DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendments filed on July 28, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, with Claims 1-2, 10-12, and 19-20 being amended.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments, filed July 28, 2026, the Examiner withdraws the previous double patenting rejection, and maintains the previous 25 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, filed July 28, 2026, with respect to using a processor to perform the function of the claims (see page 10 of instant arguments), the Examiner is unpersuaded. Using a generic computer component does not take the idea out of an abstract idea/ mental application. A driver can still visually determine the destination, and determine appropriate actions in response to nearing the destination. A person can mentally perform the process for one vehicle, and perform the process again at a later time for another vehicle. The claims do not require having a bunch of vehicles performing this method simultaneously, such as if a management or control center was managing itineraries for multiple vehicles at the same time.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, filed July 28, 2026, regarding the practical application (see pages 10-11 of instant arguments), the Examiner is unpersuaded. A person can mentally trigger destination specific information as they approach the destination, by observing traffic, construction, and upcoming turns near the destination, so that the user can then determine where to park or stop, etc. when reaching the destination.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for essentially the same reasons. Therefore, the corresponding rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite determining a template for a destination, and displaying the appropriate destination template. A person can visually observe the destination comprises construction, or is for an airport, and determine appropriate actions accordingly.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1 and 11 is directed to a method and system (i.e. a process). Claim 20 is directed to an machine-storage medium (i.e., a machine). Therefore, Claims 1, 11, and 20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of a) an abstract idea, b) a law of nature, or c) a natural phenomenon.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the bolded portions represent an “abstract idea”; and where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”):
Claim 1 recites the following:
A method comprising:
identifying a destination of a route for each of a plurality of service providers;
based on the destination, determining a corresponding display template from a plurality of display templates, each display template comprises a different set of rules for display of an end of a route content, the display of the end of the route content being different than display of content during a middle of the route, the determining the corresponding display template comprising:
identifying a special zone template based on the destination being a special zone, the special zone template providing rules for display of the end of the route content for a type of structured complex that has a specifically designated pickup area, a specifically designated drop-off area, or specifically designated exits;
identifying a residential template based on the destination not being a special zone and the destination corresponding to a residential area; or
identifying a core template based on the destination not being a special zone and not corresponding to the residential area;
retrieving the corresponding display template that corresponds to the destination from a data storage;
monitoring, by a hardware processor, a location of a vehicle of each of the plurality of service providers along the route; and
detecting, by the hardware processor in substantially real time, that a current distance between the monitored location of one or more vehicles and a respective destination satisfies a threshold distance or a display time specified by the corresponding display template; and
based on the detecting, causing display of the end of the route content on a device of a service provider associated with each of the one or more vehicles.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute “a mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. The limitations of “identifying …”, “based on the destination, determining …, “retrieving …”, “monitoring …”, and ”detecting …”, amount to an abstract idea. These limitations involve observing the destination and monitoring the location of the vehicle. A driver can mentally determine the destination’s characteristics, and can visually observe the progress of the vehicle to determine if changes to the route or destination need to be performed. Such steps can be performed mentally or be observed visually. A person can further mentally determine that the destination is in a certain type of area (e.g., construction, school zone, airport, etc.) and mentally determine actions to take in order to arrive safely.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Examiner further submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitation of “causing display …”, the Examiner submits that this limitation consists of insignificant extra-solution activity, which amounts to mere data gathering.
For the following reason(s), the Examiner submits that the limitation of “a hardware processor …” does not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner submits that the functions of the processor are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. A driver can visually determine the status and condition of the destination as they get closer to it.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Analysis of Step 2B is performed to determine if the claim as a while amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, and further analysis is required for all functions that are identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Obtaining and transmitting sensor data amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere displaying information is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The specification also demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Even when viewed as a combination, nothing in the claims amounts to significantly more, and as such Claims 1, 11, and 20 are not patent eligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent Claims 2-10, and 12-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims further recite features of determining when to trigger elements for display, providing information regarding points of interest, and conducting zoom or pan operations so as to inform the user of conditions. These limitations further constitute insignificant extra-solution activity (see analysis regarding insignificant extra-solution activity with respect to independent claims above).
Therefore, dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claims 1, 11, and 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would appear to be allowable if the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections and the double patenting rejections are overcome.
The following is a statement for reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the combination of the following claim limitations in Claim 1 (and similarly for Claims 9 and 17), when considered as a whole, renders the independent claims, as well as their dependents, as non-obvious over the prior art of record:
identifying a special zone template based on the destination being a special zone, the special zone template providing rules for display of the end of the route content for a type of structured complex that has a specifically designated pickup area, a specifically designated drop-off area, or specifically designated exits;
identifying a residential template based on the destination not being a special zone and the destination corresponding to a residential area; or
identifying a core template based on the destination not being a special zone and not corresponding to the residential area
While it is known in the art to display information relevant to a destination, such as buildings, or parking areas, for example, it is not as well known to utilize specific templates for each type of destination, such as for entering a specific airport to park, for example, and provide the specific template of that destination to the user at a specified time. The prior art record fails to render obvious that the system determines if a destination display template needs to be a special, a residential, and/or a core template, and based on the determination that the previous template type is not valid, then searches for the next type of display template, and then provides the corresponding destination template for display to the user. It is not known to look sequentially for a special, residential, and core template and determine which is appropriate for displaying as the destination information.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERRITT LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/MERRITT LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/KYLE J KINGSLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights