DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 10, 12, 19, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 4 and 13 have been canceled.
Claims 21 and 22 have been added.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-22 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-22 are rejected.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 21 and 22 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.
Claim 21 recites, “further comprising selecting the representative marker as having the location closest to an average location of the two or more of the multiple markers.” However, claim 1, from which this claim depends, recites “displaying … a representative marker … at its location on the map.” There does not appear to be support in the originally filed specification for displaying a representative marker at its location on the map that has a location closest to an average location of two or more of markers. The specification at paragraphs [0035]-[0036] describes displaying a representative marker “at a location that is based on an average of the marker locations in the subtile (e.g., such that the location can be representative of an area where the most markers are present within the at least one subtile), etc.”, but not at the marker’s location. The only description of displaying a representative marker at its location is when the representative marker is selected by determining which of the markers is closest to a center location of the subtile (pars [0035]-[0036] - “determine which of the markers for a given subtile has a location closest to a center location in the subtile, and may select that marker as the representative marker. In this example, marker displaying module 116 can display the representative marker in its corresponding location.”).
Claim 22 recites, “further comprising selecting the representative marker as having the location within an area of the at least one subtile having a greatest number of the multiple markers.” However, claim 1, from which this claim depends, recites “displaying … a representative marker … at its location on the map.” As explained with respect to claim 21, there is no support for displaying a representative marker at its corresponding location other than if it is selected based on being the closest to the center of the subtile. Moreover, the specification does not appear to describe selecting a representative marker “as having the location within an area of the at least one subtile having a greatest number of the multiple markers.” Applicant also has not pointed to support in the specification for these amended limitation.
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 1-22 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.
The phrase “selected based on a proximity in the at least one subtile” in claim 1 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the “proximity in the at least one subtile” is relative to (i.e. proximity to what?). Therefore, the limitation has been rendered indefinite. Claim 10 and 19 are similarly rejected. Claims 2-3, 5-9, 11-12, 14-18, and 20-22 are rejected in view of their dependency on claims 1, 10, or 19.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “removing, from the grid of subtiles, a portion of the subtiles in the grid of subtiles that have no markers assigned to the portion of subtiles.” It is unclear, in light of paragraphs [0037] and [0045] of the specification, how a map could be displayed, in accordance with the claimed invention, with subtiles missing from the grid. Claim 14 is similarly rejected.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-12, 14-16, 19, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar et al. (US 2018/0181806, hereinafter “Chandrashekar”), cited by applicant, in view of Ramos (US 2011/0225546), cited by applicant, further in view of Shirani-Mehr et al. (US 2021/0374780, hereinafter “Shirani-Mehr”), further in view of Scheibe (US 2009/0024315), cited by applicant.
In regards to claim 1, Chandrashekar teaches a computer-implemented method for displaying markers on a map, comprising:
generating a boundary tile that encompasses the multiple markers on the map (Chandrashekar; Fig. 3, pars [0028], [0030]);
assigning each of the markers in the multiple markers to one subtile in a grid of subtiles, wherein each subtile in the grid of subtiles represents a portion of the boundary tile (Chandrashekar; Fig. 3, pars [0030], [0031]);
for at least one subtile in the grid of subtiles having two or more of the multiple markers assigned, displaying, on the map and based on a first zoom level, a representative marker of the two or more of the multiple markers (Chandrashekar; Fig. 3, pars [0032], [0034]); and
detecting, on an interface, a zoom event to cause the map to be displayed at a second zoom level (Chandrashekar; Fig. 2B, 4; pars [0035]-[0037]).
Chandrashekar does not explicitly teach generating a boundary tile based on a marker data set of multiple markers, displaying a representative marker, having a location selected based on a proximity in the at least one subtile, at its location on the map, and based on determining that the second zoom level achieves a zoom threshold, displaying, for the at least one subtile, each of the two or more of the multiple markers assigned to the at least one subtile.
Ramos teaches determining regions, relative to a map, based on a data set of multiple points of interest (Ramos; Fig. 3, pars [0038], [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method of Chandrashekar by using the sites of interest to determine the boundary tile, as suggested by Ramos, in order to present sites of interest to a user in an easily discernible way (Ramos; pars [0002], [0004]).
Chandrashekar in view of Ramos does not explicitly teach displaying a representative marker, having a location selected based on a proximity in the at least one subtile, at its location on the map, and based on determining that the second zoom level achieves a zoom threshold, displaying, for the at least one subtile, each of the two or more of the multiple markers assigned to the at least one subtile.
Shirani-Mehr teaches, displaying a representative marker, having a location selected based on a proximity to the center of the at least one subtile, at its location on the map (Shirani-Mehr; par [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method of Chandrashekar in view of Ramos by displaying a representative marker that has a location closest to the center of the respective subtile in order to minimize resources and provide a clear visual to the user (Shirani-Mehr; par [0037]).
Chandrashekar in view of Ramos further in view of Shirani-Mehr does not explicitly teach, based on determining that the second zoom level achieves a zoom threshold, displaying, for the at least one subtile, each of the two or more of the multiple markers assigned to the at least one subtile.
Scheibe teaches, based on determining that the second zoom level achieves a zoom threshold, displaying, for an associated area, each of the two or more of the multiple markers assigned to the area (Scheibe; pars [0016], [0017], [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method of Chandrashekar in view of Ramos further in view of Shirani-Mehr by displaying markers for individual sites of interest after a zoom-in event, in order to allow a user to see individual sites of interest on the map when the magnification level is sufficiently high (Scheibe; par [0016]).
In regards to claim 2, Chandrashekar, Ramos, Shirani-Mehr, and Scheibe teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the representative marker indicates a number of the multiple markers assigned to the at least one subtile (Chandrashekar; Fig. 2A, 2B, pars [0032], [0034], [0037]).
In regards to claim 3, Chandrashekar, Ramos, Shirani-Mehr, and Scheibe teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising based on determining that the second zoom level does not achieve the zoom threshold, for each subtile of a portion of subtiles in the grid of subtiles displayed after a zoom event on the map, displaying the representative marker at its location on the map (Chandrashekar; Fig. 2A, 2B, 4; pars [0035]-[0037]; Scheibe; pars [0016], [0017], [0021]; The examiner also notes that this is a contingent limitation that is not required by the claim as written.).
In regards to claim 5, Chandrashekar, Ramos, Shirani-Mehr, and Scheibe teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising removing, from the grid of subtiles, a portion of the subtiles in the grid of subtiles that have no markers assigned to the portion of subtiles (Ramos, par [0039] – single or multiple regions are determined based on points of interest, so obvious that if there are no points of interest in a particular area, it would not be determined to be a region, and a virtual boundary would not be displayed delineating that area).
In regards to claim 6, Chandrashekar, Ramos, Shirani-Mehr, and Scheibe teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the boundary tile includes generating the boundary tile as a rectangle that is based on a lowest marker of the multiple markers, a left most marker of the multiple markers, an upper most marker of the multiple markers, and a right most marker of the multiple markers on the map (Ramos, pars [0033], [0039] – shape of region can be rectangle and there can be a single region, analogous to the boundary tile, that is determined to contain the points of interest, so obvious it would be generated based on an uppermost, lowest, left, and right point of interest).
In regards to claim 7, Chandrashekar, Ramos, Shirani-Mehr, and Scheibe teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising dividing the boundary tile into the grid of subtiles, wherein each subtile in the grid of subtiles is of a same size (Chandrashekar; pars [0024], [0030]).
Claims 10-12 and 14-16 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-3 and 5-7, respectively.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 2, respectively.
In regards to claim 22, Chandrashekar, Ramos, Shirani-Mehr, and Scheibe teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising selecting the representative marker as having the location within an area of the at least one subtile having a greatest number of the multiple markers (Chandrashekar; pars [0034] – “it may be displayed based on the area of the cell most densely populated with sites of interest”).
Claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar, in view of Ramos, further in view of Shirani-Mehr, further in view of Scheibe, further in view of Levert (US 2023/0122732).
In regards to claim 8, Chandrashekar, Ramos, Shirani-Mehr, and Scheibe teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Chandrashekar, Ramos, Shirani-Mehr, and Scheibe does not explicitly teach wherein the multiple markers correspond to access control system assets deployed at one or more areas.
Levert teaches markers corresponding to access control system assets deployed at one or more areas (Levert; Fig. 13; pars [0151]-[0153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method of Chandrashekar, Ramos, Shirani-Mehr, and Scheibe, wherein the markers correspond to access control system assets, as taught by Levert, in order to monitor such assets and take appropriate action (Levert; par [0002]).
In regards to claim 9, Chandrashekar, Ramos, Shirani-Mehr, and Scheibe teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Chandrashekar, Ramos, Shirani-Mehr, and Scheibe does not explicitly teach wherein the multiple markers correspond to events detected by assets deployed at one or more areas (Levert; Fig. 13; pars [0156]-[0157]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method of Chandrashekar, Ramos, Shirani-Mehr, and Scheibe, wherein the markers correspond to events detected by assets, as taught by Levert, in order to detect such events, or triggers, and take appropriate action (Levert; par [0002]).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 8 and 9, respectively.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar, in view of Ramos, further in view of Shirani-Mehr, further in view of Scheibe, further in view of Sumaria (US 2023/0070544), cited by Examiner on 7/10/25.
In regards to claim 21, Chandrashekar, Ramos, Shirani-Mehr, and Scheibe teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Chandrashekar, Ramos, Shirani-Mehr, and Scheibe does not explicitly teach selecting the representative marker as having the location closest to an average location of the two or more of the multiple markers.
Sumaria teaches selecting a representative marker as having the location closest to an average location of the two or more of the multiple markers (Sumaria; pars [0034]-[0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method of Chandrashekar, Ramos, Shirani-Mehr, and Scheibe, by displaying a representative marker having the location closest to an average location of the two or more of the multiple markers in order to present the marker in a position that more accurately represents the locations of the markers in a particular area (Sumaria; par [0034]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/8/2025 with respect to the 112(b) rejections of the claims have been fully considered. The previous rejections stemming from the independent claims have been rendered moot; however, the amendments to the claims have precipitated new rejections, as set forth above. The rejections of claims 5 and 14 have not been addressed by applicant and have been maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/8/2025 with respect to the 101 rejections of the claims have been fully considered.
The rejections of claims 19 and 20 with respect to the statutory categories of invention have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of the claims as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at pp. 11-12 of applicant’s remarks that Chandrashekar fails to teach generating a boundary tile "based on a marker data set." However, the examiner respectfully notes that Chandrashekar was not relied upon for teaching this limitation; rather, Ramos was relied upon as teaching this feature of the claim.
Applicant argues at p. 12 of applicant’s remarks that Chandrashekar fails to teach "wherein each subtile in the grid of subtiles represents a portion of the boundary tile," because Chandrashekar only contemplates dividing the map into cells but not a grid of subtiles. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the claim requires a boundary tile and subtiles that represent a portion of the boundary tile. In this case, Chandrashekar teaches geographic regions (Chandrashekar; Fig. 3, pars [0028], [0030]), for example Area A and Area B in Fig. 2, as well as the area encompassed by Areas A and B together. Each of these can be considered a boundary tile, in that it encompasses multiple markers on a map, as required by the claim. The claim does not require that the boundary tile be a specific shape or the same shape as the subtiles. Chandrashekar teaches dividing a map into a matrix of cells (Chandrashekar; Fig. 3, pars [0030], [0031]). Each of these cells can be considered a subtile in that it represents a portion of the boundary tile. Therefore, the claimed limitations are met. However, to explain further and provide another interpretation that is also met by the references, the examiner notes that Chandrashekar also explicitly teaches dividing a region into a second matrix (or matrices) having a plurality of second cells (Chandrashekar; pars [0035]-[0037]). Chandrashekar therefore explicitly discloses subdividing a cell further, which constitutes subcells, i.e. subtiles., as claimed. Lastly, the examiner notes that a matrix comprising cells clearly has subcells (analagous to a boundary tile and subtiles) in that the distinction is merely indicative of a level of abstraction. In other words, a matrix with 4 cells can also be considered a matrix with 1 cell and 4 subcells, for example.
With respect to claim 6, applicant argues at pp. 12-13 of applicant’s remarks that Ramos does not teach the claimed limitations because, even if there could be a single region in Ramos analogous to the boundary tile, that Ramos fails to disclose or suggest that the single region would then be divided into subtiles. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The limitations being argued are rejected based on a combination of Ramos with the teachings of Chandrashekar described above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kavita Stanley whose telephone number is (571)272-8352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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, Cordelia (Dede) Zecher can be reached at 571-272-7771. 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.
/KAVITA STANLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153