Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 18/882,952 and the amendments filed on 5/7/2026.
3. Claims 1 and 3-10 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/12/2024 has been fully considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, filed 5/7/2026, with respect to the objection to claim 1 for minor informalities have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 2/25/2026 has been withdrawn.
6. Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, filed 5/7/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 101 of 2/25/2026 has been withdrawn.
7. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner agrees that US 20150348112 A1 to Ramanujam fails to teach all of the amended limitations of claim 1. However, in light of the amendments and the Applicant’s remarks, an updated search was conducted, and a new ground of rejection concerning claim 1 has been determined, in which will be described later.
Regarding dependent claim 2, this claim has been cancelled, and thus, is withdrawn from further consideration.
Regarding dependent claim 3, as this claim depends from claim 1, is still rejected, in which will be described later.
8. Applicant's arguments filed 5/7/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding dependent claim 4, the Applicant argues that applied reference US 20190120654 A1 to Todasco fails to teach the concept of assigning a higher priming estimate for points of interest of same type as the contracted business, arguing that the sponsored route of Todasco provides no details of the type of business along this sponsored route. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation, the points of interest of the same “type” as the contracted business must have some relation to the contracted business. One of ordinary skill in the art may presume that two competing coffee shops are of the same type of business because the two coffee shops both sell coffee. One of ordinary skill in the art may also presume a coffee shop and a smoothie shop are of the same type of business because the two shops both sell drinks. To this effect, the definition of “type” as recited in claim 4 is broad, and lacks further detail narrowing the qualifications of how points of interest may not be of the same type as the contracted business. Cited paragraph [0018] of Todasco states “In this regard, an entity wishing to advertise may request that the service provided set route selection criteria so that a determined route, as discussed above, may be selected and/or determined based on advertisements, products, or other visual and physical items along the route provide advertisements associated with or requested by the entity.” (emphasis added) By the points of interest of Todasco being associated with the advertising entity, the Examiner submits that these points of interest are of the same type as the contracted business, as they have relation towards one another, as “type” is interpreted above. Therefore, claim 4 is still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, in which will also be described further below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanujam (US 20150348112 A1 hereinafter Ramanujam) in view of Meyer et al. (US 20180058863 A1 hereinafter Meyer) and Todasco et al. (US 20190120654 A1 hereinafter Todasco).
Regarding Claim 1, Ramanujam teaches a vehicle comprising: a processor ([0054] via “In particular, one or more processors of the autonomous vehicle 310 ….”), programmed to:
receive pickup and drop-off locations of a passenger ([0030] via “In one example, the autonomous vehicle 110 may be instructed (e.g., by a user) to travel from the starting location to the destination.”);
negotiate a contract with a business ([0061] via “For example, the server 320 may facilitate a real-time bidding auction between the business entities when determining which candidate route is to be provided to the autonomous vehicle 310, and consequently, which advertisement 324 is to be provided to the autonomous vehicle 310. … The bidding process may be performed, and a particular business entity may submit the highest bid and win the auction. Therefore, the server 320 may generate the route such that the route is in proximity to the business entity that wins the bidding auction.”);
responsive to reaching the contract with the business ([0061] via “Therefore, the server 320 may generate the route such that the route is in proximity to the business entity that wins the bidding auction.”), ([0062] via “In order to determine which of the three routes to provide to the autonomous vehicle 310, the server 320 may initiate a bidding auction between the pizza place, the sandwich shop, and the movie rental store. … Therefore, the pizza place may win the bidding auction over the sandwich shop and the movie rental store.”); and
[[responsive to the priming estimates]], select one of the plurality of routes contained in a geographic area reachable by the vehicle within a time constraint defined by the pickup and drop-off locations ([0053] via “In one example, the server 320 may generate the route to be within a predefined threshold of a shortest-distance route and/or a shortest-time route between the starting location and the destination. For example, the server 320 may generate the route so that the autonomous vehicle 310 may drive by several entities of interest, but the route may be within a certain distance or time limit. … As another non-limiting example, the server 320 may generate the route to be within five minutes of a shortest-time route between the starting location and the destination.”), and
an autonomous driving controller ([0046] via “The control module 282 ….”) programmed to:
perform autonomous driving operations to execute the selected route ([0046] via “The control module 282 may be configured to provide commands to drive the autonomous vehicle 205 to the destination according to the route. … In particular, the control module 282
may provide commands to the autonomous vehicle's actuators, thereby controlling steering, acceleration, braking and throttle of the autonomous vehicle 205.”).
Ramanujam is silent on negotiating the contract with a business within a predefined distance from the drop-off location; calculate priming estimates associated with a plurality of routes using points of interest along the plurality of routes, wherein the priming estimates are indicative of effectiveness of promoting contracted business; and wherein the (selected) route is associated with the highest priming estimate.
However, Meyer teaches negotiating the contract with a business within a predefined distance from the drop-off location ([0072] via “The server system accesses information on physical locations to identify the locations of interest within the geographic area determined using the geographic proximity parameter. … For example, if the desired destination is a restaurant and the time is currently mid-evening, the server system can identify dessert establishments near the restaurant as suggestions for dessert options after the user has eaten dinner.”), ([0073] via “In some implementations, businesses can pay to be promoted as suggested locations of interest. ... For example, a particular bookstore can identify that it is willing to pay to be promoted as a location of interest when the user has entered a desired destination of another bookstore, a library, or a coffee shop within two miles of the particular bookstore. In some implementations, businesses can enter an auction for placement as suggested locations of interest. Bids in the placement auction could be weighted by other factors, such as proximity of a particular location to the original desired destination.”).
Further, Todasco teaches to calculate priming estimates associated with a plurality of routes using points of interest along the plurality of routes ([0018] via “In this regard, an entity wishing to advertise may request that the service provider set route selection criteria so that a determined route, as discussed above, may be selected and/or determined based on advertisements, products, or other visual and physical items along the route provide advertisements associated with or requested by the entity. Such a route may correspond to a “sponsored” route, or a route that an entity wishes to sponsor for use so that visual advertisements may be seen by users on the travel route. … Thus, the requested advertisements may correspond to visual sights along the sponsored travel route that a user may view while traveling on the travel route.”), ([0064] via “Service provider processing environment 1000 may utilize location map 1004 with start geo-location 1006 and destination geo-location 1008 with route selection criteria 1016 to determine a route A 1010 and a route B 1012. For example, object 1014a, object 1014b, and object 1014c may correspond to advertisements, points of interest, or other visible objects that may be seen by a user when traveling along a travel route. Route selection criteria 1016 may be used to select one of route A 1010 or route B 1012 based on route selection criteria indicating that the user traveling from start geo-location 1006 to destination geo-location 1008 should view one or more of objects 1014a-c.”), (Note: See Figure 2A of Todasco as well. The Examiner interprets the visual and physical advertisements of Todasco as the points of interest.), wherein the priming estimates are indicative of effectiveness of promoting contracted business ([0051] via “Advertisement application 122 may … to establish route selection criteria, including visible advertisements along travel routes and requests for travel route selection to see the advertisements, as well as other points of interest set by entities with service provider server 120. … The advertisement or other information (e.g., location data, etc.) may be communicated to service provider server 120 so that a travel route may be mapped that makes the advertisement or point of interest visible when traveling by the object on a travel route. … The advertisements and/or points of interest may therefore make visible the particular object to a passing user, such as user 102, when that user travels along the travel route output on map application 112.”); and
wherein the (selected) route is associated with the highest priming estimate ([0072] via “Area 2003 further includes visual advertisement 2008a and visual advertisement 2008b. Thus, an advertisement setting, campaign, or other preference set for route selection criteria may be used to determine sponsored route 2010 between map point A 2004 and map point B 2006 that allows a user traveling on sponsored route 2010 to view visual advertisements
2008a and 2008b. Thus, sponsored route 2010 may be longer than a more direct route between map point A 2004 and map point B 2006 but may be determined and selected based on route selection criteria that dictates the user should view visual advertisements 2008a and
2008.”), (Note: See paragraphs [0065] of Todasco as well.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Meyer of negotiating the contract with a business within a predefined distance from the drop-off location. Doing so negotiates contracts with and provides advertisements to passengers of businesses where the passenger is more likely to travel to the contracted businesses, since the contracted businesses are relatively nearby to the destination, as stated by Meyer ([0071] via “The geographic proximity parameter can be, for example, a distance from the desired destination, a distance form any portion of the route, a distance from the current location of the user's device 202, or a distance from particular spots along the route to the desired destination. The distance for the geographic proximity parameter can be the same for all users, or can be based on factors such as past historic activity of the user, preference information for the user, or factors related to the general geographic area. For example, past user historic activity might indicate that the user is willing to travel up to 1.5 miles by foot. The distance for the geographic proximity parameter can be set to 1.5 miles based on this information.”).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Todasco to calculate priming estimates associated with a plurality of routes using points of interest along the plurality of routes, wherein the priming estimates are indicative of effectiveness of promoting contracted business; and wherein the (selected) route is associated with the highest priming estimate. Doing so provides travel routes that not only provide the advertisements of the contracted business, as stated above by Todasco in paragraph [0018], but that also contain more advertisements that it is determined the user should view, as stated above by Todasco in paragraph [0072].
