DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4 are presented for examination.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a location information acquisition unit configured to acquire location information indicating a location where a taxi starts traveling” in claim 1
“a demand information acquisition unit configured to acquire demand information indicating a demand for taxis for each geographical location” in claim 1
“an advertisement revenue information acquisition unit configured to acquire advertisement revenue information related to revenue from an advertisement displayed on the taxi's exterior for each geographical location” in claim 1
“a demand information acquisition unit configured to acquire demand information indicating a demand for taxis for each geographical location” in claim 1
“an advertisement revenue information acquisition unit configured to acquire advertisement revenue information related to revenue from an advertisement displayed on the taxi's exterior for each geographical location” in claim 1
“a travel plan generation unit configured to generate a travel plan including locations where the taxi will travel on the basis of the location information, the demand information, and the advertisement revenue information” in claim 1
“the travel plan generation unit generates the travel plan by optimizing the location where the taxi will travel on the basis of the demand for taxis and the revenue of the advertisement” in claim 2
“the travel plan generation unit generates a sequential order of movement between a plurality of areas set in advance as the geographical location as the travel plan” in claim 3
** The Specification describes various examples of structure/hardware that can perform the aforementioned operations, such as a Global Positioning System (Spec: ¶ 18) and a processor executing software (Spec: ¶¶ 74-78).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to travel plan generation and advertising without significantly more.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes – The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Apparatus (claims 1-4)
Independent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claim 1] A travel plan generation comprising:
acquire location information indicating a location where a taxi starts traveling;
acquire demand information indicating a demand for taxis for each geographical location;
acquire advertisement revenue information related to revenue from an advertisement displayed on the taxi's exterior for each geographical location; and
generate a travel plan including locations where the taxi will travel on the basis of the location information, the demand information, and the advertisement revenue information.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. A human user can acquire information and generate a travel plan based on the acquired information (mentally and/or with pen and paper). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to travel plan generation and advertising, which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of business relationships and managing personal behavior as well as marketing (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 includes a travel plan generation system comprising various units (interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)) to generally perform the various operations recited in the claim.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 74-78).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claim 2] generates the travel plan by optimizing the location where the taxi will travel on the basis of the demand for taxis and the revenue of the advertisement.
[Claim 3] generates a sequential order of movement between a plurality of areas set in advance as the geographical location as the travel plan.
[Claim 4] wherein the demand information includes a passenger expectation value that is an expectation value of revenue obtained by picking up a passenger, and
wherein the advertisement revenue information includes an advertisement expectation value that is an expectation value of the revenue obtained by viewing the advertisement.
The dependent claims further present details of the abstract ideas identified in regard to the independent claims.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. A human user can acquire information and generate a travel plan based on the acquired information (mentally and/or with pen and paper). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to travel plan generation and advertising, which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of business relationships and managing personal behavior as well as marketing (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1-4 include a travel plan generation system comprising various units (interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)) to generally perform the various operations recited in the claims.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 74-78).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mubarek et al. (US 2022/0012656) in view of Nagashima et al. (US 11,748,781) in view of Jiwani et al. (US 2020/0226498) in view of Gerrese et al. (US 2022/0307848).
[Claim 1] Mubarek discloses a travel plan generation system (¶ 42 – “FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of using pedestrian probe data to optimize routing in a ridesharing service, according to example embodiment(s). More specifically, FIG. 2 shows how mobility providers (e.g., ridesharing service providers, ride-hailing service providers, etc.) can optimize routes to overlap with a higher number of pedestrian routes, thereby potentially picking up more passengers and increasing revenue.”) comprising:
a location information acquisition unit configured to acquire location information indicating a location where a taxi starts traveling (fig. 2, ¶¶ 42-49 – The location information of pedestrians and ridesharing vehicles are understood to be tracked in order to create the maps and routing guidance.; ¶¶ 43, 51 – Rideshare vehicles may include taxis.);
a demand information acquisition unit configured to acquire demand information indicating a demand for taxis for each geographical location (¶ 36 – “In one embodiment, the mapping platform 113 identifies locations of potential high demand (e.g., representing ridesharing service recommendations 119) such that ridesharing services can focus their resources to these locations.”; ¶ 38 – “Ridesharing services can allocate more cars and/or drivers to these locations to convert public transportation users to their rideshare business. If drivers are directed to these potentially high demand areas, their wait time for new customers would be decreased as well.”; figs. 5, 8, 9 – Heat maps show zones of low, moderate, and high density of pedestrians.); and
a travel plan generation unit configured to generate a travel plan including locations where the taxi will travel on the basis of the location information and the demand information (¶ 36 – “In one embodiment, the mapping platform 113 identifies locations of potential high demand (e.g., representing ridesharing service recommendations 119) such that ridesharing services can focus their resources to these locations.”; ¶ 38 – “Ridesharing services can allocate more cars and/or drivers to these locations to convert public transportation users to their rideshare business. If drivers are directed to these potentially high demand areas, their wait time for new customers would be decreased as well.”; figs. 5, 8, 9 – Heat maps show zones of low, moderate, and high density of pedestrians.; ¶ 42 – “FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of using pedestrian probe data to optimize routing in a ridesharing service, according to example embodiment(s). More specifically, FIG. 2 shows how mobility providers (e.g., ridesharing service providers, ride-hailing service providers, etc.) can optimize routes to overlap with a higher number of pedestrian routes, thereby potentially picking up more passengers and increasing revenue.”).
Mubarek does not explicitly disclose:
an advertisement revenue information acquisition unit configured to acquire advertisement revenue information related to revenue from an advertisement displayed on the taxi's exterior for each geographical location; and
a travel plan generation unit configured to generate a travel plan including the advertisement revenue information.
Nagashima acknowledges the use of taxis to advertise goods and/or services (Nagashima: col. 1: 23-24). Nagashima presents content on a vehicle’s exterior that is most likely to generate sales for an advertised good and/or service based on the demographics of the user population (including pedestrian traffic) in a target area in which the vehicle is traveling or plans to travel (Nagashima: figs. 2, 4; col. 2: 54 - col. 3: 5; col. 6: 13-15 – external screen on vehicle; col. 7: 1 – col. 8: 15; col. 9: 44 – col. 10: 12 – “At step 408, generating a content strategy may be generated. A content strategy may be a particular order, arrangement, selection, and/or the like of one or more pieces of content, wherein content may be one or more objects for presentation to bystanders as the vehicle 102 is driving. For example, if the vehicle 102 is a mobile store, then the content may be the goods viewable by the bystanders through the windows of the vehicle 102. As another example, if the vehicle 102 has an external display, then the content may be a multimedia file for presentation to bystanders of the vehicle 102. The content strategy may be based on the user geographic preferences and/or the user population preferences. For example, a user geographic preference may indicate a preference for a particular event, in which case the vehicle 102 may present, on an electronic display affixed to the vehicle's exterior, content related to the particular event. As another example, a user population preference may indicate a preference for a high income neighborhood, in which case the vehicle 102 may arrange goods that it is carrying such that the higher-end goods are viewable by bystanders through the windows of the vehicle 102. At step 410, the vehicle 102 may dynamically change its content according to the content strategy. The content strategy may be a set of content instructions, guidance, indications, and/or any other manner of guiding content selection and/or display. For instance, the content strategy may instruct the vehicle show particular goods and/or services in particular locations. In some embodiments, the content strategy may be dynamically updated. The content strategy may be dynamically updated based on newly received sensor data, geographic information, population information, user geographic preferences, and/or use population preferences. The dynamically updated content strategy may be affect the content displayed from the vehicle 102 in real time so that items visible from the vehicle 102 may be tailored to the vehicle's surroundings”).
While Nagashima does not explicitly equate maximum advertisement exposure to advertisement revenue, Jiwani explicitly discloses that cab service providers may reap the benefits of advertising revenue paid to the cab service providers by businesses for presenting advertisements to passengers (Jiwani: ¶ 25).
Additionally, Gerrese ties the aforementioned teachings together by explaining that a rideshare vehicle may display advertisements external to the vehicle and directly to users of the rideshare service (fig. 1; ¶¶ 19-20). In such an environment, rideshare vehicle routing may be suggested based on multiple weighted preferences, including revenue and other factors (Gerrese: ¶ 56 – “Routing goals may be combined in any manner to form composite routing goals; for example, a composite routing goal may attempt to optimize a performance metric that takes as input trip duration, rideshare revenue, and energy usage and also, optimize a comfort metric. The components or inputs of a composite routing goal may be weighted differently and based on one or more routing coordinator directives and/or passenger preferences.”).
Collectively, the prior art teachings address how taxis can generate revenue from presenting advertisements on the exteriors of taxis (or analogous ridesharing/on-demand vehicles) and how routing and local demand play an important role in affecting advertising effectiveness and corresponding revenue. Gerrese demonstrates that multiple factors may be taken into account when optimizing routing.
The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Mubarek to incorporate:
an advertisement revenue information acquisition unit configured to acquire advertisement revenue information related to revenue from an advertisement displayed on the taxi's exterior for each geographical location; and
a travel plan generation unit configured to generate a travel plan including locations where the taxi will travel on the basis of the location information, the demand information, and the advertisement revenue information
in order to optimize revenue by maximizing trade-offs among influential revenue factors, including demand for advertised goods and/or services as well as demand for taxi services themselves.
[Claim 2] Mubarek discloses wherein the travel plan generation unit generates the travel plan by optimizing the location where the taxi will travel on the basis of the demand for taxis (¶ 36 – “In one embodiment, the mapping platform 113 identifies locations of potential high demand (e.g., representing ridesharing service recommendations 119) such that ridesharing services can focus their resources to these locations.”; ¶ 38 – “Ridesharing services can allocate more cars and/or drivers to these locations to convert public transportation users to their rideshare business. If drivers are directed to these potentially high demand areas, their wait time for new customers would be decreased as well.”; figs. 5, 8, 9 – Heat maps show zones of low, moderate, and high density of pedestrians.; ¶ 42 – “FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of using pedestrian probe data to optimize routing in a ridesharing service, according to example embodiment(s). More specifically, FIG. 2 shows how mobility providers (e.g., ridesharing service providers, ride-hailing service providers, etc.) can optimize routes to overlap with a higher number of pedestrian routes, thereby potentially picking up more passengers and increasing revenue.”).
Mubarek does not explicitly disclose wherein the travel plan generation unit generates the travel plan by optimizing the location where the taxi will travel on the basis of the revenue of the advertisement.
Nagashima acknowledges the use of taxis to advertise goods and/or services (Nagashima: col. 1: 23-24). Nagashima presents content on a vehicle’s exterior that is most likely to generate sales for an advertised good and/or service based on the demographics of the user population (including pedestrian traffic) in a target area in which the vehicle is traveling or plans to travel (Nagashima: figs. 2, 4; col. 2: 54 - col. 3: 5; col. 6: 13-15 – external screen on vehicle; col. 7: 1 – col. 8: 15; col. 9: 44 – col. 10: 12 – “At step 408, generating a content strategy may be generated. A content strategy may be a particular order, arrangement, selection, and/or the like of one or more pieces of content, wherein content may be one or more objects for presentation to bystanders as the vehicle 102 is driving. For example, if the vehicle 102 is a mobile store, then the content may be the goods viewable by the bystanders through the windows of the vehicle 102. As another example, if the vehicle 102 has an external display, then the content may be a multimedia file for presentation to bystanders of the vehicle 102. The content strategy may be based on the user geographic preferences and/or the user population preferences. For example, a user geographic preference may indicate a preference for a particular event, in which case the vehicle 102 may present, on an electronic display affixed to the vehicle's exterior, content related to the particular event. As another example, a user population preference may indicate a preference for a high income neighborhood, in which case the vehicle 102 may arrange goods that it is carrying such that the higher-end goods are viewable by bystanders through the windows of the vehicle 102. At step 410, the vehicle 102 may dynamically change its content according to the content strategy. The content strategy may be a set of content instructions, guidance, indications, and/or any other manner of guiding content selection and/or display. For instance, the content strategy may instruct the vehicle show particular goods and/or services in particular locations. In some embodiments, the content strategy may be dynamically updated. The content strategy may be dynamically updated based on newly received sensor data, geographic information, population information, user geographic preferences, and/or use population preferences. The dynamically updated content strategy may be affect the content displayed from the vehicle 102 in real time so that items visible from the vehicle 102 may be tailored to the vehicle's surroundings”).
While Nagashima does not explicitly equate maximum advertisement exposure to advertisement revenue, Jiwani explicitly discloses that cab service providers may reap the benefits of advertising revenue paid to the cab service providers by businesses for presenting advertisements to passengers (Jiwani: ¶ 25).
Additionally, Gerrese ties the aforementioned teachings together by explaining that a rideshare vehicle may display advertisements external to the vehicle and directly to users of the rideshare service (fig. 1; ¶¶ 19-20). In such an environment, rideshare vehicle routing may be suggested based on multiple weighted preferences, including revenue and other factors (Gerrese: ¶ 56 – “Routing goals may be combined in any manner to form composite routing goals; for example, a composite routing goal may attempt to optimize a performance metric that takes as input trip duration, rideshare revenue, and energy usage and also, optimize a comfort metric. The components or inputs of a composite routing goal may be weighted differently and based on one or more routing coordinator directives and/or passenger preferences.”).
Collectively, the prior art teachings address how taxis can generate revenue from presenting advertisements on the exteriors of taxis (or analogous ridesharing/on-demand vehicles) and how routing and local demand play an important role in affecting advertising effectiveness and corresponding revenue. Gerrese demonstrates that multiple factors may be taken into account when optimizing routing.
The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Mubarek wherein the travel plan generation unit generates the travel plan by optimizing the location where the taxi will travel on the basis of the revenue of the advertisement in order to optimize revenue by maximizing trade-offs among influential revenue factors, including demand for advertised goods and/or services as well as demand for taxi services themselves.
[Claim 3] Mubarek discloses wherein the travel plan generation unit generates a sequential order of movement between a plurality of areas set in advance as the geographical location as the travel plan (¶¶ 42-43 – The ridesharing vehicle is provided with routing guidance.; fig. 2, ¶ 17 – Figure 2 shows a diagram to optimize routing. A specific routing path is shown in Figure 2, which implies that a sequential order of movement is recommended in advance (e.g., of arrival at a destination) to the ridesharing vehicle.).
[Claim 4] Mubarek does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the demand information includes a passenger expectation value that is an expectation value of revenue obtained by picking up a passenger, and
wherein the advertisement revenue information includes an advertisement expectation value that is an expectation value of the revenue obtained by viewing the advertisement.
Nagashima acknowledges the use of taxis to advertise goods and/or services (Nagashima: col. 1: 23-24). Nagashima presents content on a vehicle’s exterior that is most likely to generate sales for an advertised good and/or service based on the demographics of the user population (including pedestrian traffic) in a target area in which the vehicle is traveling or plans to travel (Nagashima: figs. 2, 4; col. 2: 54 - col. 3: 5; col. 6: 13-15 – external screen on vehicle; col. 7: 1 – col. 8: 15; col. 9: 44 – col. 10: 12 – “At step 408, generating a content strategy may be generated. A content strategy may be a particular order, arrangement, selection, and/or the like of one or more pieces of content, wherein content may be one or more objects for presentation to bystanders as the vehicle 102 is driving. For example, if the vehicle 102 is a mobile store, then the content may be the goods viewable by the bystanders through the windows of the vehicle 102. As another example, if the vehicle 102 has an external display, then the content may be a multimedia file for presentation to bystanders of the vehicle 102. The content strategy may be based on the user geographic preferences and/or the user population preferences. For example, a user geographic preference may indicate a preference for a particular event, in which case the vehicle 102 may present, on an electronic display affixed to the vehicle's exterior, content related to the particular event. As another example, a user population preference may indicate a preference for a high income neighborhood, in which case the vehicle 102 may arrange goods that it is carrying such that the higher-end goods are viewable by bystanders through the windows of the vehicle 102. At step 410, the vehicle 102 may dynamically change its content according to the content strategy. The content strategy may be a set of content instructions, guidance, indications, and/or any other manner of guiding content selection and/or display. For instance, the content strategy may instruct the vehicle show particular goods and/or services in particular locations. In some embodiments, the content strategy may be dynamically updated. The content strategy may be dynamically updated based on newly received sensor data, geographic information, population information, user geographic preferences, and/or use population preferences. The dynamically updated content strategy may be affect the content displayed from the vehicle 102 in real time so that items visible from the vehicle 102 may be tailored to the vehicle's surroundings”).
While Nagashima does not explicitly equate maximum advertisement exposure to advertisement revenue, Jiwani explicitly discloses that cab service providers may reap the benefits of advertising revenue paid to the cab service providers by businesses for presenting advertisements to passengers (Jiwani: ¶ 25).
Additionally, Gerrese ties the aforementioned teachings together by explaining that a rideshare vehicle may display advertisements external to the vehicle and directly to users of the rideshare service (fig. 1; ¶¶ 19-20). In such an environment, rideshare vehicle routing may be suggested based on multiple weighted preferences, including revenue and other factors (Gerrese: ¶ 56 – “Routing goals may be combined in any manner to form composite routing goals; for example, a composite routing goal may attempt to optimize a performance metric that takes as input trip duration, rideshare revenue, and energy usage and also, optimize a comfort metric. The components or inputs of a composite routing goal may be weighted differently and based on one or more routing coordinator directives and/or passenger preferences.”).
Collectively, the prior art teachings address how taxis can generate revenue from presenting advertisements on the exteriors of taxis (or analogous ridesharing/on-demand vehicles) and how routing and local demand play an important role in affecting advertising effectiveness and corresponding revenue. Gerrese demonstrates that multiple factors may be taken into account when optimizing routing.
The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Mubarek:
wherein the demand information includes a passenger expectation value that is an expectation value of revenue obtained by picking up a passenger, and
wherein the advertisement revenue information includes an advertisement expectation value that is an expectation value of the revenue obtained by viewing the advertisement
in order to optimize revenue by maximizing trade-offs among influential revenue factors, including demand for advertised goods and/or services as well as demand for taxi services themselves.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Block et al. "Estimating Advertisement Revenue for Robocabs." Transportation Research Procedia 41 (2019) 511-524. (Year: 2019) – Discusses supply and demand and revenue for autonomous taxis.
Hashimoto (US 11,704,698) – Routes vehicles to increase advertising revenue.
Dukach et al. (US 6,812,851) – Selects best routes to a cab’s destination based on various factors, including advertising demand.
James (US 2014/0081764) – Dynamically changes the display on for-hire vehicles.
Chadha et al. (US 2020/0201326) – Allocates vehicles based on demand.
Tran (US 10,783,559) – Evaluates the success of an advertising campaign targeted to people viewing advertisements on the exterior of a vehicle.
Prada Gomez et al. (US 8,630,897) – Provides free or discounted rides to a business’ location.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSANNA M DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4:30 pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270-5389. 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.
/SUSANNA M. DIAZ/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625A
Prosecution Insights