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 10/29/2024 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 10/29/2024, wherein:
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
Claim 1 recites “A method for implementing an assemblage, the method comprising: reading a plurality of property descriptions for properties in an area; determining a shape of one or more properties based on the plurality property descriptions; determining a spatial relationship between pairs of the properties based on determined shapes of the properties; and determining, based on the spatial relationship, that one or more of the plurality of property descriptions are part of a single property”. However, it is not clear from the claim that the steps of the method are performed by a computer. The specification indicates the claimed embodiments are performed by a processing server of a computer system. Since a computer/processor/server is not explicitly stated in the body of the claim, the Applicant should amend the claim to recite one if they intend the method to be performed by a computer. For purposes of examination the claimed method will be interpreted as being performed by a computer.
Claims 2-7 are objected to pursuant to their dependency on claim 1.
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 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method, computing system, and storage medium for generating an assemblage of property parcels which is considered a judicial exception because it falls under Mental Processes, and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as discussed below and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
This rejection follows the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed Reg 4, January 7, 2019, pp. 50-57 (“2019 PEG”)(MPEP 2106).
Analysis
Step 1 (Statutory Categories) – 2019 PEG pg. 53 (See MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-20 are directed to the statutory category of a process, machine, or manufacture. However, claims 14-20 are also interpreted as being directed to non-statutory subject matter that doesn’t fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because independent claim 14 recites a computer-readable storage medium and according to paragraph 0011 of the specification, “An exemplary embodiment is a computer readable storage medium having data stored therein representing a software executable by a computer”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “computer-readable storage medium” in accordance with the specification, and based on common usage, covers signals/carrier waves which are not interpreted as one of the four enumerated statutory categories. Therefore, the “computer-readable storage medium” in claims 14-20 is interpreted as a transitory form of signal transmission, commonly referred to as “signals per se”, which is not directed to a statutory category of patent eligible subject matter. Amending claims 14-20 to include “non-transitory” will overcome the rejection of claims 14-20 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Do the claims recite an abstract idea?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54 (See MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c))
For independent claims 1, 8, and 14, the claims recite an abstract idea of: generating an assemblage of property parcels. The steps of independent claim 1 recite the abstract idea (in bold below) of: A method for implementing an assemblage, the method comprising: reading a plurality of property descriptions for properties in an area; determining a shape of one or more properties based on the plurality property descriptions; determining a spatial relationship between pairs of the properties based on determined shapes of the properties; and determining, based on the spatial relationship, that one or more of the plurality of property descriptions are part of a single property. Independent claims 8 and 14 recite similar steps that recite the abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 8, and 14, as drafted, are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers Mental Processes; and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, since they recite fundamental economic principles or practices including mitigating risk. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of additional elements including generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Also, if the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind but for the recitation of additional elements including generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Other than reciting the abstract idea, the independent claims recite additional elements including generic computer components such as “a computing system comprising a process server, and a computer readable storage medium having data stored therein representing a software executable by a computer”, and nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed as a method of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 recite similar limitations as claims 1, 8, and 14; and when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101 because the additional recited limitations only refine the abstract idea further. Other than reciting the abstract idea, the dependent claims recite similar additional elements including generic computer components as the independent claims, such as “the computing system, the processing server, the computer readable storage medium, and the computer”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Also, if the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind but for the recitation of additional elements including generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?) – 2019 PEG pg. 54 (See MPEP 2106.04(d)-(c))
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claims 1, 8, and 14 only recite the additional elements of “a computing system comprising a process server, and a computer readable storage medium having data stored therein representing a software executable by a computer”. A plain reading of the Figures and associated descriptions in the specification reveals that generic processors may be used to execute the claimed steps. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to a particular environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and limiting the judicial exception to a particular environment doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, independent claims 1, 8, and 14 are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20, recite similar additional elements as the independent claims including generic computer components, such as “the computing system, the processing server, the computer readable storage medium, and the computer”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the dependent claims are also recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they also do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Also, the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement of the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?) – 2019 PEG pg. 56 (See MPEP 2106.05)
Independent claims 1, 8, and 14 do not include additional elements 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 recited additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and limits the judicial exception to the particular environment of computers (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the function of the elements when each is taken alone. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
In addition, the dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 do not include additional elements 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 of the dependent claims to perform the claimed limitations, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Similar to the independent claims, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also, for the same reasoning as the independent claims, the additional elements of the limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, together do not offer significantly more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone and the dependent claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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, 6, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0067856 to Jurick et al. (hereinafter referred to as Jurick), in view of US 11798110 to Rodriguez (hereinafter referred to as Rodriguez).
In regards to claim 1, Jurick discloses a method for implementing an assemblage (systems and method for generating a land parcel in a geospatial area by determining secondary parcels that can be combined with the primary site selection, para. 0056), the method comprising: reading a plurality of property descriptions for properties in an area (determining at least one primary site selection having a size below a requested sizing threshold based on information received from a geographical information system (GIS) including land parcel data defining a plurality of land parcels, para. 0056); determining a shape of one or more properties based on the plurality property descriptions (region data is received and converted into shapefiles that are uploaded to the GIS server and output to the siting platform, paras. 0063-0064); determining a spatial relationship between pairs of the properties based on determined shapes of the properties (automatically determining geospatial data representing one or more secondary land parcels in the requested region that can be combined with the primary site selection based on an objective score associated with features of the plurality of land parcels based on at least one of land parcel size, type, slope, or proximity, para. 0056); and determining, based on the spatial relationship a single property (generating, in the stitching server, an updated site selection comprising the at least one primary site selection and at least one of the one or more secondary site selections, para. 0007). However, Jurick fails to disclose determining that one or more of the plurality of property descriptions are part of a single property.
Rodriguez, in the related field of determining land use development, teaches determining that one or more of the plurality of property descriptions are part of a single property (computing platform is further configured to determine a combination of geographic areas of interest of the multiplicity of geographic areas of interest that are operable to support the at least one building envelope, col. 9, lines 5-53). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to determine which properties are part of a single property as taught by the method of Rodriguez. The motivation for doing so would have been to color code tracts of the geographic area of interest based on whether or not the tracts of geographic area of interest are operable to support the building input parameters (Rodriguez, col. 8, lines 9-60).
In regards to claim 2, modified Jurick discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising determining the pairs of the properties in the area that have a shared owner.
Rodriguez, in the related field of determining land use development, teaches the pairs of the properties in the area (computing platform is further configured to determine a combination of geographic areas of interest of the multiplicity of geographic areas of interest that are operable to support the at least one building envelope, col. 9, lines 5-53) that have a shared owner (GUI computing platform transmits legal data for the geographic area of interest to the GUI for display with legal data including legal description, ownership data, neighborhood data, transportation data, and encumbrance data, col. 9, lines 1-53). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to determine which properties have a common owner as taught by the method of Rodriguez. The motivation for doing so would have been to display geographic area of interest with other information includer ownership information (Rodriguez, col. 16, lines 50-67).
In regards to claim 6, modified Jurick discloses the method of claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the determining that one or more of the property descriptions are part of the single property is performed iteratively for properties in the area.
Rodriguez, in the related field of determining land use development, teaches determining that one or more of the plurality of property descriptions are part of a single property (computing platform is further configured to determine a combination of geographic areas of interest of the multiplicity of geographic areas of interest that are operable to support the at least one building envelope, col. 9, lines 5-53) is performed iteratively for properties in the area (graphical user interface is operable to display compatible properties, wherein the results are shown with numbers representing the amount of properties matching these search parameters in an area, col. 17, lines 4-33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to determine which properties are part of a single property iteratively as taught by the method of Rodriguez. The motivation for doing so would have been to color code tracts of the geographic area of interest based on whether or not the tracts of geographic area of interest are operable to support the building input parameters (Rodriguez, col. 8, lines 9-60).
In regards to claim 14, Jurick discloses a computer readable storage medium having data stored therein representing a software executable by a computer (Routines executed to implement the embodiments may be implemented as part of an operating system or a specific application, component, program, object, module, or sequence of instructions referred to as "computer programs", para. 0149), the software comprising instructions that, when executed (computer programs include instructions read and executed by one or more processors in a computer, para. 0149), cause the computer to perform: reading a plurality of property descriptions for properties in an area (determining at least one primary site selection having a size below a requested sizing threshold based on information received from a geographical information system (GIS) including land parcel data defining a plurality of land parcels, para. 0056); determining a shape of one or more properties based on the property descriptions (siting platform 104 may include any land parcels within a distance, a range, a GIS shape, a geospatial polygon, and/or the like, of the location of interest, para. 0094); determining a spatial relationship between pairs of properties based on determined shapes of the properties (automatically determining geospatial data representing one or more secondary land parcels in the requested region that can be combined with the primary site selection based on an objective score associated with features of the plurality of land parcels based on at least one of land parcel size, type, slope, or proximity, para. 0056); and determining, based on the spatial relationship a single property (generating, in the stitching server, an updated site selection comprising the at least one primary site selection and at least one of the one or more secondary site selections, para. 0007). However, Jurick fails to disclose determining that one or more of the property descriptions are part of a single property.
Rodriguez, in the related field of determining land use development, teaches determining that one or more of the plurality of property descriptions are part of a single property (computing platform is further configured to determine a combination of geographic areas of interest of the multiplicity of geographic areas of interest that are operable to support the at least one building envelope, col. 9, lines 5-53). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to determine which properties are part of a single property as taught by the method of Rodriguez. The motivation for doing so would have been to color code tracts of the geographic area of interest based on whether or not the tracts of geographic area of interest are operable to support the building input parameters (Rodriguez, col. 8, lines 9-60).
In regards to claim 16, modified Jurick discloses the computer readable storage medium of claim 15, but fails to disclose wherein the instructions further cause the computer to perform determining pairs of the properties in the area that have a shared owner.
Rodriguez, in the related field of determining land use development, teaches determining pairs of the properties in the area (computing platform is further configured to determine a combination of geographic areas of interest of the multiplicity of geographic areas of interest that are operable to support the at least one building envelope, col. 9, lines 5-53) that have a shared owner (GUI computing platform transmits legal data for the geographic area of interest to the GUI for display with legal data including legal description, ownership data, neighborhood data, transportation data, and encumbrance data, col. 9, lines 1-53). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to determine which properties have a common owner as taught by the method of Rodriguez. The motivation for doing so would have been to display geographic area of interest with other information includer ownership information (Rodriguez, col. 16, lines 50-67).
In regards to claim 20, modified Jurick discloses the computer readable storage medium of claim 17, but fails to disclose wherein the determining that one or more of the property descriptions are part of the single property is performed iteratively for properties in the area.
Rodriguez, in the related field of determining land use development, teaches determining that one or more of the property descriptions are part of a single property (computing platform is further configured to determine a combination of geographic areas of interest of the multiplicity of geographic areas of interest that are operable to support the at least one building envelope, col. 9, lines 5-53) is performed iteratively for properties in the area (graphical user interface is operable to display compatible properties, wherein the results are shown with numbers representing the amount of properties matching these search parameters in an area, col. 17, lines 4-33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to determine which properties are part of a single property iteratively as taught by the method of Rodriguez. The motivation for doing so would have been to color code tracts of the geographic area of interest based on whether or not the tracts of geographic area of interest are operable to support the building input parameters (Rodriguez, col. 8, lines 9-60).
Claims 3-5 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurick, in view of Rodriguez, and further in view of US 2021/0334905 to Tyner et al. (hereinafter referred to as Tyner).
In regards to claim 3, modified Jurick discloses the method of claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein determining that one or more of the property descriptions are part of the single property is limited to pairs of properties with a close spatial relationship and the shared owner.
Rodriguez, in the related field of determining land use development, teaches wherein determining that one or more of the property descriptions are part of the single property (computing platform is further configured to determine a combination of geographic areas of interest of the multiplicity of geographic areas of interest that are operable to support the at least one building envelope, col. 9, lines 5-53) is limited to pairs of properties with the shared owner (GUI computing platform transmits legal data for the geographic area of interest to the GUI for display with legal data including legal description, ownership data, neighborhood data, transportation data, and encumbrance data, col. 9, lines 1-53). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to determine which properties are part of a single property as taught by the method of Rodriguez. The motivation for doing so would have been to display geographic area of interest with other information includer ownership information (Rodriguez, col. 16, lines 50-67). However, the combination of Jurick and Rodriguez fails to teach wherein determining is limited to pairs of properties with a close spatial relationship.
Tyner, in the related field of determining sub-regions of real properties with a shared profile, teaches wherein determining is limited to pairs of properties with a close spatial relationship (determine for a geographic region based on geolocation data a plurality of sub-regions of real properties with a shared profile and a collection of coordinate pairs with a latitude and longitude that describe a boundary of a geometric shape, para. 0006). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to determine properties with a close spatial relationship as taught by the method of Tyner. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a rating for geometric shapes of real properties within a sub region (Tyner, para. 0006).
In regards to claim 4, modified Jurick discloses the method of claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the close spatial relationship comprises an adjacent property.
Tyner, in the related field of determining sub-regions of real properties with a shared profile, teaches wherein the close spatial relationship (determine for a geographic region based on geolocation data a plurality of sub-regions of real properties with a shared profile and a collection of coordinate pairs with a latitude and longitude that describe a boundary of a geometric shape, para. 0006) comprises an adjacent property (adjacent properties 240, 245, fig. 2C). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to determine properties with a close spatial relationship as taught by the method of Tyner. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a rating for geometric shapes of real properties within a sub region (Tyner, para. 0006).
In regards to claim 5, modified Jurick discloses the method of claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the close spatial relationship comprises one property containing another property.
Tyner, in the related field of determining sub-regions of real properties with a shared profile, teaches wherein the close spatial relationship (determine for a geographic region based on geolocation data a plurality of sub-regions of real properties with a shared profile and a collection of coordinate pairs with a latitude and longitude that describe a boundary of a geometric shape, para. 0006) one property containing another property (geocoded territory rating system determines a sub region based on proximity to a golf course and can include properties that are within a golf course, para. 0041). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to determine a property containing a one property containing another property as taught by the method of Tyner. The motivation for doing so would have been identify properties within a property (Tyner, para. 0041).
In regards to claim 17, modified Jurick discloses the computer readable storage medium of claim 16, but fails to disclose wherein determining that one or more of the property descriptions are part of the single property is limited to pairs of properties with a close spatial relationship and the shared owner.
Rodriguez, in the related field of determining land use development, teaches wherein determining that one or more of the property descriptions are part of the single property (computing platform is further configured to determine a combination of geographic areas of interest of the multiplicity of geographic areas of interest that are operable to support the at least one building envelope, col. 9, lines 5-53) is limited to pairs of properties with the shared owner (GUI computing platform transmits legal data for the geographic area of interest to the GUI for display with legal data including legal description, ownership data, neighborhood data, transportation data, and encumbrance data, col. 9, lines 1-53). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to determine which properties are part of a single property as taught by the method of Rodriguez. The motivation for doing so would have been to display geographic area of interest with other information includer ownership information (Rodriguez, col. 16, lines 50-67). However, the combination of Jurick and Rodriguez fails to teach wherein determining is limited to pairs of properties with a close spatial relationship.
Tyner, in the related field of determining sub-regions of real properties with a shared profile, teaches wherein determining is limited to pairs of properties with a close spatial relationship (determine for a geographic region based on geolocation data a plurality of sub-regions of real properties with a shared profile and a collection of coordinate pairs with a latitude and longitude that describe a boundary of a geometric shape, para. 0006). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to determine properties with a close spatial relationship as taught by the method of Tyner. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a rating for geometric shapes of real properties within a sub region (Tyner, para. 0006).
In regards to claim 18, modified Jurick discloses the computer readable storage medium of claim 17, but fails to disclose wherein the close spatial relationship comprises an adjacent property.
Tyner, in the related field of determining sub-regions of real properties with a shared profile, teaches wherein the close spatial relationship (determine for a geographic region based on geolocation data a plurality of sub-regions of real properties with a shared profile and a collection of coordinate pairs with a latitude and longitude that describe a boundary of a geometric shape, para. 0006) comprises an adjacent property (adjacent properties 240, 245, fig. 2C). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to determine properties with a close spatial relationship as taught by the method of Tyner. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a rating for geometric shapes of real properties within a sub region (Tyner, para. 0006).
In regards to claim 19, modified Jurick discloses the computer readable storage medium of claim 17, but fails to disclose wherein the close spatial relationship comprises one property containing another property.
Tyner, in the related field of determining sub-regions of real properties with a shared profile, teaches wherein the close spatial relationship (determine for a geographic region based on geolocation data a plurality of sub-regions of real properties with a shared profile and a collection of coordinate pairs with a latitude and longitude that describe a boundary of a geometric shape, para. 0006) one property containing another property (geocoded territory rating system determines a sub region based on proximity to a golf course and can include properties that are within a golf course, para. 0041). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to determine a property containing a one property containing another property as taught by the method of Tyner. The motivation for doing so would have been identify properties within a property (Tyner, para. 0041).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurick, in view of Rodriguez, in view of Tyner, and further in view of US 8666164 to Thangam et al. (hereinafter referred to as Thangam).
In regards to claim 7, modified Jurick discloses the method of claim 6, but fails to disclose further comprising creating a vertex and edge graph based on the spatial relationship between the pairs of the properties.
Thangam, in the related field of modeling a region, teaches creating a vertex and edge graph based on the spatial relationship between the pairs of the properties (a computer model comprises one or more nodes that represent an arbitrarily shaped region presenting a region-segmented image and one or more logical nodes representing an image region formed by the union of two or more arbitrarily shaped image regions in the region-segmented image that exhibit at least one type of spatial relationship and a hierarchical graph representation of the region-segmented image (abstract; figure 2; column 2, lines 43-67). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to create a graph based on the spatial relationship as taught by the method of Thangam. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve techniques for modeling a segmented image that might have several regions of interests that can be segmented based on image properties which can lend themselves to real estate and land use applications (Thangam, column 1, lines 12 to column 2, line 40).
In regards to claim 15, modified Jurick discloses the computer readable storage medium of claim 14, but fails to disclose wherein the instructions further cause the computer to perform creating a vertex and edge graph based on the spatial relationship between pairs of properties.
Thangam, in the related field of modeling a region, teaches creating a vertex and edge graph based on the spatial relationship between the pairs of the properties (a computer model comprises one or more nodes that represent an arbitrarily shaped region presenting a region-segmented image and one or more logical nodes representing an image region formed by the union of two or more arbitrarily shaped image regions in the region-segmented image that exhibit at least one type of spatial relationship and a hierarchical graph representation of the region-segmented image (abstract; figure 2; column 2, lines 43-67). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to create a graph based on the spatial relationship as taught by the method of Thangam. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve techniques for modeling a segmented image that might have several regions of interests that can be segmented based on image properties which can lend themselves to real estate and land use applications (Thangam, column 1, lines 12 to column 2, line 40).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurick, in view of Rodriguez, and further in view of Thangam.
In regards to claim 8, Jurick discloses a computing system for implementing an assemblage (systems and method for generating a land parcel in a geospatial area by determining secondary parcels that can be combined with the primary site selection, para. 0056), the computing system comprising: a processing server (system, comprising at least one processor, para. 0008) configured to read a plurality of property descriptions for properties in an area (determining at least one primary site selection having a size below a requested sizing threshold based on information received from a geographical information system (GIS) including land parcel data defining a plurality of land parcels, para. 0056); the processing server configured to determine a shape of one or more properties based on the property descriptions (region data is received and converted into shapefiles that are uploaded to the GIS server and output to the siting platform, paras. 0063-0064); the processing server configured to determine a spatial relationship between pairs of the one or more properties based on determined shapes of the properties (automatically determining geospatial data representing one or more secondary land parcels in the requested region that can be combined with the primary site selection based on an objective score associated with features of the plurality of land parcels based on at least one of land parcel size, type, slope, or proximity, para. 0056); and the processing server configured to determine, based on the spatial relationship, a single property (generating, in the stitching server, an updated site selection comprising the at least one primary site selection and at least one of the one or more secondary site selections, para. 0007). However, Jurick fails to disclose the processing server configured to create a vertex and edge graph based on the spatial relationship between pairs of the one or more properties; and determining that one or more of the plurality of property descriptions are part of a single property.
Thangam, in the related field of modeling a region, teaches the processing server configured to create a vertex and edge graph based on the spatial relationship between pairs of the one or more properties (a computer model comprises one or more nodes that represent an arbitrarily shaped region presenting a region-segmented image and one or more logical nodes representing an image region formed by the union of two or more arbitrarily shaped image regions in the region-segmented image that exhibit at least one type of spatial relationship and a hierarchical graph representation of the region-segmented image (abstract; figure 2; column 2, lines 43-67). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to create a graph based on the spatial relationship as taught by the method of Thangam. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve techniques for modeling a segmented image that might have several regions of interests that can be segmented based on image properties which can lend themselves to real estate and land use applications (Thangam, column 1, lines 12 to column 2, line 40).
Rodriguez, in the related field of determining land use development, teaches determining that one or more of the plurality of property descriptions are part of a single property (computing platform is further configured to determine a combination of geographic areas of interest of the multiplicity of geographic areas of interest that are operable to support the at least one building envelope, col. 9, lines 5-53). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to determine which properties are part of a single property as taught by the method of Rodriguez. The motivation for doing so would have been to color code tracts of the geographic area of interest based on whether or not the tracts of geographic area of interest are operable to support the building input parameters (Rodriguez, col. 8, lines 9-60).
In regards to claim 9, modified Jurick discloses the computing system of claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein the processing server is further configured to determine pairs of the one or more properties in the area that have a shared owner.
Rodriguez, in the related field of determining land use development, teaches wherein the processing server is further configured to determine pairs of the one or more properties in the area (computing platform is further configured to determine a combination of geographic areas of interest of the multiplicity of geographic areas of interest that are operable to support the at least one building envelope, col. 9, lines 5-53) that have a shared owner (GUI computing platform transmits legal data for the geographic area of interest to the GUI for display with legal data including legal description, ownership data, neighborhood data, transportation data, and encumbrance data, col. 9, lines 1-53). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to determine which properties have a common owner as taught by the method of Rodriguez. The motivation for doing so would have been to display geographic area of interest with other information includer ownership information (Rodriguez, col. 16, lines 50-67).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jurick, in view of Rodriguez, in view of Thangam, and further in view of Tyner.
In regards to claim 10, modified Jurick discloses the computing system of claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein only pairs of properties with a close spatial relationship and the shared owner are determined to be part of the single property.
Rodriguez, in the related field of determining land use development, teaches wherein pairs of properties (computing platform is further configured to determine a combination of geographic areas of interest of the multiplicity of geographic areas of interest that are operable to support the at least one building envelope, col. 9, lines 5-53) with the shared owner are determined to be part of the single property (GUI computing platform transmits legal data for the geographic area of interest to the GUI for display with legal data including legal description, ownership data, neighborhood data, transportation data, and encumbrance data, col. 9, lines 1-53). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to determine which properties are part of a single property as taught by the method of Rodriguez. The motivation for doing so would have been to display geographic area of interest with other information includer ownership information (Rodriguez, col. 16, lines 50-67). However, the combination of Jurick and Rodriguez fails to teach wherein only pairs of properties with a close spatial relationship with a close spatial relationship are determined to be part of the single property.
Tyner, in the related field of determining sub-regions of real properties with a shared profile, teaches wherein only pairs of properties with a close spatial relationship with a close spatial relationship are determined to be part of the single property (determine for a geographic region based on geolocation data a plurality of sub-regions of real properties with a shared profile and a collection of coordinate pairs with a latitude and longitude that describe a boundary of a geometric shape, para. 0006). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to determine properties with a close spatial relationship as taught by the method of Tyner. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a rating for geometric shapes of real properties within a sub region (Tyner, para. 0006).
In regards to claim 11, modified Jurick discloses the computing system of claim 10, but fails to disclose wherein the close spatial relationship comprises an adjacent property.
Tyner, in the related field of determining sub-regions of real properties with a shared profile, teaches wherein the close spatial relationship (determine for a geographic region based on geolocation data a plurality of sub-regions of real properties with a shared profile and a collection of coordinate pairs with a latitude and longitude that describe a boundary of a geometric shape, para. 0006) comprises an adjacent property (adjacent properties 240, 245, fig. 2C). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to determine properties with a close spatial relationship as taught by the method of Tyner. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a rating for geometric shapes of real properties within a sub region (Tyner, para. 0006).
In regards to claim 12, modified Jurick discloses the computing system of claim 10, but fails to disclose wherein the close spatial relationship comprises one property containing another property.
Tyner, in the related field of determining sub-regions of real properties with a shared profile, teaches wherein the close spatial relationship (determine for a geographic region based on geolocation data a plurality of sub-regions of real properties with a shared profile and a collection of coordinate pairs with a latitude and longitude that describe a boundary of a geometric shape, para. 0006) one property containing another property (geocoded territory rating system determines a sub region based on proximity to a golf course and can include properties that are within a golf course, para. 0041). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to determine a property containing a one property containing another property as taught by the method of Tyner. The motivation for doing so would have been identify properties within a property (Tyner, para. 0041).
In regards to claim 13, modified Jurick discloses the computing system of claim 10, but fails to disclose wherein the determining that one or more of the property descriptions are part of the single property is performed iteratively.
Rodriguez, in the related field of determining land use development, teaches determining that one or more of the property descriptions are part of a single property (computing platform is further configured to determine a combination of geographic areas of interest of the multiplicity of geographic areas of interest that are operable to support the at least one building envelope, col. 9, lines 5-53) is performed iteratively (graphical user interface is operable to display compatible properties, wherein the results are shown with numbers representing the amount of properties matching these search parameters in an area, col. 17, lines 4-33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the method of Jurick with the ability to determine which properties are part of a single property iteratively as taught by the method of Rodriguez. The motivation for doing so would have been to color code tracts of the geographic area of interest based on whether or not the tracts of geographic area of interest are operable to support the building input parameters (Rodriguez, col. 8, lines 9-60).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Schwarzenberg whose telephone number is (313) 446-6611. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (7:30-6:30).
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, Christine Behncke, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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 P