DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Responsive to communication dated 10/12/2023.
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
Priority
ADS dated 06/28/2023 claims priority to foreign application FL 20225502 dated 06/09/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS dated 06/08/2023, 06/13/2023, 06/28/2023, 10/12/2023 have been reviewed. See attached.
Drawings
The drawings dated 06/08/2023 have been reviewed. They are accepted.
Specification
The abstract dated 06/08/2023 has been reviewed. The abstract is objected to because it has more than 150 words and contains legalese such as the phrase “said”. Additionally, the use of specification markers such as paragraph numbers “(57)” and figures “(Figure 9)” should not be contained within the abstract.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 6 is presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see MPEP 2181(I)) as it contains the phrase “means for” in line 6 and the subsequent functional language of “selecting”, “storing”, ”translating”, ”determining”, ”converting”, ”calculating”, ”converting”, ”creating”, ”transforming”, ”and drawing” in lines 7-23. While the preamble of claim 6 contains structural language describing components of a computer including “a graphic display”, “at least one processor”, and “at least one memory” it is not contained within the body of the claim and is not sufficient structure as the use of a computer-implemented means-plus-function must also disclose an algorithm to perform the claimed function (see MPEP 2181(II)(B)). Instant specification page 7 paragraph 2, however, provides the corresponding algorithms for the following uses of functional language in the corresponding sections: “translating” (page 6 para 1), “determining” (page 3 para 3, page 4 para 3), “converting” (page 3 para 3), and “calculating” (page 3 para 3, Eq 1). Additionally, the language “storing” is considered to disclose sufficient structure as it is a coextensive function of a processor (see MPEP 2181(II)(B)).
The following uses of functional language in claim 6 do not disclose sufficient algorithms as they merely restate the claim language: “selecting”, “converting” (the unit axes), “creating”, “transforming” and “drawing”. As such, these claims necessarily are indefinite and lack written description (see 35 U.S.C 112(a) and 112(b) sections).
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "equal to the previous camera target point" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the term “the previous camera target point” is never previously mentioned in rest of claim 4 or in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as reading: “equal to a previous target point”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "calculating the intersection point" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the term “the intersection point” is never previously mentioned in rest of claim 4 or in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as reading: “calculating an intersection point”.
Claim limitations “selecting at least one 3D infrastructure design model from a group of 3D infrastructure design models” , “converting the unit axes to ellipsoid cartesian coordinates” , “creating a reference frame using the camera target point in the ellipsoid cartesian coordinates and the unit axes”, “transforming said 3D infrastructure design models on the ellipsoid using the reference frame and the original non-translated centre-points of said 3D infrastructure design models”, and “drawing said 3D infrastructure design models on a graphic display” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph as previously outlined. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the use of a computer-implemented means-plus-function must also disclose an algorithm to perform the claimed function (see MPEP 2181(II)(B)). However, no algorithms are provided for the limitations above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 7-10 are subsequently rejected under U.S.C. 112(b) as they are dependent on claim 6.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 -10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As claims 6-10 are previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for lacking the corresponding structure in the instant specification, the claims are also necessarily rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of adequate written description (see MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a)).
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “A computer implemented method”
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “for visualising a design (i.e., a geometric shape) in a planar coordinate system (i.e., an X Y and Z) on an ellipsoid (i.e., a sphere), comprising;
selecting at least one ; storing (i.e., an X, Y, and Z value) of the selected ;
translating,design to move the centre-points (i.e., an X, Y, and Z value) of said design at the origin (i.e., to 0,0,0) in planar cartesian coordinates of said design , correspondingly (i.e., mathematically moving X Y and Z coordinates to 0, 0, 0; instant specification page 6 paragraph 1);
determining a camera (i.e., a perspective) target point in ellipsoid cartographic coordinates (i.e., a longitude and latitude) to a common centre-point of said design in the ellipsoid cartographic coordinates (i.e., a target point equal to another point);
converting the camera (i.e., a perspective) target point from the ellipsoid cartographic coordinates (i.e., a latitude and longitude) to the planar cartesian coordinates (i.e., mathematical calculation from latitude and longitude to X, Y and Z values; instant specification page 3 paragraph 3);
calculatingunit axes (i.e., vectors) in the planar cartesian coordinates (i.e., mathematical relationship; Eq 1 in instant specification);
converting the unit axes (i.e., vectors) to ellipsoid cartesian coordinates (i.e., mathematical calculation X Y and Z to latitude and longitude);
creating a reference frame (i.e., plane) using the camera (i.e., a perspective) target point in the ellipsoid cartesian coordinates (i.e., a X Y and Z) and the unit axes (i.e., vectors) (i.e., mathematically calculating a plane with reference to a X, Y, Z and vectors);
transforming (i.e., mathematical calculation) said design on the ellipsoid using the reference frame (i.e., plane) and the original non-translated centre-points of said (i.e., moving models onto a plane);
and drawing” which is a recitation of a mathematical construct of a geometric shape, a mathematical relationship of translating coordinates of the shape, mathematically converting coordinates, calculating a plane using those coordinates, and mathematically moving a design to the calculated plane. Thus, these limitations are a recitation of the abstract idea of a mathematical process.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim
does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception.
While the claim recites “selecting at least one 3D infrastructure design model from a group of 3D infrastructure design models” and “storing, by a processor of a computer, original centre-points of the selected 3D infrastructure design models“ this describes selecting a particular design from a group of designs and keeping only a particular type of data (i.e., an X Y and Z coordinate) to be used in a mathematical process. As such these limitations are interpreted as Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Alternatively, the element merely gathers a certain type of data, coordinates from designs, for later use in a mathematical process and can be considered Mere Data Gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In either case, this element does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
While the claim recites “3D infrastructure design model” this describes the elements that the designs represent. As such these limitations are interpreted as linking the exception to a Field of Use and Technological Environment, such as 3D modeling, (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the exception into a practical application. It should also be noted that 3D infrastructure designs describes mathematical representations of three-dimensional geometric structures, such as rectangles shown in instant specification Figure 3, and could amount to an additional abstract idea.
While the claim recites “camera” this describes the perspective that the geometric structures are drawn from and which looks at a determined point. It merely describes the perspective as a camera and as such is interpreted as linking the point used in the exception to a Field of Use and Technological Environment, such as computer imaging, (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
While the claim recites “by a processor of a computer” this is not indicative of a practical application because these are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and the mere use of a general computer is not a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). While the claim recites “drawing, by the processor, said 3D infrastructure design models on a graphics display” this amounts to outputting, which is a post-solution activity conducted after executing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Merely using a processor to display the results of the abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above the claim merely recites a computer as a tool for implementing the abstract idea but merely using a computer does not make an improvement to the functioning of the computer and the recited computer is a generalized one and is therefore not a particular machine. Moreover, as the claim is merely performing mathematical calculations the claim does not make a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. While the claim characterizes the designs in the context of 3D infrastructure models, this merely links the calculations to the technology of computer modeling. The claim also outlines gathering and selecting a particular data type for later use in a mathematical process and the post-solution of outputting the abstract idea onto a display (See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) which is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “A computer implemented method according to claim 1 wherein”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “the ellipsoid is a WGS84 ellipsoid” which recites additional elements and inherits the abstract idea from claim 1.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim
does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception.
While the claim recites “the ellipsoid is a WGS84 ellipsoid” which describes the type of ellipsoid represented by the planar coordinate system in the mathematical calculation. As such, this is interpreted as indicating a Field of Use and Technological Environment, such as models of Earth, (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) where the mathematical calculations take place and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of additional element(s) in the claim from STEP 2A PRONG TWO, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A PRONG TWO on the considerations discuss in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c),(e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. The claim merely links the abstract idea to the Field of Earth modeling. This, however, is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “A computer implemented method according to claim 1 wherein”
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “said camera (i.e., a perspective) target point is calculated by interpolating (i.e., mathematical calculation; See instant specification page 4 paragraph 3) between an intersection point (i.e., an X, Y, and Z) of a camera forward vector and the ellipsoid surface and a previous camera (i.e., a perspective) target point depending on the camera (i.e., a perspective) tilt angle with respect to a normal of the ellipsoid surface at a camera (i.e., a perspective) position” which recites the use of a mathematical function to calculate an intersection point given a vector, position, surface and angle. Thus, these limitations are a recitation of the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
While the claim recites “camera” this describes the perspective that the geometric structures are drawn from and which looks at a determined point. It merely describes the perspective as a camera and as such is interpreted as linking the point used in the exception to a Field of Use and Technological Environment, such as computer imaging, (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of additional element(s) in the claim from STEP 2A PRONG TWO, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A PRONG TWO on the considerations discuss in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c),(e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. The claim merely links the abstract idea to the Field of computer modeling. This, however, is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “A computer implemented method according to claim 1 wherein”.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “the determining of said camera (i.e., a perspective) target point is done by calculating the intersection point of a camera (i.e., a perspective) forward vector and the ellipsoid surface; and if the camera (i.e., a perspective) forward vector does not intersect with the ellipsoid surface, then setting the camera (i.e., a perspective) target point equal to the previous camera (i.e., a perspective) target point” which is a recitation of mathematically calculating an intersection point or setting one point equal to another.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
While the claim recites “camera” this describes the perspective that the geometric structures are drawn from and which looks at a determined point. It merely describes the perspective as a camera and as such is interpreted as linking the point used in the exception to a Field of Use and Technological Environment, such as computer imaging, (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of additional element(s) in the claim from STEP 2A PRONG TWO, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A PRONG TWO on the considerations discuss in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c),(e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. The claim merely links the abstract idea to the Field of computer modeling. This, however, is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “A computer implemented method according to claim 3 wherein”
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “the interpolation factor is corrected using a S-curve such as a sigmoid curve or a smoothstep curve” which is a recitation of a mathematical relationship and/or calculation.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The entirety of the claim is directed towards the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: NO. The entirety of the claim is directed towards the judicial exception and does not include any additional elements which integrate the exception in a significant way.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “An apparatus comprising”
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “for visualising a design in a planar coordinate system (i.e., an X Y and Z) on an ellipsoid (i.e., a sphere), comprising;
selecting at least one ;
storing (i.e., an X, Y, and Z value) of the selected ;
translating,design to move the centre-points (i.e., an X, Y, and Z value) of said design at the origin (i.e., to 0,0,0) in planar cartesian coordinates of said design , correspondingly (i.e., mathematically moving X Y and Z coordinates to 0, 0, 0; instant specification page 6 paragraph 1);
determining a camera (i.e., a perspective) target point in ellipsoid cartographic coordinates (i.e., a longitude and latitude) to a common centre-point of said design in the ellipsoid cartographic coordinates (i.e., a target point equal to another point);
converting the camera (i.e., a perspective) target point from the ellipsoid cartographic coordinates (i.e., a latitude and longitude) to the planar cartesian coordinates (i.e., mathematical calculation from latitude and longitude to X, Y and Z values; instant specification page 3 paragraph 3);
calculatingunit axes (i.e., vectors) in the planar cartesian coordinates (i.e., mathematical relationship; Eq 1 in instant specification);
converting the unit axes (i.e., vectors) to ellipsoid cartesian coordinates (i.e., mathematical calculation X Y and Z to latitude and longitude);
creating a reference frame (i.e., plane) using the camera (i.e., a perspective) target point in the ellipsoid cartesian coordinates (i.e., a X Y and Z) and the unit axes (i.e., vectors) (i.e., mathematically calculating a plane with reference to a X, Y, Z and vectors);
transforming (i.e., mathematical calculation) said design on the ellipsoid using the reference frame (i.e., plane) and the original non-translated centre-points of said (i.e., moving models onto a plane);
and drawing” which is a recitation of a mathematical relationship of translating coordinates, mathematically converting coordinates, calculating a plane using those coordinates, and mathematically moving a design to the calculated plane. Thus, these limitations are a recitation of the abstract idea of a mathematical process.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim
does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception.
While the claim recites “a graphic display; at least one processor connected to the graphic display; and at least one memory including computer program code; the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform” this is merely the recitation of a general computer recited at a high level of generality and the computer is invoked merely as a tool for implementing the abstract idea. Such limitations are not indicative of a practical application.
While the claim recites “selecting at least one 3D infrastructure design model from a group of 3D infrastructure design models” and “storing, by a processor of a computer, original centre-points of the selected 3D infrastructure design models“ this describes selecting a particular design from a group of designs and keeping only a particular type of data (i.e., an X Y and Z coordinate) to be used in a mathematical process. As such these limitations are interpreted as Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Alternatively, the element merely gathers a certain type of data, coordinates from designs, for later use in a mathematical process and can be considered Mere Data Gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In either case, this element does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
While the claim recites “3D infrastructure design model” this describes the elements that the designs represent. As such these limitations are interpreted as linking the exception to a Field of Use and Technological Environment, such as computer modeling, (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the exception into a practical application. It should also be noted that 3D infrastructure designs describes mathematical representations of three-dimensional geometric structures, such as rectangles shown in instant specification Figure 3, and could amount to an additional abstract idea.
While the claim recites “camera” this describes the perspective that the geometric structures are drawn from and which looks at a determined point. It merely describes the perspective as a camera and as such is interpreted as linking the point used in the exception to a Field of Use and Technological Environment, such as computer imaging, (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
While the claim recites “drawing said 3D infrastructure design models on a graphics display” this amounts to outputting, which is a post-solution activity conducted after executing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Merely using a processor to display the results of the abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As outlined above the claim merely recites a computer as a tool for implementing the abstract idea but merely using a computer does not make an improvement to the functioning of the computer and the recited computer is a generalized one and is therefore not a particular machine. Moreover, as the claim is merely performing mathematical calculations the claim does not make a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. While the claim characterizes the designs in the context of 3D infrastructure models, this merely links the calculations to the technology of computer modeling. The claim also outlines gathering and selecting a particular data type for later use in a mathematical process and the post-solution of outputting the abstract idea onto a display (See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) which is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “An apparatus according to claim 6 wherein”
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “the ellipsoid is a WGS84 ellipsoid” which recites additional elements and inherits the abstract idea from claim 6.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim
does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception.
While the claim recites “the ellipsoid is a WGS84 ellipsoid” which describes the type of ellipsoid represented by the planar coordinate system in the mathematical calculation. As such, this is interpreted as indicating a Field of Use and Technological Environment, such as models of Earth, (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) where the mathematical calculations takes place and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of additional element(s) in the claim from STEP 2A PRONG TWO, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A PRONG TWO on the considerations discuss in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c),(e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. The claim merely links the abstract idea to the Field of Earth modeling. This, however, is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “An apparatus according to claim 6 wherein”
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “the means for calculating the said camera (i.e., a perspective) target point is calculated by interpolating (i.e., mathematical calculation; See instant specification 0027) between an intersection point (i.e., an X, Y, and Z) of a camera (i.e., a perspective) forward vector and the ellipsoid surface and a previous target point depending on the camera (i.e., a perspective) tilt angle with respect to a normal of the ellipsoid surface at a position” which recites the use of a mathematical function to calculate an intersection point given a vector, position, surface and angle. Thus, these limitations are a recitation of the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
While the claim recites “camera” this describes the perspective that the geometric structures are drawn from and which looks at a determined point. It merely describes the perspective as a camera and as such is interpreted as linking the point used in the exception to a Field of Use and Technological Environment, such as computer imaging, (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of additional element(s) in the claim from STEP 2A PRONG TWO, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A PRONG TWO on the considerations discuss in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c),(e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. The claim merely links the abstract idea to the Field of computer modeling. This, however, is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “An apparatus according to the claim 6 wherein”
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “the means for determining said camera (i.e., a perspective) target point is done by calculating the intersection point of a camera (i.e., a perspective) forward vector and the ellipsoid surface; and if the camera (i.e., a perspective) forward vector does not intersect with the ellipsoid surface, then setting the camera (i.e., a perspective) target point equal to the previous camera (i.e., a perspective) target point” which is a recitation of mathematically calculating an intersection point or setting one point equal to another.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
While the claim recites “camera” this describes the perspective that the geometric structures are drawn from and which looks at a determined point. It merely describes the perspective as a camera and as such is interpreted as linking the point used in the exception to a Field of Use and Technological Environment, such as computer imaging, (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of additional element(s) in the claim from STEP 2A PRONG TWO, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A PRONG TWO on the considerations discuss in MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c),(e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. The claim merely links the abstract idea to the Field of computer modeling. This, however, is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10.
STEP 1: YES. The claim recites “An apparatus according to claim 8 comprising”
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: YES. The claim recites “means to correct the camera (i.e., a perspective) tilt angle using a S-curve such as a sigmoid curve or a smoothstep curve” which is a recitation of a mathematical relationship and/or calculation.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: NO. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the claim does not have additional elements or a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The entirety of the claim is directed towards the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: NO. The entirety of the claim is directed towards the judicial exception and does not include any additional elements which integrate the exception in a significant way.
Therefore, it is concluded that the claim is not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 11. for visualising a 3D
STEP 1: NO. The claim recites “A computer program comprising instructions stored thereon” is not one of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Therefore; this claim is also rejected under 35 USC 101 as not being directed toward one of the four statutory categories.
With regard to STEP 2A PRONG ONE, STEP 2A PRONG TWO, and STEP 2B; Claim 11 recites the same method steps and elements as those of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed toward a judicial exception without significantly more for the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1.
Claim 12.
STEP 1: NO. The claim recites “A computer program according to claim 11” is not one of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Therefore; this claim is also rejected under 35 USC 101 as not being directed toward one of the four statutory categories.
With regard to STEP 2A PRONG ONE, STEP 2A PRONG TWO, and STEP 2B; Claim 12 recites the same method steps and elements as those of claim 2 and are therefore rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed toward a judicial exception without significantly more for the same reasons as outlined above for claim 2.
Claim 13.
STEP 1: NO. The claim recites “A computer program according to claim 11” is not one of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Therefore; this claim is also rejected under 35 USC 101 as not being directed toward one of the four statutory categories.
With regard to STEP 2A PRONG ONE, STEP 2A PRONG TWO, and STEP 2B; Claim 13 recites the same method steps and elements as those of claim 3 and are therefore rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed toward a judicial exception without significantly more for the same reasons as outlined above for claim 3.
Claim 14.
STEP 1: NO. The claim recites “A computer program according to claim 11” is not one of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Therefore; this claim is also rejected under 35 USC 101 as not being directed toward one of the four statutory categories.
With regard to STEP 2A PRONG ONE, STEP 2A PRONG TWO, and STEP 2B; Claim 14 recites the same method steps and elements as those of claim 4 and are therefore rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed toward a judicial exception without significantly more for the same reasons as outlined above for claim 4.
Claim 15.
STEP 1: NO. The claim recites “A computer program according to claim 13” is not one of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Therefore; this claim is also rejected under 35 USC 101 as not being directed toward one of the four statutory categories.
With regard to STEP 2A PRONG ONE, STEP 2A PRONG TWO, and STEP 2B; Claim 15 recites the same method steps and elements as those of claim 10 and are therefore rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed toward a judicial exception without significantly more for the same reasons as outlined above for claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 6, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer_2004 (US 2004/0098236 A1) in view of Cregan_2019 (US 10,489,965 B1) in view of Vegh_2016 (US 2016/0260195 A1).
Claim 1. Mayer_2004 makes obvious “A computer implemented method for visualising a 3D infrastructure design model in a planar coordinate system on an ellipsoid, comprising (para 0002 “a system and method for modeling a world database that is a spheroid in a computer graphics simulation system”; para 0065 “Some features such as roads, railroads, power lines, and similar features are connected and need to be modeled entirely in lat/long. Their vertex coordinates can then be transformed at run time just like the terrain vertices”; 0037 “The present system carries a tangent plane around with the eyepoint (in effect), which becomes the instantaneous contact point with the spherical earth. For each image frame, the system re-projects the spherical world onto this tangent plane before rendering it into pixels for a user to view." ; EXAMINER NOTE: The method visualizes models like roads and power lines (i.e., infrastructure) to a tangent plane on a spheroid (i.e., ellipsoid) computer graphics system); ;
determining, by the processor, a camera target point in ellipsoid cartographic coordinates to a common centre-point of said 3D infrastructure design models in the ellipsoid cartographic coordinates (para 0005 “geodetic coordinates are spherical in nature and the image generator needs to work with rectangular or Cartesian coordinates…Consequently, there is the need for some type of a transformation from geodetic to rectangular coordinates…The origin of topocentric coordinates is at the current latitude and longitude of the eyepoint with altitude set to 0 at mean sea-level.”; Fig. 7 depicts how the eyepoint has models centered around it; para 0068 “As the graph walker traverses the tree 250, the graph walker constantly transforms the data into eye-centered coordinates”; EXAMINER NOTE: The eyepoint is a camera target point that points below itself and is first given in geodetic (i.e., ellipsoid cartographic) coordinates. The eye point is positioned in the center of models in close proximity to it as calculated by offset; Instant specification page 3 paragraph 3 describes the common centre-point
PNG
media_image1.png
411
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
can be any point in proximity of the models);
converting, by the processor, the camera target point from the ellipsoid cartographic coordinates to the planar cartesian coordinates (para 0006 “The origin of topocentric coordinates is at the current latitude and longitude of the eyepoint with altitude set to 0 at mean sea-level. If the eyepoint is at a current position of (ɸ0, λ0, ho0), then the origin of the topocentric coordinate system is (ɸ0, λ0, 0)”; para 0035 “Thus, all polygons that are output to the geometric processors are in topocentric coordinates, which is a Cartesian coordinate system the image generator can use.”; para 0037 “The present system carries a tangent plane around with the eyepoint (in effect), which becomes the instantaneous contact point with the spherical earth”; EXAMINER NOTE: the eyepoint (i.e., camera point) is converted from geodetic (i.e., ellipsoid cartographic) coordinates to topocentric (i.e., Cartesian) coordinates on a tangent plane);
calculating, by the processor, unit axes in the planar cartesian coordinates (para 0007 “FIG. 3 illustrates a distant perspective on the topocentric coordinate system where the coordinate axes are oriented so that the + Y axis points true north 120, the +X axis points due east 122, and the +Z axis is oriented straight up 124.”; para 0036 “In this local space, the horizontal datum or local mapping surface is tangent to the earth's surface, the X axis always points east, the Y axis always points north, and the Z axis always points "up". The scaling of the axes is some familiar common unit like feet or meters, and the Z values are relative to mean sea level (MSL)”; para 0037 “The present system carries a tangent plane around with the eyepoint (in effect), which becomes the instantaneous contact point with the spherical earth”; EXAMINER NOTE: Unit axes are scaled by a common factor for a planar topocentric (i.e., Cartesian) coordinates);
creating, by the processor, a reference frame using the camera target point in the and the unit axes (para 0007 “The XY plane of the coordinate system is defined to be tangent to the earth model ellipsoid at the eyepoint with the +Z axis being normal to the XY plane at the origin.”; para 0008 “Using topocentric coordinates along with a projection process is roughly equivalent to placing a flat plane (representing the needed database area) tangent to the surface of the earth with the plane's center touching the earth.”; para 0037 “The present system carries a tangent plane around with the eyepoint (in effect), which becomes the instantaneous contact point with the spherical earth. For each image frame, the system re-projects the spherical world onto this tangent plane before rendering it into pixels for a user to view.”; EXAMINER NOTE: The tangent plane is the reference frame where models are projected for display);
transforming, by the processor, said 3D infrastructure design models on the ellipsoid using the reference frame and the original non-translated centre-points of said 3D infrastructure design models (para 0037 “The system stores the database in a form that is independent of the eyepoint location and in a form that is easily transformed onto the moving tangent plane at run time.”; para 0052 “Another valuable element of the present invention is that the storage of the visual environment model is in geodetic coordinates, with an eyepoint dependent, run-time conversion of the local, visible database portion to a Cartesian form that is compatible with the algorithms used in the rendering hardware. This conversion employs a latitude dependent scale applied to geodetic coordinates. In addition, other model data that is already in Cartesian coordinates can be included in a straight-forward manner with the visual environment model.”; EXAMINER NOTE: visual environment models are part of the database and can contain points in geodetic (i.e., ellipsoid cartographic) coordinates which are converted to Cartesian in order to transform the model onto the tangent plane (i.e., reference frame));
and drawing, by the processor, said 3D infrastructure design models on a graphics display (para 0066 “Finally, the triangulated network and the attached feature models on top of geometry formed by the triangulated network are converted and rendered for output and display 230.”).
Mayer_2004 does not teach “selecting at least one 3D infrastructure design model from a group of 3D infrastructure design models; storing, by a processor of a computer, original centre-points of the selected 3D infrastructure design models; translating, by the processor, said 3D infrastructure design models to move the centre-points of said 3D infrastructure design models at the origin in planar cartesian coordinates of said 3D infrastructure design models, correspondingly;” and does not explicitly discuss “converting, by the processor, the unit axes to ellipsoid cartesian coordinates; creating, by the processor, a reference frame using the camera target point in the ellipsoid cartesian coordinates and the unit axes”.
Cregan_2019; however, makes obvious “selecting at least one 3D infrastructure design model from a group of 3D infrastructure design models (Abstract “determining a set of target objects within the electronic map”; claim 1 “determining a set of target objects within the electronic map based on user selections received from a user device, the set comprising at least one target object, each target object having at least one point”; col 5 line 58-64 “Examples of objects that may be included in a given facility can include facility units, obstructions, connections, regions, wayfinding nodes and the like. For the purposes of this description, facility units may be configured as stores, rooms and other types of identifiable, generally bounded structures that may form a part of a larger facility.”; EXAMINER NOTE: at least one target object (i.e., infrastructure model) is selected from the group of models on the map);
storing, by a processor of a computer (col 5 line 8-9 “Each user device includes a user processor operatively coupled to a user memory”; EXAMINER NOTE: all process of Cregan are executed on a computer processor), original centre-points of the selected 3D infrastructure design models (col 6 line 25 “Objects in the wayfinding system 10 may be defined and stored in any suitable data and/or file format”; col 6 line 3-40 “examples, each object may be defined by one or more vertices or points, which when connected together, define the outer boundary of the object… In this description, the plurality of points defining a given object can be referred to as an object point cloud.”; EXAMINER NOTE: Cregan_2019 stores all of a selected objects associated points as a point cloud which are original center points.);
translating, by the processor, said 3D infrastructure design models to move the centre-points of said 3D infrastructure design models at the origin in planar cartesian coordinates of said 3D infrastructure design models, correspondingly (col 6 line 3-40 “examples, each object may be defined by one or more vertices or points, which when connected together, define the outer boundary of the object… In this description, the plurality of points defining a given object can be referred to as an object point cloud.”; EXAMINER NOTE: Instant specification page 6 paragraph 1 describes the translation as setting the original points to be (0,0,0) for no explicit purpose other than simply setting it to the origin. This is the same as having two points, (0,0,0) and (x,y,z) and choosing to use (0,0,0). Cregan_2019 collects all the points associated with a model as a point cloud, which includes the origins of the models)”
Mayer_2004 and Cregan_2019 are analogous art because they come from the same field of endeavor called 3D mapping figures on Earth. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Mayer_2004 and Cregan_2019. The rationale for doing so would have been Mayer_2004 teaches how model renders are most accurate the closer they are to the center eyepoint of the mesh (para 0037). Cregan_2019 teaches how to center a camera around a group of selected models on a map (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Mayer_2004 and Cregan_2019 for the benefit of accurately rendering a group of models on a map to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Mayer_2004 and Cregan_2019 does not teach “converting, by the processor, the unit axes to ellipsoid cartesian coordinates; creating, by the processor, a reference frame using the camera target point in the ellipsoid cartesian coordinates and the unit axes”
Vegh_2016; however, makes obvious “converting, by the processor, the unit axes to ellipsoid cartesian coordinates (para 0066 “A first step is to convert the non-warped geographic map to the WGS84 Geodedic coordinate system”; para 0067 “The second step is to convert from the WGS84 Geodedic coordinate system to the Earth-Centered-Earth Fixed ("ECEF") coordinate system.”; para 0083 “The third step is to convert from ECEF coordinate system to East-North-Up ("ENU") local coordinate system.”; para 0084 “The ENU local coordinate system represents frame of reference with an arbitrary origin ( e.g. the camera position) and with axes aligned to the local East, North, and Up directions.”; EXAMINER NOTE: a non-warped geographic map (i.e., planar coordinates) is converted to ENU (i.e., ellipsoid cartesian) by first converting to geodedic and ECEF. The ENU coordinate ellipsoid coordinate system converts the axes of the planar map to ellipsoid cartesian);
creating, by the processor, a reference frame using the camera target point in the ellipsoid cartesian coordinates and the unit axes (para 0084 “The ENU local coordinate system represents frame of reference with an arbitrary origin ( e.g. the camera position) and with axes aligned to the local East, North, and Up directions.”; EXAMINER NOTE: The ENU creates a reference frame using an arbitrary point (i.e., camera target point) and axes)”
Mayer_2004 and Cregan_2019 and Vegh_2016 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called Earth based image mapping. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cregan_2019 and Vegh_2016 The rationale for doing so would have been Cregan_2019 teaches to position a camera in the center of cartesian points and users’ latitude and longitude (Fig. 5; col 2 line 55). Vegh_2016 teaches converting latitude and longitude positions to cartesian points reduces positional warping around a camera (para 0096). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Cregan_2019 and Vegh_2016 for the benefit of reducing camera position warping by converting latitude and longitude to cartesian to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 6. The limitations of claim 6 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are therefore rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Additionally, Cregan_2019 makes obvious “An apparatus comprising a graphic display; at least one processor connected to the graphic display; and at least one memory including computer program code; the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform (col 5 line 8-13 “One or more systems described herein may be implemented in computer programs executing on programmable computers, each comprising at least one processor, a data storage system (including volatile and non-volatile memory and/or storage elements), at least one input device, and at least one output device.”; col 7 line 36-38 “The devices 12, 14, 16, 18, and 22 may include one or more of a memory, a secondary storage device, a storage unit, a processor, an input device, a display device, and an output device”)”
Claim 11. The limitations of claim 11 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are therefore rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Additionally, Cregan_2019 makes obvious “A computer program comprising instructions stored thereon (col 5 line 8-13 “One or more systems described herein may be implemented in computer programs executing on programmable computers”)”.
Claim 2, 7, 12. Mayer_2004 and Cregan_2019 and Vegh_2016 teach the limitations of claim 1, 6, 11. Mayer_2004 also makes obvious “wherein the ellipsoid is a WGS84 ellipsoid (para 0063 “In the present system and method, it is helpful if the database and the host use the same geodetic system. One possible geodetic system is WGS84 (World Geodetic System 1984)”).”
Claim(s) 3-5, 8-10, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer_2004 (US 2004/0098236 A1) in view of Cregan_2019 (US 10,489,965 B1) in view of Vegh_2016 (US 2016/0260195 A1) as applied to claims 1,6, 11 above, and further in view of Danyluk_2019 (Look-From Camera Control for 3D Terrain Maps, CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2019).
Claim 3, 8, 13. Mayer_2004 and Cregan_2019 and Vegh_2016 makes obvious all the limitations of claim 1,6, 11. Mayer_2004 and Cregan_2019 and Vegh_2016 does not teach “camera target point is calculated by interpolating between an intersection point of a camera forward vector and the ellipsoid surface and a previous camera target point depending on the camera tilt angle with respect to a normal of the ellipsoid surface at a camera position”.
Danyluk_2019; however, makes obvious “wherein said camera target point is calculated by interpolating between an intersection point of a camera forward vector and the ellipsoid surface and a previous camera target point depending on the camera tilt angle with respect to a normal of the ellipsoid surface at a camera position (Danyluk_2019 page 5 paragraph 3 “Using that touch point we cast a ray from the camera to find the point of the interaction. To find the look-at point in front of the look-from point we then cast another ray from the camera at an angle of 20° above the first ray…If the second ray fails to intersect the terrain (for example if 20° overshoots the edge of the map or the horizon) we reduce the angle in steps of 1° until an intersection is found.”; page 5 paragraph 4 “We then linearly interpolate the camera position between the starting position and end position using the mapped distance. We also spherically linearly interpolate the camera rotation between the start and end rotation by the square of the mapped distance” ; EXAMINER NOTE: The look-from ray is cast from the point of interaction down to the terrain which is the same as the normal of the surface. The look-at ray is then cast at a 20° angle from the look-from ray (i.e., the
PNG
media_image2.png
166
247
media_image2.png
Greyscale
normal)).
Mayer_2004 and Cregan_2019 and Vegh_2016 and Danyluk_2019 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called virtual imaging terrain. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Vegh_2016 and Danyluk_2019. The rationale for doing so would have been Mayer_2004 teaches to carry a tangent plane around a target point to image spherical terrain (para 0037). Danyluk_2019 teaches to calculate a camera target point by the intersection of a camera ray and terrain (page 5 para 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Mayer_2004 and Danyluk_2019 for the benefit of creating a tangent plane at a camera target point for terrain imaging to obtain the invention as specified by the claims.
Claim 4, 9, 15. Mayer_2004 in view of Cregan_2019 in view of Vegh_2016 in view of Danyluk_2019 teach the limitations of claim 3, 8, 13. Danyluk_2019 also makes obvious “wherein the determining of said camera target point is done by calculating the intersection point of a camera forward vector and the ellipsoid surface; and if the camera forward vector does not intersect with the ellipsoid surface, then setting the camera target point equal to the previous camera target point (page 5 paragraph 3 “If the second ray fails to intersect the terrain (for example if 20° overshoots the edge of the map or the horizon) we reduce the angle in steps of 1° until an intersection is found”; EXAMINER NOTE: if the ray does not intersect with the surface, it is reduced to previous angles until it intersects).”
Claim 5, 10, 15. Mayer_2004 in view of Cregan_2019 in view of Vegh_2016 in view of Danyluk_2019 teach the limitations of claim 3, 8, 13. Danyluk_2019 also makes obvious “wherein the interpolation factor is corrected using a S-curve such as a sigmoid curve or a smoothstep curve (page 5 paragraph 4 “If the current point is more than 50% of the screen away from the starting point then it is mapped to 1, if it is 0% away then it is mapped to 0. Between 0% and 50% we map the distance to a value between 0 and 1 using a smooth-step function. We then linearly interpolate the camera position between the starting position and end position using the mapped distance. We also spherically linearly interpolate the camera rotation between the start and end rotation by the square of the mapped distance.”; EXAMINER NOTE: The distance between two points is a factor used in the interpolation of the camera and is corrected using a smoothstep function).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Kontkanen_2014 (US 2014/0267236 A1) which discusses terrain mapping from planar to spherical WGS84 coordinates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLIS HOANG TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (7:30 am - 5:30 pm) ET.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/E.H.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights