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 June 25th, 2026.
Claims 1, 12, 18, and 19 are amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1 - 23 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 25th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s response against the 101 rejections of claims on p. 8 – 13: Applicant argues that amended claims 1, 12, 18, and 19 are not directed to an abstract idea because they recite generating unique identifiers for structures using physical boundary information, vectors, transformations, and geographic cells to improve hazard categorization and property data management. However, the amendments do not alter the basic character of the claims. The claims remain directed to collecting geographic information, mathematically processing the information to generate identifiers, associating the identifiers with stored property data, and retrieving and displaying the associated information. Such limitations recite mathematical concepts and mental processes, including mathematical transformations, data analysis, classification, and information retrieval, which fall within the abstract idea groupings identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Applicant further argues that the claims improve computer technology by enabling structure-level hazard categorization and reducing inaccuracies with parcel-level identification. This argument is not persuasive because the alleged improvement is to the quality of organization of the underlying property information rather than to the functioning of the computer or another technology. The claims do not improve how a computer stores, processes, or communicates data, nor do they recite a technological improvement to geographic information systems, computer architecture, or data structures. Instead, the additional limitations merely use generic computer components to perform mathematical operations for generating identifiers and retrieving property information.
Applicant’s reliance on DDR Holdings is likewise unpersuasive. Unlike the claims in DDR Holdings, which addressed a problem uniquely arising in computer networks through a specific modification to conventional Internet functionality, the instant claims merely use generic computer technology to analyze geographic information, generate identifiers, and retrieve property data. The alleged problem of distinguishing multiple structures on a parcel pertains to the organization and use of property information rather to an improvement in computer functionality itself.
Applicant also argues that the claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application because the generated identifiers may be used to improve hazard analysis. However, the claims do not recite performing hazard modeling or improving the operation of a hazard analysis system. Rather, the claims are limited to generating identifiers, retrieving linked property information, and displaying the retrieved information. Any subsequent use of the identifiers in hazard assessment is described only as a potential result or intended use and is not affirmatively recited in the claims. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Finally, Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. This argument is not persuasive because the additional elements, including the processor, memory, user device, and user interface, are generic computer components performing their well-understood, routine, and generic functions. Likewise, the recited vector generation, transformation, geographic-cell identifier generation, and identifier combination merely implement the abstract mathematical concepts using generic computer technology and do not amount to an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the 102/103 rejections on p. 14 – 16: Applicant argues that Dawson, either alone or in combination with Xu, fails to teach or suggest the newly amended limitations directed to obtaining geographical coordinate information defining a physical boundary of a structure, generating a vector based on one or more edges of the physical boundary, and the subsequent identifier generation steps. Applicant further argues that Xu’s disclosure of generating a geohash from latitude and longitude coordinates does not disclose or suggest generating a vector representing a physical boundary of a structure.
The Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments. Upon reconsideration of the amended claims, the Examiner agrees that Dawson and Xu do not teach or suggest the newly added limitations recited in amended independent claims 1, 12, 18, and 19. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dawson in view of Xu is not maintained.
However, withdrawal of the previous rejection does not constitute a determination that the amended claims are allowable. The amended claims have been further searched, and a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is set forth below based on prior art that teaches the newly added limitations. Applicant’s arguments directed to the patentability of the dependent claims are likewise not persuasive because the dependent claims remain subject to the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
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 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. Independent claim 1 is representative. Independent claims 12, 18, and 19 recite substantially corresponding limitations in method and computer-readable-medium forms.
Step 2A Prong 1, Claim 1 recites a mathematical concept, including:
obtain geographical coordinate information that defines a physical boundary of a structure, the physical boundary comprising one or more edges of the physical boundary:
generate, based on the one or more edges of the physical boundary of the structure: a vector that stores a position of each of the one or more edges of the physical boundary as elements
apply a transformation to the elements of the vector to form a first intermediate identifier;
generate a second intermediate identifier based on a geographic cell within which the structure is located;
generate a first identifier for the structure based on the first intermediate identifier and the second intermediate identifier;
These limitations recite mathematical relationships and calculations applied to geometric and positional data to derive identifiers. The remaining operations of matching an input to the generated identifier, retrieving linked property data, and displaying that data constitute information look up and presentation ancillary to the mathematical processing.
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 under Step 2A, Prong One. See MPEP § 2106.04.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The additional elements include generic memory, a processor, a query, property-data retrieval, a user device, and a user interface. These elements merely provide a computer environment in which the mathematical identifier-generation process is performed and the resulting information is retrieved and displayed.
Although the specification describes improved hazard categorization, claim 1 does not recite assigning structure to a hazard zone, calculating a hazard risk, detecting a hazard, issuing a warning, or controlling any physical system. Nor does the claim identify a particular transformation technique, data structure, database architecture, or other mechanism that improves computer or GIS functionality. Instead, the claim uses the generated identifiers to retrieve and present property information.
Thus, considered as a whole, claim 1 does not reflect the asserted technological improvement or otherwise impose a meaningful limit on the mathematical concept. The judicial exception is therefore not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, amount to using generic computer components to receive data, execute instructions, search stored records, and display results. These functions do not add an inventive concept to the claimed mathematical processing.
The ordered combination merely:
mathematically represents and transforms boundary data into identifiers
associates or matches the identifiers with property information; and
retrieves and displays that information
No additional element or combination transforms the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, claim 1 does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claims 12, 18, and 19 recite substantially the same mathematical identifier-generation and property-information-retrieval process and are ineligible for the same reasons.
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 unpatentable over Brosowsky (U.S. Patent No. 11190902 B1) in view of Vianello (U.S. Pub No. 20210319059 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12, 18:
Brosowsky discloses:
a processor in communication with the memory, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (col. 7; line 44): The georeferencing appliance is paired to one or more processors used for object detection and pattern matching;
obtain geographical coordinate information that defines a physical boundary of a structure, the physical boundary comprising one or more edges of the physical boundary: (col. 5; line 53): A georeferenced mechanism obtains and applies real-world coordinates from georeferenced polygons to non-georeferenced buildings footprints;
generate, based on the one or more edges of the physical boundary of the structure: a vector that stores a position of each of the one or more edges of the physical boundary as elements [col. 4; line 45]: The appliance uses a vectorizer mechanism in order to generate vector polygon building footprints from building information management systems;
apply a transformation to the elements of the vector to form a first intermediate identifier [col. 4; line 45, col. 6; line 8]: The vectorizer mechanism is configured to a vector conversion system that allows the system to convert vectors to pixels. Additionally, [col. 5; line 26]: A polygon comparator compares vector polygons with georeferenced polygons. Vector polygons are processed and transformed during matching;
obtain a query for information related to a first input [col. 6; line 50]: Users may be able to manually input floorplan data;
determine that the first input corresponds to the first identifier [col. 6; line 50]: Users may be able to manually input floorplan data in order to provide alternative results, search, as well as query;
retrieve property data linked to the first identifier [col. 5; lines 65 – col. 6; line – 4]: Once the building footprint is matched and georeferenced, corresponding indoor map/building data are obtained for processing; and
cause a user device to display a user interface that depicts the retrieved property data [col. 6; line 33]: An interface is configured to present floorplans and images to users;
Brosowsky does not disclose the following limitations below. However, Vianello teaches:
memory that stores computer-executable instructions; and [¶0116]: The computer-readable medium may include flash memory or any suitable device.
generate a second intermediate identifier based on a geographic cell within which the structure is located [¶0015]: The system discloses generating identifiers associated with geographic cells or geographic regions for uniquely identifying locations. Geographic cells are assigned identifiers representing locations;
generate a first identifier for the structure based on the first intermediate identifier and the second intermediate identifier [¶0015 - 0016]: Various geographic/location identifiers are combined in order to uniquely identify a location;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to use geographic cell identifying techniques of Vianello with that of a vector based building identification system of Brosowsky in order to produce compact, location-aware unique identifiers for individual structures that facilitate efficient indexing and retrieval.
Regarding claims 2 and 13:
Brosowsky discloses:
retrieve second property data linked to the second identifier [col. 5; lines 65 – col. 6; line – 4]: Once the building footprint is matched and georeferenced, corresponding indoor map/building data are obtained for processing; and
cause the user device to display the user interface that depicts the retrieved property data and the retrieved second property data [col. 6; line 30]: A human user interface is configured to present generated georeferenced floorplans;
Brosowsky does not disclose the limitations below. Thus, Vianello teaches:
determine that a second identifier is linked to the first identifier [¶0015 - 0016]: Various geographic/location identifiers are combined in order to uniquely identify a location;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to use geographic cell identifying techniques of Vianello with that of a vector based building identification system of Brosowsky in order to produce compact, location-aware unique identifiers for individual structures that facilitate efficient indexing and retrieval.
Regarding claims 3 and 14:
Brosowsky does not disclose the limitations below. Thus, Vianello teaches:
wherein the second identifier comprises a parcel unique identifier corresponding to a parcel, and [¶0015]: The method reads parcel data associated with location description in order to generate a geographic identifier;
wherein the first identifier comprises a structure unique identifier corresponding to the structure that resides on the parcel [¶0015]: The method reads parcel data associated with location description in order to generate a geographic identifier;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to use geographic cell identifying techniques of Vianello with that of a vector based building identification system of Brosowsky in order to produce compact, location-aware unique identifiers for individual structures that facilitate efficient indexing and retrieval.
Regarding claim 4:
Brosowsky discloses georeferenced interior floorplans to overall building footprints, thereby relating individual units or indoor spaces to larger structures [col. 5; line 3]. However, Brosowsky does not explicitly disclose identifiers comprising structure unit unique identifiers corresponding to units in the structure on a parcel. Thus, Vianello 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 [¶0053]: Images associated with geographic data are captured and are then associated with a georeference, allowing for the system to extract geographic data (i.e., sets of addresses, sets of parcel identifiers or assessor parcel numbers, etc.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to use geographic cells and sets of identifiers linked to one another, as taught by Vianello, with that of a vector based building identification system of Brosowsky in order to produce compact, location-aware unique identifiers for individual structures that facilitate efficient indexing and retrieval.
Regarding claims 5 and 15:
Brosowsky discloses:
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 [col. 6; line 30]: A human user interface is configured to present generated georeferenced floorplans;
Brosowsky discloses georeferenced interior floorplans to overall building footprints, thereby relating individual units or indoor spaces to larger structures [col. 5; line 3]. However, Brosowsky does not explicitly disclose identifiers comprising structure unit unique identifiers corresponding to units in the structure on a parcel. Thus, Vianello teaches:
determine that a third identifier is linked to one of the first identifier or the second identifier [¶0015 - 0016]: Various geographic/location identifiers are combined in order to uniquely identify a location;
retrieve second property data linked to the third identifier [¶0053]: Images associated with geographic data are captured and are then associated with a georeference, allowing for the system to extract geographic data (i.e., sets of addresses, sets of parcel identifiers or assessor parcel numbers, etc.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to use geographic cells and sets of identifiers linked to one another, as taught by Vianello, with that of a vector based building identification system of Brosowsky in order to produce compact, location-aware unique identifiers for individual structures that facilitate efficient indexing and retrieval.
Regarding claim 6:
Brosowsky does not explicitly disclose identifiers comprising structure unit unique identifiers corresponding to units in the structure on a parcel. Thus, Vianello 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 [¶0053]: Images associated with geographic data are captured and are then associated with a georeference, allowing for the system to extract geographic data (i.e., sets of addresses, sets of parcel identifiers or assessor parcel numbers, etc.); and
wherein the third identifier comprises a structure unit unique identifier corresponding to a unit within the structure that resides on the parcel [¶0053]: Images associated with geographic data are captured and are then associated with a georeference, allowing for the system to extract geographic data (i.e., sets of addresses, sets of parcel identifiers or assessor parcel numbers, etc.); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to use geographic cells and sets of identifiers linked to one another, as taught by Vianello, with that of a vector based building identification system of Brosowsky in order to produce compact, location-aware unique identifiers for individual structures that facilitate efficient indexing and retrieval.
Regarding claim 7:
Brosowsky does not explicitly disclose identifiers comprising structure unit unique identifiers corresponding to units in the structure on a parcel. Thus, Vianello 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 [¶0053]: Images associated with geographic data are captured and are then associated with a georeference, allowing for the system to extract geographic data (i.e., sets of addresses, sets of parcel identifiers or assessor parcel numbers, etc.); and
wherein the third identifier comprises a second structure unique identifier corresponding to a second structure that resides on the parcel [¶0053]: Images associated with geographic data are captured and are then associated with a georeference, allowing for the system to extract geographic data (i.e., sets of addresses, sets of parcel identifiers or assessor parcel numbers, etc.); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to use geographic cells and sets of identifiers linked to one another, as taught by Vianello, with that of a vector based building identification system of Brosowsky in order to produce compact, location-aware unique identifiers for individual structures that facilitate efficient indexing and retrieval.
Regarding claim 8:
Brosowsky discloses a vectorizer mechanism to create non-georeferenced vector polygon building footprints for each floorplan via a building information management system [col. 4; line 45]. However, Brosowsky does not disclose identifiers unique to each unit within a structure. Thus, Vianello 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 [¶0052 – 0053, 0061]: Parcel identifiers and geographic identifiers associated with specific parcels are extracted from georeferenced image data in order to obtain further geographic data, such as: geographic coordinates, number of buildings, parcel boundaries, building names/numbers, etc.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to use geographic cells and sets of identifiers linked to one another, as taught by Vianello, with that of a vector based building identification system of Brosowsky in order to produce compact, location-aware unique identifiers for individual structures that facilitate efficient indexing and retrieval.
Regarding claims 9 and 16:
Brosowsky discloses a vectorizer mechanism to create non-georeferenced vector polygon building footprints for each floorplan via a building information management system [col. 4; line 45]. However, Brosowsky does not disclose identifiers unique to each unit within a structure. Thus, Vianello 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 [¶0052 – 0053, 0061]: Parcel identifiers and geographic identifiers associated with specific parcels are extracted from georeferenced image data in order to obtain further geographic data, such as: geographic coordinates, number of buildings, parcel boundaries, building names/numbers, etc.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to use geographic cells and sets of identifiers linked to one another, as taught by Vianello, with that of a vector based building identification system of Brosowsky in order to produce compact, location-aware unique identifiers for individual structures that facilitate efficient indexing and retrieval.
Regarding claims 10 and 17:
Brosowsky does not disclose the limitations below, thus Vianello 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 [¶0053]: Since georeferenced images are captured, the system is configured to analyze the images pixel-aligned with geographic coordinates. Alternatively, [¶0045 – 0046]: The disclosure is able to update parcel information using updated imagery data that may be retrieved via a third-party;
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 [¶0060]: Geocoding requests may be performed in real or near-real time in order to ensure updated data is analyzed and to allow the updated imagery system to execute;
generate a third identifier for the parcel based on the current boundary [¶0015 - 0016]: Various geographic/location identifiers are combined in order to uniquely identify a location; and
link the third identifier with the second identifier [¶0056]: The method is able to determine identifiers and then associate those identifiers with location description.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to use geographic cell identifying techniques as well as determine whether or not parcels have been updated, as taught by Vianello, with that of a vector based building identification system of Brosowsky in order to produce compact, location-aware unique identifiers for individual structures that facilitate efficient indexing and retrieval.
Regarding claims 11 and 23:
Brosowsky discloses structured floorplan as inputs but does not require the elements below. Thus, Vianello 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 [¶0060]: Addresses and parcels may be received as input in real or near-real time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to use geographic cell identifying techniques as well as inputs comprising parcel data, as taught by Vianello, with that of a vector based building identification system of Brosowsky in order to produce compact, location-aware unique identifiers for individual structures that facilitate efficient indexing and retrieval.
Regarding claim 19:
Brosowsky discloses:
obtaining geographical coordinate information that defines a physical boundary of a structure, the physical boundary comprising one or more edges of the physical boundary (col. 5; line 53): A georeferenced mechanism obtains and applies real-world coordinates from georeferenced polygons to non-georeferenced buildings footprints;
generating, based on the one or more edges of the physical boundary of the structure, a vector that stores a position of each of the one or more edges of the physical boundary as elements [col. 4; line 45]: The appliance uses a vectorizer mechanism in order to generate vector polygon building footprints from building information management systems;
apply a transformation to the elements of the vector to form a first intermediate identifier [col. 4; line 45, col. 6; line 8]: The vectorizer mechanism is configured to a vector conversion system that allows the system to convert vectors to pixels. Additionally, [col. 5; line 26]: A polygon comparator compares vector polygons with georeferenced polygons. Vector polygons are processed and transformed during matching;
obtain a query for information related to a first input [col. 6; line 50]: Users may be able to manually input floorplan data;
determine that the first input corresponds to the first identifier [col. 6; line 50]: Users may be able to manually input floorplan data in order to provide alternative results, search, as well as query;
retrieve property data linked to the first identifier; and cause a user device to display a user interface that depicts the retrieved property data [col. 5; lines 65 – col. 6; line – 4]: Once the building footprint is matched and georeferenced, corresponding indoor map/building data are obtained for processing; and
Brosowsky does not teach the following limitations below. However, Vianello teaches:
generate a second intermediate identifier based on a geographic cell within which the structure is located [¶0015]: The system discloses generating identifiers associated with geographic cells or geographic regions for uniquely identifying locations. Geographic cells are assigned identifiers representing locations;
generate a first identifier for the structure based on the first intermediate identifier and the second intermediate identifier [¶0015 - 0016]: Various geographic/location identifiers are combined in order to uniquely identify a location;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to use geographic cell identifying techniques of Vianello with that of a vector based building identification system of Brosowsky in order to produce compact, location-aware unique identifiers for individual structures that facilitate efficient indexing and retrieval.
Regarding claim 20:
Brosowsky does not disclose the limitation below, thus Vianello 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 [¶0065]: Georeferenced images may be captured using a global coordinate system, which are then associated with generated parcel identifiers. Additionally, the georeferenced image may be 2D, 3D, and/or any other suitable image.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate identifiers based on a physical boundary of a structure based on a spherical projection, as taught by Vianello, with that of a vector based building identification system of Brosowsky in order to produce compact, location-aware unique identifiers for individual structures that facilitate efficient indexing and retrieval.
Regarding claim 21:
Brosowsky does not disclose the limitation below, thus Vianello 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 [¶0065, 0071]: Image features extracted from georeferenced images can be 2D, 3D, or any other suitable images. Georeferenced image data may include a variety of spectral dimensions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to use identifying values of geographical cells based on spherical projections, as taught by Vianello, with that of a vector based building identification system of Brosowsky in order to produce compact, location-aware unique identifiers for individual structures that facilitate efficient indexing and retrieval.
Regarding claim 22:
Brosowsky does not disclose the limitation below, thus Vianello 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 [¶0052 – 0053, 0061]: Parcel identifiers and geographic identifiers associated with specific parcels are extracted from georeferenced image data in order to obtain further geographic data, such as: geographic coordinates, number of buildings, parcel boundaries, building names/numbers, etc.). Alternatively, [¶0085, 0098]: Location of interest may be performed and structure classes of confidence scores may be built;
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
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
Prosecution Insights