DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This Office Action is in response to application filed on March 19, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 2 and 4-6 are not of sufficient quality. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the geometric objects associated with the neutral data-structures". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “geometric objects associated with the neutral data-structures” for the purpose of further examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; Claims 11-13 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of machines; and Claims 14-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 11 and 14: The limitation “converting a legacy data-structure for a geometric object into an associated neutral data-structure”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate a legacy data-structure and mentally convert, with or without the use of pen and paper, a legacy data-structure for a geometric object into an associated neutral data-structure.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 11 and 14 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 11 and 14: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements –“ a processor; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores a plurality of instructions, which upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to:…” and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions for visually inspecting computational geometry code, the computer-executable instructions configured for:…” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claim 1, 11 and 14 recite the following additional elements – “transferring the neutral data-structure to an inter-process communication channel” and “rendering the geometric object corresponding to the neutral data-structure, upon fetching the neutral data-structure from the inter-process communication channel” which are merely recitations of insignificant data gathering and output activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and will also be addressed below in Step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further still, claims 1, 11 and 14 recite the following additional element of “wherein the neutral data-structure is adaptable to be visually rendered” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 11 and 14 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 11 and 14: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components, mere instructions to apply an exception which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and/or field of use/technological environment. Moreover, the recitations of insignificant data gathering and output activity as also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely transmit/provide or output data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1, 11 and 14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 2, it recites additional element of “wherein the legacy data-structure for the geometric object is converted into the associated neutral data-structure, using a conversion function” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further, claim 2 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 2 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 3, it recites additional element of “wherein legacy data-structure for the geometric object is converted periodically into the associated neutral data-structure, at a predefined time interval” and “wherein the predefined time interval is 1 second” which are merely recitations of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further, claim 3 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 3 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 4 and 15, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “detecting a user manipulating a code during a debugging session” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a debugging session, just as in the independent claims above, mentally detect, with or without the use of pen and paper, a user manipulating a code during a debugging session. Further, claims 4 and 15 recite additional abstract idea recitations of “converting the legacy data-structure for the geometric object into the associated neutral data-structure, upon detecting the user manipulating the code during the debugging session” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a debugging session, just as in the independent claims above, mentally convert, with or without the use of pen and paper, a legacy data-structure for a geometric object into an associated neutral data-structure, upon detecting a user manipulating a code during the debugging session. Further, claims 4 and 15 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4 and 15 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 4 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 5 and 16, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “computing a hash value of each of the neutral data-structure received at the inter-process communication channel at different points in time, during a debugging session” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a debugging session, just as in the independent claims above, mentally compute, with or without the use of pen and paper, a hash value of each of the neutral data-structure received at the inter-process communication channel at different points in time, during a debugging session. Further, claims 5 and 16 recite additional abstract idea recitations of “comparing a hash value of a latest neutral data-structure with a hash value of a previously stored neutral data-structure” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate hash values, just as in the independent claims above, mentally compare, with or without the use of pen and paper, a hash value of a latest neutral data-structure with a hash value of a previously stored neutral data-structure. Further still, claims 5 and 16 recite additional element of “rendering the geometric object corresponding to the latest neutral data-structure, based on the comparison” which is merely an insignificant data output activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely transmit/provide or output data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further still, claims 5 and 16 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 5 and 16 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 5 and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 6 and 17, they recite additional element of “based on the comparison, for the latest neutral data-structure, rendering the geometric object corresponding to the previously stored data-structure, when the hash value of the latest neutral data-structure is same as the hash value of the previously stored neutral data-structure or updating the geometric object corresponding to the latest neutral data-structure, when the hash value of the latest neutral data-structure is different from the hash value of the previously stored neutral data-structure” which is merely an insignificant data output activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely transmit/provide or output data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further, claims 6 and 17 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 6 and 17 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 6 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 7 and 18, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “concatenating coordinates of one or more parameters representative of the geometric object into a string” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a geometric object, just as in the independent claims above, mentally concatenate, with or without the use of pen and paper, coordinates of one or more parameters representative of the geometric object into a string. Further, claims 7 and 18 recite additional abstract idea recitations of “computing a checksum value for the string” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a string, just as in the independent claims above, mentally compute, with or without the use of pen and paper, a checksum value for the string. Further still, claims 7 and 18 recite additional abstract idea recitations of “computing the hash value of the geometric object based on the checksum value for the string” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a geometric object, just as in the independent claims above, mentally compute, with or without the use of pen and paper, a hash value of the geometric object based on a checksum value for a string. Further, claims 7 and 18 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 7 and 18 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 7 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 8, it recites additional element of “wherein the checksum value for the string is computed using a Fast algorithm” and “wherein the Fast algorithm is one of: MD5 or Adler-32” which are merely recitations of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further, claim 8 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 8 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 9, 12 and 19, they recite additional element of “storing neutral data-structures at the inter-process communication channel, for a plurality of points in time from a timeline of the debugging session”, “receiving, from a user, a selection of a target point-in-time from the timeline of the debugging session” and “playing a video generated using the geometric objects associated with the neutral data-structures commencing from the target point-in-time from the timeline of the debugging session” which are merely an insignificant data storing, gathering and output activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data; iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely transmit/provide or output data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further, claims 9, 12 and 19 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 9, 12 and 19 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 9, 12 and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 10, 13 and 20, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “apply an information tag corresponding to the query to at least one of: the selected individual geometric object or the selected sub-entity associated with the individual geometric object” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a query, just as in the independent claims above, mentally apply, with or without the use of pen and paper, an information tag corresponding to the query to at least one of: a selected individual geometric object or a selected sub-entity associated with the individual geometric object. Further, claims 10, 13 and 20 recite additional element of “receive a selection of at least one of: an individual geometric object and a sub-entity associated with the individual geometric object” and “receive a query with respect to one of: a selected individual geometric object or a selected sub-entity associated with the individual geometric object” which are merely insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further still, claims 10, 13 and 20 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 10, 13 and 20 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 10, 13 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
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 1-2, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coad et al. (US 6,993,710) in view of Resig (US 2015/0044642).
With respect to Claim 1, Coad et al. disclose:
converting a legacy data-structure into an associated neutral data-structure, (converts the source code (legacy data structure) into a language-neutral representation, Column 17, lines 12-23) wherein the neutral data-structure is adaptable to be visually rendered; (uses the language-neutral representation to display the corresponding graphical representation of the source code with the indications of the edits, Column 17, lines 20-23)
transferring the neutral data-structure to an inter-process communication channel; (uses the language-neutral representation stored in memory to update both the graphical and textual view of the source code (transfer to an inter-process communication), Column 15, lines 49-54; parser converts the source code into the language-neutral representation which is then sent to the display, Column 5, lines 35-67)
and rendering the [data-structure] corresponding to the neutral data-structure, upon fetching the neutral data-structure from the inter-process communication channel. (uses the language-neutral representation stored in memory (fetch from the inter-process communication channel) to update both the graphical and textual view (rendering) of the source code, Column 15, lines 49-54)
Coad et al. do not disclose:
a legacy data-structure for a geometric object
However, Resig discloses:
a legacy data-structure for a geometric object (a line of code is associated with the size, orientation, alignment, position and color of a geometric object, such as a circle, triangle, square, rectangle, pentagon, hexagon, heptagon, octagon, or nonagon, or partial shapes or combinations thereof. The line of code can dictate the size, position and color of the geometric object, Paragraph 55)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Resig into the teaching of Coad et al. to include a legacy data-structure for a geometric object in order to help debug software that generates/creates geometric objects such as circles. (Resig, Paragraph 56)
With respect to Claim 2, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been address above; and Coad et al. further disclose:
wherein the legacy data-structure for the geometric object is converted into the associated neutral data-structure, using a conversion function. (The parser 706 (conversion function) converts the source code into the language-neutral representation in the TMM, Column 5, lines 40-23)
Claim 11 is a system claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 1) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 14 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 1) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coad et al. (US 6,993,710) in view of Resig (US 2015/0044642) in view of Dabak et al. (US 2021/0374242) and in further view of Chen (US 9,201,762).
With respect to Claim 3, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been address above; and Coad et al. and Resig further disclose:
wherein legacy data-structure for the geometric object is converted periodically
into the associated neutral data-structure, at a predefined time, (updating (convert) the TMM (neutral representation) when modifications or additions have been made (periodically/predefined time) to the source code by a developer and displaying the updates in both the graphical and textual views, Column 15, lines 44-54)
Coad et al. and Resig do not disclose:
a predefined time interval,
and wherein the predefined time interval is 1 second.
However, Dabak et al. disclose:
a predefined time interval, (detecting modifications to code through periodic checksumming (period time interval), Paragraph 27)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Dabak et al. into the teaching of Coad et al. and Resig to include a predefined time interval in order to be able to monitor/detect when modifications to code occur at specific times. (Dabak et al., Paragraph 27)
Coad et al., Resig and Dabak et al. do not explicitly disclose:
and wherein the predefined time interval is 1 second.
However, Chen discloses:
and wherein the predefined time interval is 1 second. (the predetermined time interval is one second in duration., Column 2, lines 13-14)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Chen into the teaching of Coad et al., Resig and Dabak et al. to include the predefined time interval is 1 second in order to allow a user to define and enable a system to check for changes made to source code at any specific predetermined time interval such as every 1 second.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coad et al. (US 6,993,710) in view of Resig (US 2015/0044642) and in further view of Taylor et al. (US 2020/0409818).
With respect to Claim 4, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been address above; and Coad et al. and Resig further disclose:
wherein converting the legacy data-structure into the associated neutral data-structure comprises:
detecting a user manipulating a code during a session; (software development tool awaits an event, i.e. a modification or addition to the source code by the developer and when the event is received…, Column 15, lines 45-51)
and converting the legacy data-structure for the geometric object into the associated neutral data-structure, upon detecting the user manipulating the code during the session. (updating (convert) the TMM (neutral representation) when modifications or additions have been made (user manipulating the code during a session) to the source code by a developer and displaying the updates in both the graphical and textual views, Column 15, lines 44-54)
Coad et al. and Resig do not disclose:
detecting a user manipulating a code during a debugging session
However, Taylor et al. disclose:
detecting a user manipulating a code during a debugging session (a developer can makes changes to code or comments during a debugging session, Paragraph 15, lines 32-34)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Taylor et al. into the teaching of Coad et al. and Resig to include detecting a user manipulating a code during a debugging session in order to allow developers to collaboratively work to resolve a bug in real-time. (Taylor et al., Paragraph 15, lines 29-30)
Claim 15 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 4) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Claims 10, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coad et al. (US 6,993,710) in view of Resig (US 2015/0044642) and in further view of Mihic et al. (US 2020/0201869).
With respect to Claim 10, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been address above; and Coad et al. and Resig do not disclose:
further comprising:
receiving a selection of at least one of: an individual geometric object and a sub-entity associated with the individual geometric object;
receiving a query with respect to one of: a selected individual geometric object or a selected sub-entity associated with the individual geometric object; and
applying an information tag corresponding to the query to at least one of: the selected individual geometric object or the selected sub-entity associated with the individual geometric object.
However, Mihic et al. disclose:
further comprising:
receiving a selection of at least one of: an individual geometric object and a sub-entity associated with the individual geometric object; (specific geometric object(s) (selection), Paragraph 47)
receiving a query with respect to one of: a selected individual geometric object or a selected sub-entity associated with the individual geometric object; (query may specify that a spatial relation operation be performed for geometric objects against an original polygon or other original geometry that may represent geographic/geometric areas. For instance, it may be determined if geometric objects or specified objects are within an area of a geometry, are contained by the geometry, intersect the geometry, etc., Paragraph 47)
and applying an information tag corresponding to the query to at least one of: the selected individual geometric object or the selected sub-entity associated with the individual geometric object. (A spatial relationship (information tag) may be determined efficiently via cascade manager 108, even for big data storage with billions or hundreds of billions of raw data entries against geometries with hundreds of thousands of vertices/line-figures, using cascade elimination of candidates through single side reductions of data points corresponding to vertices for the geometry, Paragraph 47; a spatial query specifies a spatial relation operation which checks/calculates spatial relationships between a specified geometry and a set of N other spatial geometry objects (or candidates) to be checked as satisfying, or not satisfying (information tag), the spatial relation operation, Paragraph 32)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Mihic et al. into the teaching of Coad et al. and Resig to include receiving a selection of at least one of: an individual geometric object and a sub-entity associated with the individual geometric object, receiving a query with respect to one of: a selected individual geometric object or a selected sub-entity associated with the individual geometric object and applying an information tag corresponding to the query to at least one of: the selected individual geometric object or the selected sub-entity associated with the individual geometric object in order to help determine relationships between an original geometry and one or more additional geometries of interest. (Mihic et al., Paragraph 2, lines 5-7)
Claim 13 is a system claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 10) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 10.
Claim 20 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim corresponding to the method claim above (Claim 10) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, 12 and 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and the §101 rejection is overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mukherjee et al. (US 7,783,460) discloses translating models generated in one modeling environment into models that can used in another modeling environment.
Charisius et al. (US 7,055,131) disclose an improved software development tool that allows a developer to animate the execution of compiled source code as a diagram.
Hazen et al. (US 2020/0042336) disclose simulation of a robotic program.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LANNY N UNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7708. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 571-272-3338. 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.
/LANNY N UNG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2197