Regarding Claim 3, modified reference Ramanujam teaches the vehicle of claim 1, but is silent on the vehicle further comprising a telematics controller programmed to connect the processor with a wireless network.
However, Todasco teaches a telematics controller programmed to connect the processor with a wireless network ([0085] via “In one embodiment, the transmission is wireless, although other transmission mediums and methods may also be suitable. One or more processors 512, which can be a micro-controller, digital signal processor (DSP), or other processing component, processes these various signals, such as for display on computer system 500 or transmission to other devices via a communication link 518. Processor(s) 512
may also control transmission of information, such as cookies or IP addresses, to other devices.”), (Note: See Figure 5 of Todasco as well. The Examiner interprets communication link 518 of Todasco as the telematics controller.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Todasco wherein the vehicle further comprises a telematics controller programmed to connect the processor with a wireless network. Doing so allows for and controls the transmission of data from the processor to other devices, facilitating communication between them, as recited above by Todasco and depicted in Figure 5 of Todasco.
Regarding Claim 4, modified reference Ramanujam teaches the vehicle of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the processor is further programmed to assign a higher priming estimate for points of interest of same type as the contracted business.
However, Todasco teaches wherein the processor is further programmed to assign a higher priming estimate for points of interest of same type as the contracted business ([0018] via “In various embodiments, the route selection criteria may include or correspond to advertisements and/or an advertisement campaign by an advertiser associated with the application/service provider or a partnered entity with the service provider that requests or purchases advertisement services provided by the application/service provider. In this regard, an entity wishing to advertise may request that the service provider set route selection criteria so that a determined route, as discussed above, may be selected and/or determined based on advertisements, products, or other visual and physical items along the route provide advertisements associated with or requested by the entity. … Thus, the requested advertisements may correspond to visual sights along the sponsored travel route that a user may view while traveling on the travel route. The route selection criteria may therefore select routes that include the advertisements or visual sights, and may select or determine a travel route having more or the most advertisements over another travel route, provided the determined travel route meets other required travel restrictions/settings (e.g., within a maximum time/distance variation). Thus, the service provider may set the route selection criteria to correspond to advertisement preferences along a travel route, which may select travel routes based on an advertisement campaign.”), (Note: See interpretation of claim 4 above under the “Response to Arguments” section of the Office Action.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Todasco wherein the processor is further programmed to assign a higher priming estimate for points of interest of same type as the contracted business. Doing so balances the route traveled such that it satisfies the obligations of the passenger and the contracted businesses, as stated above by Todasco.
Regarding Claim 5, modified reference Ramanujam teaches the vehicle of claim 4, but is silent on wherein the selected route is associated with a highest number of points of interest of same type as the contracted business.
However, Todasco teaches wherein the selected route is associated with a highest number of points of interest ([0072] via “Area 2003 further includes visual advertisement
2008a and visual advertisement 2008b. Thus, an advertisement setting, campaign, or other preference set for route selection criteria may be used to determine sponsored route 2010
between map point A 2004 and map point B 2006 that allows a user traveling on sponsored route 2010 to view visual advertisements 2008a and 2008b. Thus, sponsored route 2010 may be longer than a more direct route between map point A 2004 and map point B 2006 but may be determined and selected based on route selection criteria that dictates the user should view visual advertisements 2008a and 2008.”), (Note: See paragraphs [0065] of Todasco as well.) of same type as the contracted business ([0018] via “In this regard, an entity wishing to advertise may request that the service provider set route selection criteria so that a determined route, as discussed above, may be selected and/or determined based on advertisements, products, or other visual and physical items along the route provide advertisements associated with or requested by the entity. Such a route may correspond to a “sponsored” route, or a route that an entity wishes to sponsor for use so that visual advertisements may be seen by users on the travel route.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Todasco wherein the selected route is associated with a highest number of points of interest of same type as the contracted business. Doing so provides a travel route that not only provides the advertisements of the contracted business, as stated above by Todasco in paragraph [0018], but that also contain more advertisements that it is determined the user should view, as stated above by Todasco in paragraph [0072].
Regarding Claim 6, modified reference Ramanujam teaches the vehicle of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the points of interest are not the contracted business.
However, Todasco teaches wherein the points of interest are not the contracted business ([0020] via “In various embodiments, the user information used to determine points of interest may be used in conjunction with an advertisement requested by an entity or an established advertisement campaign, as discussed above, to select travel routes with advertisements of interest to the user. For example, if an entity wishes to advertise a brand of cars and the user is interested in a new car purchase, a travel route having advertisements for that brand of cars and/or including those cars (e.g., parked along the street or at purchasers homes) may be determined.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the cars of Todasco as the points of interest in this scenario. The Examiner notes that while the cars of Todasco are of the same brand as the contracted business, the cars themselves are not a business. The parked cars are not for sale and cannot be purchased, thus, the street or homes where these cars are parked do not qualify as businesses.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Todasco wherein the points of interest are not the contracted business. Doing so provides products along the route that the passenger may wish to purchase from the contracted business, further promoting the contracted business, as stated by Todasco ([0020] via “Thus, the user information and/or preferences may correspond to items that the user wishes to purchase (or rent), and may correspond to an item type, brand, specific single item, or other item parameter, which may be matched to an advertisement or advertisement campaign along a travel route to determine a travel route based on such user information/preferences in items.”).
Regarding Claim 7, Ramanujam teaches a method comprising: receiving pickup and drop-off locations for a vehicle ([0030] via “In one example, the autonomous vehicle 110 may be instructed (e.g., by a user) to travel from the starting location to the destination.”);
negotiating a contract with a business ([0061] via “For example, the server 320 may facilitate a real-time bidding auction between the business entities when determining which candidate route is to be provided to the autonomous vehicle 310, and consequently, which advertisement 324 is to be provided to the autonomous vehicle 310. … The bidding process may be performed, and a particular business entity may submit the highest bid and win the auction. Therefore, the server 320 may generate the route such that the route is in proximity to the business entity that wins the bidding auction.”);
responsive to reaching the contract with the business ([0061] via “Therefore, the server 320 may generate the route such that the route is in proximity to the business entity that wins the bidding auction.”), ([0062] via “In order to determine which of the three routes to provide to the autonomous vehicle 310, the server 320 may initiate a bidding auction between the pizza place, the sandwich shop, and the movie rental store. … Therefore, the pizza place may win the bidding auction over the sandwich shop and the movie rental store.”); and
selecting a route from the plurality of routes ([0061] via “In one configuration, the server 320 may identify a set of candidate routes or potential routes for the autonomous vehicle 310 to take based on the starting location and the destination.”), ([0087] via “The autonomous vehicle may be configured to select a route for traveling from a current location associated with the autonomous vehicle to a destination, as in block 710.”) contained in a geographic area defined by the pickup and drop-off location ([0053] via “In one example, the server 320 may generate the route to be within a predefined threshold of a shortest-distance route and/or a shortest-time route between the starting location and the destination.”), and
performing autonomous driving operations to execute the selected route ([0046] via “The control module 282 may be configured to provide commands to drive the autonomous vehicle 205 to the destination according to the route. … In particular, the control module 282
may provide commands to the autonomous vehicle's actuators, thereby controlling steering, acceleration, braking and throttle of the autonomous vehicle 205.”).
Ramanujam is silent on negotiating the contract with a business within a predefined distance from the drop-off location; calculating priming estimates associated with a plurality of routes using points of interest along the plurality of routes, wherein the priming estimates are indicative of effectiveness of promoting contracted business; and selecting the route with the highest priming estimate from the plurality of routes.
However, Meyer teaches negotiating the contract with a business within a predefined distance from the drop-off location ([0072] via “The server system accesses information on physical locations to identify the locations of interest within the geographic area determined using the geographic proximity parameter. … For example, if the desired destination is a restaurant and the time is currently mid-evening, the server system can identify dessert establishments near the restaurant as suggestions for dessert options after the user has eaten dinner.”), ([0073] via “In some implementations, businesses can pay to be promoted as suggested locations of interest. ... For example, a particular bookstore can identify that it is willing to pay to be promoted as a location of interest when the user has entered a desired destination of another bookstore, a library, or a coffee shop within two miles of the particular bookstore. In some implementations, businesses can enter an auction for placement as suggested locations of interest. Bids in the placement auction could be weighted by other factors, such as proximity of a particular location to the original desired destination.”).
Further, Todasco teaches calculating priming estimates associated with a plurality of routes using points of interest along the plurality of routes ([0018] via “In this regard, an entity wishing to advertise may request that the service provider set route selection criteria so that a determined route, as discussed above, may be selected and/or determined based on advertisements, products, or other visual and physical items along the route provide advertisements associated with or requested by the entity. Such a route may correspond to a “sponsored” route, or a route that an entity wishes to sponsor for use so that visual advertisements may be seen by users on the travel route. … Thus, the requested advertisements may correspond to visual sights along the sponsored travel route that a user may view while traveling on the travel route.”), ([0064] via “Service provider processing environment 1000 may utilize location map 1004 with start geo-location 1006 and destination geo-location 1008 with route selection criteria 1016 to determine a route A 1010 and a route B 1012. For example, object 1014a, object 1014b, and object 1014c may correspond to advertisements, points of interest, or other visible objects that may be seen by a user when traveling along a travel route. Route selection criteria 1016 may be used to select one of route A 1010 or route B 1012 based on route selection criteria indicating that the user traveling from start geo-location 1006 to destination geo-location 1008 should view one or more of objects 1014a-c.”), (Note: See Figure 2A of Todasco as well. The Examiner interprets the visual and physical advertisements of Todasco as the points of interest.), wherein the priming estimates are indicative of effectiveness of promoting contracted business ([0051] via “Advertisement application 122 may … to establish route selection criteria, including visible advertisements along travel routes and requests for travel route selection to see the advertisements, as well as other points of interest set by entities with service provider server 120. … The advertisement or other information (e.g., location data, etc.) may be communicated to service provider server 120 so that a travel route may be mapped that makes the advertisement or point of interest visible when traveling by the object on a travel route. … The advertisements and/or points of interest may therefore make visible the particular object to a passing user, such as user 102, when that user travels along the travel route output on map application 112.”); and
selecting the route with the highest priming estimate from the plurality of routes ([0072] via “Area 2003 further includes visual advertisement 2008a and visual advertisement
2008b. Thus, an advertisement setting, campaign, or other preference set for route selection criteria may be used to determine sponsored route 2010 between map point A 2004 and map point B 2006 that allows a user traveling on sponsored route 2010 to view visual advertisements 2008a and 2008b. Thus, sponsored route 2010 may be longer than a more direct route between map point A 2004 and map point B 2006 but may be determined and selected based on route selection criteria that dictates the user should view visual advertisements 2008a and 2008.”), (Note: See paragraphs [0065] of Todasco as well.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Meyer wherein the method comprises: negotiating the contract with a business within a predefined distance from the drop-off location. Doing so negotiates contracts with and provides advertisements to passengers of businesses where the passenger is more likely to travel to the contracted businesses, since the contracted businesses are relatively nearby to the destination, as stated by Meyer ([0071] via “The geographic proximity parameter can be, for example, a distance from the desired destination, a distance form any portion of the route, a distance from the current location of the user's device 202, or a distance from particular spots along the route to the desired destination. The distance for the geographic proximity parameter can be the same for all users, or can be based on factors such as past historic activity of the user, preference information for the user, or factors related to the general geographic area. For example, past user historic activity might indicate that the user is willing to travel up to 1.5 miles by foot. The distance for the geographic proximity parameter can be set to 1.5 miles based on this information.”).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Todasco wherein the method comprises: calculating priming estimates associated with a plurality of routes using points of interest along the plurality of routes, wherein the priming estimates are indicative of effectiveness of promoting contracted business; and selecting the route with the highest priming estimate from the plurality of routes. Doing so provides travel routes that not only provide the advertisements of the contracted business, as stated above by Todasco in paragraph [0018], but that also contain more advertisements that it is determined the user should view, as stated above by Todasco in paragraph [0072].
Regarding Claim 8, modified reference Ramanujam teaches the method of claim 7, but is silent on the method further comprising: assigning a higher priming estimate for points of interest of same type as the contracted business.
However, Todasco teaches assigning a higher priming estimate for points of interest of same type as the contracted business ([0018] via “In various embodiments, the route selection criteria may include or correspond to advertisements and/or an advertisement campaign by an advertiser associated with the application/service provider or a partnered entity with the service provider that requests or purchases advertisement services provided by the application/service provider. In this regard, an entity wishing to advertise may request that the service provider set route selection criteria so that a determined route, as discussed above, may be selected and/or determined based on advertisements, products, or other visual and physical items along the route provide advertisements associated with or requested by the entity. … Thus, the requested advertisements may correspond to visual sights along the sponsored travel route that a user may view while traveling on the travel route. The route selection criteria may therefore select routes that include the advertisements or visual sights, and may select or determine a travel route having more or the most advertisements over another travel route, provided the determined travel route meets other required travel restrictions/settings (e.g., within a maximum time/distance variation). Thus, the service provider may set the route selection criteria to correspond to advertisement preferences along a travel route, which may select travel routes based on an advertisement campaign.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Todasco wherein the method further comprises: assigning a higher priming estimate for points of interest of same type as the contracted business. Doing so balances the route traveled such that it satisfies the obligations of the passenger and the contracted businesses, as stated above by Todasco.
Regarding Claim 9, modified reference Ramanujam teaches the method of claim 8, but is silent on wherein the selected route is associated with a highest number of points of interest of same type as the contracted business.
However, Todasco teaches wherein the selected route is associated with a highest number of points of interest ([0072] via “Area 2003 further includes visual advertisement
2008a and visual advertisement 2008b. Thus, an advertisement setting, campaign, or other preference set for route selection criteria may be used to determine sponsored route 2010
between map point A 2004 and map point B 2006 that allows a user traveling on sponsored route 2010 to view visual advertisements 2008a and 2008b. Thus, sponsored route 2010 may be longer than a more direct route between map point A 2004 and map point B 2006 but may be determined and selected based on route selection criteria that dictates the user should view visual advertisements 2008a and 2008.”), (Note: See paragraphs [0065] of Todasco as well.) of same type as the contracted business ([0018] via “In this regard, an entity wishing to advertise may request that the service provider set route selection criteria so that a determined route, as discussed above, may be selected and/or determined based on advertisements, products, or other visual and physical items along the route provide advertisements associated with or requested by the entity. Such a route may correspond to a “sponsored” route, or a route that an entity wishes to sponsor for use so that visual advertisements may be seen by users on the travel route.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Todasco wherein the selected route is associated with a highest number of points of interest of same type as the contracted business. Doing so provides a travel route that not only provides the advertisements of the contracted business, as stated above by Todasco in paragraph [0018], but that also contain more advertisements that it is determined the user should view, as stated above by Todasco in paragraph [0072].
Regarding Claim 10, modified reference Ramanujam teaches the method of claim 7, but is silent on wherein the points of interest and the contracted business are separate entities.
However, Todasco teaches wherein the points of interest and the contracted business are separate entities ([0020] via “In various embodiments, the user information used to determine points of interest may be used in conjunction with an advertisement requested by an entity or an established advertisement campaign, as discussed above, to select travel routes with advertisements of interest to the user. For example, if an entity wishes to advertise a brand of cars and the user is interested in a new car purchase, a travel route having advertisements for that brand of cars and/or including those cars (e.g., parked along the street or at purchasers homes) may be determined.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the cars of Todasco as the points of interest in this scenario. The Examiner notes that while the cars of Todasco are of the same brand as the contracted business, the cars themselves are not a business. The street and homes where these cars are parked are separate physical locations (i.e., entities) than the contracted business, and thus qualify as being separate entities.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Todasco wherein the points of interest and the contracted business are separate entities. Doing so provides products along the route that the passenger may wish to purchase from the contracted business, further promoting the contracted business, as stated by Todasco ([0020] via “Thus, the user information and/or preferences may correspond to items that the user wishes to purchase (or rent), and may correspond to an item type, brand, specific single item, or other item parameter, which may be matched to an advertisement or advertisement campaign along a travel route to determine a travel route based on such user information/preferences in items.”).
Examiner’s Note
12. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the
references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references
in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the
context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP
2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole,
including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Conclusion
13. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to BYRON X KASPER whose telephone number is (571)272-3895.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm 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, Adam Mott can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/BYRON XAVIER KASPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/JONATHAN L SAMPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights