DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson et al., US 2019/0128679.
In Reference to Claim 1
Thompson et al. teaches a system for controlling an interactive map user interface, the system comprising a server in operable communication with a plurality of computing devices across a wide area network (Fig. 1 and Par. 20, 22, 31), the server comprising a processor executing computer program code instruction controllers (Par. 21-23 and 36 see also Fig. 1 “Mapping Application”), including: a user interface controller configured to generate an interactive map user interface for display by digital displays of the computing devices (Fig. 1 and Par. 34 “Client Map Application” See also Par. 29), the user interface comprising a map and navigational controllers for navigating the map (par. 34 and Par. 50-51 “client map application”); and a polygonal icon controller configured to generate a plurality of polygonal icons in relation to the map, wherein the user interface controller is configured to overlay the map with the polygonal icons (Par. 5 and 51 “polygons” which teaches where the system represents map “geometry features” determined from map data as polygons and renders them on the map using polygons. See Par. 34 which teaches rendering the map using the determined data).
In Reference to Claim 19
Thompson et al. teaches further comprising a data classifier controller configured to classify the polygonal icons and wherein the polygonal icon controller is configured to display the polygonal icons in the user interface according to the classification (Thompson et al. Par. 51 which teaches displaying map features including polygons with their associated additional information in a mapping application or client map application. And further teaches example data such as “roadway classification.” See also Thompson et al. Fig. 4 and Par. 52 “The feature mapper 310 may assign feature identifiers to the various features” which teaches using the additional property information to identify the map features).
In Reference to Claim 22
Thompson et al. teaches where the data classifier controller is configured to retrieve data from a third-party server for calculating the classifications (Par. 35 “third-party data suppliers”).
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al., US 2019/0128679, in view of Shu et al., US 2024/0233261.
In Reference to Claim 2
Thompson et al. teaches where the map data can come from satellite imagery (Par. 26) and teaches determining vectors from the map data that define the map features including where the feature can be represented via a polygon (Par. 50-51). However, Thompson et al. does not explicitly teach a polygon recognition controller, wherein the polygon recognition controller is configured to recognize polygons using building outlines included in satellite image data associated with the map.
Shu et al. teaches vector data based mapping system which teaches a polygon recognition controller, wherein the polygon recognition controller is configured to recognize polygons using building outlines included in satellite image data associated with the map (Fig. 8 and Par. 18 “First, a two-dimensional vector map of one or more structures (e.g., buildings) is obtained or directly extracted from overhead imagery, such as satellite or aerial imagery captured from a near-nadir point of view. The two-dimensional vector map comprises a set of polygons outlining each building, and may be generated manually or by an automated process, including machine learning methods, as described below.”).
It would be desirable to modify the system of Thompson et al. to include generation of 2d vector building outlines from satellite image data, either automatically or manually, as taught by Shu et al. in order to allow the vector map of Thompson et al. to more accurately depict on the map the actual size and location of buildings represented by the satellite geometry data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the system of Thompson et al. to include generation of 2d vector building outlines from satellite image data, either automatically or manually, as taught by Shu et al.
In Reference to Claim 3
Thompson et al. and Shu et al. teach wherein the polygon recognition controller employs edge detection on the building outlines to determine vertices and intersecting lines of quadrilateral shapes of the polygonal icons (Par. 24-25 which teaches generating polygons of building footprints using lines and corner points trace around the buildings. See also “methods such as object detection, boundary detection, key point detection, feature detection, other machine vision techniques” specifically boundary detection. Finally see Fig. 1 and 3 where the system generates a rectangular polygon of intersecting lines and points which trace the outline of the building footprint).
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al., US 2019/0128679, Shu et al., US 2024/0233261, further in view of Katragadda et al., US 2015/0248192.
In Reference to Claim 4
Thompson et al. and Shu et al. teach a map system with a polygon recognition controller which identifies map features including building outlines as described above in reference to Claim 2. Further, Thompson et al. teaches the map can include various additional information based on map locations (Par. 27) and where map features can be polygons (Par. 5 and 51). However, they do not explicitly teach where the controller is provided with a geographic location and wherein the controller is configured to recognize a polygon using a building coinciding with the geographic location.
Katragadda et al. teaches wherein the controller is provided with a geographic location and wherein the controller is configured to recognize a polygon using a building coinciding with the geographic location (Par. 24-25 which teaches map features including buildings represented by polygons that are recognized based on location information such as address information designated for the polygon).
It would be desirable to modify the system of Thompson et al. and Shu et al. to include identification of building polygons via location information as taught by Katragadda et al. in order to more accurately determine the identity of building polygons on the vector map of Thompson et al.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the system of Thompson et al. and Shu et al. to include identification of building polygons via location information as taught by Katragadda et al.
In Reference to Claim 5
Thompson et al., Shu et al., and Katragadda et al. teach wherein the system is configured to convert street address data to obtain the geographic location (Katragadda et al. Par. 25).
In Reference to Claim 6
Thompson et al. and Shu et al. teach a map system with a polygon recognition controller which identifies map features including building outlines as described above in reference to Claim 2. Further, Thompson et al. teaches the map can include various additional information based on map locations (Par. 27) and where map features can be polygons (Par. 5 and 51). However, where the controller is provided with a geographic location and wherein the polygon recognition controller is configured to employ proximity analysis to identify a building outline or polygon closest to the geographic location.
Katragadda et al. teaches where the controller is provided with a geographic location and wherein the polygon recognition controller is configured to employ proximity analysis to identify a building outline or polygon closest to the geographic location (Par. 24-25 which teaches map features including buildings represented by polygons that are recognized based on location information such as address information designated for the polygon, and Par. 37 which teaches where the location based determination is based on proximity of the polygon to the location).
It would be desirable to modify the system of Thompson et al. and Shu et al. to include identification of building polygons via location information as taught by Katragadda et al. in order to more accurately determine the identity of building polygons on the vector map of Thompson et al.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the system of Thompson et al. and Shu et al. to include identification of building polygons via location information and proximity as taught by Katragadda et al.
In Reference to Claim 7
Thompson et al., Shu et al., and Katragadda et al. teach wherein the proximity analysis comprises the polygon recognition controller calculating straight-line distances from the geographic location to a plurality of building outlines or polygons and selecting the shortest straight-line distance to identify the closest building outline or polygon (Katragadda et al. Par. 37-40 “within the threshold distance” and Par. 38 which teaches address components of the polygons are suggested based on the strength of the matches)
In Reference to Claim 8
Thompson et al., Shu et al., and Katragadda et al. teach wherein the geographic location is associated with a classification and wherein the polygonal icon controller is configured to display the polygonal icons in the user interface according to the classification (Thompson et al., Shu et al., and Katragadda et al. which teaches geographic location information as described above in reference to Claim 4. Thompson et al. Par. 51 which teaches displaying map features including polygons with their associated additional information in a mapping application or client map application. And further teaches example data such as “roadway classification.” See also Thompson et al. Fig. 4 and Par. 52 “The feature mapper 310 may assign feature identifiers to the various features”).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al., US 2019/0128679, Shu et al., US 2024/0233261, further in view of Stackoverflow.com webpage “Algorithm to create a polygon from points” (hereinafter StackOverflow).
In Reference to Claim 9
Thompson et al. and Shu et al. teaches wherein the polygonal icon controller is configured to generate a quadrilateral shape of a polygonal icon by drawing lines between vertices (Shu et al. Par. 24-25 and Fig. 1 and 3). However, they do not explicitly teach where the lines are drawn in series.
StackOverflow teaches an algorithm for drawing polygons from a group of points where lines of the polygon are drawn in series (Page 2-3 which teaches an algorithm where the points are sorted and lines are drawn in order).
It would be desirable to modify the system of Thompson et al. and Shu et al. to include drawing the polygons in series as taught by StackOverflow in order to quickly construct polygon outlines which enclose the area between the points rather than crossing over and generating an undesirable shape by crossing lines as shown in Page 1 and 2 of StackOverflow.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the system of Thompson et al. and Shu et al. to include drawing the polygons in series as taught by StackOverflow
In Reference to Claim 10
Thompson et al., Shu et al., and StackOverflow teaches wherein the polygonal icon controller is configured to draw lines in series between vertices (Shu et al. Par. 24-25 and Fig. 1 and 3. StackOverflow pages 2-4).
In Reference to Claim 11
Thompson et al., Shu et al., and StackOverflow teach wherein the polygonal icon controller is configured to determine a polygonal center with reference to the vertices (Thompson et al. and Shu et al. which teach the polygon icon controller as described above. And Stack Overflow Pages 2-4 “center of mass.”).
In Reference to Claim 12
Thompson et al., Shu et al., and StackOverflow teach wherein the polygonal icon controller is configured to generate a parallelogram shape by generating parallel lines between respective vertices (See Shu et al. Fig. 3 where a building footprint is a rectangle which constitutes a parallelogram. The polygon drawn using the points of the rectangle constitute a parallelogram with parallel lines between respective vertices).
In Reference to Claim 13
Thompson et al., Shu et al., and StackOverflow teach wherein the polygonal icon controller is configured to determine a polygonal center and to select the surrounding vertices for the generation of the parallel lines(See Shu et al. Fig. 3 where a building footprint is a rectangle which constitutes a parallelogram. The polygon drawn using the points of the rectangle constitute a parallelogram with parallel lines between respective vertices. See StackOverflow pages 2-4 “center of mass” which teaches where the center of the vertices is determined in order to select vertices for the lines to be drawn).
Claim 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al., US 2019/0128679, Shu et al., US 2024/0233261, StackOverflow, further in view of Fielding, US 6,556,878.
In Reference to Claim 14-15
Thompson et al., Shu et al. and StackOverflow teach a system as described above in reference to Claim 9. However, they do not teach where system is configured to fill the lines, or where the system is configured to fill the lines according to a polygonal icon classification.
Fielding teaches a map system which teaches where the system is configured to fill the lines of polygons, and where the system is configured to fill the lines according to a polygonal icon classification (Fig. 5 and Col. 10 lines 44-67 which teaches a map of building polygons and where the polygon icons are filled according to a classification key to identify the type of building).
It would be desirable to modify the system of Thompson et al., Shu et al., and StackOverflow to include filling of polygons according to classification information about the map feature as taught by Fielding in order to make it easier for users to identify features on the vector map.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to include filling of polygons according to classification information about the map feature as taught by Fielding.
Claim 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al., US 2019/0128679, Shu et al., US 2024/0233261, further in view of Henry et al., US 2021/0125503.
In Reference to Claim 16
Thompson et al. and Shu et al. teach a system as described above in reference to Claim 2, including a user interface and polygonal icon controller as described above. However, they do not teach where the user interface comprises polygonal icon controls and wherein the polygonal icon controller is configured to update polygonal data responsive to user interface interactions with the polygonal icon controls.
Henry et al. teaches a system for generating polygons representing build roofs from aerial data (Abstract) which includes where the user interface comprises polygonal icon controls and wherein the polygonal icon controller is configured to update polygonal data responsive to user interface interactions with the polygonal icon controls (Fig. 11 “Receive data encoding user edits of one or more vertices of the suggested bounding polygon” and Par. 89 and 103 which teaches the user can provide inputs to the program to edit a boundary polygon for a roof. See Par. 89 “The user may then move vertices of the polygon, add vertices, or remove vertices in the plane of the overview image to better fit the desired facet as it appears to the user in the overview image.” And Par. 103 “For example, the data indicating a user edit of the two-dimensional polygon may have been generated by a user interacting with a graphical user interface (e.g., the graphical user interface 500), such as by dragging a vertex icon (e.g., using the touchscreen 260) to move a vertex of the two-dimensional polygon within the plane of overview image.”).
It would be desirable to modify the system of Thompson et al. and Shu et al. to include user editing of automatically generated building polygons as taught by Henry et al. in order to allow the user to correct errors or problems in building footprints on the map that they notice, or to correct their own errors if they use a manual process to draw building polygons as described by Shu et al. Par. 25.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the system of Thompson et al. and Shu et al. to include user editing of automatically generated building polygons as taught by Henry et al.
In Reference to Claim 17
Thompson et al., Shu et al., and Henry et al. teach wherein the polygonal icon controls are configured for adjusting vertices of the polygonal icons (Henry et al. Par. 89 and 103).
In Reference to Claim 18
Thompson et al., Shu et al., and Henry et al. teach where the polygonal icon controls comprise shape drag and drop functionality (Henry et al. Par. 103 “dragging a vertex icon (e.g., using the touchscreen 260)”).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al., US 2019/0128679, further in view of Fielding, US 6,556,878.
In Reference to Claim 20-21
Thompson et al. teaches a system as described above in reference to Claim 19. However, Thompson et al. does not teach where the classification is color-coded in the user interface or where the user interface comprises a color-coded legend corresponding to classifications of polygonal icons.
Fielding teaches a map system which teaches where the classification is color-coded in the user interface or where the user interface comprises a color-coded legend corresponding to classifications of polygonal icons (Fig. 5 and Col. 10 lines 44-67).
It would be desirable to modify the system of Thompson et al., Shu et al., and StackOverflow to include color coding of polygons according to classification information about the map feature and a color-coded legend as taught by Fielding in order to make it easier for users to identify features on the vector map.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to include color coding of polygons according to classification information about the map feature and a color-coded legend as taught by Fielding.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al., US 2019/0128679, further in view of Childs, US 2016/0217537.
In Reference to Claim 23-25
Thompson et al. teaches where the system can be used for various applications (Par. 34). However, Thompson et al. does not teach where the controllers further comprise user profile controller configured to register user profiles against respective polygonal icons, wherein each polygonal icon is selectable to cause the user interface to display a profile registration interface, or wherein the user profile controller is configured to record uploaded data in relation to user profiles and wherein respective polygonal icons are selectable in the user interface to display the uploaded data.
Childs teaches an interactive map system where the controllers further comprise user profile controller configured to register user profiles against respective polygonal icons (Fig. 6 and Par. 38, 44, and 47-52 which teach where “private user accounts” can associated particular properties with a user account in order to enter real estate information regarding the property they manage. See in particular Par. 44 which teaches that “polygons” define the boundaries of a particular property. See also Fig. 10), wherein each polygonal icon is selectable to cause the user interface to display a profile registration interface (Fig. 6 and Par. 48-49 “displays the standardized parcel data on an interactive parcel map interface 122 that enables non-public users to select a single parcel or multiple parcels that constitute properties of interest”), or wherein the user profile controller is configured to record uploaded data in relation to user profiles and wherein respective polygonal icons are selectable in the user interface to display the uploaded data (Par. 52 and Par. 9 which teach that other users can select the property on an interactive map to access the saved data about the property).
It would be desirable to modify the system of Thompson et al. to include user profile management, selection and viewing via the map of Thompson et al. in order to integrate real estate management software as described by Childs with the vector based mapping software of Thompson et al. Thereby allowing the vector map of Thompson et al. to be used for real estate management and display functionality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the system of Thompson et al. to include user profile management, selection and viewing via the map of Thompson et al. in order to integrate real estate management software as described by Childs.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al., US 2019/0128679, in view of webpage Geopuzzle.org (hereinafter Geopuzzle).
In Reference to Claim 26-27
Thompson et al. teaches a system as described above in reference to Claim 1, including an interactive map which includes polygonal icons which represent property shapes. Further Thompson et al. teaches where the map can be used as part of various applications, including games (Par. 34 “a video game”). However, Thompson et al. does not explicitly teach where the game involves interaction with polygonal icons on the map, or where the interactive game involves selecting and placing the polygonal shapes onto the map grid using a drag-and-drop.
Geopuzzle teaches an interactive map based game which teaches where the game involves interaction with polygonal icons on the map, or where the interactive game involves selecting and placing the polygonal shapes onto the map grid using a drag-and-drop (Page 2 “In this Puzzle, you need to drag the shape of the territory to its correct place on the map. Just as in our childhood, we collected pictures piece by piece, so here you can assemble a country from regions or even a whole continent from countries!” and the animated screenshot which shows a user dragging country shape polygons onto their place on the interactive map).
It would be desirable to modify the system of Thompson et al. to include an interactive shape matching game based on the polygons of the interactive map as taught by Geopuzzle in order to increase enjoyment of the users by allowing them to play a game which tests their familiarity with a region such as their neighborhood. Matching map feature polygons to their correct location on the map as taught by Geopuzzle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the system of Thompson et al. to include an interactive shape matching game based on the polygons of the interactive map as taught by Geopuzzle.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al., US 2019/0128679, Geopuzzle, further in view of Ilchyshyn et al., US 2015/0057059.
In Reference to Claims 28-29
Thompson et al. and Geopuzzle teach an interactive game controller as described above in reference to Claim 26 and 27 including where the game requires placement of shapes in relationship to polygonal icons. However, they do not teach where the system is configured to measure placement preciseness or placement speed as part of the game.
Ilchyshyn et al. teaches a graphical puzzle game which teaches where the system is configured to measure placement preciseness or placement speed as part of the game (Par. 27, 37 and 39 which teaches game competition can be based on accuracy or speed of completing the puzzle).
It would be desirable to modify the system of Thompson et al. and Geopuzzle to include scoring based on accuracy and/or speed in order to increase the enjoyment of users by allowing them to compete with others or to best their own high score when playing the game.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the system of Thompson et al. and Geopuzzle to include scoring based on accuracy and/or speed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL V LARSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday; 10:00 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/CARL V LARSEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights