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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/20/2026, 09/30/2025, and 12/19/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "108, 1515" and "1628" have both been used to designate Network. Reference characters "1502, 1606" and "1798" have both been used to designate Memory. Reference characters "1608" and "1710" have both been used to designate I/O Components. Reference characters "1604" and "1706" have both been used to designate Processors. Reference characters "1612" and "1614" have both been used to designate Processor. This is a non-comprehensive list, and further revision is required to fix all inconsistency. 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. 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.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: Terms that are cited in Drawings and in the Detailed Description a couple of times, are not cited throughout the rest of paragraphs in the Detailed Description. In paragraph 0032, it discloses and labels “Interaction System” with reference number 100. Then, further down in the disclosure and on, it mentions “Interaction System” multiple times, with label, 100. Then, in paragraph 0103, it fails to properly label “Interaction System” As well as, paragraph 0112 discloses Fig. 5 which mentions an “Interaction System” within that paragraph, however there is no clear label for the term. As well as many other paragraphs without a proper label for “Interaction System” when mentioned. This goes for many different terms throughout the detailed disclosure that do not have a proper label reference, but is referenced from the drawings. Furthermore, inconsistent label numberings for terms that were previously labeled. For example, “Network” is referenced by different numbers, 108, 1516, 1638, 1926. In Paragraph 0032, it discloses, “Network 108 (e.g., the Internet)” and in paragraph 0207, it discloses “network 1516”. This also goes for many different terms throughout the detailed disclosure that have inconsistent reference numbering. Further revision is required, additional typos should be fixed accordingly.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6-11, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KORNFELD (No. US-9104293-B1 “Kornfeld”).
Regarding claim 1, Kornfeld teaches “A system comprising:” (Systems; Col 2, Line 6);
“at least one processor; and” (a processor; Col 15, Line 14);
“at least one memory component storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:” (system that provides executable program instructions for the general administration and operation ... when executed by a processor of the server, allow the server to perform its intended functions; Col 15, Line 9-15);
(system may also include one or more storage devices. Such as disk drives, optical storage devices and solid state storage devices Such as random access memory (RAM); Col 16, Line 18-20);
“identifying a current location of a user that is initiating an interaction function of an interaction client;” (determining a location of the device (or the user of the device). A positioning element can include or comprise a GPS or similar location determining elements operable to determine relative coordinates for a position of the device; Col 10, Line 46-50);
“identifying a map corresponding to the current location of the user;” (the mapping application includes multiple pins that identify physical locations on a map; Col 3, Line 6-8);
“identifying one or more map tiles associated with the map;” (the map data can include map tiles; Col 5, Line 60-61);
“receiving historical location data of the user that is associated with the current location of the user;” (a request to execute a mapping application is received 602 for a user. ... a location associated with the map data for the request, POI information related to the location and user preference information can be determined ... user preference information at least includes one or more of user purchase history, user browsing history, user geographic travel patterns, user profile information, explicitly stated user interests, or any other historical usage patterns; Col 5, Line 58 - Col 6, Line 3);
(determining the location and/or orientation of a user and in recognizing nearby persons, objects, or locations; Col 9, Line 26-28);
“converting the historical location data into an overall polygon that is comprised of a plurality of polygons based on the identified one or more map tiles; and” (FIG. 3A illustrates a mapping application 300 that includes one or more pins 302 that represent a geographic location(s) for single individual POI(s) and a multi-dimensional graphical element or icon (also referred to as a polygon icon elsewhere herein) 304 that can simultaneously represent multiple POIs either associated with the same location or multiple POIs clustered relatively close together in a densely populated area; Col 3, Line 42-49);
“displaying the map with the plurality of polygons on a user interface.” (FIG. 5A illustrates a mapping application 500 is shown displayed on a computing device including multiple icons or pins 502 each representing the locations of multiple individual POIs; Col 5, Line 20-24);
Regarding claim 2, Kornfeld teaches “The system of claim 1, wherein identifying one or more map tiles associated with the map comprises identifying a single map tile for the current location of the user.” (graphical map tiles that show a map view of a region around an address; Col 13, Line 13-14);
(a single multi-dimensional graphical element can identify a location; Col 2, Line 14);
Regarding claim 3, Kornfeld teaches “The system of claim 2, the operations further comprising:
