CTFR 18/932,317 CTFR 89494 DETAILED ACTION Status This communication is in response to Applicant’s “AMENDMENT” filed on May 11, 2026 (hereinafter “Amendment”). In the Amendment, Applicant amended Claims 1-2 and 16-17; cancelled no claim(s); and added no claim(s). Therefore, Claims 1-20 remain pending and presented for examination. Of the pending claims, Claims 1 and 16 are independent claims. Original Claims 1-20 were originally presented by Applicant and, therefore, have been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits per MPEP § 819 and MPEP § 821.03. The present application (U.S. App. No. 18/932,317) and its parent application (i.e., Korean App. No. 10-2024-0039239) were both filed after March 16, 2013; and, therefore, this application is being examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA). Examiner notes that this case (i.e., U.S. App. No. 18/932,317) has published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0299224 of Chi Hwan Kim (hereinafter “ Kim ”). Priority / Benefit Claim No U.S. domestic benefit claim has been made in this application. Foreign priority has been claimed in this application to Korean Patent Application Number 10-2024-0039239 filed on March 21, 2024 (see ADS filed on 10/30/2024). A certified copy of the Korean priority document was received electronically at the USPTO on December 8, 2024. Response to Amendments A Summary of the Response to Applicant’s Amendment: Applicant’s Amendment overcomes drawing objections; therefore, the Examiner withdraws the drawing objections. Applicant’s Amendment introduces new rejections to Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of the AIA; therefore, the Examiner asserts new rejections to Claims 1-20 under § 112(b) of the AIA, as provided below. Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome rejections to Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; therefore, the Examiner asserts/maintains § 101 rejections to Claims 1-20, as provided below. Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome the prior art rejections to Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of the AIA; therefore, the Examiner maintains/asserts § 103 rejections to Claims 1-20, as provided below. Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see Examiner’s “Response to Arguments” provided below. Drawings See MPEP § 608.02(g). Examiner notes Figure 5 of Applicant’s drawings is substantively identical to Figure 5 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0080437 (“ Kang” ), but Kang has neither an inventor nor an applicant is shared in common with Kim . Similarly, Figure 5 of Applicant’s drawings is substantively identical to Figure 5 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0403025 of Eun Sang NOH (“ NOH” ), which was filed in 2023, but NOH has no inventor(s) in common with Kim . CPC Classification Notes Examiner notes the following CPC classifications as being related to this case: G06Q 30/00 Commerce G06Q 30/02 • Marketing; Price estimation or determination… G06Q 30/0241 •• Advertisements G06Q 30/0251 ••• Targeted advertisements G06Q 30/0255 •••• based on user history G06Q 30/0259 •••• based on store location G06Q 30/0261 •••• based on user location G06Q 30/0269 •••• based on user profile or attribute G06Q 30/0271 ••••• Personalized advertisement * * * * * * * * * * * * G06Q 30/00 Commerce G06Q 30/06 • Buying, selling or leasing transactions G06Q 30/0601 •• Electronic shopping [e-shopping] G06Q 30/0631 ••• Recommending goods or services G06Q 30/06311 •••• based on purchase or browsing history G06Q 30/06312 •••• based on similarity with other shoppers G06Q 30/06313 •••• based on similarity of goods or services, e.g. substitute or alternate goods… G06Q 30/06314 •••• by determining complementary or compatible goods… e.g. accessory goods * * * * * * * * * * * * G01C 21/00 Navigation G01C 21/26 • specially adapted for navigation in a road network G01C 21/34 •• Route searching G01C 21/3453 ••• Special cost functions G01C 21/3476 •••• using point of interest [POI] information, e.g. a route passing visible POIs G01C 21/3484 •••• Personalized, e.g. from learned user behaviour or user-defined profiles Claim Objections Independent Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical errors: Claim 16 recites a set of operational elements (i.e., search…, transmit…, and …receive…, display…); however, Claim 16 lacks a conjunction (e.g., “and”) between the last 3 rd and 4 th operations recited in Claim 16. More specifically, Claim 16 each lacks a conjunction (e.g., “and”) between claim elements “receive…,” and “display…” — similar to how Claim 1 recites the word “and” between operations “extract…, and transmit,….” (underlining emphasis added to Claim 1). Appropriate correction(s) is required. In addition, regarding Claim 16, the word “and” (recited in Claim 16) needs to be deleted between the 2 nd and 3 rd operational elements (i.e., “transmit” and “receive”) recited in independent Claim 16. Appropriate correction(s) is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the America Invents Act (AIA): (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. Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Independent Claims 1 and 16 recite the phrase “reachable on foot”; however, the phrase “reachable on foot” is not defined by any claim — there is no objective standard for what locations would be “reachable on foot” and what locations would not be “reachable on foot” — and claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular user or individual. Thus, Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Furthermore, what locations are “reachable on foot” is not only subjective to an individual, but may also be temporal in that whether one decides a location is “reachable on foot” may change with time – from season to season (e.g., winter-to-summer), or year to year. For example, what is “reachable on foot” may depend on terrain conditions around the locations (e.g., rough mountainous terrain) and, therefore, leaves room for ambiguity in claim scope. In addition, what locations are “reachable on foot” may differ from one user compared to another user (e.g., an athletic person who can walk 15 km can have a very different option of what is “reachable on foot” than a handicap person, for instance), which makes Applicant’s claim scope neither clear nor precise. MPEP § 2173.05(b) notes that “[f]or some facially subjective terms, the definiteness requirement is not satisfied by merely offering examples that satisfy the term within the specification.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1261, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1108 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Independent Claims 1 and 16 each require the exercise of subjective human judgment and, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be sufficiently apprised of the scope of Applicant’s claimed invention. Therefore, independent Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under § 112(b) as being indefinite. Appropriate correction(s) is required to each of Applicant’s independent claims. In addition, independent Claim 16 twice introduces the phrase “card payment history” and then subsequently introduce recitations of “ the card payment history” (bolding emphasis added); therefore, it is unclear as to what later-recited phrase “the card payment history” refers to in independent Claim 16 — insufficient antecedent basis exists for recitation of “the card payment history” in independent Claim 16. Therefore, Claims 16 is rejected under AIA § 112(b) as being indefinite. For example, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “the card payment history” (underlining emphasis added): (-1-) references the first-recited “a card payment history” recited in independent Claim 16; (-2-) references the later-introduced “card payment history” recited in the phrase “relating to the destination, extracted based on card payment history at the POIs” ; or (-3-) references both “card payment history” introduced in Claim 16. Hence, insufficient antecedent basis exists for “the card payment history” recited in Applicant’s Claim 16; and, therefore, independent Claim 16 is rejected under AIA § 112(b) as being indefinite. In addition, it is unclear as to whether first-recited “a card payment history” recited in Claim 16 is to be understood to be the same as “card payment history” recited in the phrase “relating to the destination, extracted based on card payment history at the POIs”, or whether they are to be different card payment histories. Therefore, Claim 16 is amenable to multiple plausible constructions and, Claim 16 is rejected under § 112(b) as being indefinite. Appropriate correction(s) is required. Claim 20 introduces the phrase “A vehicle” while Claim 16 also introduces “a vehicle” — “a vehicle” is twice introduced within the context of Claim 20 — and then there is a subsequently recitation of “ the vehicle” (bolding emphasis added); therefore, it is unclear as to what later-recited phrase “the vehicle” refers to in Claim 16 — insufficient antecedent basis exists for recitation of “the vehicle” recited in independent Claim 16 within the context of Claim 20 introducing “A vehicle”. Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected under AIA § 112(b) as being indefinite. For example, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “the vehicle” (see language recited in Claim 16): (-1-) references the first-recited “A vehicle” recited in Claim 20; (-2-) references the second-introduced “a vehicle”, as recited currently in independent Claim 16; or (-3-) references both “vehicles” introduced in Claims 16 and 20. Hence, insufficient antecedent basis exists for “the vehicle” recited in Applicant’s Claim 16 with respect to Claim 20; and, therefore, Claim 20 is rejected under AIA § 112(b) as being indefinite. In addition, it is unclear as to whether first-recited “A vehicle” recited in Claim 20 is to be understood to be the same as “a vehicle” recited in Claim 16, or whether they are to be different vehicles. Therefore, Claim 20 is amenable to multiple plausible constructions and, Claim 20 is rejected under § 112(b) as being indefinite. Appropriate correction(s) is required. Claims 2-15 depend from independent Claim 1, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore, Claims 2-15 are rejected under AIA § 112(b). Similarly, Claims 17-20 depend from independent Claim 16, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore, Claims 17-20 are rejected under AIA § 112(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP § 2111). In view of this standard and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-20 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Step 1 : Claims 1-20 appear to satisfy Step 1 enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International , 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Step 2A : Claims 1-20 are rejected under § 101 because Applicant’s claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this finding is that Applicant’s claims recite recommending points of interest (POIs) (e.g., shops, restaurants, stores, businesses, etc.) to a user(s) based on information about the user(s) (i.e., recited “destination” of the user(s) and “card payment history”), which is encompassed by contextual advertising/marketing being targeted to a user using contextual information of where the user is traveling to (i.e., recited “destination” of the user) , and where users have purchased in the past (i.e., via information from “card payment history” of users) —— which is consistent with Applicant’s published specification describing “recommending a point-of-interest (POI) relating to a destination based on card payment history” ( Kim at ¶ [0007]); “recommending a POI related to a destination based on card payment history” ( Kim at ¶ [0042]); “a method for recommending a POI related to a destination based on card payment history” ( Kim at ¶ [0092]); and “FIG. 5 is a block diagram… for recommending a POI relating to a destination based on card payment history” ( Kim at ¶ [0116]) —— as more particularly recited in Applicant’s pending claims save for recited (non-abstract claim elements): a terminal; (only Claim 1) a server comprising: at least one processor; and a storage medium storing a computer-readable instruction executable by the at least one processor to perform; (only Claims 16 and 20), a terminal comprising: at least one processor; and a storage medium storing a computer-readable instruction executable by the at least one processor to perform; (only Claim 19) the processor being configured to output; (only Claim 20) a vehicle comprising the terminal; and each of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of receiving, transmitting and displaying. However, contextual advertising/marketing that is targeted to users using contextual information of where a user is traveling to and based on past user payment history, such as recommending points of interest (POIs) to users based on information about the users , as currently recited in Applicant’s pending claims and further explained below, is within a certain method of organizing human activity — ( i) fundamental economic principle or practice; and/or ( ii) commercial interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) provides examples of “fundamental economic principles or practices” and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) provides additional discussion and examples of commercial or legal interactions. This judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea exception) is not integrated into a practical application because each claim as a whole, having the combination of additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception and, therefore, the pending claims are “directed to” a judicial exception under USPTO Step 2A. More specifically, each claim as a whole does not appear to reflect the combination of additional elements as: (1) improving the functioning of a computer itself or improving another technology or technical field, (2) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine/manufacture that is integral to the claim, (3) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (4) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Instead, any improvement is to the underlying abstract idea of suggesting or recommending points of interest (POIs) (e.g., shops, restaurants, stores, businesses, etc.) to a user(s) based on information about the user(s) (i.e., recited “destination” of the user(s) and “card payment history”). SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC , No. 2017-2081, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12590, Slip. Op. 13 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract realm.”). Although the Claims 9 and 14 mention “ranking” while Claims 8-9 and 12-14 compare numbers (e.g., “equal to or greater than a preset number”), these techniques are mathematical concepts in the form of formulas, equations, and calculations which also have been determined to constitute abstract ideas. See Memorandum, "Grouping of Abstract Ideas" and cases cited in footnote 12, such as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50). As noted on page 4 of the “October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” issued by the USPTO, Examiner notes that a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim, in light of the specification, encompasses one or more mathematical calculations. Applicant’s additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not appear to be integrated into a practical application since they embody mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, do no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a computer system including a terminal 110 and a server 120 as illustrated in Figure 1 of Applicant’s drawings and which Applicant calls “an entire system” that includes “a server and a terminal” per Kim at ¶ [0030]}, and amount to no more than combining the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of receiving, extracting, outputting, transmitting and displaying, as further explained below. Also see Kim at ¶ [0116] stating that Applicant’s “FIG. 5 is… a computing device 500 that may fully… implement a server 120 and a terminal 110”; however, Examiner notes that Figure 5 of Applicant’s drawings is substantively identical to Figure 5 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0080437 (“ Kang” ), but Kang has neither an inventor nor an applicant is shared in common with Applicant’s Kim . Similarly, Figure 5 of Applicant’s drawings is substantively identical to Figure 5 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0403025 (“ NOH” ), which was filed in 2023, but NOH has no inventor(s) in common with Applicant’s Kim . For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis of 35 U.S.C. 101. Step 2B : Under Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International , 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), Applicant’s instant claims do not recite limitations, taken individually and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because Applicant’s claims do not recite, as further explained in detail below, an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, an application with or by a particular machine, a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, unconventional steps confining the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Examiner also notes that albeit limitations recited in Applicant’s pending claims are performed by the generically recited “at least one processor”, these claim limitations taken individually and in combination are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer processor to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a computer system including a terminal 110 and a server 120 as illustrated in Figure 1 of Applicant’s drawings and which Applicant calls “an entire system” that includes “a server and a terminal” per Kim at ¶ [0030]} and no more than a combination of the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of receiving, extracting, outputting, transmitting and displaying, as further explained below. As mentioned above, the claim elements in addition to the abstract idea arguably include: a terminal; (only Claim 1) a server comprising: at least one processor; and a storage medium storing a computer-readable instruction executable by the at least one processor to perform; (only Claims 16 and 20), a terminal comprising: at least one processor; and a storage medium storing a computer-readable instruction executable by the at least one processor to perform; (only Claim 19) the processor being configured to output; (only Claim 20) a vehicle comprising the terminal; and each of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of receiving, transmitting and displaying. However, each of these components is recited at a high level of generality that taken individually and in combination perform corresponding generic computer functions of receiving, extracting, outputting, transmitting and displaying — there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology since the additional elements taken individually and collectively merely provide generic computer implementations known to the industry. Furthermore, Examiner notes that none of the processes/steps recited in the pending claims taken individually and in combination impose a meaningful limit on the claim’s scope since none of recited processes/steps taken individually and in combination involve activity that amounts to more than generic computer functions/activity. The steps/processes of receiving, extracting, outputting, transmitting and displaying, as currently recited individually and in combination in Applicant’s claims, are considered to be generic computer functions since they involve having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use previously known to the industry — each of the steps of receiving encompasses a data input/loading or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp ., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; see Ultramercial , 772 F.3d at 716 ‐ 17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc ., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc ., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc ., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)}; each of the steps of extracting encompasses a data recognition function or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “ Content Extraction ”, for data recognition); and each of the steps of transmitting, displaying (Claim 16), and outputting (Claim 19) encompasses a data output/transmittal function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Ultramercial , 772 F.3d at 716 ‐ 17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. , 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc ., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014)}. In addition, Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure mentions that “FIG. 5 is… a computing device 500 that may fully… implement a server 120 and a terminal 110” ( Kim at ¶ [0116]); however, Figure 5 of Applicant’s drawings is substantively identical to Figure 5 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0080437 (“ Kang” ), but Kang has neither an inventor nor an applicant is shared in common with Applicant’s Kim . Similarly, Figure 5 of Applicant’s drawings is substantively identical to Figure 5 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0403025 (“ NOH” ), which was filed in 2023 and qualifies as prior art under §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) of the America Invents Act (AIA), but NOH has no inventor(s) in common with Applicant’s Kim . See MPEP § 608.02(g). Examiner notes it may be worth being mindful of the “July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” document, at page 7, second and sixth bullet points (July 30, 2015) regarding various well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer. Page 11 of Applicant’s Amendment filed in May 2026 states that “Regarding FIG. 5,…. The illustrated components represent standard and well-known elements that are commonly used in the art to describe computing environments” (page 11 of Amendment). However, Examiner notes that employing well-known computer functions individually and in combination to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the computer-implemented abstract idea in Flook (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978)) to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims do not satisfy Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International , 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Consequently, based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. For information regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, please see Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instructional materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes guidance, memoranda, and updates regarding SME under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 (AIA) 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the AIA as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0110806 of Bahnsen et al. (hereinafter “ Bahnsen” ) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0130432 of Rick Unnerstall (hereinafter “ Unnerstall ”). Regarding Claim 1 , Bahnsen discloses a server for recommending points-of-interest (POIs) relating to a destination based on a payment history, comprising: at least one processor (e.g., Figure 1 of Bahnsen ; and Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0097]–[0101]) ; and a storage medium storing a computer-readable instruction, wherein the computer-readable instruction, when executed by the at least one processor, is configured to, by the at least one processor (e.g., Figure 1 of Bahnsen ; and Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0097]–[0101]) : receive, from a terminal mounted in a vehicle, a recommendation request including the destination (e.g., “users request navigation directions that guide the user to a desired destination…. devices embedded in vehicles…provide step-by-step navigation instructions” and “navigation/maps software… providing experience-focused navigation sessions for users” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0003] and [0015]; “user computing device 102 may be… mounted in a vehicle, embedded into a vehicle” and “user computing device… initiate a first navigation session utilizing the navigation application 108… providing a first set of navigation instructions… to a destination location (e.g., a first POI)” and “sequence of POIs that logically fit together into an extended navigation session…. may be recommended to users or requested by users” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0031], [0054] and [0027]; “a new destination or one they have been to before” such as “For example, a user may arrive in a… city, and… generate several experience recommendations that each include at least one POI for the user based on the user's data…. The user's data may indicate that the user frequently visits seafood restaurants and jazz clubs… so… may generate an experience recommendation featuring a seafood restaurant and a jazz club in the new city for the user to experience” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0008] and [0028]; “the user may be visiting a museum…of the suggested experience…. prompt the user to potentially proceed to the next POI…. have a quick coffee at a nearby café…. suggest experiences directed toward alternate activities that may interest the user after dining at the café, such as a walking tour of a city historic district or boutique shopping locations” — Bahnsen at ¶ [0060]; and Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0054]–[0055]) ; extract, based on receiving the recommendation request, the POIs relating to the destination, based on the payment history at the POIs (e.g., “accessing relevant historical and real-time information for each individual POI to generate an experience-focused navigation session that is tailored for each individual user” such as “purchase and location histories of the user to identify user preferences related to activities/experiences” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0009] and [0049]; “preferences correspond to a purchase history of a user….” such as, for example, “the… user preferences may indicate that the user frequently buys artwork and pizza, and that the user has visited local blues bars, art museums, and Italian restaurants in various locations that are different from the user's home city/town…. use this general information to generate a semantic mapping that heavily features art, food, and music. For each of these categories, the semantic mapping may further include sub-categories referencing a particular type of artwork enjoyed by the user (e.g., watercolors…etc.), a particular type of food enjoyed by the user (e.g., pizza, Italian, etc.), and/or a particular type of music enjoyed by the user (e.g., blues, pop,…etc.), to the extent that such information is included as part of the … user preferences and the location history of the user” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0080]–[0081]; and Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0028] and [0060]) ; and transmit, to the terminal, the extracted POIs (e.g., “a navigation application… provide navigation directions… an interactive digital map… points-of-interest (POIs), and… etc.” — Bahnsen at ¶ [0032]; “instruct the user computing device 102 to display …all of the POIs included as part of the suggested experience” — Bahnsen at ¶ [0066]; “generate several experience recommendations that each include at least one POI for the user based on the user's data…. generate an experience recommendation featuring a seafood restaurant and a jazz club…for the user to experience” — Bahnsen at ¶ [0028]; “visiting a museum… suggested experience…. prompt the user to potentially proceed to the next POI…. suggest experiences directed toward alternate activities that may interest the user after dining at the café, such as a walking tour of a city historic district or boutique shopping locations” — Bahnsen at ¶ [0060]; “obtain navigation instructions to each of the POIs included as part of the suggested experience” and “suggested experience may include POIs, directions to each of the POIs, a duration spent performing the suggested experience, approximate times spent at each of the POIs, and… any other suitable information” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0039] and [0047]; and Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0032], [0057] and [0080]–[0081]) , wherein the destination is a location where a user temporarily parks the vehicle to visit at least one of the POIs (e.g., Examiner notes recited “a user” can be different from, or unrelated to, a user (not recited) of the “terminal mounted in a vehicle”; Figures 4A–4C of Bahnsen ; Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0003], [0007], [0028], [0031] and [0060]; and then “provide turn-by-turn directions to take the user back to their accommodations (e.g., hotel, rented home, etc.)” — Bahnsen at ¶ [0050]) , and wherein the POIs correspond to locations “ reachable on foot ” from the destination (e.g., “user may decide … want to have a quick coffee at a nearby café” — Bahnsen at ¶ [0060]; “POIs referenced herein may be proximate to the user's current location… and may be identified and output to a user in a suggested experience as a result of user preferences… and/or any other suitable determination criteria” — Bahnsen at ¶ [0007] with underlining emphasis added by Examiner; and “navigation application may subsequently provide directions to the jazz club from the seafood restaurant” such as “walking, or other navigation directions” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0028] and [0032]) , but Bahnsen fails to explicitly disclose the payment history including card payment history including at least one of: a payment date and time, a business name, or address information of at least one of the POIs. However, Unnerstall teaches cardholders making a card payment transactions with participating merchants and then receiving notifications about other participating merchants and available offers in a geofenced area that may interest them (e.g., Unnerstall at ¶ [0021]) as well as payment history including card payment history including at least one of: a payment date and time, a business name, and/or address information of at least one POIs (e.g., “affiliate merchants… learn... prior transactions with common cardholders were made with other enrolled merchants…. Likewise, merchants of an initial transaction will learn that subsequent transactions were made with other enrolled merchants…. Such information may provide insight into each enrolled merchant's customer traffic relative to other nearby merchants or specific patterns or trends regarding their own customer's behavior” and “offer generation and correlation… made … in reference to merchant profile information, transaction history for each merchant, and patterns or trends exhibiting applicable cardholder behavior and preferences with respect to those merchants” — Unnerstall at ¶¶ [0085] and [0083]; “terms ‘transaction card,’ ‘financial transaction card,’ and ‘payment card’ refer to any suitable transaction card, such as a credit card” and “If the initial purchase related to a car wash, an offer from a nearby gas or service station may be appreciated. Such intelligent offer generation and correlation may be made … in reference to a cardholder profile, merchant profile information, transaction history, and patterns or trends exhibiting applicable cardholder behavior and preferences” — Unnerstall at ¶¶ [0039] and [0084]; “merchant profile … include[s] the merchant name and location(s) of their stores” and “participating merchants, including… address information….Map data 712 includes data associated with geofencing” — Unnerstall at ¶¶ [0069] and [0105]; “incentive offers may be sent to a smart phone devices being carried by cardholders at the time of completion of an initial transaction. Contact, address and navigational directions… included in the incentive offers” and, therefore, “cardholder need not be familiar with the geographic area or have prior knowledge that an affiliate merchant even existed in order to beneficially make a second transaction within the geofenced area” — Unnerstall at ¶¶ [0045] and [0117]; and Unnerstall at ¶¶ [0039]–[0040], [0069], [0075], [0083]–[0085] and [0117]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the payment history including card payment history including at least one of a payment date and time, a business name, or address information of at least one of the POIs, as taught by Unnerstall , into the method/system disclosed by Bahnsen , which is directed toward utilizing prior transactions or purchases of users to tailor/target otherwise suggest other merchant locations that may be of interest to a consumer (e.g., Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0009] [0028], [0049], [0060] and [0080]–[0081]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143). 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahnsen in view of Unnerstall as applied to Claim 1 above, but Bahnsen fails to explicitly teach the POIs relating to the destination are card-affiliated stores proximate the destination. However, Unnerstall teaches cardholders making a card payment transactions with participating merchants and then receiving notifications about other participating merchants and available offers in a geofenced area that may interest them (e.g., Unnerstall at ¶ [0021]) as well as POIs relating to a destination being card-affiliated stores located proximate the destination (e.g., Unnerstall at ¶¶ [0039]–[0040], [0069], [0075], [0083]–[0085], [0105] and [0117]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the POIs relating to the destination are card-affiliated stores proximate the destination, as taught by Unnerstall , into the method/system taught by Bahnsen in view of Unnerstall , which is directed toward utilizing prior transactions or purchases of users to tailor/target otherwise suggest other merchant locations that may be of interest to a consumer (e.g., Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0009] [0028], [0049], [0060] and [0080]–[0081]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over B ahnsen in view of Unnerstall as applied to Claim 1 above and Bahnsen teaching wherein the destination comprises any one of a public parking lot, a building parking lot, a car wash, a vehicle repair shop, a charging station, or the like (e.g., Figures 4A–4C of Bahnsen ; Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0003], [0007], [0028], [0031] and [0060]; and then “provide turn-by-turn directions to take the user back to their accommodations (e.g., hotel, rented home, etc.)” — Bahnsen at ¶ [0050]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over B ahnsen in view of Unnerstall as applied to Claim 1 above and Bahnsen teaching wherein an additional one of the POIs relating to the destination comprises a POI not registered in the server (e.g., Figures 4A–4C of Bahnsen ; Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0003], [0007], [0028], [0031] and [0060]; and then “provide turn-by-turn directions to take the user back to their accommodations (e.g., hotel, rented home, etc.)” — Bahnsen at ¶ [0050]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over B ahnsen in view of Unnerstall as applied to Claim 1 above and Bahnsen teaching wherein the at least one processor is configured to: based on the card payment history, group the POIs relating to the destination; and extract the grouped POIs as the POIs relating to the destination (e.g., “ ‘experiences’ may be recommended to users …and…displayed to a user in a navigation application as a unit” —Bahnsen at ¶ [0027]; and Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0007]–[0008], [0027]–[0028], [0048], [0050], [0060] and [0081]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahnsen in view of Unnerstall as applied to Claim 5 above and Bahnsen teaching wherein the grouped POIs are stores having the card payment history in which payment is made, for vehicles and a user of each of the vehicles stayed at the destination during a preset period of time from a point in time at which a target vehicle arrives at the destination, by the user of each of the vehicles during a period of time for which the vehicles remain at the destination (e.g., Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0004], [0010], [0028], [0045], [0047]–[0050] and [0079]), but Bahnsen fails to explicitly teach the stores being card-affiliated stores. However, Unnerstall teaches cardholders making a card payment transactions with participating merchant stores and then receiving notifications about other participating merchant stores and available offers in a geofenced area that may interest them (e.g., Unnerstall at ¶ [0021]) and the stores being card-affiliated stores (e.g., Unnerstall at ¶¶ [0039]–[0040], [0069], [0075], [0083]–[0085], [0105] and [0117]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the stores being card-affiliated stores, as taught by Unnerstall , into the method/system taught by Bahnsen in view of Unnerstall , which is directed toward utilizing prior transactions or purchases of users to tailor/target otherwise suggest other merchant stores that may be of interest to a consumer (e.g., Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0009] [0028], [0049], [0060] and [0080]–[0081]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahnsen in view of Unnerstall as applied to Claim 5 above and Bahnsen teaching wherein the at least one processor is configured to group the POIs, based on at least one of address information of a POI, a name of the destination, and a pivot POI (e.g., Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0004], [0010], [0028], [0045], [0047]–[0050] and [0079]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahnsen in view of Unnerstall as applied to Claim 7 above and Bahnsen teaching wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform at least one of: based on the address information of the POI, grouping POIs located in a predetermined region in which the number of the POIs is equal to or greater than a preset number; based on the name of the destination, grouping POIs including the name of the destination; or grouping a pivot POI and POIs relating to the pivot POI (e.g., Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0004], [0010], [0028], [0045], [0047]–[0050] and [0079]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahnsen in view of Unnerstall as applied to Claim 8 above and Bahnsen teaching wherein the pivot POI is a POI in which the number of card payments falls within a preset ranking, among POIs located proximate the destination, and POIs relating to the pivot POI are POIs in which the number of card payments made by the same user, after card payment at the pivot POI, falls within a preset ranking (e.g., Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0012]–[0013], [0016], [0030], [0082] and [0092]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahnsen in view of Unnerstall as applied to Claim 1 above and Bahnsen teaching wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine whether the destination is a POI recommendation target, and as a result of the determination, when the destination is the POI recommendation target, transmit the POIs relating to the destination (e.g., Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0004], [0007]–[0008], [0010], [0027]–[0028], [0045], [0047]–[0050], [0060], [0079] and [0081]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahnsen in view of Unnerstall as applied to Claim 10 above and Bahnsen teaching wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine whether the destination is a POI recommendation target, based on at least one of a type of business of the destination, an average time of remaining at the destination, a POI density around the destination, an average search number for a nearby POI while staying at the destination, or the number of reviews about the destination, wherein the average time and the average search number are based on at least one of vehicles or a user of each of the vehicles stayed at the destination during a preset period of time from a point in time at which a target vehicle arrives at the destination (e.g., Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0004], [0010], [0012]–[0013], [0016], [0028], [0030], [0045], [0047]–[0050], [0079], [0082] and [0092]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1 2 is r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over B ahnsen in view of Unnerstall as applied to Claim 11 above and Bahnsen teaching wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform at least one of: when the type of business of the destination is any one of a parking lot, a car wash, a vehicle repair shop, a charging station, or the like, determining the destination as the POI recommendation target; when the average time is equal to or greater than a preset time, determining the destination as the POI recommendation target; when a preset number or more of POIs are located within a preset radius according to a POI density around the destination, determining the destination as the POI recommendation target; when the average search number is equal to or greater than a preset number, determining the destination as the POI recommendation target; and when the number of reviews is equal to or greater than a preset number, determining the destination as the POI recommendation target (e.g., Figures 4A–4C of Bahnsen ; Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0003], [0007], [0028], [0031] and [0060] and [0079]; and then “provide turn-by-turn directions to take the user back to their accommodations (e.g., hotel, rented home, etc.)” — Bahnsen at ¶ [0050]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1 3 is r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over B ahnsen in view of Unnerstall as applied to Claim 10 above and Bahnsen teaching wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine, when there are two or more searched destinations, among the searched destinations, a destination in which a POI fitting taste of a user is present, as the POI recommendation target (e.g., “determine which POIs a user has liked in the past” —Bahnsen at ¶ [0008]; and Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0004], [0010], [0012]–[0013], [0016], [0028], [0030], [0045], [0047]–[0050], [0079], [0082] and [0092]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1 4 is r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over B ahnsen in view of Unnerstall as applied to Claim 1 above and Bahnsen teaching wherein the at least one processor is configured to sort and transmit the POIs relating to the destination in a ranking by a type of business according to at least one of the number of reviews, evaluation scores, or the number of card payments during a predetermined period (e.g., Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0012]–[0013], [0016], [0030], [0082] and [0092]; and “ordered list of one or more suggested points of interest” —Bahnsen at ¶ [0016]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as bein g unp atentable over Bahnsen in view of Unnerstall as appl ied to Claim 1 above and Bahnsen teaching wherein the at least one processor is configured to transmit POIs of a preset type of business in response to an average time of remaining at the destination (e.g., Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0004], [0009]–[0010], [0028], [0045], [0047]–[0050], [0060] and [0079]–[0081]) . Regarding Claim 16 , Bahnsen disclose s a terminal mounted in a vehicle for recommending points - of - interest (POIs) relating to a destination based on a payment history, comprising: at least one processor; and a storage medium storing a computer-readable instruction, wherein the computer-readable instruction, when the computer-readable instruction is executed by the at least one processor, is configured to, by the at least one processor (e.g., Figure 1 of Bahnsen ; and Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0097]–[0101]; “users request navigation directions that guide the user to a desired destination…. devices embedded in vehicles…provide step-by-step navigation instructions” and “navigation/maps software… providing experience-focused navigation sessions for users” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0003] and [0015]; “user computing device 102 may be… mounted in a vehicle, embedded into a vehicle” and “user computing device… initiate a first navigation session utilizing the navigation application 108… providing a first set of navigation instructions… to a destination location (e.g., a first POI)” and “sequence of POIs that logically fit together into an extended navigation session…. may be recommended to users or requested by users” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0031], [0054] and [0027]) : search for the destination (e.g., “users request navigation directions that guide the user to a desired destination” and “navigation/maps software… providing experience-focused navigation sessions for users” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0003] and [0015]; “provide attendant/accompanying recommendations that provide a user with…activities related to their search and… interests” and “…specifically tailored experiences that eliminates subsequent searches by the user” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0004] and [0029]; “user computing device… initiate a first navigation session utilizing the navigation application 108… providing a first set of navigation instructions… to a destination location (e.g., a first POI)” and “sequence of POIs that logically fit together into an extended navigation session…. may be recommended to users or requested by users” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0054] and [0027]; “a new destination or one they have been to before” such as “For example,… a… city” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0008] and [0028]; “the user may be visiting a museum…” — Bahnsen at ¶ [0060]; and Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0054]–[0055]) , transmit a recommendation request including the destination to a server (e.g., “users request navigation directions that guide the user to a desired destination” and “navigation/maps software… providing experience-focused navigation sessions for users” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0003] and [0015]; “… providing a first set of navigation instructions… to a destination location (e.g., a first POI)” and “sequence of POIs that logically fit together into an extended navigation session…. may be recommended to users or requested by users” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0054] and [0027]; “a new destination or one they have been to before” such as “For example,…a… city” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0008] and [0028]; “the user may be visiting a museum…” — Bahnsen at ¶ [0060]; Figure 1 of Bahnsen ; and Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0054]–[0055]) , and in response to the recommendation request, receive, from the server, the POIs relating to the destination (e.g., “guide the user to a desired destination” and “…providing experience-focused navigation sessions for users” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0003] and [0015]; “user computing device… initiate a first navigation session utilizing the navigation application 108… providing a first set of navigation instructions… to a destination location (e.g., a first POI)” and “sequence of POIs that logically fit together into an extended navigation session…. may be recommended to users or requested by users” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0054] and [0027]; “a navigation application… provide navigation directions… an interactive digital map… points-of-interest (POIs), and… etc.” — Bahnsen at ¶ [0032]; “instruct the user computing device 102 to display …all of the POIs included as part of the suggested experience” — Bahnsen at ¶ [0066]; “a new destination or one they have been to before” such as “For example, a user may arrive in a… city, and… generate several experience recommendations that each include at least one POI for the user based on the user's data…. The user's data may indicate that the user frequently visits seafood restaurants and jazz clubs… so… may generate an experience recommendation featuring a seafood restaurant and a jazz club in the new city for the user to experience” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0008] and [0028]; “the user may be visiting a museum…of the suggested experience…. prompt the user to potentially proceed to the next POI…. have a quick coffee at a nearby café…. suggest experiences directed toward alternate activities that may interest the user after dining at the café, such as a walking tour of a city historic district or boutique shopping locations” — Bahnsen at ¶ [0060]; Bahnsen at ¶¶ “visiting a museum… suggested experience…. prompt the user to potentially proceed to the next POI…. suggest experiences directed toward alternate activities that may interest the user after dining at the café, such as a walking tour of a city historic district or boutique shopping locations” — Bahnsen at ¶ [0060]; “obtain navigation instructions to each of the POIs included as part of the suggested experience” and “suggested experience may include POIs, directions to each of the POIs, a duration spent performing the suggested experience, approximate times spent at each of the POIs, and… any other suitable information” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0039] and [0047]; and Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0032], [0054]–[0057] and [0080]–[0081]) , extracted based on payment history at the POIs (e.g., “accessing relevant historical and real-time information for each individual POI to generate an experience-focused navigation session that is tailored for each individual user” such as “purchase and location histories of the user to identify user preferences related to activities/experiences” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0009] and [0049]; “preferences correspond to a purchase history of a user….” such as, for example, “the… user preferences may indicate that the user frequently buys artwork and pizza, and that the user has visited local blues bars, art museums, and Italian restaurants in various locations that are different from the user's home city/town…. use this general information to generate a semantic mapping that heavily features art, food, and music. For each of these categories, the semantic mapping may further include sub-categories referencing a particular type of artwork enjoyed by the user (e.g., watercolors…etc.), a particular type of food enjoyed by the user (e.g., pizza, Italian, etc.), and/or a particular type of music enjoyed by the user (e.g., blues, pop,…etc.), to the extent that such information is included as part of the … user preferences and the location history of the user” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0080]–[0081]; and Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0028] and [0060]) , display the received POIs on a navigation map together with a current location of the vehicle (e.g., “displaying map data and directions” with “user computing device 102 … mounted in a vehicle” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0035] and [0031]; “display an interactive digital map… provide various geo-located content such as…points-of-interest (POIs)” and “display… map depicting a location of the user computing device 102” and “…route from the user's current location to the POI, the server 150 may transmit the route(s) back to the user computing device 102… for display” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0032], [0054] and [0039]; and Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0054] and [0059]) , wherein the destination is a location where a user temporarily parks the vehicle to visit at least one of the POIs (e.g., Examiner notes recited “a user” can be different from, or unrelated to, a user (not recited) of the “terminal mounted in a vehicle”; Figures 4A–4C of Bahnsen ; Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0003], [0007], [0028], [0031] and [0060]; and then “provide turn-by-turn directions to take the user back to their accommodations (e.g., hotel, rented home, etc.)” — Bahnsen at ¶ [0050]) , and wherein the POIs correspond to locations “ reachable on foot ” from the destination (e.g., “user may decide … want to have a quick coffee at a nearby café” — Bahnsen at ¶ [0060]; “POIs referenced herein may be proximate to the user's current location… and may be identified and output to a user in a suggested experience as a result of user preferences… and/or any other suitable determination criteria” — Bahnsen at ¶ [0007] with underlining emphasis added by Examiner; and “navigation application may subsequently provide directions to the jazz club from the seafood restaurant” such as “walking, or other navigation directions” — Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0028] and [0032]), but Bahnsen fails to explicitly disclose the payment history including card payment history including at least one of: a payment date and time, a business name, and address information of at least one of the POIs. However, Unnerstall teaches cardholders making a card payment transactions with participating merchants and then receiving notifications about other participating merchants and available offers in a geofenced area that may interest them (e.g., Unnerstall at ¶ [0021]) as well as payment history including card payment history including at least one of a payment date and time, a business name, and/or address information of at least one POIs (e.g., “affiliate merchants… learn... prior transactions with common cardholders were made with other enrolled merchants…. Likewise, merchants of an initial transaction will learn that subsequent transactions were made with other enrolled merchants…. Such information may provide insight into each enrolled merchant's customer traffic relative to other nearby merchants or specific patterns or trends regarding their own customer's behavior” and “offer generation and correlation… made … in reference to merchant profile information, transaction history for each merchant, and patterns or trends exhibiting applicable cardholder behavior and preferences with respect to those merchants” — Unnerstall at ¶¶ [0085] and [0083]; “terms ‘transaction card,’ ‘financial transaction card,’ and ‘payment card’ refer to any suitable transaction card, such as a credit card” and “If the initial purchase related to a car wash, an offer from a nearby gas or service station may be appreciated. Such intelligent offer generation and correlation may be made … in reference to a cardholder profile, merchant profile information, transaction history, and patterns or trends exhibiting applicable cardholder behavior and preferences” — Unnerstall at ¶¶ [0039] and [0084]; “merchant profile … include[s] the merchant name and location(s) of their stores” and “participating merchants, including… address information….Map data 712 includes data associated with geofencing” — Unnerstall at ¶¶ [0069] and [0105]; “incentive offers may be sent to a smart phone devices being carried by cardholders at the time of completion of an initial transaction. Contact, address and navigational directions… included in the incentive offers” and, therefore, “cardholder need not be familiar with the geographic area or have prior knowledge that an affiliate merchant even existed in order to beneficially make a second transaction within the geofenced area” — Unnerstall at ¶¶ [0045] and [0117]; and Unnerstall at ¶¶ [0039]–[0040], [0069], [0075], [0083]–[0085] and [0117]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the payment history including card payment history including at least one of a payment date and time, a business name, and address information of at least one of the POIs, as taught by Unnerstall , into the method/system disclosed by Bahnsen , which is directed toward utilizing prior transactions or purchases of users to tailor/target otherwise suggest other merchant locations that may be of interest to a consumer (e.g., Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0009] [0028], [0049], [0060] and [0080]–[0081]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1 7 is r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over B ahnsen in view of Unnerstall as applied to Claim 16 above and Bahnsen teaching wherein the POIs relating to the destination are stores located proximate the destination (e.g., Figures 4A–4C of Bahnsen ; Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0003], [0007], [0028], [0031], [0060] and [0079]; and then “provide turn-by-turn directions to take the user back to their accommodations (e.g., hotel, rented home, etc.)” — Bahnsen at ¶ [0050]), but Bahnsen fails to explicitly teach the stores being card-affiliated stores. However, Unnerstall teaches cardholders making a card payment transactions with participating merchant stores and then receiving notifications about other participating merchant stores and available offers in a geofenced area that may interest them (e.g., Unnerstall at ¶ [0021]) and the stores being card-affiliated stores (e.g., Unnerstall at ¶¶ [0039]–[0040], [0069], [0075], [0083]–[0085], [0105] and [0117]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the stores being card-affiliated stores, as taught by Unnerstall , into the method/system taught by Bahnsen in view of Unnerstall , which is directed toward utilizing prior transactions or purchases of users to tailor/target otherwise suggest other merchant stores that may be of interest to a consumer (e.g., Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0009] [0028], [0049], [0060] and [0080]–[0081]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143) . Claim 18 recites substantially similar subject matter to that of Claim 3 and, therefore, Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis(es) as Claim 3 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 19 is re jected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ba hnsen in view of Unnerstall as applied to Claim 16 above and Bahnsen teaching wherein the at least one processor is configured to output the POIs relating to the destination at least one point in time of a point in time at which the POIs relating to the destination are received, or a point in time at which route guidance to the destination ends (e.g., Bahnsen at ¶¶ [0004], [0009]–[0010], [0028], [0045], [0047]–[0050], [0060] and [0079]–[0081]) . Re garding Claim 20 , Bahnsen in view of Unnerstall teaches a vehicle comprising (e.g., “users request navigation directions that guide the user to a desired destination…. devices embedded in vehicles… provide step-by-step navigation instructions” — Bahnsen at ¶ [0003]; and “user computing device 102 may be removably mounted in a vehicle, embedded into a vehicle, and/or may be capable of interacting with a head unit of a vehicle to provide navigation instructions” — Bahnsen at ¶ [0031]) the terminal of claim 16 based on the same bases as applied above with respect to the terminal recited in Claim 16 above and, therefore, Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis(es) as stated above with respect to Claim 16 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments in the Amendment filed on May 11, 2026, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner notes further recitation above to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0110806 (“ Bahnsen” ) in an effort to assist Applicant given Applicant’s amendments and arguments in “Amendment”. Applicant's Arguments in the Amendment (Pages 11-12) Applicant asserts that the pending claims, as currently amended, are drawn to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (Pages 12-14) Applicant asserts that independent Claims 1 and 16, as currently amended, are patentable over a combination of U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2024/0110806 (“ Bahnsen ”) and 2019/0130432 (“ Unnerstall ”). (Page 14 ) Applicant asserts that Claims 2-15 and 17-20, which depend from respective independent Claims 1 and 16 and include respective limitations therein, are patentably distinguishable over Bahnsen in view of Unnerstall based on at least the same reasons provided with respect to independent Claims 1 and 16. Examiner’s Response to Applicant's Arguments Please see updated § 101 rejections above regarding examined claims being drawn to ineligible subject matter in view of considering all relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole including amended portions of the independent claims. Applicant generally argues on pages 11-12 of Applicant’s Amendment filed in May 2026, that the pending claims “recite improvements to the functioning of a computer, i.e., a server receives a…request from a terminal….”, etc., and therefore, Applicant's argument(s) amounts to no more than a speculative/conclusory allegation that the pending claims provide “improving the functioning of a computer itself” to support an invention under § 101. Applicant's alleged improvements are no more than a desired or intended result that are not required to be performed or achieved based on the language currently recited in each of Applicant’s pending claims. Thus, none of Applicant’s pending claims are required to improve any computer related technology or to improve upon the functioning of the computer itself. Consequently, Applicant's arguments constitute no more than a general allegation that the pending claims provides a plurality of improvements under § 101. Applicant’s other arguments, including those on page 12 of Applicant’s Amendment that the claimed elements amount to no more than generic and conclusory statements in view of Applicant's claimed invention and the fact that Page 11 of Applicant’s Amendment filed in May 2026 states that “Regarding FIG. 5,…. The illustrated components represent standard and well-known elements that are commonly used in the art to describe computing environments” (page 11 of Amendment). Consequently, Applicant's arguments constitute no more than a general allegation that the pending claims support a patentable invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Regarding § 103, please see citations to prior art references of Bahnsen and Unnerstall in the § 103 rejections above regarding amended portions of Applicant’s claims. Examiner notes that during patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation”. In view of this standard, Examiner asserts § 103 rejections to Applicant’s amended claims, as noted above under § 103. In addition, Examiner notes that patent documents are relevant as prior art for all they contain and that “[a] reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments” —MPEP § 2123. In addition, Examiner notes MPEP § 2111.04 and Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a “wherein” clause limited a process claim where the clause gave “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps”). Please see below § 103 rejections with respect to independent Claims 1 and 16 for at least the same reasons provided with respect to the independent claims that Claims 2-15 and 17-20, depending from respective independent Claims 1 and 16 and including the limitations therein, are not patentable based on dependency from respective independent claims. Conclusion The following references are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, and are being made of record albeit the references are not relied upon as a basis for rejection in this Office action: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 9,146,129 issued to Paul J. Furio (hereinafter “ Furio ”) for “Suggesting Points Of Interest On A Mapped Route Using User Interests” —Title of Furio ; and “user interests can be derived from one or more of a browsing history, a purchase history, a social network, a comment on a crowd-sourced message board, and a review on a crowd-sourced website. The determined user interests can be ranked based on a priority score or relevancy score derived from an amount of activity associated with one or more of a browsing history, a purchase history, a social network, a comment on a crowd-sourced message board, and a review on a crowd-sourced website” —Spec. of Furio . U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0169696 of Butts, III et al. (hereinafter “ Butts ”) for “identify merchants that may be of particular interest to users. In some instances, a geo-fence may be defined for a particular user based on a variety of information, in order to identify merchants that may be of interest to the user and that are located within proximity to the user. The geo-fence may be defined based on purchase history, places that are frequented by the user, a mode of transportation, a navigation or transportation route, user preferences, and/or a variety of other information. Information regarding the identified merchants may be displayed or otherwise output to notify the user of nearby merchants that may be of interest” —Abstract of Butts ; “Purchase history for a user indicating items that have been purchased, merchants that have sold the items, amounts of purchases, times of purchases, and so on. The purchase history may be formed from transaction information that is received from POS devices…. the geo-fence module 122 may analyze the purchase history to identify portions of a geographical region that are associated with particular categories of merchants or items that may be of interest to a user. As one example, if a user frequently purchases Chinese food, then the geo-fence module 122 may identify a portion of a downtown region that is associated with Chinese items (e.g., includes Chinese stores or restaurants)…. the geo-fence module 122 may analyze the purchase history to identify locations that have been most frequented by a user (e.g., more than a particular number of times)” — Butts at ¶ [0032]. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0051948 of Aizono et al. (hereinafter “ Aizono ”) for “FIG. 4 illustrates a data configuration of a credit card utilization history 104” — Aizono at ¶ [0018]; “The credit card utilization history 104 includes a card ID 10401, a time 10402, a shop name 10403, and an amount 10404. The card ID 10401 is an area for storing the ID of the credit card. The time 10402 is an area for storing the time of utilization of the credit card. The shop name 10403 is an area for storing the name of the shop at which the credit card was utilized” — Aizono at ¶ [0157]; and “The location information 210 includes …an address 21005…. The address 21005 stores the address of the station or shop” — Aizono at ¶ [0182]. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0279014 of Roka et al. (hereinafter “ Roka ”) for “information … associated with location-based content delivery…. Such information may include… customer profiles, user device 106 profiles, shopping history, stores visited, transaction histories, and the like” — Roka at ¶ [0048]; and “generation and delivery of incentives to customers via their user devices 106 based at least in part on prior purchase history, user profile data, current location and proximity to competing merchants or particular items, and other factors” — Roka at ¶ [00??]. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0095063 of Meenakshi Saraswat (hereinafter “ Saraswat” ). U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0047509 of Arrasvuori (hereinafter “ Arrasvuori ”) for grouping or clustering POIs of a map —Figures 4A–4C of Arrasvuori 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mathew Syrowik whose telephone number is 313-446-4862 . The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM (Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf, can be reached at telephone number 517-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center . Status information of published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, please contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866- 217-9197 (toll-free) or by email at EBC@uspto.gov. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conference using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please email Mathew.Syrowik@USPTO.gov or applicant may use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form. For additional information or questions, please contact the Inventors Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199 (toll free), 571-272-1000 (local), or 1-800-877-8339 (TDD/TTY). /Mathew Syrowik/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621 Application/Control Number: 18/932,317 Page 2 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 18/932,317 Page 3 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 18/932,317 Page 4 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 18/932,317 Page 5 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 18/932,317 Page 6 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 18/932,317 Page 7 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 18/932,317 Page 8 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 18/932,317 Page 9 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 18/932,317 Page 10 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 18/932,317 Page 11 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 18/932,317 Page 12 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 18/932,317 Page 13 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 18/932,317 Page 14 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 18/932,317 Page 15 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 18/932,317 Page 16 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 18/932,317 Page 17 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 18/932,317 Page 18 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 18/932,317 Page 19 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 18/932,317 Page 20 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 18/932,317 Page 21 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 18/932,317 Page 22 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 18/932,317 Page 23 Art Unit: 3621
Prosecution Insights