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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant’s original filing made on 08/23/2024. Claims 1-36 are pending.
Specification (Title)
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Double Patenting
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 10, 19 and 28, are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/497243 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
(18/813475) A computing system for data-dense geographical regions using heterogenous source data and formats for enabling highly scalable parallel world simulations, comprising: a computer system comprising a memory and a processor; a geospatial tile subsystem, comprising instructions that, when operating on the processor, cause the computer system to: retrieve a plurality of geospatial data for a geographic region; calculate a location identifier for the geospatial data; and overlay the location identifier on corresponding geospatial data; a geospatial action outcome simulation subsystem, comprising instructions that, when operating on the processor, cause the computer system to: execute simulations for each processing unit; a multidimensional time-series database, comprising instructions that, when operating on the processor, cause the computer system to: assign geospatial data to distinct processing units; and an application interface subsystem, comprising instructions that, when operating on the processor, cause the computer system to: render simulation results to a user interface; and perform queries on the simulation results.; maps to (18/497243) A method for data-dense geographical regions that using heterogenous source data and formats for enabling highly scalable parallel world simulations, comprising the steps of: using an indexed geospatial tile subsystem of a computing system comprising a processor and a memory: retrieving a plurality of geospatial image tiles corresponding to a geographic region from a plurality of sources; retrieving a plurality of geotagged data corresponding to the geographic region; calculating a geohash for each piece of retrieved geotagged data, wherein a geohash is an encoded geographic location comprising a short string of letters and digits; and overlaying the geohash on the corresponding geospatial image tile containing the geographic coordinates of the geohash; using an indexed geospatial tile subsystem: executing geospatial simulations for each unique process swimlane in the multidimensional time-series database; and rendering at least one of the geospatial simulations on a web interface; using geospatial action outcome simulation subsystem: performing at least one query on at least one of the geospatial simulations; and using a application interface subsystem: rendering at least one of the geospatial simulations to a user interface; and performing at least one query on at least one of the geo spatial simulations.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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) 1-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pecard et al. (US Patent No. 9,686,646 and Pecard hereinafter) in view of Rees (US Patent No. 8,274,506).
As to claims 1, 10, 19 and 28, Pecard teaches a computing system for data-dense geographical regions using heterogenous source data and formats for enabling highly scalable parallel world simulations, comprising:
a computer system comprising a memory and a processor (i.e., …teaches in col. 5 lines 10-20 the following: “include one or more servers 140 and may further include one or more map data servers 150. Each server 140 may include one or more computer processors within the controller 142 adapted and configured to execute various software applications and routines of the data system 100 stored in the program memory 144,”);
a geospatial tile subsystem (i.e., …teaches in col. 1 lines 25-35 the following: “to plot geospatial coordinates against known landmarks on electronic maps.”),
comprising instructions that, when operating on the processor, cause the computer system to:
retrieve a plurality of geospatial data for a geographic region (i.e., …teaches in col. 1 lines 25-40 the following: “plot geospatial coordinates against known landmarks on electronic maps …such that any observed geospatial location data within a circular area around the point coordinate are considered to be at the location”);
calculate a location identifier for the geospatial data (i.e., …teaches in col. 2 lines 10-15 the following: “geospatial location identifier”);
and overlay the location identifier on corresponding geospatial data (i.e., …teaches in col. 2 lines 15-25 the following: “generating map view data based upon the map data and the geospatial location identifier by overlaying a user device marker associated with the user on a representation of a map including the lot area;”).
a multidimensional time-series database (i.e., …teaches in col. 13 lines 20-30 the following: “geospatial location data sources may include the availability of recent location data for the user mobile device, such as recently determined locations of the device (e.g., within the preceding minute, half-minute, second, 0.1 seconds, etc.).”),
comprising instructions that, when operating on the processor, cause the computer system to: assign geospatial data to distinct processing units (i.e., …teaches in col. 5 lines 50-65 the following: “The server 140 may further acquire and store information regarding the users' locations, as determined by the mobile computing devices 110. Such information regarding user geospatial location may be associated with users, information requests, or other activities. The location and additional information may be processed by the server 140 to generate map-based”. …teaches in col. 5 lines 20-30 the following: “The map server 150 may be a third-party server operated by an entity separate from the entity operating the server 140, which may supply map data to the server 140 periodically or upon receiving a request for map data from the server 140.”. The examiner notes that the geospatial data will be transmitted (i.e., assigned) to the server 140 and map server 150 for processing related operations.).
Pecard does not expressly teach:
a geospatial action outcome simulation subsystem, comprising instructions that, when operating on the processor, cause the computer system to: execute simulations for each processing unit;
and an application interface subsystem, comprising instructions that, when operating on the processor, cause the computer system to: render simulation results to a user interface;
and perform queries on the simulation results.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Rees.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “a geospatial action outcome simulation subsystem, comprising instructions that, when operating on the processor, cause the computer system to: execute simulations for each processing unit”, teaches in col. 21 lines 50-60 the following: “a simulation of a 3D view that includes geospatial content …”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “and an application interface subsystem, comprising instructions that, when operating on the processor, cause the computer system to: render simulation results to a user interface”, teaches in col. 22 lines 1-17 the following: “to view a detailed map of Antarctica, the user may desire to "fly" upside down thorough the 3D model, so that the ground is at the bottom of the display rectangle and the sky at the top. Typical map viewing software may start from a wide view with North at the top of the screen. The fly tool described herein, e.g., a geospatial fly tool, may be configured to allow the user to arbitrarily turn, roll, and/or fly upside down, if needed. … The fly tool may in various embodiments be controlled through a command line and/or GUI, and may include various dialogs and interfaces to a mouse, scroll-wheel, or another input device suitable for controlling such a simulation tool.”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “and perform queries on the simulation results”, teaches in col. 17 lines 25-30 the following: “result in a query of the scene 870…”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Pecard with the teachings of Rees by having their system comprise an enhanced geospatial data processing system. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to properly render location related data, wherein the enhanced geospatial data processing system helps facilitate a better understanding of location related data within an environment and makes it easier to track network entities.
As to claims 2, 11, 20 and 29, the system of Pecard and Rees as applied to claim 1 above teaches processing geospatial data, specifically Pecard teaches a system of claim 1, wherein the location identifier comprises keywords identifying a specific location (i.e., …teaches in col. 19 lines 1-10 the following: “to enable the map view to be filtered by the reviewer without requesting a new map view (i.e., by applying data filters at the computing device without needed additional data from the remote server), or to enable the reviewer to drill down into the map view to obtain information regarding specific markers associated with particular location data entries.”).
As to claims 3, 12, 21 and 30, the system of Pecard and Rees as applied to claim 1 above teaches processing geospatial data, specifically Pecard teaches a system of claim 1, wherein geospatial data includes vector data (i.e., …teaches in col. 20 lines 60-67 the following: “map tiles may consist of vector graphics files defining various map features.”).
As to claims 4, 13, 22 and 31, the system of Pecard and Rees as applied to claim 1 above teaches processing geospatial data, specifically Pecard does not expressly teach a system of claim 1, wherein the geospatial data includes raster tiles.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Rees.
Rees teaches in col. 1 lines 25-35 the following: “Digital images may include raster graphics, vector graphics, or a combination thereof. Raster graphics data (also referred to herein as bitmaps) may be stored and manipulated as a grid of individual picture elements called pixels.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Pecard with the teachings of Rees by having their system comprise an enhanced geospatial data processing system. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to properly render location related data, wherein the enhanced geospatial data processing system helps facilitate a better understanding of location related data within an environment and makes it easier to track network entities.
As to claims 5, 14, 23 and 32, the system of Pecard and Rees as applied to claim 1 above teaches processing geospatial data, specifically Pecard teaches a system of claim 1, wherein some geospatial data represents time-progressive analyses (i.e., …teaches in col. 15 lines 1-8 the following: “The geospatial location data may further include or be associated with a timestamp or indicator of the user mobile device or user thereof.”).
As to claims 6, 15, 24 and 33, the system of Pecard and Rees as applied to claim 1 above teaches processing geospatial data, specifically Pecard teaches a system of claim 1, wherein the location identifiers link to additional datasets (i.e., …teaches in col. 2 lines 49-60 the following: “receiving a plurality of additional geospatial location identifiers and a plurality of additional indications of requests for information, wherein each of the plurality of additional geospatial location identifiers is associated with one of the plurality of additional indications of requests for information and is further associated with one of a plurality of additional users”).
As to claims 7, 16, 25 and 34, the system of Pecard and Rees as applied to claim 1 above teaches processing geospatial data, specifically Pecard teaches a system of claim 1, wherein the geospatial data includes sensor data (i.e., ...teaches in col. 8 lines 40-50 the following: “internal sensors 108 specifically configured for determining location, such as geolocation, movement tracking, or spatial orientation of the device.”).
As to claims 8, 17, 26 and 35, the system of Pecard and Rees as applied to claim 1 above teaches processing geospatial data, specifically Pecard teaches a system of claim 1, further comprising filters for refining data (i.e.,, …teaches in col. 17 lines 55-65 the following: “…parameters may further specify a time period of interest, user actions of interest, whether to include user locations near but not on a dealer lot, or other details that may be used to filter”).
As to claims 9, 18, 27 and 36, the system of Pecard and Rees as applied to claim 8 above teaches processing geospatial data, specifically Pecard teaches a system of claim 8, wherein the filters apply to time-series data (i.e., …teaches in col. 18 lines 15-20 the following: “a default timeframe for the map data may be set at one month.”).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN F WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3826.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN F WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2497