identifying a plurality of sub-tiles associated with the current location of the user, the single map tile comprised of a set of sub-tiles, the plurality of sub-tiles being a subset of the set of sub-tiles, converting of the historical location data into the overall polygon is further based on the plurality of sub-tiles.” (while the mapping service 908 is contacted primarily to obtain map tiles (e.g., bitmap or vector); Col 12 Line 67 – Col 13, Line 1-2);
(a single multi-dimensional graphical element can identify a location, as well as the identities of multiple POIs associated with the location, physical address; Col 2, Line 14-16);
(number of surfaces can be determined based at least in part on a map parameter, Such as a number of POI associated with a location; Col 6, Line 49-51);
(Fig. 5, alternative graphical representation for a single POI for display by a mapping application; multiple icons or pins 502 each representing the locations of multiple individual POIs. In this example, each pin 502 represents multiple aspects or types of information for a single POI; Col 5, Line 22-25);
Kornfeld discloses map tiles e.g. bitmaps, and a single multi-dimensional graphical element which showcase the plurality of sub tiles of the map tiles. The map parameter corresponds to the overall polygon. Thus, the map parameter holds the number of POI which corresponds to the historical location data of the user. Furthermore, Figure 5A showcases pins, POI, that is related to users’ interest and place the have been in a mapping application from a user’s viewpoint. Having POI(s) in a mapping application like in Figure 5A corresponds to converting the historical location data of the user into an overall polygon in a mapping application.
Regarding claim 5, Kornfeld teaches “The system of claim 1, wherein receiving the historical location data includes accessing records that are within a certain radius or bounding box around the current location of the user.” (a multi-dimensional graphical element can identify a location and information for various aspects of a single POI; Col 2, Line 19-21);
Regarding claim 6, Kornfeld teaches “The system of claim 5, wherein the radius or bounding box is dynamically adjusted based on a zoom level of the map on the user interface.” (a larger view of the multi-dimensional graphical element can be rendered, such as a Zoom-in or blown-up version, for enabling the user to engage and manipulate the multi-dimensional graphical element to obtain additional information associated with the POI; Col 2, Line 39-43);
(a map parameter, Such as a number of POI associated with a location, or a given POI density for a location based on a current Zoom level as displayed on the computing device and the like; Col 6, Line 50-53);
Regarding claim 7, Kornfeld teaches “The system of claim 1, wherein receiving the historical location data includes accessing location data from user interaction of a plurality of interaction functions of the interaction client.” (the mapping service will monitor interactions of the user with the POI; Col 6, Line 61-62);
Regarding claim 8, Kornfeld teaches “The system of claim 1, wherein receiving the historical location data includes accessing location data from user interaction on a plurality of interaction clients via the same application installed across the plurality of interaction clients.” (a user can obtain mapping information using one or more client devices, such as computing device; Col 12, Line 50-52);
(a user is able to utilize a client device 902, such as a personal computer, tablet computer, Smartphone, and the like, to access a mapping system or service 908 over at least one appropriate network 906; Col 12, Line 58-62);
Regarding claim 9, Kornfeld teaches “The system of claim 1, wherein receiving the historical location data includes accessing one or more third party data sources that track and store geographic location information of the user.” (mapping service will monitor interactions of the user with the POI, and can provide feedback to relevant third party providers of the POI regarding whether the user visited, viewed, or otherwise showed interest in any of their POI; Col 6, Line 61-64);
(mapping system or service can include at least one Web service layer 926, or other such set of components, which can include one or more APIs 928, or other such interfaces, enabling data from third parties to be used with the mapping service; Col 13, Line 43-47);
Regarding claim 10, Kornfeld teaches “The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising:
identifying individual historical location data points of the historical location data; and” (point of interest (POI) data points on a map for at least one location; Col 2, Line 13-14);
“adds a polygon to each of the individual historical location data points that correspond to a particular tile.” (a portion of the POI information is selected and provided with the map data for display to the user. A multi-dimensional graphical element, such as a pin, is rendered for the POI information to identify POI for a particular location(s); Col 2, Line 33-37);
Regarding claim 11, Kornfeld teaches “The system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of polygons includes a circle, wherein the overall polygon is not in a shape of a circle.” (Figure 2, map 200 that includes multiple pins; icon 304 is represented as a pin with a polygon; Col 3, Line 50);
Regarding claim 19, Kornfeld teaches “A method comprising:” (methods; Col 2, Line 6);
Claim 19 is directed to a method and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the system of claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Kornfeld teaches “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:” (computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor of the server, allow the server to perform its intended functions; Col 15, Line 12-14);
Claim 20 is directed to non- transitory computer-readable storage medium and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the system of claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KORNFELD in view of LEVINE (No. WO-2010023568-A2 “Levine”).
Regarding claim 4, Levine teaches “The system of claim 1, wherein the historical location data includes time-stamped records of the user’s past locations in the historical location data.” (collect and/or record time series of locations received from device 110 along with time stamps indicating the time at which each of the locations was recorded; 0010);
Kornfeld and Levine are analogous art as both of them are related to map visualizations.
The motivation for the above is to have more accurate and reliable record of location data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kornfeld by the historical location data which includes time-stamped records of the user’s past locations in the historical location data as taught by Levine.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KORNFELD in view of SMITH (No. US-7777648-B2 “Smith”).
Regarding claim 12, Smith teaches “The system of claim 1, wherein the map tiles overlap with each other, and the plurality of polygons that are adjacent to each other overlap with one another.” (The memory that provides the data can also dump the data when it is overlaid with new data; Col 35, Line 4-5);
(Boundary component 308 can utilize that parcel polygon information and infer that there is potentially only one building (or other area of interest) inside that parcel polygon area; Col 14, Line 12-14);
Smith discloses how the data can be overlay with new data, and the map tiles or plurality of polygons can correspond with the data. The data in memory can refer to tile data used to overlay over each other. Also, the parcel polygon information corresponds to the plurality of polygons that are inside a polygon area.
Kornfeld and Smith are analogous art as both of them are related to map visualizations.
The motivation for the above is to an accurate visualization of the mapping application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kornfeld by wherein the map tiles overlap with each other, and the plurality of polygons that are adjacent to each other overlap with one another as taught by Smith.
Regarding claim 13, Smith teaches “The system of claim 1, the operations further comprise smoothing the edges of the plurality of polygons to generate the overall polygon.” (the edges or perimeters of the area of interest (e.g., structure) can be computed to ascertain a built-up area (e.g., side of a structure) that includes the area of interest. It should be understood that various algorithms, methods, and/or techniques can be employed to ascertain the object shape, size, or area; Col 14, Line 15-20);
Smith discloses how the edges of the area of interest can be ascertain by shape or size. This corresponds with the smoothing of the edges of the polygons.
The motivation for the above is to have an accurate visualization of the polygons in the overall polygon.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kornfeld by the operations further comprise smoothing the edges of the plurality of polygons to generate the overall polygon as taught by Smith.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KORNFELD in view of CERVELLI (No. US-20170052655-A1 “Cervelli”).
Regarding claim 14, Cervelli teaches “The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising receiving a particular time frame from a user, and converting the historical location data into the overall polygon for locations that the user has visited during that particular time frame.” (the user may specify a time range, restricting the returned search results to objects associated with a time value that falls within the specified range; Para 0105);
(display all search results having associated location data on the map; Para 0108);
(Fig, 4A showcases a plurality of polygons of a map; user has defined a plurality of points to form a polygonal search area 402, for the purpose of performing a geospatial search; Para 0103);
Kornfeld and Cervelli are analogous art as both of them are related to map visualizations.
The motivation for the above is to have an accurate visualization of the time frame a user visited an area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kornfeld by receiving a particular time frame from a user, and converting the historical location data into the overall polygon for locations that the user has visited during that particular time frame as taught by Cervelli.
Regarding claim 15, Cervelli teaches “The system of claim 1, the operations further comprising receiving a particular geographical area from a user, and converting the historical location data into the overall polygon for locations that the user has visited within the particular geographical area.” (a geospatial search may search for any objects with geographic metadata and/or properties that indicate the object may be geographically within, for example, polygonal search area; Para 0103);
(display all search results having associated location data on the map; Para 0108);
(different ways for the user to specify the search area, such as a radial search, a search from an existing selection, and/or the like; Para 0104);
Cervelli discloses a geospatial search or other searches that identifies an object(polygon) within the area. Thus, displaying the search results of the location that the user visited. This corresponds with the receiving of a geographical area.
The motivation for the above is to have an efficient search for locations the user searches.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kornfeld by receiving a particular geographical area from a user, and converting the historical location data into the overall polygon for locations that the user has visited within the particular geographical area as taught by Cervelli.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KORNFELD in view of EDECKER (No. US-10108693-B2 “Edecker”).
Regarding claim 17, Edecker teaches “The system of claim 1, the operations further comprise:
displaying a statistic indicating a relationship between the area visited by the user as compared with the total area of the displayed map; and” (the geographic area based on neighborhood and city area; Abstract);
(Current/Total area 1708 is a count indicator with the notation “X/Y.” In this embodiment, the letter Y indicates the total number of pinned objects of the current category indicated by the area 1704. In this embodiment, X indicates which of those Y objects is currently being displayed in the window content area 1701; Col 71, Line 67-Col 72, Line 4);
“in response to a zoom in or out on the displayed map, updating the statistic to reflect the changed total area of the displayed map.” (Zoom to All button 1714, when selected by the user, causes the disclosed system to move and zoom the map to an appropriate position and zoom level to cause all the pinned objects within the current category, as indicated by area 1704, to become visible in the map window; Col 72, Line 16-20);
(Fig. 17 can show the updated statistic);
Edecker discloses a count indicator that calculates the percentage of pinned objects (places visited) by the total area. Also, they disclose the zoom all that showcases the zoom level of the map which reflect the total area of the map being viewed.
Kornfeld and Edecker are analogous art as both of them are related to map visualizations.
The motivation for the above is to have an accurate percentage of zoom level and comparison with area visited and total area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kornfeld by displaying a statistic indicating a relationship between the area visited by the user as compared with the total area of the displayed map; and in response to a zoom in or out on the displayed map, updating the statistic to reflect the changed total area of the displayed map as taught by Edecker.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KORNFELD in view of COWBURN (No. US-20220301175-A1 “Cowburn”).
Regarding claim 16, Cowburn teaches “The system of claim 1, the operations further comprise:
displaying the map with avatars of other users; and” (the user's avatar being displayed on the map; Para 0041);
“in response to a user selection of another user's avatar, displaying the overall polygon corresponding to the other user.” (selecting a particular friend automatically centers the map view on the avatar of that friend; Para 0045);
Kornfeld and Cowburn are analogous art as both of them are related to map visualizations.
The motivation for the above is to have an avatar representation of other users for a more user friendly and interactive system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kornfeld by displaying the map with avatars of other users; and in response to a user selection of another user's avatar, displaying the overall polygon corresponding to the other user as taught by Cowburn.
Regarding claim 18, Cowburn teaches “The system of claim 1, the operations further comprise:
identifying an overall polygon for another user; and” (selecting a particular friend automatically centers the map view on the avatar of that friend; Para 0045);
“based on the overall polygon for the user and the overall polygon for the other user, provide a recommendation to the user that is associated with the other user.” (a user can select groups of other users to which his/her location will be displayed, and may in specify different display attributes for the different respective groups or for different respective individuals; Para 0043);
(allow the user to take a variety of actions with the user's friends from within the map GUI; Para 0045);
The motivation for the above is to have an accurate view and display of the map by user selection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kornfeld by identifying an overall polygon for another user; and based on the overall polygon for the user and the overall polygon for the other user, provide a recommendation to the user that is associated with the other user as taught by Cowburn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-11692835-B2 (Truong) – Discloses systems and methods for route mapping with familiar routes include striking a balance between optimal routes from standard navigation systems minimizing time and distance and a mapping component that suggests familiar routes based on a user's route history.
US-20150185991-A1 (Ho) – Discloses a mapping system allows a user to interact with any location on a digital map and present the user with location related information associated with the selected location.
US-7440842-B1 (Vorona) – Discloses a system for sharing and processing traffic information includes a number of traffic information computer systems within individual vehicles and a traffic information server system.
“Geographical data visualization on mobile devices for user’s navigation and decision support activities” (Burigat) – Discloses geographic data visualization on mobile devices, with an emphasis on supporting user’s navigation and user’s decisions in the field. To use mobile devices as interactive tools to analyze geographic data and obtain the most appropriate information to support user’s decisions where and when needed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIGITER D PROTAZI whose telephone number is (571)272-7995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Said A Broome can be reached at 5712722931. 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.
/B.D.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612