DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a response to U.S. Patent Application No. 18/889,829 filed on 09/19/2024 in which Claims 1 – 20 were filed for examination.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting, Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/102(a)(2) and Claim(s) 3, 4, 10, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Examiner Note
The Examiner cites particular columns, line numbers and/or paragraph numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2024 have been entered and considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Par 0001 of the disclosure recites “The present application is a continuation of and claims priority to pending U.S. Patent No. 11,455,089 filed July 26, 2021, entitled Smart Mapping”, and to pending U.S. patent application, Application No. 17/896,667,filed August 26, 2022, entitled “Smart Mapping Display Adjustment” the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety”.
This paragraph should be amended to indicate that the U.S. Patent Application No. 17/896,667 is now U.S. Patent No. 12,124,685.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 9, 11 – 16 and 18 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 6, 8, 9, 12 – 14 and 16 – 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,124,685 (hereinafter, Pat 685). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent anticipates the claims of the instant application.
Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 9, 11 – 16 and 18 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7 – 9, 11 – 16 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,455,089 (hereinafter, Pat 089). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent anticipates the claims of the instant application.
The patent discloses:
1. A memory device storing instructions that, when executed, cause a processor to perform a method (See Pat 685, Claim 1, Col. 13 lines 55 – 57) (See Pat 089 Claim 9, Col. 14 lines 47 – 48) comprising: providing a display of a map on a user interface (See Pat 685, Claim 1, Col. 13 line 58) (See Pat 089 Claim 9, Col. 14 line 50), including: determining a first set of geographic tiles depicted on the display, each geographic tile including one or more map entries (See Pat 685, Claim 1, Col. 13 lines 60 – 62) (See Pat 089 Claim 9, Col. 14 lines 51 – 54); displaying a heatmap calculated based on the map entries in the first set of geographic tiles See Pat 685, Claim 1, Col. 14 lines 1 – 6) (See Pat 089 Claim 9, Col. 14 lines 55 – 56); determining changes at the user interface to a zoom level for the map resulting in a second set of geographic tiles depicted on the display (See Pat 685, Claim 1, Col. 13 line 66 – Col. 14 line 6) (See Pat 089 Claim 14, Col. 15 lines 33 – 41); and dynamically recalculating the heatmap based on the map entries in the second set of geographic tiles in response to the changes to the zoom level (See Pat 685, Claim 3, Col. 14 lines 18 – 22) (See Pat 089 Claim 14, Col. 15 lines 33 – 41).
2. The memory device of claim 1 storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform the method further comprising: determining a selected comparison criteria on which to evaluate the map entries depicted on the display; and generating the heatmap based on an evaluation of the map entries according to the selected comparison criteria (See Pat 685, Claim 2, Col. 14 lines 7 – 13) (See Pat 089 Claim 11, Col. 15 lines 3 – 10).
3. The memory device of claim 2 storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform the method further comprising: generating the heatmap on the display includes generating a polygonal boundary around similar map entries based on the selected comparison criteria; and dynamically recalculating the heatmap includes modifying the polygonal boundary based on new map entries depicted on the display due to the changes (See Pat 685, Claim 4, Col. 14 lines 23 – 31) (See Pat 089 Claim 2, Col. 13 lines 62 – 67).
4. The memory device of claim 3 storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform the method further comprising: determining a selected map entry based on input received via the user interface; and selecting the similar map entries based on identifying properties included in displayed geographic tiles having values for the selected comparison criteria similar to the selected map entry (See Pat 685, Claim 2, Col. 14 lines 7 – 13) (See Pat 089 Claim 11, Col. 15 lines 3 – 10).
6. The memory device of claim 1 storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform the method further comprising: loading selected data corresponding to map entries from the first set of geographic tiles depicted on the display only; using the selected data for the map entries to generate the heatmap; and dynamically recalculating the heatmap includes loading selected data for map entries from the second set of geographic tiles based on the changes (See Pat 685, Claim 5, Col. 14 lines 32 – 42) (See Pat 089 Claim 13, Col. 15 lines 21 – 29).
7. The memory device of claim 6 storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform the method further comprising: determining the changes at the user interface include zooming out the display of the map; determining that the zooming out results in a map entry density over a threshold; condensing a plurality of map entries into a consolidated map entry, including using the selected data for the plurality of map entries to determine a heatmap representation for the consolidated map entry; and depicting the consolidated map entry on the display (See Pat 685, Claim 1, Col. 13 line 66 – Col. 14 line 6) (See Pat 089 Claim 14, Col. 15 lines 30 – 41).
8. The memory device of claim 1 storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform the method further comprising: determining the changes at the user interface include zooming in the display of the map; determining that the zooming in results in a map entry density falling below a threshold; separating a consolidated map entry representing a plurality of constituent map entries into separate map entries for the plurality of constituent map entries, including generating a separate heatmap representation for each of the separate map entries; and depicting the separate map entries on the display (See Pat 685, Claim 6, Col. 14 lines 43 – 55) (See Pat 089 Claim 15, Col. 15 lines 42 – 54).
9. An apparatus comprising: a memory including executable instructions; a processor configured to execute the executable instructions to provide a display of a map on a user interface (See Pat 685, Claim 8, Col. 15 lines 4 – 7) (See Pat 089 Claim 16, Col. 15 lines 55 – 57), including: determine a first set of geographic tiles depicted on the display, each geographic tile including one or more map entries (See Pat 685, Claim 8, Col. 15 lines 9 – 11) (See Pat 089 Claim 16, Col. 15 line 58 – Col. 16 line 2); display a heatmap calculated based on the map entries in the first set of geographic tiles (See Pat 685, Claim 9, Col. 15 lines 31 – 36) (See Pat 089 Claim 16, Col. 16 lines 3 - 4); determine changes at the user interface to a zoom level for the map resulting in a second set of geographic tiles depicted on the display (See Pat 685, Claim 8, Col. 15 lines 15 – 24) (See Pat 089 Claim 20, Col. 16 lines 37 – 49); and dynamically recalculate the heatmap based on the map entries in the second set of geographic tiles in response to the changes to the zoom level (See Pat 685, Claim 8, Col. 15 lines 15 – 24) (See Pat 089 Claim 20, Col. 16 lines 37 – 49).
11. The apparatus of claim 9, the processor further configured to: load selected data corresponding to map entries from the first set of geographic tiles depicted on the display only; use the selected data for the map entries to generate the heatmap; dynamically recalculate the heatmap includes loading selected data for map entries from the second set of geographic tiles based on the changes (See Pat 685, Claim 9, Col. 15 lines 25 – 36) (See Pat 089 Claim 16, Col. 16 lines 1 – 9).
12. The apparatus of claim 9, the processor further configured to: consolidate a plurality of map entries, including: determine the changes at the user interface include zooming out the display of the map (See Pat 685, Claim 12, Col. 15 lines 61 – 62) (See Pat 089 Claim 20, Col. 16 lines 37 – 38); determine that the zooming out results in a map entry density over a threshold (See Pat 685, Claim 12, Col. 15 lines 63 – 64) (See Pat 089 Claim 20, Col. 16 lines 40 – 43); condense the plurality of map entries into a consolidated map entry, including using the selected data for the plurality of map entries to determine a heatmap representation for the consolidated map entry; and depict the consolidated map entry on the display (See Pat 685, Claim 12, Col. 15 line 65 – Col. 16 line 7) (See Pat 089 Claim 20, Col. 16 lines 44 – 49); and separate the consolidated map entry, including: determine the changes at the user interface include zooming in the display of the map; determine that the zooming in results in a map entry density falling below a threshold (See Pat 685, Claim 8, Col. 15 lines 15 – 24) (See Pat 089 Claim 20, Col. 16 lines 50 - 57); separate the consolidated map entry representing a plurality of constituent map entries into separate map entries for the plurality of constituent map entries, including generating a separate heatmap representation for each of the separate map entries; and depict the separate map entries on the display (See Pat 685, Claim 8, Col. 15 lines 15 – 24) (See Pat 089 Claim 20, Col. 16 lines 37 – 49).
13. A method of providing a display of a map on a user interface, including: determining a first set of geographic tiles depicted on the display, each geographic tile including one or more map entries (See Pat 685, Claim 13, Col. 16 lines 8 – 12 ) (See Pat 089 Claim 1, Col. 13 lines 49 – 54); displaying a heatmap calculated based on the map entries in the first set of geographic tiles (See Pat 685, Claim 13, Col. 16 lines 13 – 15 ) (See Pat 089 Claim 1, Col. 13 lines 55 – 56); determining changes at the user interface to a zoom level for the map resulting in a second set of geographic tiles depicted on the display (See Pat 685, Claim 13, Col. 16 lines 16 – 23) (See Pat 089 Claim 7, Col. 14 lines 26 – 34); and dynamically recalculating the heatmap based on the map entries in the second set of geographic tiles in response to the changes to the zoom level (See Pat 685, Claim 13, Col. 16 lines 16 – 23) (See Pat 089 Claim 7, Col. 14 lines 26 – 34).
14. The method of claim 13 further comprising: determining a selected comparison criteria on which to evaluate the map entries depicted on the display; and generating the heatmap based on an evaluation of the map entries according to the selected comparison criteria (See Pat 685, Claim 14, Col. 16 lines 25 – 29) (See Pat 089 Claim 2, Col. 13 lines 62 – 67).
15. The method of claim 14 further comprising: generating the heatmap on the display includes generating a polygonal boundary around similar map entries based on the selected comparison criteria; and dynamically recalculating the heatmap includes modifying the polygonal boundary based on new map entries depicted on the display due to the changes (See Pat 685, Claim 16, Col. 16 lines 36 – 42) (See Pat 089 Claim 2, Col. 13 lines 62 – 67).
16. The method of claim 15 further comprising: determining a selected map entry based on input received via the user interface; and selecting the similar map entries based on identifying properties included in displayed geographic tiles having values for the selected comparison criteria similar to the selected map entry (See Pat 685, Claim 14, Col. 16 lines 25 – 29) (See Pat 089 Claim 2, Col. 13 lines 62 – 67).
18. The method of claim 13 further comprising: loading selected data corresponding to map entries from the first set of geographic tiles depicted on the display only; using the selected data for the map entries to generate the heatmap; and dynamically recalculating the heatmap includes loading selected data for map entries from the second set of geographic tiles based on the changes (See Pat 685, Claim 17, Col. 16 lines 43 – 51) (See Pat 089 Claim 1, Col. 13 lines 53 – 61).
19. The method of claim 18 further comprising: determining the changes at the user interface include zooming out the display of the map; determining that the zooming out results in a map entry density over a threshold; condensing a plurality of map entries into a consolidated map entry, including using the selected data for the plurality of map entries to determine a heatmap representation for the consolidated map entry; and depicting the consolidated map entry on the display (See Pat 685, Claim 13, Col. 16 lines 13 – 23) (See Pat 089 Claim 7, Col. 14 lines 26 – 35).
20. The method of claim 13 further comprising: determining the changes at the user interface include zooming in the display of the map; determining that the zooming in results in a map entry density falling below a threshold; separating a consolidated map entry representing a plurality of constituent map entries into separate map entries for the plurality of constituent map entries, including generating a separate heatmap representation for each of the separate map entries; and depicting the separate map entries on the display (See Pat 685, Claim 18, Col. 16 lines 52 – 62) (See Pat 089 Claim 8, Col. 14 lines 36 – 46).
Claims 5, 10 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 8 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,124,685 (hereinafter, Pat. 685) in view of Cervelli et al. (US 2017/0052747) (hereinafter, Cervelli)
5. The pat 685 discloses the memory device of claim 1. Pat 685 also discloses the generation of the heatmap and determination of values corresponding to the selected comparison criteria for each map entry depicted on the display (See Pat 685 Claim 2, Col. 14 lines 7 – 13).
However, Pat 685 does not disclose “assigning a color to each map entry based on a comparison of the values for the map entries”.
Cervelli in par 0027, teaches generating the heatmap on the map comprises assigning a color to each shape, wherein the color for a shape is assigned based at least in part upon the aggregate attribute value for the shape.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pat 685 to assign colors to the map as disclosed in Cervelli. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively highlight objected within the interface (See Cervelli par 0099 – 0100).
10. 5. The pat 685 discloses the apparatus of claim 9. Pat 685 also discloses the processor further configured to: generate the heatmap based on an evaluation of the map entries according to a selected comparison criteria on which to evaluate the map entries (See Pat 685, Claim 8, Col. 15 lines 15 – 24), including: determine values corresponding to the selected comparison criteria for each map entry depicted on the display (See Pat 685, Claim 2, Col. 14 lines 7 – 13); and generate the heatmap on the display, including generate a polygonal boundary around similar map entries based on the selected comparison criteria, including: determine a selected map entry based on input received via the user interface; and select the similar map entries based on identifying properties included in displayed geographic tiles having values for the selected comparison criteria similar to the selected map entry; and dynamically recalculate the heatmap, including modify the polygonal boundary based on new map entries depicted on the display due to the changes (See Pat 685, Claim 2, Col. 14 lines 7 – 13 and Claim 4, Col. 14 lines 23 – 31).
However, Pat 685 does not disclose “assign a color to each map entry based on a comparison of the values for the map entries”.
Cervelli in par 0027, teaches generating the heatmap on the map comprises assigning a color to each shape, wherein the color for a shape is assigned based at least in part upon the aggregate attribute value for the shape.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pat 685 to assign colors to the map as disclosed in Cervelli. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively highlight objected within the interface (See Cervelli par 0099 – 0100).
17. The pat 685 discloses the method of memory device of claim 1. Pat 685 also discloses the generation of the heatmap and determination of values corresponding to the selected comparison criteria for each map entry depicted on the display (See Pat 685 Claim 2, Col. 14 lines 7 – 13).
However, Pat 685 does not disclose “assigning a color to each map entry based on a comparison of the values for the map entries”.
Cervelli in par 0027, teaches generating the heatmap on the map comprises assigning a color to each shape, wherein the color for a shape is assigned based at least in part upon the aggregate attribute value for the shape.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pat 685 to assign colors to the map as disclosed in Cervelli. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively highlight objected within the interface (See Cervelli par 0099 – 0100).
Claims, 5, 10, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 9, 11 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,455,089 (hereinafter, Pat. 089) in view of Cervelli et al. (US 2017/0052747) (hereinafter, Cervelli).
5. The pat 089 discloses the memory device of claim 1. Pat 089 also discloses the generation of the heatmap and determination of values corresponding to the selected comparison criteria for each map entry depicted on the display (See Pat 089 Claim 11, Col. 15 lines 3 – 10).
However, Pat 089 does not disclose “assigning a color to each map entry based on a comparison of the values for the map entries”.
Cervelli in par 0027, teaches generating the heatmap on the map comprises assigning a color to each shape, wherein the color for a shape is assigned based at least in part upon the aggregate attribute value for the shape.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pat 089 to assign colors to the map as disclosed in Cervelli. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively highlight objected within the interface (See Cervelli par 0099 – 0100).
10. 5. The pat 089 discloses the apparatus of claim 9. Pat 089 also discloses the processor further configured to: generate the heatmap based on an evaluation of the map entries according to a selected comparison criteria on which to evaluate the map entries (See Pat 089 Claim 20, Col. 16 lines 37 – 49), including: determine values corresponding to the selected comparison criteria for each map entry depicted on the display (See Pat 089 Claim 11, Col. 15 lines 3 – 10); and generate the heatmap on the display, including generate a polygonal boundary around similar map entries based on the selected comparison criteria, including: determine a selected map entry based on input received via the user interface; and select the similar map entries based on identifying properties included in displayed geographic tiles having values for the selected comparison criteria similar to the selected map entry; and dynamically recalculate the heatmap, including modify the polygonal boundary based on new map entries depicted on the display due to the changes (See Pat 089 Claim 11, Col. 15 lines 3 – 10, and Claim 2, Col. 13 lines 62 – 67).
However, Pat 089 does not disclose “assign a color to each map entry based on a comparison of the values for the map entries”.
Cervelli in par 0027, teaches generating the heatmap on the map comprises assigning a color to each shape, wherein the color for a shape is assigned based at least in part upon the aggregate attribute value for the shape.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pat 089 to assign colors to the map as disclosed in Cervelli. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively highlight objected within the interface (See Cervelli par 0099 – 0100).
17. The pat 089 discloses the memory device of claim 1. Pat 089 also discloses the generation of the heatmap and determination of values corresponding to the selected comparison criteria for each map entry depicted on the display (See Pat 089 Claim 11, Col. 15 lines 3 – 10).
However, Pat 089 does not disclose “assigning a color to each map entry based on a comparison of the values for the map entries”.
Cervelli in par 0027, teaches generating the heatmap on the map comprises assigning a color to each shape, wherein the color for a shape is assigned based at least in part upon the aggregate attribute value for the shape.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pat 089 to assign colors to the map as disclosed in Cervelli. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively highlight objected within the interface (See Cervelli par 0099 – 0100).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cervelli et al. (US 2017/0052747) (hereinafter, Cervelli).
Regarding Claim 1, Cervelli teaches a memory device storing instructions that, when executed, cause a processor to perform a method (See Cervelli’s par 0243) comprising:
providing a display of a map on a user interface (Cervelli in par 0080 and Fig. 1, teaches a user interface of an interactive data object map system), including:
determining a first set of geographic tiles depicted on the display, each geographic tile including one or more map entries (Cervelli in par 0083, teaches that the map interface 100 illustrated in FIGS. 1A and 1B is composed of multiple map tiles. The map tiles may be composed of multiple layers of geographical, vector, and/or other types of data);
displaying a heatmap calculated based on the map entries in the first set of geographic tiles (Cervelli in par 0117, teaches that filtering on a shape heatmap allows a user to aggregate on a particular attribute (e.g. find average home price per zip code region), filter to the regions with high or low aggregates (e.g. top 10% of zip code regions by average home price);
determining changes at the user interface to a zoom level for the map resulting in a second set of geographic tiles depicted on the display (Cervelli in par 0086, teaches that the user of the map system may interact with the user interface of FIGS. 1A and/or 1B by scrolling or panning up, down, and/or side to side; zooming in or out; selecting objects; filtering objects; drawing shapes; selecting layers; performing a geosearch; generating a heat map; and/or performing a keyword search; among other actions as are described below. Various user actions may reveal more or less map detail, and/or more or fewer objects. Cervelli in par 0204, further teaches that when the user pans and/or zooms in the map interface, the map tiles are updated to reflect the new view selected by the user. Cervelli in par 0220, further teaches that to avoid transferring too much geometric data, the geometries of objects (in the map tiles and UTF grid) are down-sampled depending on how zoomed in the user is to the map interface. Thus, map tiles may be rendered and presented to a user of the map system in a dynamic and useable manner); and
dynamically recalculating the heatmap based on the map entries in the second set of geographic tiles in response to the changes to the zoom level (Cervelli in par 0086, teaches that the user of the map system may interact with the user interface of FIGS. 1A and/or 1B by scrolling or panning up, down, and/or side to side; zooming in or out; selecting objects; filtering objects; drawing shapes; selecting layers; performing a geosearch; generating a heat map. Cervelli in par 0115 and Fig. 5A-5F, teaches that the conditions may be implemented as a filter that can be activated and deactivated by the user, allowing the user to be able to quickly switch between the original heatmap and a filtered heatmap. Cervelli in par 0204, further teaches that when the user pans and/or zooms in the map interface, the map tiles are updated to reflect the new view selected by the user. Cervelli in par 0220, further teaches that to avoid transferring too much geometric data, the geometries of objects (in the map tiles and UTF grid) are down-sampled depending on how zoomed in the user is to the map interface. Thus, map tiles may be rendered and presented to a user of the map system in a dynamic and useable manner).
Regarding Claim 2, Cervelli teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Cervelli further teaches:
The memory device of claim 1 storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform the method further comprising:
determining a selected comparison criteria on which to evaluate the map entries depicted on the display (Cervelli in par 0117, teaches that filtering on a shape heatmap allows a user to aggregate on a particular attribute (e.g. find average home price per zip code region), filter to the regions with high or low aggregates (e.g. top 10% of zip code regions by average home price); and
generating the heatmap based on an evaluation of the map entries according to the selected comparison criteria (Cervelli in par 0117, further teaches that filtering on a shape heatmap allows a user to aggregate on a particular attribute (e.g. find average home price per zip code region), filter to the regions with high or low aggregates (e.g. top 10% of zip code regions by average home price), and then use select-within-select to go back to the original set of objects (e.g. retrieve all home objects within zip code regions that have the top 10% average home price). This may result in a different set of objects compared to simply filtering for objects having high or low attributes).
Regarding Claim 5, Cervelli teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Cervelli further teaches:
The memory device of claim 1 storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform the method further comprising:
generating the heatmap on the display includes:
determining values corresponding to the selected comparison criteria for each map entry depicted on the display; and assigning a color to each map entry based on a comparison of the values for the map entries (Cervelli in par 0027, teaches generating the heatmap on the map comprises assigning a color to each shape, wherein the color for a shape is assigned based at least in part upon the aggregate attribute value for the shape).
Regarding Claim 6, Cervelli teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Cervelli further teaches:
The memory device of claim 1 storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform the method further comprising:
loading selected data corresponding to map entries from the first set of geographic tiles depicted on the display only (Cervelli in par 0081, teaches that each map may comprise different types of objects and/or different map layers. For example, a first map may map data related to a first topic (e.g., instances of disease outbreaks)…Once a desired map has been selected, objects associated with the map may be loaded to be viewed and/or manipulated by the user);
using the selected data for the map entries to generate the heatmap(Cervelli in par 0086, teaches that the user of the map system may interact with the user interface of FIGS. 1A and/or 1B by scrolling or panning up, down, and/or side to side; zooming in or out; selecting objects; filtering objects; drawing shapes; selecting layers; performing a geosearch; generating a heat map); and
dynamically recalculating the heatmap includes loading selected data for map entries from the second set of geographic tiles based on the changes (Cervelli in par 0023, teaches that in response to the indication to deactivate the first filter, receive a second update to the interactive map from the server computing device based on the indication, the second update comprising at least a second updated map tile of the interactive map, and update the interactive map with the second updated map tile such that the remainder of the plurality of data objects are displayed as active data objects).
Regarding Claim 9, this claim merely recites an apparatus comprising a memory including executable instructions and a processor configured to execute the executable instructions to provide a display of a map on a user interface as similarly disclosed in Claim 1. Accordingly, Cervelli discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 9, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, Cervelli teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 9. Cervelli further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 9, the processor further configured to:
load selected data corresponding to map entries from the first set of geographic tiles depicted on the display only (Cervelli in par 0081, teaches that each map may comprise different types of objects and/or different map layers. For example, a first map may map data related to a first topic (e.g., instances of disease outbreaks)…Once a desired map has been selected, objects associated with the map may be loaded to be viewed and/or manipulated by the user);
use the selected data for the map entries to generate the heatmap (Cervelli in par 0086, teaches that the user of the map system may interact with the user interface of FIGS. 1A and/or 1B by scrolling or panning up, down, and/or side to side; zooming in or out; selecting objects; filtering objects; drawing shapes; selecting layers; performing a geosearch; generating a heat map);
dynamically recalculate the heatmap includes loading selected data for map entries from the second set of geographic tiles based on the changes (Cervelli in par 0023, teaches that in response to the indication to deactivate the first filter, receive a second update to the interactive map from the server computing device based on the indication, the second update comprising at least a second updated map tile of the interactive map, and update the interactive map with the second updated map tile such that the remainder of the plurality of data objects are displayed as active data objects).
Regarding Claim 13, this Claim merely recites a method of providing a display of a map on a user interface as similarly disclosed in Claim 1. Accordingly, Cervelli discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 13, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, this Claim merely recites a method of providing a display of a map on a user interface as similarly disclosed in Claim 2. Accordingly, Cervelli discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 14, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 17, this Claim merely recites a method of providing a display of a map on a user interface as similarly disclosed in Claim 5. Accordingly, Cervelli discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 17, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 18, this Claim merely recites a method of providing a display of a map on a user interface as similarly disclosed in Claim 6. Accordingly, Cervelli discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 18, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 6.
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) 3, 4, 10, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cervelli in view of Chu et al. (US 2021/0328999) (hereinafter, Chu).
Regarding Claim 3, Cervelli teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 2. Cervelli further teaches:
The memory device of claim 2 storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform the method further comprising:
generating the heatmap on the display includes generating a polygonal boundary around similar map entries based on the selected comparison criteria (Cervelli in par 0125, teaches that one or more shapes may be identified. The shapes may be defined by a rectangular grid overlaid on the map. The shapes may be defined by one or more objects or object types. These may include borders (e.g., state borders, regional borders), footprints (e.g., building footprints), and/or the like). (The Examiner considers a rectangular shape as a polygonal boundary); and
However, Cervelli does not specifically disclose dynamically recalculating the heatmap includes modifying the polygonal boundary based on new map entries depicted on the display due to the changes.
Chu in par 0005, teaches that the zones defined by the heat map may change over time (e.g., boundaries between zones may move, zones may grow/shrink, etc.) based on a variety of factors such as the presence/absence of other trustworthy devices within the vicinity, the time of day, recent events, etc. Chu in par 0077, further teaches various parameters changing dynamically, the heat maps 60 may change (e.g., boundaries between security zones 70 may move, security zones 70 may increase/decrease in size, etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Chu with the teachings as in Cervelli to modify the interactive geospatial map taught by Cervelli to include the concept of techniques involving a security heat map as taught by Chu to enable virtual geofencing for access control to be established over any geographic region (See Chu’s par 0005).
One of the ordinary skill in the art wanted to be motivated to include the concept of techniques involving a security heat map taught by Chu to enable virtual geofencing for access control to be established over any geographic region (See Chu’s par 0005).
Regarding Claim 4, Cervelli in view of Chu teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 3. Cervelli further teaches:
The memory device of claim 3 storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform the method further comprising:
determining a selected map entry based on input received via the user interface (Cervelli in par 0119, teaches that a user may select a first attribute 518 of a first data set corresponding to a first type of object, and a second attribute 520 of a second data set corresponding to a second type of object. For example, the first attribute may comprise a rainfall value associated with rain event data objects, while the second attribute may comprise a claim amount associated with insurance claim data objects); and
selecting the similar map entries based on identifying properties included in displayed geographic tiles having values for the selected comparison criteria similar to the selected map entry(Cervelli in par 0119, teaches that a user may select a first attribute 518 of a first data set corresponding to a first type of object, and a second attribute 520 of a second data set corresponding to a second type of object. For example, the first attribute may comprise a rainfall value associated with rain event data objects, while the second attribute may comprise a claim amount associated with insurance claim data objects. In addition, an aggregation (e.g., a ratio) may be selected to be used to calculate an aggregate value of the first attribute and the second attribute. As such, a heatmap 522 may be generated based upon the aggregation of the first and second attributes within each shape in the grid).
Regarding Claim 10, Cervelli teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 9. Cervelli further teaches:
The apparatus of claim 9, the processor further configured to:
generate the heatmap based on an evaluation of the map entries according to a selected comparison criteria on which to evaluate the map entries (Cervelli in par 0117, further teaches that filtering on a shape heatmap allows a user to aggregate on a particular attribute (e.g. find average home price per zip code region), filter to the regions with high or low aggregates (e.g. top 10% of zip code regions by average home price), and then use select-within-select to go back to the original set of objects (e.g. retrieve all home objects within zip code regions that have the top 10% average home price). This may result in a different set of objects compared to simply filtering for objects having high or low attributes), including:
determine values corresponding to the selected comparison criteria for each map entry depicted on the display; and assign a color to each map entry based on a comparison of the values for the map entries (Cervelli in par 0027, teaches generating the heatmap on the map comprises assigning a color to each shape, wherein the color for a shape is assigned based at least in part upon the aggregate attribute value for the shape);
generate the heatmap on the display, including generate a polygonal boundary around similar map entries based on the selected comparison criteria (Cervelli in par 0125, teaches that one or more shapes may be identified. The shapes may be defined by a rectangular grid overlaid on the map. The shapes may be defined by one or more objects or object types. These may include borders (e.g., state borders, regional borders), footprints (e.g., building footprints), and/or the like). (The Examiner considers a rectangular shape as a polygonal boundary), including:
determine a selected map entry based on input received via the user interface (Cervelli in par 0119, teaches that a user may select a first attribute 518 of a first data set corresponding to a first type of object, and a second attribute 520 of a second data set corresponding to a second type of object. For example, the first attribute may comprise a rainfall value associated with rain event data objects, while the second attribute may comprise a claim amount associated with insurance claim data objects); and
select the similar map entries based on identifying properties included in displayed geographic tiles having values for the selected comparison criteria similar to the selected map entry (Cervelli in par 0119, teaches that a user may select a first attribute 518 of a first data set corresponding to a first type of object, and a second attribute 520 of a second data set corresponding to a second type of object. For example, the first attribute may comprise a rainfall value associated with rain event data objects, while the second attribute may comprise a claim amount associated with insurance claim data objects. In addition, an aggregation (e.g., a ratio) may be selected to be used to calculate an aggregate value of the first attribute and the second attribute. As such, a heatmap 522 may be generated based upon the aggregation of the first and second attributes within each shape in the grid); and
However, Cervelli does not specifically disclose dynamically recalculate the heatmap, including modify the polygonal boundary based on new map entries depicted on the display due to the changes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Chu with the teachings as in Cervelli to modify the interactive geospatial map taught by Cervelli to include the concept of techniques involving a security heat map as taught by Chu to enable virtual geofencing for access control to be established over any geographic region (See Chu’s par 0005).
One of the ordinary skill in the art wanted to be motivated to include the concept of techniques involving a security heat map taught by Chu to enable virtual geofencing for access control to be established over any geographic region (See Chu’s par 0005).
Regarding Claim 15, this Claim merely recites a method of providing a display of a map on a user interface as similarly disclosed in Claim 3. Accordingly, Cervelli in view of Chu discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 15, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 16, this Claim merely recites a method of providing a display of a map on a user interface as similarly disclosed in Claim 4. Accordingly, Cervelli discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 16, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 12, 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL MERCADO VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1701. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ARIEL MERCADO-VARGAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights