DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The claim objections, 112 and 101 rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 6-4-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits: “Shrivastava does not teach or suggest retrieving a parcel record from a parcel database, where the parcel record corresponds to a parcel associated with the geodetic location and includes the claimed first and second portions of parcel information. At most, Shrivastava uses map data or building-location information in connection with converting or validating location information. That is not the same as retrieving parcel-record information from a parcel database and using parcel-level attributes together with geospatial boundary information to determine whether a civic address satisfies an E911 confidence threshold.”; the examiner’s position is that the argument is more detailed than the actual claim limitation, the claim does not require “a parcel database” and Shrivastava does teach retrieving stored information about a parcel; thereby, reading in a parcel record. Please note that an association is a limitation that only suggest but does not require any modification. Therefore, all further arguments directed to limitations which are described as associations are moot. Also, the argument that Shrivasta’s map data or building-location is not the same as retrieving parcel-record information”; again, the argument is more detailed than the actual claim limitation; and the argument fails to show the supposed differences. Last, the secondary reference does disclose the use of databases; thereby, the combination of record does disclose the argued limitations.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Please note that the secondary reference Horelik does not need to teach limitations already taught by the primary reference.
As to the argument “neither Shrivastava nor Horelik teaches or suggests the claimed sequence in which a parcel record corresponding to a parcel associated with the geodetic location is retrieved from a parcel database, the first portion of parcel information comprises parcel-level attributes including at least one of a building count or a total address count for the parcel, the second portion of parcel information comprises geospatial boundary information including a parcel boundary of the parcel and a structure boundary or building footprint for each structure located within the parcel, and the confidence level is determined based on those parcel- record features. The claimed relationship between the parcel record, the parcel-level attributes, the geospatial boundary information, and the confidence-level determination is absent from the cited art.”; the examiner respectfully disagree. Shrivastava discloses data regarding street addresses, building locations and layout (see par. 0122, 0132); which reads on parcel-level attributes including at least one of a building count or a total address count for the parcel, the second portion of parcel information comprises geospatial boundary information including a structure boundary [structure layout] or building footprint for each structure located within the parcel. And when combined with a Horelik the geofence reads on a parcel boundary of the parcel. Thereby, the combination of record does disclose the argued limitations.
The rest of the arguments they fall for the same reasons as shown above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10, 17-18 and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrivastava 20230209322 in view of Horelik 20190320310
As to claim 1, Shrivastava discloses a method for determining a confidence level of a civic address associated with an enhanced 911 call (see abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, at a node [124], a request by a public safety answer point (PSAP) [150] for a civic address corresponding to user equipment (UE) initiating a call for emergency services (see fig. 3, step 3; par. 0041, 0054, 0092);
receiving from the UE, at the node, a geodetic location corresponding to the UE initiating a call for emergency services (see fig. 3, step 11; par. 0044, 0061, 0101);
utilizing the geodetic location corresponding to the UE, retrieving a parcel record corresponding to a parcel associated with the geodetic location, wherein the parcel record comprises parcel information [806];
based on a first portion [802 or 804] of the parcel information and a comparison [808] of a second portion [802 or 804] of the parcel information to the geodetic location, determining a confidence level of the civic address (see fig. 8A, 8B; par. 0129-0134); wherein the first portion of parcel information comprises one or more parcel-level attributes including at least one of a building count or a total address count for the parcel, and wherein the second portion of parcel information comprises geospatial boundary information including a parcel boundary of the parcel and a structure boundary or building footprint for each structure located within the parcel [map data: building locations and layout implied to use a boundary in step 806 to convert the location to a street address and building locations] (see fig. 8A, 8B; par. 0122, 0129-0134, 0140); and
when the confidence level of the civic address satisfying a configurable threshold, providing the civic address to the PSAP (see par. 0134, 0140). Shrivastava does not specify retrieving a parcel information from a database. In an analogous art, Horelik discloses retrieving a parcel information from a database, including a second portion of the parcel information comprising a boundary [geofence] of the geodetic location (see par. 0154, 0238). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of easy retrieval of data.
As to claim 2, Shrivastava discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising converting the geodetic location corresponding to the UE into the civic address (see par. 0132).
As to claim 3, Shrivastava discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the parcel information comprises one or more of: parcel address, zoning information, land use and vacancy information, structure details, geographic information, building type, parcel use code, building count, building footprint, or address count (see par. 0061).
As to claim 10, Shrivastava discloses a method for determining a confidence level of a civic address associated with an enhanced 911 call (see abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, at a node [124], a request by a public safety answer point (PSAP) [150] for a civic address corresponding to user equipment (UE) initiating a call for emergency services (see fig. 3, step 3; par. 0041, 0054, 0092);
receiving from the UE, at the node, a geodetic location corresponding to the UE initiating a call for emergency services (see fig. 3, step 11; par. 0044, 0061, 0101);
utilizing the geodetic location corresponding to the UE, retrieving a parcel record corresponding to a parcel associated with the geodetic location, wherein the parcel record comprises parcel information [806] (see par. 0132, 0134);
based on a first portion [802 or 804] of the parcel information and a comparison [808] of a second portion of the parcel information to the geodetic location [802 or 804] of the parcel information to the geodetic location, determining a confidence level of the civic address (see fig. 8A, 8B; par. 0129-0134); wherein the first portion of parcel information comprises one or more parcel-level attributes including at least one of a building count or a total address count for the parcel, and wherein the second portion of parcel information comprises geospatial boundary information including a parcel boundary of the parcel and a structure boundary or building footprint for each structure located within the parcel, and wherein determining the confidence level comprises determining that the confidence level of the civic address does not satisfy the configurable threshold when the geodetic location is not within the parcel boundary of the parcel [map data: building locations and layout implied to use a boundary in step 806 to convert the location to a street address and building locations] (see par. 0129-0134, 0140), and in response to determining that the confidence level of the civic address does not satisfy the configurable threshold [one or more components] (see par. 0133-0134, 0140). Shrivastava does not specify retrieving a parcel information from a database. In an analogous art, Horelik discloses retrieving a parcel information from a database, including a second portion of the parcel information comprising a boundary [geofence] of the geodetic location (see par. 0154, 0238). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of easy retrieval of data. Shrivastava does not specify what happens after the address is unverified. However, it is within the general skill of one of the ordinary skills in the art to choose what to do when the confidence level is not reach, such as not providing the civic address to the PSAP when the output is too wrong, such as a different city. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that when the confidence level is not reached, not providing the data for the simple purpose of avoiding giving wrong information.
As to claim 17, Shrivastava discloses a system determining a confidence level of a civic address associated with an enhanced 911 call (see abstract), the method comprising:
a user equipment (UE) [105]; and a node [212] configured to
receiving, at a node [124], a request by a public safety answer point (PSAP) [150] for a civic address corresponding to user equipment (UE) initiating a call for emergency services (see fig. 3, step 3; par. 0041, 0054, 0092);
receiving from the UE, at the node, a geodetic location corresponding to the UE initiating a call for emergency services (see fig. 3, step 11; par. 0044, 0061, 0101);
utilizing the geodetic location corresponding to the UE, to retrieve, from a parcel database, a parcel record corresponding to a parcel associated with the geodetic location, wherein the parcel record comprises parcel information [806] (see par. 0132, 0134);
based on a first portion [802 or 804] of the parcel information and a comparison [808] of a second portion [802 or 804] of the parcel information to the geodetic location, determining a confidence level of the civic address (see fig. 8A, 8B; par. 0129-0134); wherein the first portion of parcel information comprises one or more parcel-level attributes including at least one of a building count or a total address count for the parcel, and wherein the second portion of parcel information comprises geospatial boundary information including a parcel boundary of the parcel and a structure boundary or building footprint for each structure located within the parcel [map data: building locations and layout implied to use a boundary in step 806 to convert the location to a street address and building locations] (see fig. 8A, 8B; par. 0122, 0129-0134, 0140).
Shrivastava does not specify retrieving a parcel information from a database. In an analogous art, Horelik discloses retrieving a parcel information from a database, including a second portion of the parcel information comprising a boundary [geofence] of the geodetic location (see par. 0154, 0238). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of easy retrieval of data.
As to claim 18, Shrivastava discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the confidence level of the civic address satisfies a configurable threshold if the first portion of parcel information indicates the civic address has one structure and one address and the geodetic location is within the structure boundary or building footprint and the civic address is provided to the PSAP (see par. 0134, 0140).
As to claim 21, Shrivastava discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the first portion of parcel information comprises one or more of: use information, a number of structures, a building count, or a total address count (see fig. 8A, 8B; par. 0061, 0129-0134).
As to claims 22 and 25, Shrivastava discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the confidence level of the civic address does not satisfy a configurable threshold when county, city, street, and postal code are unreliable or inconsistent (see par. 0134). Shrivastava does not specify missing information. However, it is obvious that missing information [such as market where parcel information is not available] is unreliable and within the general skill of one of the ordinary skills in the art to choose what to do when the confidence level is not reach, such as not providing the civic address to the PSAP when the output is too wrong, such as a different city. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that when the confidence level is not reached, not providing the data for the simple purpose of avoiding giving wrong information.
As to claim 23, Shrivastava discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the confidence level of the civic address does not satisfy a configurable threshold when an uncertainty that is provided by the UE with the geodetic location is greater than a predetermined threshold (see par. 0134).
As to claim 24, Shrivastava discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the confidence level of the civic address does not satisfy a configurable threshold when a distance error [uncertainty] is less than a predetermined threshold (see par. 0061, 0140).
As to claim 26, Shrivastava discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the parcel information comprises one or more of: parcel address, zoning information, land use and vacancy information, structure details, geographic information, building type, parcel, use code, building count, building footprint or address count (see fig. 8A, 8B; par. 0129-0134).
As to claim 27, Shrivastava discloses the system of claim 17, wherein when the confidence level of the civic address does not satisfy a configurable threshold, the AP civic location may be considered unverified (see par. 0061, 0134, 0140). Shrivastava does not specify what happens after the address is unverified. However, it is within the general skill of one of the ordinary skills in the art to choose what to do when the confidence level is not reach, such as not providing the civic address to the PSAP when the output is too wrong, such as a different city. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that when the confidence level is not reached, not providing the data for the simple purpose of avoiding giving wrong information.
As to claim 28, Shrivastava discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the confidence level of the civic address satisfies a configurable threshold if the first portion of parcel information indicates the civic address has one structure and one address and the geodetic location is within the structure or building footprint and the civic address is provided to the PSAP (see par. 0127, 0134, 0140). Shrivastava does not specifically disclose a structure boundary; however, discloses verifying if a house or building with a geodetic location (see par. 0140) which requires a structure boundary. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that a boundary is required to validate the house or building; thereby, making sure that is the correct address.
As to claim 29, Shrivastava discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the confidence level of the civic address satisfies a configurable threshold if the first portion of parcel information indicates the civic address has more than one structure [map data: building locations and layout implied to use a boundary in step 806 to convert the location to a street address and building locations] (see par. 0129-0134, 0140) or the parcel contains more than one address or the geodetic location is outside the structure boundary but is within the parcel or building footprint and the civic address is provided to the PSAP (see par. 0134, 0140).
Claim(s) 7-8, 16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrivastava 20230209322 in view of Horelik 20190320310 in view of Barros Chapiewski 20170353833.
As to claim 7-8, Shrivastava discloses the method wherein the confidence level of the civic address satisfies the configurable threshold if the first portion of parcel information indicates the civic address has one structure and one address and the geodetic location is within/outside the structure boundary or building footprint [map data: building locations and layout] (see par. 0129-0134, 0140). Shrivastava does not explicitly specify a boundary; however, it is pretty much implied in Shirivastava to use a boundary in step 806 to convert the location to a street address and building locations. In an analogous art, Horelik discloses inside a boundary [geofence] of the geodetic location (see par. 0154, 0238). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of converting the location to a street address and building locations. In another analogous art, de Barros Chapiewski discloses inside/outside parcel boundary (see par. 0112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine to use the boundary of the property in the Shrivastava modified system for the simple purpose of determining the correct address.
As to claim 16, Shrivastava discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, wherein the confidence level of the civic address does not satisfy a configurable threshold if the first portion of parcel information indicates the geodetic location is not within the parcel boundary (see par. 0127, 0134, 0140). Shrivastava does not specifically disclose a structure boundary; however, discloses verifying if a house or building with a geodetic location (see par. 0140) which requires a structure boundary. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that a boundary is required to validate the house or building; thereby, making sure that is the correct address. The previous references do not explicitly recite parcel boundary, although it is pretty much implied in Shirivastava to use a boundary in step 806 to convert the location to a street address and building locations. In another analogous art, de Barros Chapiewski discloses parcel boundary (see par. 0112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine to use the boundary of the property in the Shrivastava modified system for the simple purpose of making sure that first responders get to the right address.
As to claim 19, Shrivastava discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the confidence level of the civic address satisfies a configurable threshold if the first portion of parcel information indicates the civic address has more than one structure or the parcel contains more than one address or the geodetic location is not within the structure but is within the parcel boundary or building footprint and the civic address is provided to the PSAP (see par. 0127, 0134, 0140). Shrivastava does not specifically disclose a structure boundary; however, discloses verifying if a house or building with a geodetic location (see par. 0140) which requires a structure boundary. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that a boundary is required to validate the house or building; thereby, making sure that is the correct address. The previous references do not explicitly recite parcel boundary, although it is pretty much implied in Shirivastava to use a boundary in step 806 to convert the location to a street address and building locations. In another analogous art, de Barros Chapiewski discloses parcel boundary (see par. 0112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine to use the boundary of the property in the Shrivastava modified system for the simple purpose of making sure that first responders get to the right address.
As to claim 20, Shrivastava discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the confidence level of the civic address does not satisfy a configurable threshold if the geodetic location is not within the parcel (see par. 0127, 0134, 0140). The previous references do not explicitly recite parcel boundary, although it is pretty much implied in Shirivastava to use a boundary in step 806 to convert the location to a street address and building locations. In another analogous art, de Barros Chapiewski discloses parcel boundary (see par. 0112). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine to use the boundary of the property in the Shrivastava modified system for the simple purpose of making sure that first responders get to the right address. Shrivastava does not specify what happens after the address is unverified. However, it is within the general skill of one of the ordinary skills in the art to choose what to do when the confidence level is not reach, such as not providing the civic address to the PSAP when the output is too wrong, such as a different city. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that when the confidence level is not reached, not providing the data for the simple purpose of avoiding giving wrong information.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached on (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights