to an information provision device.
Therefore, claims 1 and 10 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1 and 10 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below - bolded) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. The claim limitations that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are underlined.
Claim 1 recites,
An information provision method performed by a processor configured to provide information to a user, the information provision method comprising, by the processor:
acquiring an attribute score of the user indicating a degree to which the user prefers a preferred field of the user;
acquiring a current location of the user after the user has started traveling;
when a POI is present within a first predetermined range from the current location of the user on a standard map on which information on POIs are recorded including a field to which the POIs belong, calculating a degree of a match between a field to which a target POI belongs within the first predetermined range and the preferred field of the user; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can calculate a degree of a match between a field to which a target POI belongs to and the preferred field of the user.)
when the degree of the match is higher than a predetermined threshold, determining that the field to which the target POI belongs matches the preferred field of the user; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can determine that a field to which the target POI belongs matches the preferred field of the user.)
and when determining that the field to which the target POI belongs matches the preferred field of the user, transmitting a control command to suggest the target POI as a destination, (A person of ordinary skill in the art can determine that a field to which the target POI belongs matches the preferred field of the user.)
wherein the degree of the match is calculated to be higher as the attribute score of the user and an attribute score of the target POI are higher, the attribute score of the target POI indicating a degree to which the target POI is recommended to users who prefer the field to which the target POI belongs. (A person of ordinary skill in the art can calculate a degree of a match in which would be calculated higher as the attribute score of the user and an attribute score of the target POI are higher.)
Claim 10 recites similar language and thus has a similar analysis to claim 1, as shown above.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites,
An information provision method performed by a processor configured to provide information to a user, the information provision method comprising, by the processor:
acquiring an attribute score of the user indicating a degree to which the user prefers a preferred field of the user; (This is recited as mere data gathering. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
acquiring a current location of the user after the user has started traveling; (This is recited as mere data gathering. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
when a POI is present within a first predetermined range from the current location of the user on a standard map on which information on POIs are recorded including a field to which the POIs belong, calculating a degree of a match between a field to which a target POI belongs within the first predetermined range and the preferred field of the user; (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
when the degree of the match is higher than a predetermined threshold, determining that the field to which the target POI belongs matches the preferred field of the user;
and when determining that the field to which the target POI belongs matches the preferred field of the user, transmitting a control command to suggest the target POI as a destination, (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Instantly this appears to be mere setting process based of the mental process. It does not showcase a controlling step or entitle that the vehicle is going to be moving to the location. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
wherein the degree of the match is calculated to be higher as the attribute score of the user and an attribute score of the target POI are higher, the attribute score of the target POI indicating a degree to which the target POI is recommended to users who prefer the field to which the target POI belongs.
Claim 10 recites similar language and thus has a similar analysis to claim 1, as shown above.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1, 10 and 15 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element discussed above, appears to be mere data gathering and transmitting of information which can be analyzed by an abstract mental process. And as discussed above, the additional limitations which are underlined above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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 1-10 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.
The terms “predetermined threshold” in claim 1 is not defined or bounded, and there is no guidance as to how the predetermined threshold is selected.
The terms “attribute of the user / attribute score / attribute of the target POI” is very unclear what is being considered an attribute, how many attributes exist, and how they are represented/measured. The relationship between attribute and attribute score is ambiguous.
The term “preferred field”, the term field is vague and lacks antecedent clarity. It’s not clear whether “field” refers to a category or some other classification.
The term “degree of match” fails to define how this match is computed. The lack of boundaries for this renders the scope unclear, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 non-obviousness.
10. Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chin (US 20170241788) in view of Kemp (US 20130262478).
Regarding Claim 1, Chin discloses An information provision method performed by a processor configured to provide information to a user, the information provision method comprising, by the processor: (Chin, see at least [0006] “a method for recommending a candidate place of interest to a user is provided.” And see [0007] “The set of executable instruction when executed by at least one processor causes the at least one processor to perform a method for recommending a candidate place of interest to a user.”)
acquiring an attribute score of the user indicating a degree to which the user prefers a preferred field of the user; (Chin, see at least [0019] wherein each place of interest that is selected as a candidate may be ranked based on a certain score. Users can set thresholds for the candidate place of interest to determine if the place of interest will be recommended by the driver.)
acquiring a current location of the user after the user has started traveling; (Chin, see at least [0046] and Fig. 5, element 502 and 504, wherein the current location of the driver is determined and a place of interest is identified.)
when a POI is present within a first predetermined range from the current location of the user on a standard map on which information on POIs are recorded including a field to which the POIs belong, (Chin, see at least [0038] wherein the in-vehicle computer can determine a plurality of candidate gas stations near the drivers current location ** Examiner notes that if a requirement for a gas station is to be near the current location, it indicates a predetermined range or area to determine what is considered “close”. Also see Fig. 5, element 506 in which shows a threshold is being used to determine distances between current location and place of interest.) calculating a degree of a match between a field to which a target POI belongs within the first predetermined range and the preferred field of the user; (Chin, see at least Fig. 5 and [0046] wherein
when the degree of the match is higher than a predetermined threshold, determining that the field to which the target POI belongs matches the preferred field of the user; (Chin, see at least [0019] candidate place of interest meets or exceeds a certain threshold. Also see Fig. 5, element 508.)
and when determining that the field to which the target POI belongs matches the preferred field of the user, transmitting a control command to suggest the target POI as a destination, (Chin, see at least Fig. 3B in which illustrates a recommendation notification in which informs the driver of a recommended gas station)
Chin does not explicitly disclose wherein the degree of the match is calculated to be higher as the attribute score of the user and an attribute score of the target POI are higher, the attribute score of the target POI indicating a degree to which the target POI is recommended to users who prefer the field to which the target POI belongs.
However, Kemp, in which is directed to a system and apparatus for recommending items to a first user discloses wherein the degree of the match is calculated to be higher as the attribute score of the user and an attribute score of the target POI are higher, the attribute score of the target POI indicating a degree to which the target POI is recommended to users who prefer the field to which the target POI belongs. (Chin, see at least [0059-0060] in which describes comparing user preference data with attributes of candidate items to determine relevance or compatibility. A dot product is used to calculate if an item shall be recommended or not. **using dot product, inherently includes multiplying corresponding user and item attributes.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Chin with the teachings of Kemp to include the capability utilizing multiplication of corresponding attributes as taught by Kemp, because dot products are standard technique for measuring similarity between user preferences and item attributes. This would further improve a vehicles capability of recommending POIs to a user based on attribute scores.
Regarding Claim 2, Chin in view of Kemp further discloses The information provision method according to claim 1, comprising, by the processor: (see rejection above)
before the user starts traveling, transmitting to a terminal device of the user a control command to display the standard map; (Chin, see at least [0032] wherein the user is provided with routes to choose from their home to their destination location.)
and when determining that the field to which the target POI belongs matches the preferred field of the user, transmitting to the terminal device a control command to display a specialized map specializing in information on the field to which the target POI belongs, instead of the standard map. (Chin, see at least [0034] and Fig. 2 in which during the trip, the in-vehicle computer may recommend a place of interest along the route during the trip. Also see Figs. 3A-3C, in which the route for the driver is adjusted based on chosen points of interest.)
Regarding Claim 3, Chin in view of Kemp further discloses The information provision method according to claim 2, further comprising; (see rejection above)
transmitting to the terminal device a control command to display a travel route from the current location of the user to the target POI on the specialized map by the processor. (Chin, see at least [0034], Fig. 2 and see Figs. 3A-3C, in which the route for the driver is adjusted based on chosen points of interest.)
Regarding Claim 4, Chin in view of Kemp further discloses The information provision method according to claim 1, further comprising; (Chin, see at least [0032] wherein the user is provided with routes to choose from their home to their destination location.)
transmitting to a terminal device of the user a control command to suggest changing the destination to the target POI, or a control command to suggest setting the target POI as a waypoint between the current location of the user and the destination by the processor. (Chin, see at least [0034] and Fig. 2 in which during the trip, the in-vehicle computer may recommend a place of interest along the route during the trip. In Fig.2, this is displayed as triangles, wherein chosen points of interest are shown the driver. Also see Figs. 3A-3C, in which the route for the driver is adjusted based on chosen points of interest.)
Regarding Claim 5, Chin in view of Kemp further discloses The information provision method according to claim 1, comprising, by the processor: (see rejection above)
before a vehicle in which the user is starts traveling, transmitting to an in-vehicle navigation device of the vehicle a control command to display the standard map; (Chin, see at least [0036-0037] wherein when the driver gets into the vehicle and depart from current location A toward a destination location B via route 202.)
and when determining that the field to which the target POI belongs matches the preferred field of the user, transmitting to the in-vehicle navigation device a control command to display a specialized map specializing in information on the field to which the target POI belongs, instead of the standard map. (Chin, see at least [0036-0037] wherein when the driver gets into the vehicle and depart from current location A toward a destination location B via route 202.)
Regarding Claim 7, Chin in view of Kemp further discloses The information provision method according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
wherein the field includes history-, geography-, geology-, meteorology-, and paleontology-related fields. (Chin, see at least [0047] wherein the driver’s interests may be accessed or queried from history of previously visited places of interest.)
Regarding Claim 8, Chin in view of Kemp further discloses The information provision method according to claim 1, comprising, by the processor: (see rejection above)
before the user starts traveling, transmitting to a terminal device of the user a control command to display the standard map; (Chin, see at least [0036-0037] wherein when the driver gets into the vehicle and depart from current location A toward a destination location B via route 202.)
when the user sets a search center point on the standard map, determining whether or not the POI is present within a second predetermined range from the search center point; (Chin, see at least [0036-0037] wherein when the driver gets into the vehicle and depart from current location A toward a destination location B via route 202. While driving, a “low fuel” indicaton may be displayed to the user, and based on the amount of fuel left, its determines gas stations that are nearby and that satisfy the users interests. Also see [0018-0019] wherein for a candidate place of interest, a requirement can be made by the user to always look at places being located at a certain distance threshold from the driver’s current location.)
when determining that the POI is present within the second predetermined range from the search center point, determining whether or not the field to which a target POI within the second predetermined range belongs matches the preferred field of the user; (Chin, see at least [0038] “Upon the determination of the candidate gas stations, they may be ranked based on respective scores, and the highest ranked gas station may be presented to the driver. Gas station 208, for example, may have received the highest score based on various factors, such as its close proximity to the driver's current location and the driver's preference for the type of gas (e.g., diesel) offered at gas station 208.”)
and when determining that the field to which the target POI belongs matches the preferred field of the user, transmitting to the terminal device a control command to display a specialized map specializing in information on the field to which the target POI belongs, instead of the standard map. (Chin, see at least [0038] “FIG. 3B illustrates a recommendation notification 306, which informs the driver that there is approximately 30 miles of gas remaining and inquires whether the driver wants to go to gas station 208 located 15 miles down route 202. The driver may respond to the inquiry in various ways, such as saying “yes” or pressing a specific button located on the steering wheel of vehicle 120. The location of vehicle 120 on route 202 when recommendation 306 is displayed to the driver corresponds to triangle as shown in FIG. 2 and described above. While FIG. 3B shows the recommendation notification 306 being displayed on the windshield of vehicle 120, it can be understood that the notification may also be displayed on a vehicle head unit, Which may be adjacent to the dashboard.”)
Regarding Claim 9, Chin in view of Kemp further discloses The information provision method according to claim 1, comprising, by the processor: (see rejection above)
determining whether or not the user has arrived at the target POI; and when determining that the user has arrived at the target POI, transmitting to a terminal device of the user a control command to display a specialized map specializing in information on the field to which the target POI belongs. (Chin, see at least [0056] “FIG. 7A illustrates the first prompt to the driver when the driver parks vehicle 120 at parking location 702 on nature preserve 212. A computing device, such as mobile computer 110 (which may be a smartphone, as shown), indicates that the driver has parked and inquires whether the driver would like to “check-in.” By pressing the “YES” button, the driver checks-in to the place of interest and arrival time is recorded. In some instances, if the computing device cannot specifically pinpoint the location associated with the place of interest, it may prompt the user to select the correct place from a list of places. As illustrated in FIG. 7B, the list of places may include nature preserve 212, lake park 704 (which may be a nearby park), and hiking trail 706 (which may be a nearby hiking trail). The driver may select nature preserve 212.”)
As per claim 10, the claim is directed towards An information provision device comprising a processor configured to provide information to a user that recites similar limitations performed by An information provision method performed by a processor configured to provide information to a user of claim 1. The cited portions of Chin and Kemp used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same limitations of claim 10. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20120197524 – Methods and systems are provided for generating an electronic map display. In one implementation, a method is provided for determining a route distance based on information for a route, comparing the route distance with a distance threshold, defining a search area when the route distance is less than the distance threshold, the search area including boundaries, calculating, using a processor, a points of interest (POI) density of the search area, comparing the POI density with a first density threshold and a second density threshold, adjusting the boundaries of the search area based on a result of comparing the POI density with the first density threshold and the second density threshold, identifying POIs in the adjusted search area, and providing POI information for an electronic map display, the POI information being associated with one or more POIs identified in the adjusted search area.
US 20160061617 A1 – Systems and methods disclosed herein may include providing search results. A route offset may be determined, where the route offset at least in part defines a search area for a route. A search result may be received from a point-of-interest (POI) search within the search area. The search result may include a set of POIs associated with a POI category. The set of POIs in the search result may be ranked based at least in part on route disruption criteria. The route disruption criteria for a given one of the POIs may measure additional travel if the route is changed to include the given POI. One or more of the ranked set of POIs may be presented. A selection of the POI category and a mode of transportation for the route may be received. The mode of transportation may include one of driving, bicycling, traveling by public transportation, or walking.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-5PM.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights