DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This office action is submitted in response to the application filed on 6/3/25.
Examiner notes that this application is a continuation of 18355031, 18485519, and 17702207, which are now US Patent Nos. 12597051, 12190354, and 11830037, respectively.
Examiner further notes Applicant’s priority date of 3/23/22, which stems from the aforementioned parent applications.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because the preamble appears to be incomplete. Specifically, the preamble says “A computer implemented, comprising”. Since the dependent claims are directed to the “method of claim 1,” Examiner is proceeding under the assumption that the preamble should indicate a method. Correction is required.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,830,037 (hereinafter "'037 patent") in view of Meyer (US 10,876,846 B1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 1 recites determining, based on a destination location for a trip for a user, a content item to provide to a device of the user, the content item comprising an advertisement for a service at a suggested location. Claim 15 of the '037 patent recites determining a first advertisement content item and, based thereon, determining a second advertisement content item that is related to the first advertisement content item for display via a user device associated with the vehicle service instance, wherein the second advertisement content item comprises an interactive promotional offer.
Instant claim 1 recites transmitting instructions, that when executed by one or more processors of the device associated with the user, cause a user interface of the device to be updated to display the content item, wherein the content item comprises at least one interactive element, and detecting selection of the interactive element. Claim 15 of the '037 patent recites communicating data that initiates the display of the second advertisement content item for the user device, wherein the user device is viewable by the user, and obtaining data indicative of a user selecting the interactive promotional offer.
The sole limitation of instant claim 1 not recited in claim 15 of the '037 patent is updating the trip to alter the destination location to the suggested location based on the selection of the interactive element. In response to the selection, claim 15 of the '037 patent instead recites initiating the launch of an application where the promotional offer can be redeemed. Meyer teaches updating the trip to alter the destination to a user-selected suggested location in response to the user's selection, causing the driver's device to display an updated route terminating at the selected location rather than the original destination (Column 20, Lines 30-43; Column 20, Lines 54-67; FIG. 3B, elements 328-336; FIGS. 1E and 1F, elements 130 and 166).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the response step of claim 15 of the '037 patent, which already acts upon the user's selection of the interactive promotional offer, to update the trip and alter the destination location to the suggested location as taught by Meyer. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because the '037 patent claims already contemplate generating a follow-on vehicle service from the user's interaction with the advertisement content item (see '037 patent claim 13), such that redirecting the existing trip to the advertised suggested location is a predictable use of the same selection data to fulfill the user's interest in the advertised service without requiring a separate service request.
Instant claim 15 recites a computing system performing operations that mirror the method of instant claim 1. Claim 1 of the '037 patent recites a computing system comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions configured to perform those operations. Instant claim 15 is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of the '037 patent for the same reasons set forth above, with Meyer supplying the updating the trip to alter the destination location to the suggested location limitation under the same rationale.
Instant claim 20 recites one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions performing operations that mirror the method of instant claim 1. Claim 19 of the '037 patent recites one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions comprising operations configured to perform those operations. Instant claim 20 is not patentably distinct from claim 19 of the '037 patent for the same reasons set forth above, with Meyer supplying the updating the trip to alter the destination location to the suggested location limitation under the same rationale.
Instant claims 2-14 and 16-19 depend from an independent claim addressed above and are not patentably distinct from the claims of the '037 patent, as follows. Instant claims 2 and 16 (the content item further comprises a promotional offer related to the suggested location) correspond to '037 patent claim 12. Instant claims 3 and 17 (determining, based on the updated trip, a second content item comprising a promotional offer related to the suggested location) recite a further advertisement content item determined from the trip as modified per the Meyer combination above and are not patentably distinct from '037 patent claims 1 and 15 in view of Meyer. Instant claims 4 and 18 (determining the content item to provide to the user is performed while the user is traveling from a pickup location to the destination location) are not recited in the '037 patent claims and are supplied by Meyer, which determines the content item as the user travels the route to the destination (Column 8, Lines 5-20; FIG. 3B, element 320). Instant claims 5 and 19 (transmitting a request for a content item to an advertisement engine; and receiving the content item from the advertisement engine) correspond to '037 patent claim 8. Instant claim 6 (transmitting instructions, that when executed by one or more processors of a device associated with a vehicle operator, cause a user interface of the device to be updated to display the altered destination location comprising the suggested location) is not patentably distinct over '037 patent claim 5 in view of Meyer. Instant claim 7 (keeping the destination location as a first drop-off location; and scheduling a second service to transport the user from the destination location to the suggested location at a later time) is not patentably distinct over '037 patent claim 13 in view of Meyer, claim 13 reciting a new vehicle service instance generated from an interaction between the user and the advertisement content item. Instant claims 8 and 9 (the suggested location is determined based at least in part on a similarity in type, offering, or location to a past location associated with the user; and the past location associated with the user comprises at least one of a past pick-up location, a past drop-off location, or a location the user has ordered from) are not patentably distinct over '037 patent claim 16, which determines the advertisement content item based on historical vehicle service usage data of the user, with instant claim 9's past pick-up location further corresponding to the pick-up location recited in '037 patent claim 4. Instant claims 10-14 (the content item is determined based at least in part on the destination location being located within an ad target range of the content item associated with the suggested location, and its recitation as a distance, geographic area, or time) correspond to '037 patent claim 11.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,354 (hereinafter "'354 patent") in view of Meyer (US 10,876,846 B1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the reasons set forth below.
The claims of the '354 patent recite the same operations addressed in Rejection I, differing only in that the first advertisement content item is displayed on a display device onboard the vehicle rather than on a display device positioned on the exterior of the vehicle. This difference is not recited in the instant claims and does not bear on the mapping below.
Claim 1 recites determining, based on a destination location for a trip for a user, a content item to provide to a device of the user, the content item comprising an advertisement for a service at a suggested location. Claim 16 of the '354 patent recites determining a first advertisement content item and, based thereon, determining a second advertisement content item that is related to the first advertisement content item for display via a user device associated with the vehicle service instance, wherein the second advertisement content item comprises an interactive promotional offer.
Instant claim 1 recites transmitting instructions, that when executed by one or more processors of the device associated with the user, cause a user interface of the device to be updated to display the content item, wherein the content item comprises at least one interactive element, and detecting selection of the interactive element. Claim 16 of the '354 patent recites communicating data that initiates the display of the second advertisement content item for the user device, wherein the user device is viewable by the user, and obtaining data indicative of a user selecting the interactive promotional offer.
The sole limitation of instant claim 1 not recited in claim 16 of the '354 patent is updating the trip to alter the destination location to the suggested location based on the selection of the interactive element. In response to the selection, claim 16 of the '354 patent instead recites initiating the launch of an application where the promotional offer can be redeemed. Meyer teaches updating the trip to alter the destination to a user-selected suggested location in response to the user's selection, causing the driver's device to display an updated route terminating at the selected location rather than the original destination (Column 20, Lines 30-43; Column 20, Lines 54-67; FIG. 3B, elements 328-336; FIGS. 1E and 1F, elements 130 and 166).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the response step of claim 16 of the '354 patent, which already acts upon the user's selection of the interactive promotional offer, to update the trip and alter the destination location to the suggested location as taught by Meyer. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because the '354 patent claims already contemplate generating a follow-on vehicle service from the user's interaction with the advertisement content item (see '354 patent claim 13), such that redirecting the existing trip to the advertised suggested location is a predictable use of the same selection data to fulfill the user's interest in the advertised service without requiring a separate service request.
Instant claim 15 recites a computing system performing operations that mirror the method of instant claim 1. Claim 1 of the '354 patent recites a computing system comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions configured to perform those operations. Instant claim 15 is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of the '354 patent for the same reasons set forth above, with Meyer supplying the updating the trip to alter the destination location to the suggested location limitation under the same rationale.
Instant claim 20 recites one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions performing operations that mirror the method of instant claim 1. Claim 20 of the '354 patent recites one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions comprising operations configured to perform those operations. Instant claim 20 is not patentably distinct from claim 20 of the '354 patent for the same reasons set forth above, with Meyer supplying the updating the trip to alter the destination location to the suggested location limitation under the same rationale.
Instant claims 2-14 and 16-19 depend from an independent claim addressed above and are not patentably distinct from the claims of the '354 patent, as follows. Instant claims 2 and 16 (the content item further comprises a promotional offer related to the suggested location) correspond to '354 patent claim 12. Instant claims 3 and 17 (determining, based on the updated trip, a second content item comprising a promotional offer related to the suggested location) recite a further advertisement content item determined from the trip as modified per the Meyer combination above and are not patentably distinct from '354 patent claims 1 and 16 in view of Meyer. Instant claims 4 and 18 (determining the content item to provide to the user is performed while the user is traveling from a pickup location to the destination location) are not recited in the '354 patent claims and are supplied by Meyer, which determines the content item as the user travels the route to the destination (Column 8, Lines 5-20; FIG. 3B, element 320). Instant claims 5 and 19 (transmitting a request for a content item to an advertisement engine; and receiving the content item from the advertisement engine) correspond to '354 patent claim 8. Instant claim 6 (transmitting instructions, that when executed by one or more processors of a device associated with a vehicle operator, cause a user interface of the device to be updated to display the altered destination location comprising the suggested location) is not patentably distinct over '354 patent claim 5 in view of Meyer. Instant claim 7 (keeping the destination location as a first drop-off location; and scheduling a second service to transport the user from the destination location to the suggested location at a later time) is not patentably distinct over '354 patent claim 13 in view of Meyer, claim 13 reciting a new vehicle service instance generated from an interaction between the user and the advertisement content item. Instant claims 8 and 9 (the suggested location is determined based at least in part on a similarity in type, offering, or location to a past location associated with the user; and the past location associated with the user comprises at least one of a past pick-up location, a past drop-off location, or a location the user has ordered from) are not patentably distinct over '354 patent claim 17, which determines the advertisement content item based on historical vehicle service usage data of the user, with instant claim 9's past pick-up location further corresponding to the pick-up location recited in '354 patent claim 4. Instant claims 10-14 (the content item is determined based at least in part on the destination location being located within an ad target range of the content item associated with the suggested location, and its recitation as a distance, geographic area, or time) correspond to '354 patent claim 11.
Claims 1-3, 15-17, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,597,051 (hereinafter "'051 patent") in view of Meyer (US 10,876,846 B1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the reasons set forth below. Instant claims 4-14, 18, and 19 are addressed under Rejections I and II above and are not separately rejected over the '051 patent.
Unlike the '037 and '354 patents, the '051 patent recites the interactive promotional offer, the user selection, and the redemption response in dependent claims rather than in the independent claims. The base determining and communicating operations are recited in '051 patent independent claims 1 (system), 8 (method), and 13 (media). Claim 4 depends from claim 1; claim 12 depends from claim 10, which depends from claim 9, which depends from claim 8; and claim 16 depends from claim 14, which depends from claim 13. The rejection relies on each independent claim taken with its respective interactive-offer dependent claim.
Instant claim 1 recites determining, based on a destination location for a trip for a user, a content item to provide to a device of the user, the content item comprising an advertisement for a service at a suggested location, transmitting instructions, that when executed by one or more processors of the device associated with the user, cause a user interface of the device to be updated to display the content item, wherein the content item comprises at least one interactive element, and detecting selection of the interactive element. Claim 8 of the '051 patent recites determining a first advertisement content item and determining a second advertisement content item that is related to the first advertisement content item for display via a user device associated with the vehicle service instance, and claim 12 recites that the second advertisement content item comprises an interactive promotional offer, obtaining data indicative of the user selecting the interactive promotional offer, and in response, initiating a launch of an application where the interactive promotional offer can be redeemed.
The sole limitation of instant claim 1 not recited in claims 8 and 12 of the '051 patent is updating the trip to alter the destination location to the suggested location based on the selection of the interactive element, in place of which claim 12 recites initiating a launch of an application where the interactive promotional offer can be redeemed. Meyer teaches updating the trip to alter the destination to a user-selected suggested location in response to the user's selection, causing the driver's device to display an updated route terminating at the selected location rather than the original destination (Column 20, Lines 30-43; Column 20, Lines 54-67; FIG. 3B, elements 328-336; FIGS. 1E and 1F, elements 130 and 166).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the response step of claim 12 of the '051 patent, which already acts upon the user's selection of the interactive promotional offer, to update the trip and alter the destination location to the suggested location as taught by Meyer. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because acting upon the existing selection data to redirect the user's current trip to the advertised suggested location is a predictable use of that data to fulfill the user's interest in the advertised service without requiring a separate service request.
Instant claim 15 recites a computing system performing operations that mirror the method of instant claim 1. Claim 1 of the '051 patent recites a computing system comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions, and claim 4, which depends from claim 1, recites the interactive promotional offer, the user selection, and the redemption response. Instant claim 15 is not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 4 of the '051 patent for the same reasons set forth above, with Meyer supplying the updating the trip to alter the destination location to the suggested location limitation under the same rationale.
Instant claim 20 recites one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions performing operations that mirror the method of instant claim 1. Claim 13 of the '051 patent recites one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions, and claim 16, which depends from claim 14 and ultimately from claim 13, recites the interactive promotional offer, the user selection, and the redemption response. Instant claim 20 is not patentably distinct from claims 13 and 16 of the '051 patent for the same reasons set forth above, with Meyer supplying the updating the trip to alter the destination location to the suggested location limitation under the same rationale.
Instant claims 2 and 3 depend from instant claim 1, and instant claims 16 and 17 depend from instant claim 15, and are not patentably distinct from the claims of the '051 patent. Instant claims 2 and 16 (the content item further comprises a promotional offer related to the suggested location) are not patentably distinct over the interactive promotional offer recited in '051 patent claims 12 and 4, respectively. Instant claims 3 and 17 (determining, based on the updated trip, a second content item comprising a promotional offer related to the suggested location) are not patentably distinct from '051 patent claims 12 and 4, respectively, in view of Meyer, which supplies the updated trip as set forth above.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1–20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. Specifically, claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method, and thus falls within the "process" category. Claim 15 recites a computing system, and thus falls within the "machine" category. Claim 20 recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, and thus falls within the "article of manufacture" category. Claims 2–14 depend from claim 1 and thus likewise fall within the "process" category, and claims 16–19 depend from claim 15 and thus likewise fall within the "machine" category. See MPEP § 2106.03. Accordingly, the claims satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One: Independent claims 1, 15, and 20, in part, describe an invention comprising: determining, based on a destination location for a trip for a user, a content item to provide to the user, the content item comprising an advertisement for a service at a suggested location; detecting selection of the interactive element; and updating the trip to alter the destination location to the suggested location based on the selection of the interactive element. As such, the invention is directed to the abstract idea of providing targeted advertising content to a user based on a trip destination and altering the trip in response to the user's engagement with that advertising, which, pursuant to MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), is aptly categorized as a certain method of organizing human activity (managing commercial interactions, including advertising, marketing, and sales activities). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Next, the claims recite additional elements that are associated with the judicial exception. Independent claims 1, 15, and 20 recite transmitting instructions, that when executed by one or more processors of the device associated with the user, cause a user interface of the device to be updated to display the content item, wherein the content item comprises at least one interactive element. Dependent claims 3 and 17 further recite transmitting instructions, that when executed by one or more processors of a device associated with the user, cause the user interface of the device to be updated to display the second content item. Dependent claims 5 and 19 further recite transmitting a request for a content item to an advertisement engine and receiving the content item from the advertisement engine. Dependent claim 6 further recites transmitting instructions, that when executed by one or more processors of a device associated with a vehicle operator, cause a user interface of the device to be updated to display the altered destination location comprising the suggested location. The Examiner understands the transmission, receipt, and display of the content items and associated data to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191–192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process.").
The aforementioned claims also recite additional elements including: one or more "processors" for executing the operations; one or more "non-transitory, computer-readable media" for storing executable instructions; and a "device" associated with the user having a "user interface" for displaying the content item. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and appear to be nothing more than generic computer components used to apply the abstract idea. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 223 (2014), 110 USPQ2d 1977, 1983 (2014).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Looking at the elements individually and in combination, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field; apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease; apply the judicial exception with a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g., generic computers and mobile devices connected to a network). Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology, and their collective functions are merely facilitated by generic computer implementation.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements, identified above, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Displaying an advertisement. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715–16, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Receiving or transmitting data over a network. Symantec Corp. v. Veritas Techs. LLC, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception, and claims 1–20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Next, claims 2–14 depend from claim 1, and claims 16–19 depend from claim 15, and each includes all limitations of its respective independent claim. These claims do not recite any additional elements sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Specifically:
Claims 2 and 16 recite that the content item further comprises a promotional offer related to the suggested location. This limitation further defines the advertising content that constitutes the abstract idea and does not add any element beyond the judicial exception.
Claims 3 and 17 recite determining, based on the updated trip, a second content item comprising a promotional offer related to the suggested location. The determination of a second content item is part of the abstract idea of providing targeted advertising, and the transmission and display of the second content item is addressed as insignificant extra-solution activity above.
Claims 4 and 18 recite that determining the content item to provide to the user is performed while the user is traveling from a pickup location to the destination location. This limitation specifies the timing and context in which the abstract determining step is performed and does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea.
Claims 5 and 19 recite that determining the content item comprises transmitting a request to, and receiving the content item from, an advertisement engine. The transmission and receipt are addressed as insignificant extra-solution activity above, and the advertisement engine is a generic software component recited at a high level of generality.
Claim 6 recites transmitting instructions that cause a device associated with a vehicle operator to display the altered destination location. This limitation is addressed as insignificant extra-solution activity above, and the vehicle operator's device is a generic computer component.
Claim 7 recites that updating the trip comprises keeping the destination location as a first drop-off location, and scheduling a second service to transport the user from the destination location to the suggested location at a later time. Scheduling a further transportation service is part of the abstract idea of managing commercial interactions and does not recite any technical improvement.
Claim 8 recites that the suggested location is determined based at least in part on a similarity in type, offering, or location to a past location associated with the user, and claim 9 recites that the past location associated with the user comprises at least one of a past pick-up location, a past drop-off location, or a location the user has ordered from. These limitations further define the data collected and analyzed to select the suggested location and amount to additional non-structural details of the abstract data analysis.
Claims 10 and 14 recite that the content item is determined based at least in part on the destination location being located within an ad target range of the content item associated with the suggested location (claim 10), or on determining that a location of the device associated with the user is located within an ad target range of the content item associated with the suggested location (claim 14).
Claims 11–13 further recite that the ad target range comprises a distance, a geographic area, and a time, respectively. These limitations further define the data analysis by which the content item is selected and amount to additional non-structural details that do not add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1–20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyer (US 10,876,846 B1).
Claim 1: Meyer discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
determining, based on a destination location for a trip for a user, a content item to provide to a device of the user, the content item comprising an advertisement for a service at a suggested location (Column 18, Lines 13-24. The server accesses point of interest information to identify locations of interest that relate to information associated with the desired destination for the trip. Column 18, Lines 25-56. Businesses can pay to be promoted as suggested locations of interest and can enter an auction for placement as suggested locations of interest, with a charge generated upon presentation and/or upon selection of the suggested location, such that the suggested location of interest constitutes an advertisement for a service at a suggested location. See also FIG. 3B, element 320, and FIG. 1C, elements 122a-122d.);
transmitting instructions, that when executed by one or more processors of the device associated with the user, cause a user interface of the device to be updated to display the content item, wherein the content item comprises at least one interactive element (Column 19, Line 66-Column 20, Line 9. The server transmits the locations of interest to the user's device, and the user's device displays the locations of interest on a map display as selectable items, the selectable item being the at least one interactive element. See also FIG. 3B, elements 322 and 324, and FIG. 1E.);
detecting selection of the interactive element (Column 20, Lines 10-19. The user's device receives a user selection of a location of interest through the graphic user interface. Column 11, Lines 14-22. A prompt and confirmation button are provided by which the user selects and confirms the location of interest. See also FIG. 3B, element 326, and FIG. 1E, elements 126 and 128.); and
updating the trip to alter the destination location to the suggested location based on the selection of the interactive element (Column 20, Lines 30-43. The server receives the indication of the selected location of interest and generates a communication instructing an updated route. Column 20, Lines 54-67. The driver's device receives the selected location of interest as the new destination and reroutes to the new destination rather than the original destination. See also FIG. 3B, elements 328-336, and FIGS. 1E and 1F, elements 130 and 166.).
Claim 2: Meyer discloses those limitations cited above with respect to claim 1. Meyer further discloses wherein the content item further comprises a promotional offer related to the suggested location (Column 19, Lines 44-52. Particular businesses can offer coupons or discounts for products or services available at the businesses, which can be included as part of the locations of interest information and displayed to the user, the coupon or discount being the promotional offer related to the suggested location.).
Claim 3: The Meyer reference discloses those limitations cited above with respect to claim 1. Meyer further discloses determining, based on the updated trip, a second content item comprising a promotional offer related to the suggested location (Column 11, Lines 31-56. In response to determining that the user has arrived at or near the new destination for the updated trip, the user's device displays an updated set of suggested locations of interest identified based on updated parameters, the updated set being determined based on the updated trip. Column 19, Lines 44-52. Businesses can offer coupons or discounts included as part of the locations of interest information, the coupon or discount being the promotional offer related to the suggested location.); and transmitting instructions, that when executed by one or more processors of the device associated with the user, cause the user interface of the device to be updated to display the second content item (Column 11, Lines 31-40. The determination that the user has arrived at or near the new destination triggers the user's device to display the updated information.).
Claim 4: The Meyer reference discloses those limitations cited above with respect to claim 1. Meyer further discloses wherein determining the content item to provide to the user is performed while the user is traveling from a pickup location to the destination location (Column 8, Lines 5-20. As the user travels along the route to the desired destination in the car of the driver, the user's device displays a set of suggested locations of interest, such that the content item is determined while the user is traveling from the pickup location to the destination location. See also FIG. 3B, element 320.).
Claim 5: The Meyer reference discloses those limitations cited above with respect to claim 1. Meyer further discloses wherein determining the content item comprises: transmitting a request for a content item to an advertisement engine (Column 18, Lines 33-42. A point of interest server allows businesses to provide factors taken into account in determining whether to promote a location, the point of interest server being the advertisement engine to which a request is transmitted.); and receiving the content item from the advertisement engine (Column 19, Lines 1-9. The point of interest server transmits indications of the locations of interest to the user's device.).
Claim 6: The Meyer reference discloses those limitations cited above with respect to claim 1. Meyer further discloses transmitting instructions, that when executed by one or more processors of a device associated with a vehicle operator, cause a user interface of the device associated with the vehicle operator to display the altered destination location comprising the suggested location (Column 20, Lines 54-67. The driver's device receives the selected location of interest as the new destination and calculates and displays the updated route on the display screen of the driver's device. Column 11, Lines 45-52. The driver's device displays a notification indicating the address and name of the establishment at the new destination. See also FIGS. 1E and 1F, elements 152, 166, and 168.).
Claim 10: The Meyer reference discloses those limitations cited above with respect to claim 1. Meyer further discloses wherein the content item is determined based at least in part on the destination location being located within an ad target range of the content item associated with the suggested location (Column 18, Lines 25-32. Businesses can pay to be presented as suggested locations of interest when the user has identified a different destination within a specified distance, the specified distance being the ad target range within which the destination location is located.).
Claim 11: The Meyer reference discloses those limitations cited above with respect to claim 10. Meyer further discloses wherein the ad target range comprises a distance (Column 18, Lines 28-32. A business can be promoted when the user has entered a desired destination within a specified distance, such as within two miles, of the business.).
Claim 12: The Meyer reference discloses those limitations cited above with respect to claim 10. Meyer further discloses wherein the ad target range comprises a geographic area (Column 17, Line 58-Column 18, Line 12. The geographic proximity parameter defines a geographic area determined from a distance from the desired destination, a distance from any portion of the route, or a distance from the current location, within which locations of interest are identified.).
Claim 13: The Meyer reference discloses those limitations cited above with respect to claim 10. Meyer further discloses wherein the ad target range comprises a time (Column 10, Lines 6-25. Temporal factors are used to identify locations of interest, including comparing the current time of day to hours of operation information for particular locations to identify locations of interest that are currently open for operation, such that the ad target range comprises a time window during which the suggested location is surfaced.).
Claim 14: The Meyer reference discloses those limitations cited above with respect to claim 1. Meyer further discloses wherein the content item is determined based at least in part on determining that a location of the device associated with the user is located within an ad target range of the content item associated with the suggested location (Column 17, Line 66-Column 18, Line 12. The geographic proximity parameter includes a distance from the current location of the user's device, and locations of interest are identified within the geographic area determined using that parameter, such that the content item is determined based on the location of the user's device being within the ad target range.).
Claim 15: Meyer discloses a computing system, comprising:
one or more processors (Column 26, Lines 41-50. A computing device includes a processor 502, a memory 504, and a storage device 506, the processor executing instructions within the computing device. See also FIG. 5.); and
one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computing system to perform operations comprising (Column 26, Line 41-Column 27, Line 12. The memory 504 is a volatile or non-volatile memory unit, and the storage device 506 contains a computer- or machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, perform the described operations. See also FIG. 5.):
determining, based on a destination location for a trip for a user, a content item to provide to a device of the user, the content item comprising an advertisement corresponding to a suggested location (Column 18, Lines 13-24. The server accesses point of interest information to identify locations of interest that relate to information associated with the desired destination for the trip. Column 18, Lines 25-56. Businesses can pay to be promoted as suggested locations of interest and can enter an auction for placement as suggested locations of interest, with a charge generated upon presentation and/or upon selection of the suggested location, such that the suggested location of interest constitutes an advertisement corresponding to a suggested location. See also FIG. 3B, element 320, and FIG. 1C, elements 122a-122d.);
transmitting instructions, that when executed by one or more processors of the device associated with the user, cause a user interface of the device to be updated to display the content item, wherein the content item comprises at least one interactive element (Column 19, Line 66-Column 20, Line 9. The server transmits the locations of interest to the user's device, and the user's device displays the locations of interest on a map display as selectable items, the selectable item being the at least one interactive element. See also FIG. 3B, elements 322 and 324, and FIG. 1E.);
detecting selection of the interactive element (Column 20, Lines 10-19. The user's device receives a user selection of a location of interest through the graphic user interface. Column 11, Lines 14-22. A prompt and confirmation button are provided by which the user selects and confirms the location of interest. See also FIG. 3B, element 326, and FIG. 1E, elements 126 and 128.); and
updating the trip to alter the destination location to the suggested location based on the selection of the interactive element (Column 20, Lines 30-43. The server receives the indication of the selected location of interest and generates a communication instructing an updated route. Column 20, Lines 54-67. The driver's device receives the selected location of interest as the new destination and reroutes to the new destination rather than the original destination. See also FIG. 3B, elements 328-336, and FIGS. 1E and 1F, elements 130 and 166.).
Claim 16: The Meyer reference discloses those limitations cited above with respect to claim 15. Meyer further discloses wherein the content item further comprises a promotional offer related to the suggested location (Column 19, Lines 44-52. Particular businesses can offer coupons or discounts for products or services available at the businesses, which can be included as part of the locations of interest information and displayed to the user, the coupon or discount being the promotional offer related to the suggested location.).
Claim 17: The Meyer reference discloses those limitations cited above with respect to claim 15. Meyer further discloses determining, based on the updated trip, a second content item comprising a promotional offer related to the suggested location (Column 11, Lines 31-56. In response to determining that the user has arrived at or near the new destination for the updated trip, the user's device displays an updated set of suggested locations of interest identified based on updated parameters, the updated set being determined based on the updated trip. Column 19, Lines 44-52. Businesses can offer coupons or discounts included as part of the locations of interest information, the coupon or discount being the promotional offer related to the suggested location.); and transmitting instructions, that when executed by one or more processors of the device associated with the user, cause the user interface of the device to be updated to display the second content item (Column 11, Lines 31-40. The determination that the user has arrived at or near the new destination triggers the user's device to display the updated information.).
Claim 18: The Meyer reference discloses those limitations cited above with respect to claim 15. Meyer further discloses wherein determining the content item is performed while the user is traveling from a pickup location to the destination location (Column 8, Lines 5-20. As the user travels along the route to the desired destination in the car of the driver, the user's device displays a set of suggested locations of interest, such that the content item is determined while the user is traveling from the pickup location to the destination location. See also FIG. 3B, element 320.).
Claim 19: The Meyer reference discloses those limitations cited above with respect to claim 15. Meyer further discloses wherein determining the content item comprises: transmitting a request for a content item to an advertisement engine (Column 18, Lines 33-42. A point of interest server allows businesses to provide factors taken into account in determining whether to promote a location, the point of interest server being the advertisement engine to which a request is transmitted.); and receiving the content item from the advertisement engine (Column 19, Lines 1-9. The point of interest server transmits indications of the locations of interest to the user's device.).
Claim 20: Meyer discloses one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (Column 26, Line 41-Column 27, Line 12. A computing device includes a processor 502 and a memory 504 that is a volatile or non-volatile memory unit, and the storage device 506 contains a computer- or machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, perform the described operations. See also FIG. 5.):
determining, based on a destination location for a trip for a user, a content item to provide to a device of the user, the content item comprising an advertisement for a service at a suggested location (Column 18, Lines 13-24. The server accesses point of interest information to identify locations of interest that relate to information associated with the desired destination for the trip. Column 18, Lines 25-56. Businesses can pay to be promoted as suggested locations of interest and can enter an auction for placement as suggested locations of interest, with a charge generated upon presentation and/or upon selection of the suggested location, such that the suggested location of interest constitutes an advertisement for a service at a suggested location. See also FIG. 3B, element 320, and FIG. 1C, elements 122a-122d.);
transmitting instructions, that when executed by one or more processors of the device associated with the user, cause a user interface of the device to be updated to display the content item, wherein the content item comprises at least one interactive element (Column 19, Line 66-Column 20, Line 9. The server transmits the locations of interest to the user's device, and the user's device displays the locations of interest on a map display as selectable items, the selectable item being the at least one interactive element. See also FIG. 3B, elements 322 and 324, and FIG. 1E.);
detecting selection of the interactive element (Column 20, Lines 10-19. The user's device receives a user selection of a location of interest through the graphic user interface. Column 11, Lines 14-22. A prompt and confirmation button are provided by which the user selects and confirms the location of interest. See also FIG. 3B, element 326, and FIG. 1E, elements 126 and 128.); and
updating the trip to alter the destination location to the suggested location based on the selection of the interactive element (Column 20, Lines 30-43. The server receives the indication of the selected location of interest and generates a communication instructing an updated route. Column 20, Lines 54-67. The driver's device receives the selected location of interest as the new destination and reroutes to the new destination rather than the original destination. See also FIG. 3B, elements 328-336, and FIGS. 1E and 1F, elements 130 and 166.).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 10,876,846 B1) in view of Horton (US 2020/0211140 A1).
The Meyer reference discloses those limitations cited above with respect to claim 1, including updating the trip to alter the destination location to the suggested location based on the user selection of the interactive element (Column 11, Lines 13-36. The user selects a location of interest as a new destination for the current trip, information indicating the new destination is transmitted for delivery to the driver's device, and the driver's device receives the new destination information and calculates an updated route to the new destination.).
Meyer does not appear to explicitly disclose keeping the destination location as a first drop-off location and scheduling a second service to transport the user from the destination location to the suggested location at a later time, Meyer instead altering the in-progress trip by rerouting it to terminate at the selected location as the new destination.
Horton, however, discloses coordinated multi-leg transportation in which a first transportation service brings the user to an intermediate drop-off point and a second transportation service is separately scheduled and dispatched from that intermediate drop-off point to transport the user onward at a later time (Paragraphs 0007-0009. A request is received for transportation from an origin to a destination, a first transportation service is dispatched, and a dispatch of a second transportation service is scheduled from an intermediate drop-off point to transport the user onward. Paragraphs 0034-0035. The system determines a schedule from the drop-off point onward and schedules the dispatch of the second service from the drop-off point, operations 425, 435, 540, and 545.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Meyer so that, instead of rerouting the in-progress trip to terminate at the selected location as the new destination, the system practices keeping the destination location as a first drop-off location and schedules a second service to transport the user onward to the suggested location at a later time, in view of Horton's teaching that coordinated transportation may be provided using sequential service legs with a later-scheduled second dispatch from an intermediate drop-off point. One would have been motivated to do this in order to permit the user to complete the original trip to the destination location before being transported to the suggested location at a later, more appropriate time.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 10,876,846 B1) in view of Weiss (US 9,390,145 B2).
Claim 8: Meyer discloses those limitations cited above with respect to claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the suggested location is determined based at least in part on a similarity in type, offering, or location to a past location associated with the user.
Weiss, however, discloses wherein the suggested location is determined based at least in part on a similarity in type, offering, or location to a past location associated with the user (Column 27, Lines 45-53. At block 403, for each venue in a set of search results, a user score is determined using collaborative filtering, user-user, and k-nearest-neighbors functions based on information stored by the location-based service indicating whether the user has previously been to this or similar venues, thereby determining the recommendation of a venue based on its similarity to a past location associated with the user.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to determine Meyer's suggested location based at least in part on a similarity in type, offering, or location to a venue the user previously visited, as taught by Weiss. One would have been motivated to do this in order to tailor the suggested location to the user's own demonstrated venue preferences, thereby increasing the relevance of the suggestion and the likelihood that the user selects it.
Claim 9: The Meyer/Weiss combination discloses those limitations cited above with respect to claim 8, wherein the suggested location is determined based on a similarity to a past location associated with the user.
Meyer further discloses wherein the past location associated with the user comprises at least one of a past pick-up location, a past drop-off location, or a location the user has ordered from (Column 2, Lines 3-9. The origin or pickup location for the ride is determined based on information collected by the user's device or user input such as the rider dropping a pin or entering an address. Column 16, Lines 1-16. The user's device transmits the pickup location to the rideshare server. The recited limitation is expressed in the alternative, and the disclosure of the user's pickup location satisfies the past pick-up location alternative.).
The rationale for combining Meyer and Weiss is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Other Relevant Prior Art
Though not cited in the aforementioned rejections, the following references are nevertheless deemed to be relevant to Applicant’s disclosures:
Andersen et al. (20250292286), directed to a method for displaying corresponding content for user-requested vehicle services using distributed electronic devices.
Binion et al. (20150112800), directed to targeted advertising using vehicle information.
Abuelsaad et al. (20150058127), directed to directional vehicle advertisements.
Prakah-Asante et al. (20140257989), directed to a method for selecting in-vehicle advertisements.
Alvarez-Castrillon et al. (DE102024109102), directed to suggesting and/or using a destination address of a vehicle navigation app, vehicle arrangement, and vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C BUSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights