DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,289 B2 (patent 289). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader than the claims of patent 289.
4. The following table shows correspondence between the claims of present application and patent 289.
Claims of present application
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Claims of patent 289
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
5. The following table shows correspondence between the limitations of claim 1 of present application and claim of patent 289.
Claim 1 of present application
Claim 1 of patent 289
1. A computer-implemented method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising:
1. A computer-implemented method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising:
accessing a plurality of records wherein each of the plurality of records represents a respective status of a respective insurance claim for the respective property;
generating one or more overlays for respective ones of a plurality of records
generating one or more overlays for respective ones of the plurality of records,
associated with respective ones of a plurality of properties modeled in a virtual reality model of a region,
associated with respective ones of a plurality of properties modeled in the virtual reality model, obtaining a virtual reality model of a region;
wherein each of the one or more overlays has associated time information and depicts a respective status of a respective insurance claim for a respective property;
wherein each of the one or more overlays has associated time information and depicts the status of the claim for the respective property;
and causing the one or more overlays to be rendered in a virtual environment for the virtual reality model.
and causing the one or more overlays to be rendered in a virtual environment for the virtual reality model.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,676,350 B2 (patent 350) in view of Nelson et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0221152 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader than the claims of patent 350.
7. The following table shows correspondence between the claims of present application and patent 350.
Claims of present application
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Claims of patent 350
1 in view of Nelson
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
8. The following table shows correspondence between the limitations of claim 1 of present application and claim of patent 350.
Claim 1 of present application
Claim 1 of patent 350
1. A computer-implemented method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising:
1. A computer-implemented method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising:
accessing a plurality of records, wherein each of the plurality of records represents a respective status of a respective insurance claim for the respective property, and wherein all of the insurance claims are related to a same damage-causing event for the overall region;
generating one or more overlays for respective ones of a plurality of records
generating a plurality of overlays for respective ones of the plurality of records,
associated with respective ones of a plurality of properties modeled in a virtual reality model of a region,
associated with respective ones of a plurality of properties modeled in the virtual reality model
obtaining a virtual reality model of an overall region;
wherein each of the one or more overlays depicts a respective status of a respective insurance claim for a respective property;
wherein each of the plurality of overlays depicts the status of the claim for the respective property;
has associated time information and
Nelson at paragraph [0048] reciting “… For example, the insurance database 44 may include insurance information relating to an insured's property that has experienced water damage, including, for example, the insured's name, address, policy number, date of loss, the insurance company, claim number, adjuster name and so on. …
and causing the one or more overlays to be rendered in a virtual environment for the virtual reality model.
and causing the pluralities of overlays to be rendered in a virtual environment for the virtual reality model.
9. Claims 1, 3, 8-11, 13, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2-3, 5-6, 10-12, and 14-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,232,642 B2 (patent 642). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader than the claims of patent 642.
10. The following table shows correspondence between the claims of present application and patent 642.
Claims of present application
1
3
8
9
10
11
13
18
19
20
Claims of patent 642
1
5
6
2
3
10
14
15
11
12
11. The following table shows correspondence between the limitations of claim 1 of present application and claim of patent 642.
Claim 1 of present application
Claim 1 of patent 642
1. A computer-implemented method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining, by one or more processors,
accessing, by the one or more processors, a plurality of records associated with a property modeled in the virtual reality model, wherein each of the records has an associated time stamp,
generating one or more overlays for respective ones of a plurality of records associated with respective ones of a plurality of properties modeled in a virtual reality model of a region,
generating, by the one or more processors, a plurality of overlays for respective ones of the plurality of records,
a virtual reality model of an overall region;
wherein each of the one or more overlays has associated time information and depicts a respective status of a respective insurance claim for a respective property;
wherein each of the plurality of overlays has an associated time stamp corresponding to the time stamp associated with the respective record; and
wherein the plurality of records represent respective statuses of a claim, and wherein the statuses of the claim are based upon a claim processing event;
and causing the one or more overlays to be rendered in a virtual environment for the virtual reality model.
adding the plurality of overlays to the virtual reality model such that a time lapse rendering of the virtual reality model sequentially renders the plurality of overlays at times based on the time stamps associated with the plurality of overlays.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
14. Claims 1, 8-9, 11, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lancker et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0086517 A1) in view of Jana T. Salvagio (US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0035238 A1) and further in view of Nelson et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0221152 A1).
15. Regarding Claim 1, Lancker discloses A computer-implemented method implemented (paragraph [0006] reciting “One exemplary implementation of the present disclosure is directed to a computer-implemented method of navigating imagery. …”) by one or more processors, (paragraph [0054] reciting “… For instance, the computer-implemented methods discussed herein may be implemented using a single server or processor or multiple such elements working in combination. Databases and other memory/media elements and applications may be implemented on a single system or distributed across multiple systems.”) the method comprising: a plurality of properties modeled in a virtual reality model of a region, (paragraph [0060] reciting “The map database 460 can also store street level images. Street level images include images of objects at geographic locations, captured by cameras at geographic locations, in a direction generally parallel to the ground. Map database 460 can also store other information for use with a mapping service, such as 3D object models, geolocation information, surface information, navigation data, photographs associated with a geographic location, and other suitable data.”;
see FIG. 4 wherein there are a plurality of 3D building models (plurality of properties) such as the ones shown in FIG. 4.)
While Lancker does not explicitly disclose, the limitation generating one or more overlays is obvious in view of Lancker. Lancker discloses in in FIG 1 and FIG. 4 descriptive data overlaying the 3D building models. Furthermore, Lancker discloses in paragraph [0034] displaying images over a graphical object with when a mouse cursor hovers over that graphical object. Therefore, this concept can be applied to the 3D models of buildings so that when the mouse cursor hovers close to a 3D model, data relating to that building can be further overlaid/superimposed proximately to that 3D model.
While not explicitly disclosed by the Lancker, Salvagio discloses for respective ones of a plurality of records associated with respective ones of wherein each of the one or more overlays depicts a respective status of a respective insurance claim for a respective property; (Abstract reciting “A method, computer-readable medium, and apparatus by which a user may access information about one or more properties may be used by an insurance provider or claims administrator to provide an information portal to its clients. User input identifying one or more foreclosed properties may be received. Then, property data may be retrieved from a property database, and the property data may include property damage information and insurance claim information for each of the identified properties. Then, based on the retrieved property data, it may be determined whether an identified property is damaged and whether an insurance claim was filed. Subsequently, information corresponding to the identified property may be displayed, and this information may include a damage indicator and an insurance claim status indicator.”
The data for each property includes insurance claim data/status and such information can be retrieved from server as disclosed Lancker and displayed superimposed or overlaid proximately next to the selected 3D model as disclosed in Lancker.) The limitation and causing the one or more overlays to be rendered in a virtual environment for the virtual reality model is obvious in view of Lancker modified by Salvagio. Salvagio discloses property data such as filed insurance claims data and Lancker discloses a server that store information and displaying information near a selected 3D model. Thus, Lancker can be modified by Salvagio to disclose insurance information for the selected 3D model building/house.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lancker with Salvagio so that the insurance status claim of selected 3D models can be shown. This is an obviously beneficial modification since insurance information pertaining to a selected 3D model building is relevant information and such information can be displayed for viewers seeking to know more information about the 3D buildings or homes.
While the combination of Lancker and Salvagio does not explicitly disclose, Nelson discloses has associated time information and (paragraph [0048] reciting “… For example, the insurance database 44 may include insurance information relating to an insured's property that has experienced water damage, including, for example, the insured's name, address, policy number, date of loss, the insurance company, claim number, adjuster name and so on. …” Therefore, each property can have insurance records and each insurance record can including policy number, date of lose, etc. etc. Therefore, each insurance claim in Salvagio can be modified by Nelson to have a date of loss which corresponds to an associated time information for that insurance claim for a property.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify before the effective filing date of the claims invention to modify the combination of Lancker and Salvagio with Nelson so that insurance claims can have associated time data with each record. This is an obviously beneficial modification since it allows viewer to comprehend when insurance claims filed on the property were made.
16. Regarding Claim 8, Nelson discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, includes depicting a time at which a claim processing event occurred. (paragraph [0048] reciting “… For example, the insurance database 44 may include insurance information relating to an insured's property that has experienced water damage, including, for example, the insured's name, address, policy number, date of loss, the insurance company, claim number, adjuster name and so on. …”
Date of loss corresponds to a time associated with a claim processing event. The claim processing event can be some form of damage such as water damage and the date of loss becomes the time of that water damage that caused that particular insurance claim to be processed.)
Lancker further discloses wherein generating a first overlay of the plurality of overlays because Lancker discloses rendering overlay data for each property which can be modified to include the insurance claims data of Nelson.
17. Regarding Claim 9, Lanckler further discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising providing the virtual reality model and the plurality of overlays to a virtual reality or a mixed-reality user device to cause the virtual reality model and the plurality of overlays to be rendered in the virtual environment provided by the user device. (see FIG. 4 of Lanckler wherein 3D model building have associated data displayed and such data can be insurance claims with time stamps as disclosed in Salvagio and Nelson.)
18. Regarding Claim 11, Lancker discloses A system comprising: (paragraph [0007] reciting “Other exemplary implementations of the present disclosure are directed to systems, apparatus, computer-readable mediums, devices, and user interfaces for navigating imagery.“) one or more processors; (paragraph [0054] reciting “… For instance, the computer-implemented methods discussed herein may be implemented using a single server or processor or multiple such elements working in combination. Databases and other memory/media elements and applications may be implemented on a single system or distributed across multiple systems.”) and one or more non-transitory memories coupled to the one or more processors and storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, (paragraph [0062] reciting “… Processor(s) 426 can execute computer readable instructions 472 stored in memory 470 to cause the processor(s) 426 to perform operations, including any of the operations or workflows discussed herein. …”) cause the system to:
a plurality of properties modeled in a virtual reality model of a region, (paragraph [0060] reciting “The map database 460 can also store street level images. Street level images include images of objects at geographic locations, captured by cameras at geographic locations, in a direction generally parallel to the ground. Map database 460 can also store other information for use with a mapping service, such as 3D object models, geolocation information, surface information, navigation data, photographs associated with a geographic location, and other suitable data.”;
see FIG. 4 wherein there are a plurality of 3D building models (plurality of properties) such as the ones shown in FIG. 4.)
While Lancker does not explicitly disclose, the limitation generate one or more overlays is obvious in view of Lancker. Lancker discloses in in FIG 1 and FIG. 4 descriptive data overlaying the 3D building models. Furthermore, Lancker discloses in paragraph [0034] displaying images over a graphical object with when a mouse cursor hovers over that graphical object. Therefore, this concept can be applied to the 3D models of buildings so that when the mouse cursor hovers close to a 3D model, data relating to that building can be further overlaid/superimposed proximately to that 3D model.
While not explicitly disclosed by the Lancker, Salvagio discloses for respective ones of a plurality of records associated with respective ones of wherein each of the one or more overlays and depicts a respective status of a respective insurance claim for a respective property; (Abstract reciting “A method, computer-readable medium, and apparatus by which a user may access information about one or more properties may be used by an insurance provider or claims administrator to provide an information portal to its clients. User input identifying one or more foreclosed properties may be received. Then, property data may be retrieved from a property database, and the property data may include property damage information and insurance claim information for each of the identified properties. Then, based on the retrieved property data, it may be determined whether an identified property is damaged and whether an insurance claim was filed. Subsequently, information corresponding to the identified property may be displayed, and this information may include a damage indicator and an insurance claim status indicator.”
The data for each property includes insurance claim data/status and such information can be retrieved from server as disclosed Lancker and displayed superimposed or overlaid proximately next to the selected 3D model as disclosed in Lancker.) The limitation and cause the one or more overlays to be rendered in a virtual environment for the virtual reality model. is obvious in view of Lancker modified by Salvagio. Salvagio discloses property data such as filed insurance claims data and Lancker discloses a server that store information and displaying information near a selected 3D model. Thus, Lancker can be modified by Salvagio to disclose insurance information for the selected 3D model building/house.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lancker with Salvagio so that the insurance status claim of selected 3D models can be shown. This is an obviously beneficial modification since insurance information pertaining to a selected 3D model building is relevant information and such information can be displayed for viewers seeking to know more information about the 3D buildings or homes.
While the combination of Lancker and Salvagio does not explicitly disclose, Nelson discloses has associated time information (paragraph [0048] reciting “… For example, the insurance database 44 may include insurance information relating to an insured's property that has experienced water damage, including, for example, the insured's name, address, policy number, date of loss, the insurance company, claim number, adjuster name and so on. …” Therefore, each property can have insurance records and each insurance record can including policy number, date of lose, etc. etc. Therefore, each insurance claim in Salvagio can be modified by Nelson to have a date of loss which corresponds to an associated time information for that insurance claim for a property.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify before the effective filing date of the claims invention to modify the combination of Lancker and Salvagio with Nelson so that insurance claims can have associated time data with each record. This is an obviously beneficial modification since it allows viewer to comprehend when insurance claims filed on the property were made.
19. Regarding Claim 18, Nelson discloses The system of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, to depict a time at which a claim processing event occurred. (paragraph [0048] reciting “… For example, the insurance database 44 may include insurance information relating to an insured's property that has experienced water damage, including, for example, the insured's name, address, policy number, date of loss, the insurance company, claim number, adjuster name and so on. …”
Date of loss corresponds to a time associated with a claim processing event. The claim processing event can be some form of damage such as water damage and the date of loss becomes the time of that water damage that caused that particular insurance claim to be processed.)
Lancker further discloses cause the system to generate a first overlay of the plurality of overlays because Lancker discloses rendering overlay data for each property which can be modified to include the insurance claims data of Nelson.
20. Regarding Claim 19, Lanckler further discloses The system of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to provide the virtual reality model and the plurality of overlays to a virtual reality or a mixed-reality user device to cause the virtual reality model and the plurality of overlays to be rendered in the virtual environment provided by the user device. (see FIG. 4 of Lanckler wherein 3D model building have associated data displayed and such data can be insurance claims with time stamps as disclosed in Salvagio and Nelson.)
21. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lancker in view of Salvagio in view of Nelson in view of James C. Daues (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0348204 A1) and further in view of Chu et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0148866 A1).
22. Regarding Claim 10, while the combination of Lancker, Salvagio, and Nelson does not explicitly disclose, Daues discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: capturing a plurality of images with a remote imaging vehicle after a claim processing event; (paragraph [0079] reciting “FIG. 2 depicts an exemplary inspection, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. In the present embodiment, a user 210 may capture images of storm related damage such as, without limitation, hail damage, on roof 215 using 3D camera 105. In some embodiments, user 210 may control a remotely controlled device 220 such as, but not limited to, a drone with 3D camera 105. …”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lancker, Salvagio, and Nelson with Daues so that the images of the home is captured after a damage causing event such as weather occurs. This is an obviously beneficial modification as it allowed for future insurance claims to be filed.
While the combination of Lancker, Salvagio, Nelson, and Daues does not explicitly disclose, Chu discloses and generating the virtual reality model based upon the plurality of images. (paragraph [0015] reciting “Another object of the present invention is to provide a 3D urban modeling apparatus and method, which can generate 3D models of buildings using aerial images captured in vertical and to oblique directions, in addition to a DEM, and extract textures related to the 3D models, and which can more minutely model 3D models from images captured on the ground or extract higher-resolution textures.“)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lancker, Salvagio, Nelson, and Daues with Chu so that the 3D model of the home is generated after a damage causing event such as from the weather. This is an obviously beneficial modification as it allowed for future insurance claims to be filed with evidence of damages.
23 Regarding Claim 20, while the combination of Lancker, Salvagio, and Nelson does not explicitly disclose, Daues discloses The system of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: capture a plurality of images with a remote imaging vehicle after a claim processing event; (paragraph [0079] reciting “FIG. 2 depicts an exemplary inspection, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. In the present embodiment, a user 210 may capture images of storm related damage such as, without limitation, hail damage, on roof 215 using 3D camera 105. In some embodiments, user 210 may control a remotely controlled device 220 such as, but not limited to, a drone with 3D camera 105. …”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lancker, Salvagio, and Nelson with Daues so that the images of the home is captured after a damage causing event such as weather occurs. This is an obviously beneficial modification as it allowed for future insurance claims to be filed.
While the combination of Lancker, Salvagio, Nelson, and Daues does not explicitly disclose, Chu discloses and generate the virtual reality model based upon the plurality of images. (paragraph [0015] reciting “Another object of the present invention is to provide a 3D urban modeling apparatus and method, which can generate 3D models of buildings using aerial images captured in vertical and to oblique directions, in addition to a DEM, and extract textures related to the 3D models, and which can more minutely model 3D models from images captured on the ground or extract higher-resolution textures.“)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lancker, Salvagio, Nelson, and Daues with Chu so that the 3D model of the home is generated after a damage causing event such as from the weather. This is an obviously beneficial modification as it allowed for future insurance claims to be filed with evidence of damages.
Allowable Subject Matter
24. Claims 2-7 and 12-17 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.
25. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 2 recites the limitation accessing a second plurality of records associated with respective ones of the plurality of properties, wherein each of the second plurality of records represents a respective second status of the respective insurance claim for the respective property; generating a second set of one or more overlays for respective ones of the second plurality of records, wherein each of the second set of one or more overlays depicts the second status of the insurance claim for the respective property; and causing the one or more overlays and the second set of one or more overlays to be rendered in time lapse in the virtual environment for the virtual model such that the time lapse rendering represents historical processing of the claims associated with the plurality of properties which is neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited references, either singly or in combination.26. Claim 3 recites the limitation wherein generating the one or more overlays for respective ones of the plurality of records includes: generating a first overlay of the one or more overlays associated with a first record of the plurality of records in a first color, wherein the first color is based on a first status of a first claim for a first property of the plurality of properties associated with the first record; and generating a second overlay of the one or more overlays associated with a second record of the plurality of records in a second color different from the first color, wherein the second color is based on a second status of a second claim for a second property of the plurality of properties associated with the second record which is neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited references, either singly or in combination.
27. Claim 4 recites the limitation further comprising: accessing a second plurality of records associated with a first property of the plurality of properties, wherein each of the second plurality of records has associated time information, and wherein the second plurality of records represent respective statuses of a claim associated with the first property; generating a second set of one or more overlays for respective ones of the second plurality of records, wherein each of the second set of one or more overlays has an associated time information corresponding to the time information associated with the respective record of the second plurality of records; and causing the second set of one or more overlays to be rendered in the virtual environment for the virtual reality model such that a time lapse rendering of the virtual reality model sequentially renders the second set of one or more overlays at times based on the time information associated with the second set of one or more overlays which is neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited references, either singly or in combination.
28. Claim 5 depends from claim 4.
29. Claim 6 recites the limitation further comprising: accessing a second plurality of records representing locations of a response unit at respective ones of a plurality of historical times; generating a second set of one or more overlays for respective ones of the second plurality of records; and causing the second set of one or more overlays to be rendered in the virtual environment for the virtual reality model such that a time lapse rendering of the virtual reality model causes the response unit to appear at different locations in the virtual reality model based on the plurality of historical times which is neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited references, either singly or in combination.
30. Claim 7 depends from claim 6.
31. Claim 12 recites the limitation access a second plurality of records associated with respective ones of the plurality of properties, wherein each of the second plurality of records represents a respective second status of the respective insurance claim for the respective property; generate a second set of one or more overlays for respective ones of the second plurality of records, wherein each of the second set of one or more overlays depicts the second status of the insurance claim for the respective property; and cause the plurality of overlays and the second set of one or more overlays to be rendered in time lapse in the virtual environment for the virtual model such that the time lapse rendering represents historical processing of the claims associated with the plurality of properties which is neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited references, either singly or in combination.
32. Claim 13 recites the limitation to generate the one or more overlays for respective ones of the plurality of records by: generating a first overlay of the one or more overlays associated with a first record of the plurality of records in a first color, wherein the first color is based on a first status of a first claim for a first property of the plurality of properties associated with the first record; and generating a second overlay of the one or more overlays associated with a second record of the plurality of records in a second color different from the first color, wherein the second color is based on a second status of a second claim for a second property of the plurality of properties associated with the second record which is neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited references, either singly or in combination.
33. Claim 14 recites the limitation access a second plurality of records associated with a first property of the plurality of properties, wherein each of the second plurality of records has associated time information, and wherein the second plurality of records represent respective statuses of a claim associated with the first property; generate a second set of one or more overlays for respective ones of the second plurality of records, wherein each of the second set of one or more overlays has an associated time information corresponding to the time information associated with the respective record of the second plurality of records; and cause the second set of one or more overlays to be rendered in the virtual environment for the virtual reality model such that a time lapse rendering of the virtual reality model sequentially renders the second set of one or more overlays at times based on the time information associated with the second set of one or more overlays which is neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited references, either singly or in combination.
34. Claim 15 depends from claim 14.
35. Claim 16 recites the limitation access a second plurality of records representing locations of a response unit at respective ones of a plurality of historical times; generate a second set of one or more overlays for respective ones of the second plurality of records; and cause the second set of one or more overlays to be rendered in the virtual environment for the virtual reality model such that a time lapse rendering of the virtual reality model causes the response unit to appear at different locations in the virtual reality model based on the plurality of historical times which is neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited references, either singly or in combination.
36. Claim 17 depends from claim 16.
CONTACT
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK S CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7993. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-11:30 and 1:30-6.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at 5712727794. 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.
/FRANK S CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611