Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the application filed by the applicant on September 16th, 2025.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 12, 14, and 16-20 have been amended and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on September 16th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments against the 101 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons:
Prong 2A Step 1: The Applicant argues that amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because the claim now recites additional technical steps, including converting geographic coordinate information into a vector, applying transformations to form intermediate identifiers, and generating a final identifier for a structure. Applicant further asserts that these features are rooted in computer technology and address technological problems related to hazard categorization and property data clarity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a claim is directed to an abstract idea when it recites subject matter falling within one of the enumerated groupings, including mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity, such as organizing, classifying, indexing, and retrieving information. As amended, claim 1 recites a sequence of operations that, when viewed as a whole, are directed to:
deriving identifiers from geographic data,
associating property data with those identifiers,
retrieving property data using the identifiers, and
displaying the retrieved data to a user
These steps collectively constitute an information organization and retrieval scheme. The additional limitations describing the conversion of geographic coordinates into a vector, application of a transformation, and generation of intermediate identifiers merely define how data is mathematically processed to produce an identifier, rather than reciting a technological operation that changes the functioning of a computer or another technology.
Further, Applicant asserts that the claimed steps—such as converting coordinate information into vectors based on joints of a physical boundary and applying transformations—are not mental processes and therefore cannot be abstract. However, the Federal Circuit has made clear that the use of mathematical operations, vectors or transformations does not by itself render a claim non-abstract. Mathematical manipulation of data for the purpose of generating identifiers remains an abstract idea, regardless of whether such calculations are practical for a human to perform mentally.
Here, the claimed vectorization and transformation steps are used solely to generate identifiers that enable information retrieval. They do not improve the operation of the computer, alter how memory or processor’s function, or solve a technical problem in computer technology itself. Instead, the represent an abstract data-processing technique applied to geographic information.
Step 2A Prong 2: Under Step 2A, Prong 2, a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application when it improves the functioning of a computer itself or another technology or technical field, otherwise meaningfully limits the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.04(a)).
Although Applicant asserts that the claims improve a technical field related to hazard mitigation, amended claim 1 does not recite any improvement to computer technology, geographic information systems, or hazard detection technology. The claim recites generic computer components (processor, memory, user device) performing data manipulation steps, including: converting coordinate data into vectors, applying transformations, generating identifiers, and retrieving and displaying property data. These steps do not alter how the computer operates, how data is stored or processed at a system level, or how geographic data is technically sensed, modeled, or analyzed. Instead, the computer is used as a tool to implement an abstract-information processing workflow.
Further, Applicant relies heavily on the specification’s discussion of preventing structural damage or loss of life. However, the claim itself does not recite assigning hazard zones, detecting hazards, predicting hazards, or performing any physical world-action. The claim ends with displaying property data to a user. Under MPEP §2106.05(a), while the specification may describe a technical problem and a potential benefit, the claim must itself reflect the asserted improvement. Here, any alleged hazard mitigation arises only from how a user might later interpret or act upon the displayed information. Such downstream effects constitute intended use, which does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea by tying it to a concrete technological application in the physical world.
Additionally, Applicant argues that the recited steps of vectorization, transformation, and identifier generation constitute a “specific process” sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, specificity alone is insufficient. The claimed process remains a data encoding and indexing technique, where geographic data is mathematically transformed into identifiers for purposes of information retrieval. Such processing does not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, but rather describes how the abstract idea is carried out. The claim does not recite a specialized data structure, a new form of geographic modeling, or a technological mechanism that changes how spatial data is technically represented or computed. Instead, it recites results-oriented steps that broadly cover any manner of vectorization, transformation, or identifier generation.
Although revised Step 2A excludes consideration of whether additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional, the inquiry remains whether the claim applies the abstract idea in a meaningful way. Here, the additional elements merely:
generate identifiers,
retrieve associated records, and
display information
These steps apply the abstract idea only in its most basic form, without tying it to a particular machine in a non-generic way, without effecting a transformation of a physical article and without improving a technical field. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Applicant argues that, even if amended claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, the claim recites significantly more than the abstract idea because it includes limitations directed to generating a unique identifier for a structure in a specific manner that can allegedly prevent or mitigate structural damage or loss of life. Applicant further analogizes the claim to Example 23 of the July 2015 USPTO Examples and asserts that the claim improves computer functionality. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2B, a claim recites “significantly more” only if the additional elements amount to an inventive concept—that is, elements that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field, and that transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Amended Claim 1 recites additional limitations including:
converting geographic coordinate data into a vector,
applying a transformation to generate an intermediate identifier,
generating an additional identifier based on a geographic cell, and
combining identifiers to retrieve and display property data
These limitations describe mathematical data manipulation and identifier generation, which are routine activities in computer-based data management, geographic information systems, and database indexing. The claim does not recite any specialized hardware, unconventional data structures, or non-generic computing techniques. Instead, the additional elements merely instruct a generic processor to perform abstract data processing steps.
For the reasons set forth above, the Examiner maintains that amended claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claimed limitations merely apply generic computer components to perform mathematical data processing, identifier generation, information retrieval, and display. Accordingly, amended claim 1, along with independent claims 12, 18, and 19 and their respective dependent claims, remain ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for failing to recite an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 for the amended/pending claims: Applicant traverses the rejections of claims 1 – 20 and 22 – 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0371801 to Dawson, arguing that Dawson fails to disclose the limitations added by amendment, including converting geographic boundary information into vectors, applying transformation to form intermediate identifiers, and generating identifiers based on geographic cells. The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and the amended claims.
The rejections are withdrawn because the cited references do not teach the newly amended limitations. Please see below for the new rejections of the claims as amended.
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 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and therefore does not recite patent-eligible subject matter. Firstly, it should be stated that claim 1 is being used as the most representative of the independent claim set.
Step 2A Prong 1, Claim 1 recites operations that mathematically process geographic coordinate information into derived values (identifiers), including:
convert geographical coordinate information… into a vector…
apply a transformation to elements of the vector …
generate … identifiers based on … geographic cell …
generate a … identifier … based on [two] intermediate identifiers
These limitations recite mathematical operations (vectorization and transformation of elements) used to derive an identifier. Such mathematical processing is a recognized judicial exception under “mathematical concepts” (e.g., mathematical relationships/formulas/calculations). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Beyond the mathematical processing, claim 1 further recites:
obtaining a query for property information
mapping an input to an identifier,
retrieving property data linked to the identifier, and
displaying retrieved property data in a user interface
These steps constitute organizing and retrieving information using identifiers, which is a form of abstract information processing. Courts have found claims directed to collecting, analyzing, organizing, and displaying information to be abstract.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception, at least in the form of mathematical concepts and information organization/retrieval scheme. Proceed to Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2A Prong 2, a claim that recites a judicial exception is eligible only if the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04. Integration can be shown, for example, by an improvement to computer functionality or another technical field, a particular machine that meaningfully limits the exception, or a transformation/treatment of a physical article tied to the exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e).
Claim 1 does not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself (e.g., improved memory management, data structure, CPU utilization, network protocol, rendering pipeline, etc.). Instead, the claim uses generic computing components to process data and output results. Although the claim includes “vector” and “transformation” language, the claim does not specify any technical improvement to how geographic computation is performed (e.g., a new spatial indexing structure). Rather, the claim recites results-oriented mathematical data processing steps used to generate identifiers.
This is analogous to claims that apply mathematical techniques to data without improving the computer’s operations.
Alternatively, Claim 1 ends with retrieving property data and displaying it. The claim does not recite controlling a physical device, changing a physical condition, or carrying out hazard prevention actions. Any asserted real-world benefit (e.g., hazard mitigation) is not reflected in the claim’s steps and therefore constitutes, at most, an intended use or result rather than a claim limitation that integrates the exception into a practical application. See Chargepoint v. SemaConnect (generalized assertions of improvement are insufficient where the claim is directed to networked information exchange rather than a specific technological improvement).
The claim’s additional elements include: memory storing instructions, a processor executing instructions, causing a user device to display a UI. These are recited at a high level and perform their ordinary functions. Using a generic processor/memory/display to implement mathematical processing and information retrieval does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Under Step 2B, the claim is evaluated to determine whether it recites an inventive concept, i.e., additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim’s additional elements—memory, processor, retrieving records linked to identifiers, and displaying results on a UI—represent routine computer functions used to implement the abstract idea.
Further, generating identifiers based on location-related features, and using identifiers to retrieve associated records, reflect generic data management and GIS indexing patterns rather than a non-generic technical solution. Even though claim 1 recites mathematical processing, those steps are used to generate identifiers for information retrieval and display. Using mathematical techniques to implement abstract data processing, without a claimed technological improvement, does not constitute an inventive concept.
Therefore, claim 1 fails to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
For dependent claims 2 – 11, 13 – 17, 20 – 23, these claims cover or fall under the same abstract idea of a method of organizing human activity and mental processes. They describe additional limitation steps of:
Claims 2 – 11: further describes the abstract idea of the property information retrieving system and further details about data type linking and display between users. Thus, being directed to the abstract idea group of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” and “commercial or legal interactions” as it involves the management of social activities between the system and user for business relations purposes.
Claims 13 – 17, and 20 - 23: further describes the abstract idea performed by the computer-implemented method in which a query is obtained, analyzed to then be linked with an identifier, retrieve data associated with the identifiers, and then displayed.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: For dependent claims, these claims do not include additional elements, but further instruct one to practice the abstract idea by using general computer components that are merely used as a tool. As a result, it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, these claim limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components and or computing technologies (e.g., that are merely deployed to be used as a tool—see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, these elements and their limitations are “merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without sufficient integration into a practical application, and the additional elements do not add significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claims 1 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Dawson (US US20160371801 A1) in view of Xu (US20150264523 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12, 18 – 19:
Hartz teaches:
obtain a query for information related to a first input; [¶0008]: The user interface allows users to interact and input necessary data to update the graphical map.
determine that the first input corresponds to the first identifier; [¶0041]: Areas of property are defined by the assessor’s parcel number (APN) as well as a unique key. User inputs may also trigger the APN by querying folio numbers, tax identification numbers, personal identification numbers, and parcel identifier numbers.
retrieve property data linked to the first identifier; and [¶0045]: The system is able to retrieve appropriate information from various GISes.
cause a user device to display a user interface that depicts the retrieved property data. [¶0042]: Paired with the user interface, the system is able to display boundaries for a property as well as a plethora of logistics regarding a property (i.e., precise size, shape, boundaries).
Hartz does not teach the following limitations below. However, Xu teaches:
convert geographical coordinate information that defines a physical boundary of a structure into a vector based on one or more joints of the physical boundary [¶0035]: Geographic coordinates are converted to a geohash. Geohashes are frequently used to index, partition, and organize vector geographic data (points, lines, or polygons).
apply a transformation to elements of the vector to form a first intermediate identifier; [¶0035 - 0036]: An algorithm is applied to the latitude and longitude of a coordinate position in order to create the geohash. Further, the dynamic geofencing application is then able to match the geohash to a value in the geohash index.
generate a second intermediate identifier based on a geographic cell within which the structure is located; [Fig. 2; ¶0027]: Geometric data, including global positioning, postal addresses, and other geographic identifiers, are gathered and stored as metadata.
generate a first identifier for the structure based on the first intermediate identifier and the second intermediate identifier; [Fig. 2; ¶0027]: Geometric data, including global positioning, postal addresses, and other geographic identifiers, are gathered and stored as metadata.
Regarding claims 2 and 13:
Hartz teaches:
determine that a second identifier is linked to the first identifier; (In ¶0043: teaches “In some cases, the system also can allow a user to filter a list of properties based on one or more criteria, such that only properties having particular desired characteristics are displayed. A user can quickly navigate through this list of properties (e.g., by selecting “next” or “back” navigation options on a user interface) in order to view each of these properties in succession.”)
retrieve second property data linked to the second identifier; and (In ¶0045: teaches “Implementations of the system can retrieve information from several GISes, and present the user with aggregated information regarding several different properties.)
cause the user device to display the user interface that depicts the retrieved property data and the retrieved second property data. (In ¶0042: teaches “the system can display boundaries for a property (e.g., the boundaries of a parcel of land), rather than simply displaying a marker that approximates the location of a property. This can beneficial, for example, as it allows a user to inspect the precise size and shape of a property's boundaries, such that he can more accurately assess a property.” Refer to ¶0042-0043 for displaying additional contextual information regarding the property in text/graphic form.
Regarding claims 3 and 14:
Hartz teaches:
wherein the second identifier comprises a parcel unique identifier corresponding to a parcel, and (In ¶0041: teaches “In some implementations, each property can be identified by its assessor's parcel number (APN), a unique number assigned by a governing authority (e.g., a county tax assessor)”)
wherein the first identifier comprises a structure unique identifier corresponding to the structure that resides on the parcel. (In ¶0041: teaches “in some cases, an address may not be specific enough to identify a single property. In contrast, an APN can often identify these types of properties.”)
Regarding claim 4:
Hartz teaches:
wherein the second identifier comprises a structure unit unique identifier corresponding to a unit in the structure on a parcel, and wherein the first identifier comprises a structure unique identifier corresponding to the structure. (In ¶0041: teaches “In some implementations, each property can be identified by its assessor's parcel number (APN), a unique number assigned by a governing authority (e.g., a county tax assessor).”)
Regarding claims 5 and 15:
Hartz teaches:
determine that a third identifier is linked to one of the first identifier or the second identifier; (In ¶0043: teaches “In some cases, the system also can allow a user to filter a list of properties based on one or more criteria, such that only properties having particular desired characteristics are displayed. A user can quickly navigate through this list of properties (e.g., by selecting “next” or “back” navigation options on a user interface) in order to view each of these properties in succession.”)
retrieve second property data linked to the third identifier; and (In ¶0045: teaches “Implementations of the system can retrieve information from several GISes, and present the user with aggregated information regarding several different properties.)
cause the user device to display the user interface that depicts the retrieved property data, the retrieved second property data, and the retrieved third property data. (In ¶0042: teaches “the system can display boundaries for a property (e.g., the boundaries of a parcel of land), rather than simply displaying a marker that approximates the location of a property. This can beneficial, for example, as it allows a user to inspect the precise size and shape of a property's boundaries, such that he can more accurately assess a property.” Refer to ¶0042-0043 for displaying additional contextual information regarding the property in text/graphic form.
Regarding claim 6:
Hartz teaches:
wherein the second identifier comprises a parcel unique identifier corresponding to a parcel and the first identifier comprises a structure unique identifier corresponding to the structure that resides on the parcel, and (In ¶0041: teaches “In some implementations, each property can be identified by its assessor's parcel number (APN), a unique number assigned by a governing authority. An APN also can be referred to as folio number, a tax identification number, a personal identification number, or a parcel identifier number. In some cases, implementations of the system can identify a property based on its APN, either instead of or in addition to the mailing or street address of the property. This can be beneficial, for example, as an APN will often uniquely identify a particular property, whereas an address can sometimes correspond to several properties at once (e.g., several parcels of land encompassed by a common address). Therefore, in some cases, an address may not be specific enough to identify a single property.”)
wherein the third identifier comprises a structure unit unique identifier corresponding to a unit within the structure that resides on the parcel. (In ¶0041: teaches “In some cases, implementations of the system can identify a property based on its APN, either instead of or in addition to the mailing or street address of the property. This can be beneficial, for example, as an APN will often uniquely identify a particular property, whereas an address can sometimes correspond to several properties at once (e.g., several parcels of land encompassed by a common address).”)
Regarding claim 7:
Hartz teaches:
wherein the second identifier comprises a parcel unique identifier corresponding to a parcel and the first identifier comprises a first structure unique identifier corresponding to the structure that resides on the parcel, and (In ¶0041: teaches “In some implementations, each property can be identified by its assessor's parcel number (APN), a unique number assigned by a governing authority. An APN also can be referred to as folio number, a tax identification number, a personal identification number, or a parcel identifier number. In some cases, implementations of the system can identify a property based on its APN, either instead of or in addition to the mailing or street address of the property. This can be beneficial, for example, as an APN will often uniquely identify a particular property, whereas an address can sometimes correspond to several properties at once (e.g., several parcels of land encompassed by a common address). Therefore, in some cases, an address may not be specific enough to identify a single property.”)
wherein the third identifier comprises a second structure unique identifier corresponding to a second structure that resides on the parcel (In ¶0041: teaches “In some cases, implementations of the system can identify a property based on its APN, either instead of or in addition to the mailing or street address of the property. This can be beneficial, for example, as an APN will often uniquely identify a particular property, whereas an address can sometimes correspond to several properties at once (e.g., several parcels of land encompassed by a common address).”)
Regarding claim 8:
Hartz teaches:
wherein the first identifier comprises a structure unique identifier corresponding to the structure that resides on a parcel and the second identifier comprises a first structure unit unique identifier corresponding to a first unit within the structure that resides on the parcel, and wherein the third identifier comprises a second structure unit unique identifier corresponding to a second unit within the structure that resides on the parcel. (In ¶0037: teaches “As an example, a user can use the system to examine the boundaries of a property, determine the property's surroundings (e.g., the property's location relative to other properties, infrastructure, and natural formations), ascertain the visibility and accessibility of the property, and/or obtain other contextual information regarding the property.”)
Regarding claims 9 and 16:
Hartz teaches:
wherein the first identifier comprises a structure unit unique identifier corresponding to a unit in a structure on a parcel and the second identifier comprises a structure unique identifier corresponding to the structure on the parcel, and wherein the third identifier comprises a parcel unique identifier corresponding to the parcel. [¶0041]: “the system can identify a property based on its APN, either instead of or in addition to the mailing or street address of the property. This can be beneficial, for example, as an APN will often uniquely identify a particular property, whereas an address can sometimes correspond to several properties at once (e.g., several parcels of land encompassed by a common address). “
Regarding claims 10 and 17:
Hartz teaches:
wherein a second identifier comprises a parcel unique identifier corresponding to a parcel, and wherein the computer- executable instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to: determine that a current boundary of the parcel is different than a previous boundary of the parcel by a threshold value; (In ¶0044: teaches “In many cases, a property's boundary information can be defined using a geographical information system (GIS), or a system configured to capture, store, manipulate, analyze, manage, and/or present spatial or geographical data. For example, a GIS can information spatial and/or geographical data that defines the position, shape, orientation, and/or dimensions of a property's boundary.”)
determine that the parcel has one of split into a first sub-parcel and a second sub- parcel or merged with a second parcel to form a third parcel based on the determination that the current boundary is different than the previous boundary by the threshold value; (In ¶0044: teaches “In many cases, a property's boundary information can be defined using a geographical information system (GIS), or a system configured to capture, store, manipulate, analyze, manage, and/or present spatial or geographical data. For example, a GIS can information spatial and/or geographical data that defines the position, shape, orientation, and/or dimensions of a property's boundary.”)
generate a third identifier for the parcel based on the current boundary; and (In ¶0024; Fig. 1A, 4, 5A-5C: teaches “Each graphical curve can indicate, with respect to the geographical region, the boundary line defining a respective one of the parcels of land. A first graphical curve can be presented using a first color or pattern. A second graphical curve can be presented using a second color of pattern different than the first color or pattern.”)
link the third identifier with the second identifier. (In ¶0043: teaches “In some cases, the system also can allow a user to filter a list of properties based on one or more criteria, such that only properties having particular desired characteristics are displayed. A user can quickly navigate through this list of properties (e.g., by selecting “next” or “back” navigation options on a user interface) in order to view each of these properties in succession.”)
Regarding claims 11 and 23:
Hartz teaches:
wherein the first input comprises one of an address, a name of an owner, a geocode, geographic coordinates, an assessor parcel number, or a second identifier. (In ¶0044: teaches “In some cases, a GIS can also include additional information, such as a property's tax assessed value, current owner name and address, square footage or acreage, zoning use code, and other information. The system can display some or all of this additional information to the user.”)
Regarding claim 20:
Hartz teaches:
generating the identifier based at least in part on a physical boundary of a structure at the first input and a value that identifies a geographic cell derived based on a spherical projection. (In ¶0030: teaches “responsive to receiving the input, presenting visually, on the interactive user interface, an identification number (e.g. value) associated with the selected parcel of land.”) Refer to ¶0027-0028 for more information regarding updating the graphical map.
Regarding claim 21:
Hartz teaches:
wherein the value that identifies the geographical cell derived based on the spherical projection comprises a value that corresponds to a geographic area corresponding to a location on a surface of Earth that includes individual points mapped to a mathematical sphere.
Regarding claim 22:
Hartz teaches:
wherein generating the identifier further comprises generating the identifier based at least in part on the physical boundary of the structure, the value that identifies the geographic cell derived based on the spherical projection, and a sequence number. (In ¶0030: teaches “responsive to receiving the input, presenting visually, on the interactive user interface, an identification number associated with the selected parcel of land.” Furthermore, ¶0044: teaches “a GIS can information spatial and/or geographical data that defines the position, shape, orientation, and/or dimensions of a property's boundary.”)
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Hamynen (U.S. Pub No. 20070162942A1) is pertinent because it is directed to “Displaying network content searches on mobile devices involves obtaining results of a network content request via a mobile device. A geolocation of at least one object associated with the results of the network content request is also obtained.”
Roese (U.S. Pub No. 20030217151A1) is pertinent because it is relays “Data is provided with location-based access control information. Access to the data at a physical location is then limited according to the location-based access control information. A physical location of a device accessing the data can be determined, and the limiting of the access is then according to the determined physical location.”
Forstall (U.S. Pub No. US20130072235A1) is pertinent because it is directed to “A selection of a category of interest and location information is used to determine categorical information that is provided to a device. In some implementations, the device includes a touch-sensitive display and presents the categorical information on a map using an indicator. In some implementations, the categorical information can be shared and/or updated by others.”
Matas (U.S. Pub No. 20090177385A1) is pertinent because it is directed to “Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer program products, for presenting location information. A first geographic area in which a device is currently located is estimated using a first positioning system. A second geographic area in which the device is currently located is estimated using a second positioning system.”
Mask (U.S. Pub No. 20190050491A1) is pertinent because it is directed to “Techniques are disclosed for rendering real property parcel data. A sever component responding to a request for parcel data for a given number of parcels retrieves parcel information and authenticates a user's identification. The server provides parcel data for display on a unique user web page based on preselected parcel endpoints specific to the user.
Bond (U.S. Pub No. 20150193892A1) is pertinent because it relays “Distressed real property is offered for sale at real property parcel auction events. Such distressed real property presents an investment opportunity. The parcels available at real property parcel auction events are often identified using a primary identifier assigned by a taxation authority or municipal utility. Such identifiers can be autonomously retrieve, collect, and analyze primary parcel specific information. One or more secondary identifiers such as a street address may be autonomously extracted from the primary parcel specific information. Using the one or more secondary identifiers, secondary parcel specific information may be obtained.
Ahmad (C.N. Pub No. 116193361A) is pertinent because it is directed to “improvements in systems and methods for determining a current location of a client device and for identifying and selecting an appropriate geofence based on the current location of the client device. An improved geofence selection system performs operations comprising: associating the media content with a geofence that encompasses a portion of the geographic area, sampling location data from the client device, defining a boundary based on the sampled location data from the client device, detecting an overlap between the boundary and the geofence, retrieving the media content associated with the geofence, and loading the media content at a storage location of the client device in response to detecting the overlap.”
Jeong (K.R. Patent No. 101885959 B1) is pertinent because it is directed to “An integrated information management system of land information and building information and a method thereof are disclosed.”)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Bill Chen whose telephone number is (571)270-0660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BILL CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626