DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/10/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS as to the merits.
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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
i) In view of Step 1 of the analysis, claim(s) 1 is directed to a statutory category as a machine, claim 7 is directed to a statutory category as a process, and claim 14 is directed to an article of manufacture as a non-transitory computer readable medium, which each represent a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
ii) In view of Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1, 7, and 14 recite the abstract idea of designing a layout of a subdivision plat into plots which constitutes an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As to claim 1, the limitation of “identify, on the subdivision plat, the specified lot number from the plurality of lot numbers; trace, using computer aided design (CAD) software, one or more lot lines of the plurality of lot lines in the subdivision plat that enclose the specified lot number to create a lot; place, using CAD software, the lot onto a lot template; rotate, using CAD software, the lot template such that the right of way direction of the lot template is aligned with a front edge of the lot;” would be analogous to a person designing a layout of a subdivision plat into plots and thus fall under Mental Processes. In addition, the steps would further encompass Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations in the dimensions of the designing a layout of a subdivision plat into plots.
As to claim 7, the limitations of “identifying the specified lot number from the plurality of lot numbers on the subdivision plat; tracing one or more lot lines of the plurality of lot lines in the subdivision plat that enclose the specified lot number to create a lot; and placing the lot onto a lot template, the lot template comprising a direction indicator.” would be analogous to a person designing a layout of a subdivision plat into plots and thus fall under Mental Processes. In addition, the steps would further encompass Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations in the dimensions of the designing a layout of a subdivision plat into plots.
As to claim 14, the limitations of “identify the specified lot number from the plurality of lot numbers on the subdivision plat; trace one or more lot lines of the plurality of lot lines in the subdivision plat that enclose the specified lot number to create a lot; and place the lot onto a lot template, the lot template comprising a direction indicator.” would be analogous to a person designing a layout of a subdivision plat into plots and thus fall under Mental Processes. In addition, the steps would further encompass Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations in the dimensions of the designing a layout of a subdivision plat into plots.
Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper, as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts.
As to claim 1 and 14-20, other than reciting “using a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-13, and 15-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
iii) In view of Step 2A, Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claims 1 and 14, the additional element of “a processor”, and the “non-transitory computer readable medium”, in claim 14, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitation in claim 1, of “receive an order to generate a lot plan, the order to generate the lot plan comprising a subdivision plat identifier, a specified lot number, a lot template identifier, and orientation data, wherein the orientation data indicates that the lot plan should be oriented with respect to a right of way adjacent to the lot; receive, from a data store, a subdivision plat based on the subdivision plat identifier, wherein the subdivision plat is representative of a two-dimensional drawing comprising a plurality of lot lines and a plurality of lot numbers; receive, from the data store, a lot template based on the lot template identifier, wherein the lot template represents a presentation template to display a lot and the lot template comprises at least a compass and a right of way direction; store, in the data store, an output document comprising the lot placed on the rotated lot template” and the limitation in claim 7 of “receiving an order to generate a lot plan, the order to generate the lot plan comprising a specified lot number; receiving, from a data store, a subdivision plat, wherein the subdivision plat is representative of a two-dimensional drawing comprising a plurality of lot lines and a plurality of lot numbers;” and the limitations in claim 14 of “receive an order to generate a lot plan, the order to generate the lot plan comprising a specified lot number; receive a subdivision plat, wherein the subdivision plat is representative of a two- dimensional drawing comprising a plurality of lot lines and a plurality of lot numbers;”
are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation in claim 1, of “receive an order to generate a lot plan, the order to generate the lot plan comprising a subdivision plat identifier, a specified lot number, a lot template identifier, and orientation data, wherein the orientation data indicates that the lot plan should be oriented with respect to a right of way adjacent to the lot; receive, from a data store, a subdivision plat based on the subdivision plat identifier, wherein the subdivision plat is representative of a two-dimensional drawing comprising a plurality of lot lines and a plurality of lot numbers; receive, from the data store, a lot template based on the lot template identifier, wherein the lot template represents a presentation template to display a lot and the lot template comprises at least a compass and a right of way direction; store, in the data store, an output document comprising the lot placed on the rotated lot template” and the limitation in claim 7 of “receiving an order to generate a lot plan, the order to generate the lot plan comprising a specified lot number; receiving, from a data store, a subdivision plat, wherein the subdivision plat is representative of a two-dimensional drawing comprising a plurality of lot lines and a plurality of lot numbers;” and the limitations in claim 14 of “receive an order to generate a lot plan, the order to generate the lot plan comprising a specified lot number; receive a subdivision plat, wherein the subdivision plat is representative of a two- dimensional drawing comprising a plurality of lot lines and a plurality of lot numbers;” alternatively can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-13, and 15-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
iv) In view of Step 2B, claims 1, 7, and 14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1 and 14, the additional element of “a processor”, and the “non-transitory computer readable medium”, in claim 14, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitation in claim 1, of “receive an order to generate a lot plan, the order to generate the lot plan comprising a subdivision plat identifier, a specified lot number, a lot template identifier, and orientation data, wherein the orientation data indicates that the lot plan should be oriented with respect to a right of way adjacent to the lot; receive, from a data store, a subdivision plat based on the subdivision plat identifier, wherein the subdivision plat is representative of a two-dimensional drawing comprising a plurality of lot lines and a plurality of lot numbers; receive, from the data store, a lot template based on the lot template identifier, wherein the lot template represents a presentation template to display a lot and the lot template comprises at least a compass and a right of way direction; store, in the data store, an output document comprising the lot placed on the rotated lot template” and the limitation in claim 7 of “receiving an order to generate a lot plan, the order to generate the lot plan comprising a specified lot number; receiving, from a data store, a subdivision plat, wherein the subdivision plat is representative of a two-dimensional drawing comprising a plurality of lot lines and a plurality of lot numbers;” and the limitations in claim 14 of “receive an order to generate a lot plan, the order to generate the lot plan comprising a specified lot number; receive a subdivision plat, wherein the subdivision plat is representative of a two- dimensional drawing comprising a plurality of lot lines and a plurality of lot numbers;” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation in claim 1, of “receive an order to generate a lot plan, the order to generate the lot plan comprising a subdivision plat identifier, a specified lot number, a lot template identifier, and orientation data, wherein the orientation data indicates that the lot plan should be oriented with respect to a right of way adjacent to the lot; receive, from a data store, a subdivision plat based on the subdivision plat identifier, wherein the subdivision plat is representative of a two-dimensional drawing comprising a plurality of lot lines and a plurality of lot numbers; receive, from the data store, a lot template based on the lot template identifier, wherein the lot template represents a presentation template to display a lot and the lot template comprises at least a compass and a right of way direction; store, in the data store, an output document comprising the lot placed on the rotated lot template” and the limitation in claim 7 of “receiving an order to generate a lot plan, the order to generate the lot plan comprising a specified lot number; receiving, from a data store, a subdivision plat, wherein the subdivision plat is representative of a two-dimensional drawing comprising a plurality of lot lines and a plurality of lot numbers;” and the limitations in claim 14 of “receive an order to generate a lot plan, the order to generate the lot plan comprising a specified lot number; receive a subdivision plat, wherein the subdivision plat is representative of a two- dimensional drawing comprising a plurality of lot lines and a plurality of lot numbers;” alternatively can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2, 9, and 17 would be analogous to a person selecting a location of a layout and thus fall under Mental Processes. In addition, the steps would constitute Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations in the dimensions of the designing a layout of a subdivision plat into plots.
Dependent claims 3, 10, and 16 would be analogous to a person calculating the algorithm based on given values and thus fall under Mental Processes. In addition, the steps would constitute Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations in the dimensions of the designing a layout of a subdivision plat into plots.
Dependent claims 4, 11, and 18 would be analogous to a person selecting a location of a layout and thus fall under Mental Processes. In addition, the steps would constitute Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations in the dimensions of the designing a layout of a subdivision plat into plots.
Dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 would be analogous to a person selecting a location of a layout and thus fall under Mental Processes. In addition, the steps would constitute Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations in the dimensions of the designing a layout of a subdivision plat into plots.
Dependent claims 6, 13, and 20 would be analogous to a person drawing a layout and thus fall under Mental Processes.
Dependent claims 8, 15 would be analogous to a person orientating a layout and thus fall under Mental Processes.
v) Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
5. Claims 7, 9, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by WO 2005092072 A2, hereafter Olsen.
Regarding Claim 7: The reference discloses A method performed by a computing device, the method comprising:
receiving an order to generate a lot plan, the order to generate the lot plan comprising a specified lot number; (Olsen. Page 5, Lines 22-32, “The method provides for combining data from two or more reference sources to create imagery and a township reference plat showing each parcel boundary within a specific quarter section or sections of a township. The template produced according to the method of the present invention includes any associated assessor parcel numbers, plotting recorded document descriptions, design engineering for new developments, subdivision lot boundaries, parks, roads, utilities and existing structures with the elements of each tied to the SPCS.” Page 7, Lines 15-19, “The title report may be configured to include easements and right of ways associated with the real property plotted as overlays on the aerial image and labeled on the template according to an embodiment of the present invention.”)
receiving, from a data store, a subdivision plat, wherein the subdivision plat is representative of a two-dimensional drawing comprising a plurality of lot lines and a plurality of lot numbers; (Olsen. Page 6, Lines 21-28, “The ownership plat records may include and show any or all of the following: parcel boundary dimensions, acreage, legal description, assessor parcel numbers, roads and 25 appurtenant information. Ownership plat records may be obtained from counties that have data in Geographic Information System (GIS) or Computer Aided Design (CAD) based systems.”)
identifying the specified lot number from the plurality of lot numbers on the subdivision plat; (Olsen. Page 2, Lines 17-23, “The method may further include obtaining ownership plat records associated with the real property including parcel 20 boundary dimensions, acreage, legal description, assessor parcel numbers, roads and appurtenant information, where applicable, according to an embodiment of the present invention.”)
tracing one or more lot lines of the plurality of lot lines in the subdivision plat that enclose the specified lot number to create a lot; and (Olsen. Page 9, Lines 3-9, “Survey engineer data may include surveyed boundary data, engineering for proposed subdivisions that would include lot lines, streets, topographic information and the layout for utility infrastructure to be overlaid on an aerial image using the SPCS according to an embodiment of the present invention.”)
placing the lot onto a lot template, the lot template comprising a direction indicator. (Olsen. Page 9, Lines 3-9, “Survey engineer data may include surveyed boundary data, engineering for proposed subdivisions that would include lot lines, streets, topographic information and the layout for utility infrastructure to be overlaid on an aerial image using the SPCS according to an embodiment of the present invention.”)
Regarding Claim 9: The reference discloses The method of claim 7, wherein the lot template comprises an empty area for the lot to be placed, the empty area being a polygonal shape, and the method further comprises:
determining a centroid of the lot; (Olsen. Page 19, Lines 11-16, “Right below that box (Plot Offset), check the box that reads "Center the Plot." In the very bottom left hand corner there is a button that says "Full Preview"; click on this and check that the aerial image is going to plot correctly.”)
determining a centroid of the empty area; (Olsen. Page 19, Lines 11-16, “Right below that box (Plot Offset), check the box that reads "Center the Plot." In the very bottom left hand corner there is a button that says "Full Preview"; click on this and check that the aerial image is going to plot correctly.”)
and positioning the lot template with respect to the lot based at least on the centroid of the lot and the centroid of the empty area. (Olsen. Page 19, Lines 23-28, “After clicking this button you should see your aerial image and you need to pick one of the corners of your titleblock and drag the rectangle to the opposite corner so the entire titleblock is inside the box.”)
Regarding Claim 14: The reference discloses A non-transitory, computer-readable medium, comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to at least:
receive an order to generate a lot plan, the order to generate the lot plan comprising a specified lot number; (Olsen. Page 5, Lines 22-32, “The method provides for combining data from two or more reference sources to create imagery and a township reference plat showing each parcel boundary within a specific quarter section or sections of a township. The template produced according to the method of the present invention includes any associated assessor parcel numbers, plotting recorded document descriptions, design engineering for new developments, subdivision lot boundaries, parks, roads, utilities and existing structures with the elements of each tied to the SPCS.” Page 7, Lines 15-19, “The title report may be configured to include easements and right of ways associated with the real property plotted as overlays on the aerial image and labeled on the template according to an embodiment of the present invention.”)
receive a subdivision plat, wherein the subdivision plat is representative of a two- dimensional drawing comprising a plurality of lot lines and a plurality of lot numbers; (Olsen. Page 6, Lines 21-28, “The ownership plat records may include and show any or all of the following: parcel boundary dimensions, acreage, legal description, assessor parcel numbers, roads and 25 appurtenant information. Ownership plat records may be obtained from counties that have data in Geographic Information System (GIS) or Computer Aided Design (CAD) based systems.”)
identify the specified lot number from the plurality of lot numbers on the subdivision plat; (Olsen. Page 2, Lines 17-23, “The method may further include obtaining ownership plat records associated with the real property including parcel 20 boundary dimensions, acreage, legal description, assessor parcel numbers, roads and appurtenant information, where applicable, according to an embodiment of the present invention.”)
trace one or more lot lines of the plurality of lot lines in the subdivision plat that enclose the specified lot number to create a lot; and (Olsen. Page 9, Lines 3-9, “Survey engineer data may include surveyed boundary data, engineering for proposed subdivisions that would include lot lines, streets, topographic information and the layout for utility infrastructure to be overlaid on an aerial image using the SPCS according to an embodiment of the present invention.”)
place the lot onto a lot template, the lot template comprising a direction indicator. (Olsen. Page 9, Lines 3-9, “Survey engineer data may include surveyed boundary data, engineering for proposed subdivisions that would include lot lines, streets, topographic information and the layout for utility infrastructure to be overlaid on an aerial image using the SPCS according to an embodiment of the present invention.”)
Regarding Claim 17: The reference discloses The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the machine- readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least:
determine a centroid of the lot; (Olsen. Page 19, Lines 11-16, “Right below that box (Plot Offset), check the box that reads "Center the Plot." In the very bottom left hand corner there is a button that says "Full Preview"; click on this and check that the aerial image is going to plot correctly.”)
determine a centroid of the empty area; (Olsen. Page 19, Lines 11-16, “Right below that box (Plot Offset), check the box that reads "Center the Plot." In the very bottom left hand corner there is a button that says "Full Preview"; click on this and check that the aerial image is going to plot correctly.”) and
position the lot template with respect to the lot based at least on the centroid of the lot and the centroid of the empty area and based at least on a best fit algorithm. (Olsen. Page 19, Lines 23-28, “After clicking this button you should see your aerial image and you need to pick one of the corners of your titleblock and drag the rectangle to the opposite corner so the entire titleblock is inside the box.”)
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
6. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8, 11-12, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005092072 A2, hereafter Olsen.
Regarding Claim 1: The reference discloses A system, comprising:
a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and (Olsen. Page 8, Lines 19-25, “Design engineering 20 and preliminary design concepts may be shown using a projector system attached to a laptop computer with a GIS or CAD system and the engineering data stored on a hard drive or other data storage disk that can be recognized by the computer according to another 25 embodiment of the present invention.”)
machine-readable instructions stored in the memory that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to at least:
receive an order to generate a lot plan, the order to generate the lot plan comprising a subdivision plat identifier, a specified lot number, a lot template identifier, and orientation data, wherein the orientation data indicates that the lot plan should be oriented with respect to a right of way adjacent to the lot; (Olsen. Page 5, Lines 22-32, “The method provides for combining data from two or more reference sources to create imagery and a township reference plat showing each parcel boundary within a specific quarter section or sections of a township. The template produced according to the method of the present invention includes any associated assessor parcel numbers, plotting recorded document descriptions, design engineering for new developments, subdivision lot boundaries, parks, roads, utilities and existing structures with the elements of each tied to the SPCS.” Page 7, Lines 15-19, “The title report may be configured to include easements and right of ways associated with the real property plotted as overlays on the aerial image and labeled on the template according to an embodiment of the present invention.”)
receive, from a data store, a subdivision plat based on the subdivision plat identifier, wherein the subdivision plat is representative of a two-dimensional drawing comprising a plurality of lot lines and a plurality of lot numbers; (Olsen. Page 2, Lines 17-23, “The method may further include obtaining ownership plat records associated with the real property including parcel 20 boundary dimensions, acreage, legal description, assessor parcel numbers, roads and appurtenant information, where applicable, according to an embodiment of the present invention.”)
receive, from the data store, a lot template based on the lot template identifier, wherein the lot template represents a presentation template to display a lot and the lot template comprises at least a compass and a right of way direction; (Olsen. Page 21, “AutoDesk™ Land Desktop™ uses Quadrants (Azimuth/Points) for plotting legal descriptions.”)
identify, on the subdivision plat, the specified lot number from the plurality of lot numbers; (Olsen. Page 6, Lines 21-28, “The ownership plat records may include and show any or all of the following: parcel boundary dimensions, acreage, legal description, assessor parcel numbers, roads and 25 appurtenant information. Ownership plat records may be obtained from counties that have data in Geographic Information System (GIS) or Computer Aided Design (CAD) based systems.”)
trace, using computer aided design (CAD) software, one or more lot lines of the plurality of lot lines in the subdivision plat that enclose the specified lot number to create a lot; (Olsen. Page 9, Lines 3-9, “Survey engineer data may include surveyed boundary data, engineering for proposed subdivisions that would include lot lines, streets, topographic information and the layout for utility infrastructure to be overlaid on an aerial image using the SPCS according to an embodiment of the present invention.”)
place, using CAD software, the lot onto a lot template; (Olsen. Page 9, Lines 3-9, “Survey engineer data may include surveyed boundary data, engineering for proposed subdivisions that would include lot lines, streets, topographic information and the layout for utility infrastructure to be overlaid on an aerial image using the SPCS according to an embodiment of the present invention.”)
store, in the data store, an output document comprising the lot placed on the rotated lot template. (Olsen. Page 8, Lines 19-25, “Design engineering 20 and preliminary design concepts may be shown using a projector system attached to a laptop computer with a GIS or CAD system and the engineering data stored on a hard drive or other data storage disk that can be recognized by the computer according to another 25 embodiment of the present invention.”)
Olsen does not explicitly recite rotate, using CAD software, the lot template such that the right of way direction of the lot template is aligned with a front edge of the lot.
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to align the exit (right of way) of a property with the front edge of the lot as the exit/driveway of a home is typically situated in the front of the house lot. It is generally more practical to exit a property lot in the front of the lot rather than in the rear. The Examiner further notes that Applicants specification reciting “other jurisdictions can require that the front of the lot” be adjacent to the right of way. In other words it is further typical that jurisdiction guidelines could also typically require the exit of a property in the front of the lot rather than the rear. It is further noted that the functionality of the system remains the same and the CAD system of Olsen would be capable of either option.
Regarding Claim 2: The reference discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the lot template comprises an empty area for the lot to be placed, the empty area being a polygonal shape, and wherein the machine- readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least:
determine a centroid of the lot; (Olsen. Page 19, Lines 11-16, “Right below that box (Plot Offset), check the box that reads "Center the Plot." In the very bottom left hand corner there is a button that says "Full Preview"; click on this and check that the aerial image is going to plot correctly.”)
determine a centroid of the empty area; and (Olsen. Page 19, Lines 11-16, “Right below that box (Plot Offset), check the box that reads "Center the Plot." In the very bottom left hand corner there is a button that says "Full Preview"; click on this and check that the aerial image is going to plot correctly.”)
position the lot template with respect to the lot based at least on the centroid of the lot and the centroid of the empty area. (Olsen. Page 19, Lines 23-28, “After clicking this button you should see your aerial image and you need to pick one of the corners of your titleblock and drag the rectangle to the opposite corner so the entire titleblock is inside the box.”)
Regarding Claim 4: The reference discloses The system of claim 2, wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least: determine that the lot intersects with edges of the empty area; and resize the lot template so the lot fits within the empty area. (Olsen. Page 17, Lines 6-23, “You may need to move (see step 7 above) the "Xref11 so that it overlays in the correct position. If the drawing does not seem to fit correctly on the plat map, the scale maybe incorrect., Click on the "Xref11 and it should become shaded and you will see a little blue square called a toggle. With the "Xref" highlighted, type "Properties11 and a dialog box will pop up on the left hand side of the screen. Within this box look for the heading "Geometry11 , under the heading there are three boxes for scale labeled: 'Scale X,' 'Scale Y,' and 'Scale Z.' They should all read 1.00, changing each box so it reads the same will alter the "Xref 11 to the appropriate scale. Try changing the scale to 1/12 or 0.08 if the "Xref11 is too big.”)
Regarding Claim 5: The reference discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the order to generate the lot plan further comprises a house plan and house positioning data, the house plan being a two-dimensional drawing that depicts at least a plurality of outer wall lines and wherein the machine- readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least: select at least the plurality of outer wall lines to identify a house; place the house onto the lot based at least on the house positioning data; (Olsen. Page 17, Lines 26-31, “The last overlay that needs to be added is any architectural drawings. These may include information such as a site plan with common areas and sidewalks, public and private parking layouts, position of building or house footprints, etc.”) calculate one or more house plan calculations based at least on the placement of the house relative to the lot; and generate a calculations block that displays the one or more house plan calculations. (Olsen. Page 7, Lines 3-7, “ The county recorder records will contain a metes and bounds legal description that comprises courses and bearings that can be shown by utilizing section corner monuments in a township that may be overlaid on the aerial image using the SPCS.”)
Regarding Claim 8: Olsen does not explicitly recite The method of claim 7, further comprising: determining that the order to generate the lot plan further comprises orientation data, wherein the orientation data indicates that the lot plan should be oriented with respect to a right of way adjacent to the lot; and rotating the lot template so that the right of way is aligned with a border of the lot template.
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to align the exit (right of way) of a property with the edge of the lot as the exit/driveway of a home is always situated adjacent to the border of property lot. It is generally accepted that there must be an exit to the border of the lot to allow residents to exit their property. The Examiner further notes that Applicants specification in at least [0020] reciting “configured on a house-by-house basis due to the specific requirements needed in the jurisdiction.” In other words it is further typical that jurisdiction guidelines could also typically require an exit of a property. It is further noted that the functionality of the system remains the same and the CAD system of Olsen would be capable of this option.
Regarding Claim 11: The reference discloses The method of claim 9, further comprising: determining that the lot intersects with edges of the empty area; and resizing the lot template so the lot fits within the empty area. (See rejection for claim 4)
Regarding Claim 12: The reference discloses The method of claim 7, wherein the order to generate the lot plan further comprises a house plan and house positioning data, the house plan being a two-dimensional drawing that depicts at least a plurality of outer wall lines, and the method further comprises: selecting at least the plurality of outer wall lines to identify a house; placing the house onto the lot based at least on the house positioning data; calculating one or more house plan calculations based at least on the placement of the house relative to the lot; and generating a calculations block that displays the one or more house plan calculations. (See rejection for claim 5)
Regarding Claim 15: The reference discloses The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the machine- readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least: determine that the order to generate the lot plan further comprises orientation data, wherein the orientation data indicates that the lot plan should be oriented with respect to a right of way adjacent to the lot; and rotate the lot template so that the right of way is aligned with a border of the lot template. (See rejection for claim 8)
Regarding Claim 18: The reference discloses The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the machine- readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least: determine that the lot intersects with edges of the empty area; and resize the lot template so the lot fits within the empty area. (See rejection for claim 4)
Regarding Claim 19: The reference discloses The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the order to generate the lot plan further comprises a house plan and house positioning data, the house plan being a two-dimensional drawing that depicts at least a plurality of outer wall lines, and wherein the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least: select at least the plurality of outer wall lines to identify a house; place the house onto the lot based at least on the house positioning data; calculate one or more house plan calculations based at least on the placement of the house relative to the lot; and generate a calculations block that displays the one or more house plan calculations. (See rejection for claim 5)
7. Claim(s) 3, 6, 10, 13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005092072 A2, hereafter Olsen in view of IAAO, "Standard on Digital Cadastral Maps and Parcel Identifiers." (2015), hereafter S.
Regarding Claim 3: Olsen does not explicitly recite The system of claim 2, wherein positioning the lot template with respect to the lot is further based on at least a best fit algorithm.
However S discloses The system of claim 2, wherein positioning the lot template with respect to the lot is further based on at least a best fit algorithm. (S. Page 10, 4.2.4 Best-Fit-to-Ortho, Best-fit-to-ortho is a process in which a combination of available dimensions and orthophotos evidence are used in tandem to achieve a dimensionally and spatially accurate digitized map option.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the best fit algorithm of S with the positioning of Olsen in order “to achieve a dimensionally and spatially accurate digitized map option.” (S. Page 10, 4.2.4 Best-Fit-to-Ortho)
Regarding Claim 6: Olsen does not explicitly recite The system of claim 5, wherein the order to generate the lot plan further comprises fencing data and wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least: generate fencing lines within the lot based at least on the fencing data; and generate a driveway based at least on a position of a right of way and a position of the house.
However S recites The system of claim 5, wherein the order to generate the lot plan further comprises fencing data and wherein the machine-readable instructions further cause the computing device to at least: generate fencing lines within the lot based at least on the fencing data; and generate a driveway based at least on a position of a right of way and a position of the house. (S. Page 7, left column, Section 3.2, 3rd paragraph, “Traditional base maps locate major physical features of the landscape and are typically prepared by professional photogrammetry firms using photogrammetric methods and may include attributed lines (e.g., roads, edge of pavement, curbs, ditches, and fences, and so on), polygons (e.g., elevation contours, water bodies, building footprints, and so on), and points (e.g., power poles, fire hydrants. and the like).” See also S, page 13, right column, Section 6.3.1, “6.3.1 Trimming Many mapping program procedures include trimming of subdivision, lot, and block lines to match the ownership boundary of the parcel in situations in which an action has altered the parcel, such as when an acquisition for right-of-way purposes…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the fencing generation of S with the positioning of Olsen in order “to achieve a dimensionally and spatially accurate digitized map option.” (S. Page 10, 4.2.4 Best-Fit-to-Ortho)
Regarding Claim 10: The reference discloses The method of claim 9, wherein the positioning the lot template with respect to the lot is further based on at least a best fit algorithm. (See rejection for claim 3)
Regarding Claim 13: The reference discloses The method of claim 12, wherein the order to generate the lot plan further comprises fencing data and wherein the method further comprises: generating fencing lines within the lot based at least on the fencing data; and generating a driveway based at least on a position of a right of way and a position of the house. (See rejection for claim 6)
Regarding Claim 16: The reference discloses The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the positioning the lot template with respect to the lot is further based on at least a best fit algorithm. (See rejection for claim 3)
Regarding Claim 20: The reference discloses The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the order to generate the lot plan further comprises fencing data and wherein the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the computing device to at least: generate fencing lines within the lot based at least on the fencing data; and generate a driveway based at least on a position of a right of way and the a position of the house. (See rejection for claim 6)
Conclusion
8. All Claims are rejected.
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20040183826 which teaches a method for providing a virtual tour of real property.
ii) Janusz, J. "Fast simulation tool: SDSS for housing development and more." International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 11.1 (2016): 39-48 which teaches “land use planning” and “research are established based on the study of Spatial Decision Support Systems (SDSS).”
iii) Brennan, Thomas M. Analytical Hierarchy Optimization of Potential Residential Lot Distribution. Diss. George Mason University, 2006 which teaches “a dynamic methodology that can be applied within a geographic information system (GIS) model to weight and rank the potential distribution of residential lot construction areas based on engineering and regulatory governmental criteria.”
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
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, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SAA
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights