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 .
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 1-2, 6, 8-11, 13-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a process, thereby meeting step 1.
Claim 1. A method for displaying a map, performed by a terminal, the method comprising: . . ..
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites a “mental process” abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper:
determining, in response to a display instruction for a to-be-displayed area in an
Step 2A, Prong Two: The following additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(a) terminal and “electronic” map
(b) obtaining the same shared three-dimensional model and display style data of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features, the display style data configured to indicate a display position, a display angle, and a display size of the three-dimensional geological features in the to-be-displayed area;
(c) displaying the to-be-displayed area on the electronic map, and displaying a to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features in the to-be-displayed area based on the same shared three-dimensional model and the display style data of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features.
Regarding (a), the terminal, under BRI, could be interpreted as a computer or computer components. The computer is recited at a high level of generality, performing a generic computer function. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. MPEP 2106.05(f). When a map is used in the context of a computer, the map becomes an electronic map.
Regarding (b), the additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically, mere data gathering. MPEP 2106.05(g)(3), “Mere Data Gathering” examples iii, iv and MPEP 2106.05(g)(3), “Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated:” examples ii, iii.
Regarding (c), the additional element of displaying step is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. The displaying step is similar to the MPEP 2106.05(g)(3), “Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” examples iii. The generating step amounts “necessary data gathering and outputting.” MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Step 2B: Additional elements are determined not to amount to an inventive concept after having considered them both individually and in combination; and the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
(a) terminal and “electronic” map
(b) obtaining the same shared three-dimensional model and display style data of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features, the display style data configured to indicate a display position, a display angle, and a display size of the three-dimensional geological features in the to-be-displayed area;
(c) displaying the to-be-displayed area on the electronic map, and displaying a to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features in the to-be-displayed area based on the same shared three-dimensional model and the display style data of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features.
Regarding (a), the device and units, under BRI, could be interpreted as a computer or computer components. The computer is recited at a high level of generality, performing a generic computer function. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding (b), the additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically, mere data gathering. MPEP 2106.05(g)(3), “Mere Data Gathering” examples iii, iv and MPEP 2106.05(g)(3), “Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated:” examples ii, iii. “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” MPEP 2106.05(d).II.
Regarding (c), the additional element of displaying step is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. The displaying step is similar to the MPEP 2106.05(g)(3), “Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” examples iii. The generating step amounts “necessary data gathering and outputting.” MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). “Presenting Offers” and “. . . requiring a consumer to view an advertisement” MPEP 2106.05(d).II.
Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2
Step 1: Claim 2 depends on Claim 1 and is directed to a method that is a process, thereby meeting step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 2 recites the following limitations that can be practically performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper:
wherein the displaying the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features based on the same shared three-dimensional model and the display style data of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features comprises: determining a part of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features as the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature, and obtaining display style data of the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature from the display style data of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features; and displaying the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature based on the same shared three-dimensional model and the display style data of the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature.
Step 2A, Prong Two; Step 2B: there are no additional amendments not addressed by Claim 1’s analyses.
Claim 6
Step 1: Claim 6 depends on Claim 1 and is directed to a method that is a process, thereby meeting step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 6 recites the following limitations that can be practically performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper:
wherein the determining the plurality of three-dimensional geological features comprised in the to-be-displayed area comprises: clustering, in response to the plurality of three-dimensional geological features comprised in the to-be-displayed area existing, the three-dimensional geological features comprised in the to-be-displayed area, and
determining the plurality of three-dimensional geological features corresponding to the same shared three-dimensional model.
Step 2A, Prong Two; Step 2B: there are no additional amendments not addressed by Claim 1’s analyses.
Claim 8
Step 1: Claim 8 depends on Claim 1 and is directed to a method that is a process, thereby meeting step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 8 does not recite additional limitations related to a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two; Step 2B: Claim 8 recites following additional elements:
wherein the electronic map is periodically refreshed, and a display size of the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature is positively correlated with interface display time of the electronic map.
The additional element of displaying step is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. The displaying step is similar to the MPEP 2106.05(g)(3), “Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” examples iii. The generating step amounts “necessary data gathering and outputting.” MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). “Presenting Offers” and “. . . requiring a consumer to view an advertisement” MPEP 2106.05(d).II.
Claim 9
Step 1: Claim 9 depends on Claim 8 and is directed to a method that is a process, thereby meeting step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 9 does not recite additional limitations related to a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two; Step 2B: Claim 9 recites following additional elements:
wherein the displaying the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features in the to-be-displayed area based on the same shared three-dimensional model and the display style data of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features comprises: updating display style data of the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature in response to refreshing the electronic map, a display size in the updated display style data being greater than a display size in the display style data before updating; and
displaying the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature in the to-be-displayed area based on the updated display style data of the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature and the same shared three-dimensional model.
The additional element of displaying step is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. The displaying step is similar to the MPEP 2106.05(g)(3), “Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” examples iii. The generating step amounts “necessary data gathering and outputting.” MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). “Presenting Offers” and “. . . requiring a consumer to view an advertisement” MPEP 2106.05(d).II.
Claim 10
Step 1: Claim 10 is directed to a method, which is a process, thereby meeting step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 10 recites a “mental process” abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper:
determining a scene type corresponding to the to-be-displayed area based on scene prompt information, the scene prompt information comprising at least one of current weather information and current time information;
Step 2A, Prong Two; Step 2B: The following additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(a) obtaining a decoration model matching the scene type, the decoration model being configured for decorating the same shared three-dimensional model; and
(b) displaying the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features in the to-be-displayed area based on the decoration model, the same shared three-dimensional model, and the display style data of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features.
Regarding (a), the additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically, mere data gathering. MPEP 2106.05(g)(3), “Mere Data Gathering” examples iii, iv and MPEP 2106.05(g)(3), “Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated:” examples ii, iii.
Regarding (b), the additional element of displaying step is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. The displaying step is similar to the MPEP 2106.05(g)(3), “Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” examples iii. The generating step amounts “necessary data gathering and outputting.” MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). “Presenting Offers” and “. . . requiring a consumer to view an advertisement” MPEP 2106.05(d).II.
Claim 11
Step 1: Claim 11 is directed to a method, which is a process, thereby meeting step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 11 recites a “mental process” abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind or by using a pen and paper:
determining a scene type corresponding to the to-be-displayed area based on scene prompt information, the scene prompt information comprising at least one of current weather information and current time information;
Step 2A, Prong Two; Step 2B: The following additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
obtaining the same shared three-dimensional model based on the scene type, a texture of the same shared three-dimensional model matching at least one of weather information and time information corresponding to the scene type.
The additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically, mere data gathering. MPEP 2106.05(g)(3), “Mere Data Gathering” examples iii, iv and MPEP 2106.05(g)(3), “Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated:” examples ii, iii. “Receiving or transmitting data over a network” MPEP 2106.05(d).II.
Claims 13-15 recite apparatus claims, and is substantially similar to Claims 1-2 and 6. The same rejection analyses for Claims 1-2 and 6 are also applied to Claims 13-15. Step 1: apparatus is a machine, thereby meeting step 1. The apparatus, under BRI, could be interpreted as a computer or computer components. The computer is recited at a high level of generality, performing a generic computer function. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 17-20 recites non-transitory CRM claim, and are substantially similar to Claims 1, 8, and 10-11. The same rejection analyses for Claim 1, 8, and 10-11 are also applied to Claim17- 20. Step 1: non-transitory CRM is recognized as belonging to one of the four statutory categories, thereby meeting step 1. The CRM, under BRI, could be interpreted as a computer or computer components. The computer is recited at a high level of generality, performing a generic computer function. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. MPEP 2106.05(f).
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (“Combining IFC and 3D tiles to create 3D visualization for building information modeling”) in view of Baker et al. (US 20070011271 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhao teaches A method for displaying a map (Zhao figs. 17-18; “Cesium presents prominent advantages in map services, which support all OGCcompliant map services.” Zhao 5.2.), performed by a terminal (“In recent years, Internet-based WebGIS systems have flourished, and there are many excellent WebGIS systems, such as Bing Map and Google Maps. These geographic information systems express geospatial data through maps and have become powerful and well-performing computer systems.”), the method comprising:
determining
Zhao Fig. 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
546
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhao discloses features that including building features, stating “Architectural components are divided into architectural columns, tie columns, non-bearing walls (interior partition walls and curtain walls), stair railings, ramps, doors, windows, architectural surface layer of slabs, ceiling, and other decorative components.” Zhao 3.2. The building features are mapped to claimed geological features, which is consistent with the specification, which states, “this embodiment of this application, the three-dimensional geological feature corresponding to the same shared three-dimensional model may be a building, a tree, a mountain, a river, or the like.” Spec. ¶ 51. A building and its details are features.
All these features are of a same shared three-dimensional model of 3D environments.
The specification further explains that its invention is to solve a problem of over-simplified representation of building models, and stating “In the related art, when a building is displayed on the electronic map, the building is generally elongated based on a display outline of the building. For example, the display outline is a cube, the building is elongated into a cuboid with a specific height. The cuboid cannot simulate a real three-dimensional geological feature effect. Consequently, a display effect of the electronic map is reduced.” Spec. ¶ 3.);
obtaining the same shared three-dimensional model and display style data of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features, the display style data configured to indicate a display position, a display angle, and a display size of the three-dimensional geological features in the to-be-displayed area (
Zhao figs. 17-18:
PNG
media_image2.png
430
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
464
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The building features, mapped to geological features, are displayed with determined position, orientation (display angle), and appropriate display size of the building and other features within the space model scene.); and
displaying the to-be-displayed area on the electronic map (Zhao fig. 18), and
displaying a to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature (mapped to the tall building, ranch building, or a specific detail of these buildings in Zhao fig. 18) of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features in the to-be-displayed area based on the same shared three-dimensional model (3D environments) and the display style data of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features (position, orientation, and display size of the buildings).
Zhao does not explicitly disclose; however, Baker teaches determining, in response to a display instruction for a to-be-displayed area in an electronic map, the plurality of three-dimensional geological features comprised in the to-be-displayed area (
“For each possible map service provider, the user may select the map layers of interest. By combining the desired layers for a specified location, the CUTE system creates a composite image of all the map layers selected by the user. The resulting composite image is used by the virtual reality geographic information system as a drape over a 3-D terrain.” Baker ¶ 15.
The display instruction is mapped to instructions on desired location and/or layers for a displayed map.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Baker’s map displaying in response to instructions, e.g., location or layer-selection with Zhao. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow a user the customize the appearance and information of a map and/or present the map application for a specified/provided location.
Regarding Claim 2, Zhao in view of Baker teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the displaying the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features based on the same shared three-dimensional model and the display style data of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features (repeating the limitations recited in Claim 1) comprises:
determining a part of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features as the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature (Zhao 4.4. Viewing frustum culling, which selects objects/features to be displayed), and
obtaining display style data (including position, orientation, or scale as shown in Zhao fig. 6) of the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature from the display style data of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features (
“The component within IFC model is a local coordinate system, while that of the data on display of 3D Tiles is a global coordinate system. In Fig. 6, the cube represents a building component with the local coordinate (xm,ym, zm). When the component performs coordinate transformation between a local and global coordinate system, the relative position of the building component also changes.” Zhao p. 6.
PNG
media_image4.png
260
796
media_image4.png
Greyscale
); and
displaying the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature based on the same shared three-dimensional model (the same shared environment as shown in Zhao fig. 18) and the display style data of the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature (position, orientation, and display size of the tall building, ranch building, or a specific detail of these buildings in Zhao fig. 18).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhao in view of Baker teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the determining the plurality of three-dimensional geological features comprised in the to-be-displayed area (repeating the limitations recited in Claim 1) comprises:
clustering, in response to the plurality of three-dimensional geological features comprised in the to-be-displayed area existing, the three-dimensional geological features comprised in the to-be-displayed area ( the tall building, ranch building, or a specific detail of these buildings in Zhao fig. 18 are clustered and displayed together), and
determining the plurality of three-dimensional geological features corresponding to the same shared three-dimensional model ( the position, orientation, and display size of the tall building, ranch building, or a specific detail of these buildings in Zhao fig. 18 are determined.).
Claims 13-15 are substantially similar to Claims 1-2 and 6. The rejection analyses for Claims 1-2 and 6 based on Zhao in view of Baker are applied to Claims 13-15. In addition, Claim 13 recites “An apparatus comprising: a memory storing a plurality of instructions; and a processor configured to execute the plurality of instructions, wherein upon execution of the plurality of instructions, the processor is configured to: . . .” (“With the development of computer and network technology, the integration of Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Geographic Information System (GIS) on the Web has drawn research interests.” Zhao Introduction.).
Claim 17 is substantially similar to Claim 1. The rejection analyses for Claim 1 based on Zhao in view of Baker are applied to Claims 17. In addition, Claim 17 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a plurality of instructions executable by a processor, wherein when executed by the processor, the plurality of instructions is configured to cause the processor to: . . .” (“With the development of computer and network technology, the integration of Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Geographic Information System (GIS) on the Web has drawn research interests.” Zhao Introduction.).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Baker as applied to Claim 1 or 13, in further view of McConchie (“Shadows on maps are getting a lot more exciting, and here’s why”).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhao in view of Baker teaches The method according to claim 1.
Zhao in view of Baker does not explicitly disclose, but McConchie teaches wherein the same shared three-dimensional model comprises shadow data (information used to generate shadow) and model data (information about the 3D model), the shadow data is configured to generate a shadow of the three-dimensional geological feature, and the model data is configured to generate a three-dimensional model of the three-dimensional geological feature (
PNG
media_image5.png
328
680
media_image5.png
Greyscale
); and the displaying the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features in the to-be-displayed area based on the same shared three-dimensional model (reference limitations recited in Claim 1) and the display style data of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features comprises:
performing depth detection on each to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature in the to-be-displayed area (“adding depth to a 3d building model” as recited in the caption of the cited figure), and rendering a shadow of the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature based on a depth detection result (“depth” added), shadow data (McConchie section “What’s new about these maps?,” specifying shadow data that include steep data, direction of slope, and/or light source), and display style data (position, orientation, and/or scale of the models as shown) of the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature; and
displaying, based on the model data and the display style data of the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature, the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature in the to-be-displayed area after rendering the shadow (as shown in the figures provided).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine McConchie’s shadow features with Zhao in view of Baker. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the maps more visually interesting and/or pleasing. “The first time you see one of these maps, the effect is stunning. These maps look more “real” than maps we’re used to seeing, with the hills and mountains seemingly leaping off the screen, with tall peaks casting shadows that stretch across the landscape and sometimes even off the map onto the margins of the page itself. Dark, shadowed valleys evoke a sense of mystery, inviting you to peer into the furrows of the terrain.” McConchie section “The ubiquitous ‘Blender map’.”
Claim 16 is substantially similar to Claim 7. The rejection analyses for Claims 7 based on Zhao in view of Baker and McConchie are applied to Claim 16.
Claims 8-9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Baker as applied to Claim 1 or 17, in further view of Musallam (US 20190171664 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhao in view of Baker teaches The method according to claim 1.
Zhao in view of Baker does not explicitly disclose, however, Musallam teaches wherein the electronic map is periodically refreshed (zooming animation), and a display size of the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature is positively correlated with interface display time of the electronic map (“In a next stage, the journey simulation zooms out from a view associated with the recipient's location on the map. The zoom out is performed in accordance with a defined animation sequence. FIGS. 5b to 5e show representative stills of a zoom-out animation sequence from a street view of the recipient's location in Venice, to a view of northern Italy from space, as presented to the user.” Musallam ¶ 82; FIGS. 5b to 5e. The Examiner takes an Official Notice that it would have been well-known in the art that zooming operation may include zooming-in operations. The benefits of combining this well-known knowledge would have been to gradual to help a user to focus/transition on a detailed feature.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Musallam’s zooming animation with Zhao in view of Baker. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the maps more visually interesting and/or pleasing.
Regarding Claim 9, Zhao in view of Baker and Musallam teaches The method according to claim 8, wherein the displaying the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features in the to-be-displayed area based on the same shared three-dimensional model (3D environments) and the display style data (position, orientation, and/or scale of the models as shown) of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features (references the limitations recited in Claim 1) comprises:
updating display style data of the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature in response to refreshing the electronic map (refreshed during a zooming animation), a display size in the updated display style data being greater than a display size in the display style data before updating (FIGS. 5b to 5e.); and displaying the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature in the to-be-displayed area based on the updated display style data of the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature and the same shared three-dimensional model (FIGS. 5b to 5e with updated position and/or orientation)(“In a next stage, the journey simulation zooms out from a view associated with the recipient's location on the map. The zoom out is performed in accordance with a defined animation sequence. FIGS. 5b to 5e show representative stills of a zoom-out animation sequence from a street view of the recipient's location in Venice, to a view of northern Italy from space, as presented to the user.” Musallam ¶ 82; FIGS. 5b to 5e. The Examiner takes an Official Notice that it would have been well-known in the art that zooming operation may include zooming-in operations. The benefits of combining this well-known knowledge would have been to gradual to help a user to focus/transition on a detailed feature.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Musallam’s zooming animation with Zhao in view of Baker. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the maps more visually interesting and/or pleasing.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to Claim 8. The rejection analyses for Claim 8 based on Zhao in view of Baker and Musallam are applied to Claim 18.
Claims 10-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Baker as applied to Claim 1 or 17, in further view of Gupta et al. (US 20150285952 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhao in view of Baker teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the displaying the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features in the to-be-displayed area based on the same shared three-dimensional model (3D environments) and the display style data (position, orientation, and/or scale of the models as shown) of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features (references the limitations recited in Claim 1) comprises: . . ..
Zhao in view of Baker does not explicitly disclose; however, Gupta teaches determining a scene type corresponding to the to-be-displayed area based on scene prompt information, the scene prompt information comprising at least one of current weather information and current time information (
[BRI on the record] With respect to “prompt information,” the Examiner is reading the limitation to mean: an instruction to direct a system to do something. This interpretation is based on the plain meaning of the term. According to Webster online, “prompt” includes the meaning “an instruction or a set of criteria provided to an artificial intelligence system that establishes the content it will generate” in the context of computing.
[Mapping Analysis]
PNG
media_image6.png
344
344
media_image6.png
Greyscale
“Control interface 411 includes play button 416, forward/rewind button 418 and preferences button 420. As can be seen, play button 416 plays map frames with current and predicted weather data. Forward/rewind button 418 permits user 102 to forward or replay map frames. Preferences 420, among other functionalities, allow users to choose weather data layers that are superimposed on map 400.” Gupta ¶ 62.);
obtaining a decoration model matching the scene type (the type of weather information specified for the scene), the decoration model being configured for decorating the same shared three-dimensional model (
“Predictive server system 106 also includes layering engine 214 that layers past, current and predicted weather data on a map generated by map module 210. The weather data may be hailstorms, rainfall, temperature, snowfall, drought, etc. The map generated may be background maps such as terrain, roads, etc. that are selectable by the user. Layering engine 214 layers the weather data on the background map selected by the user. The layering engine 214 receives user input indicating layers desired for display and renders the layers.” Gupta ¶ 44.
the decoration model is mapped to the disclosed model based on layering information of “past, current and predicted weather data on a map.”); and
displaying the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features in the to-be-displayed area based on the decoration model (layer information related to weather data), the same shared three-dimensional model (the 3D environment), and the display style data of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features (position, orientation, and/or scale).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Gupta’s with Zhao in view of Baker. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide users with useful information to make informed decisions about weather.
Regarding Claim 11, Zhao in view of Baker and Gupta teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining the same shared three-dimensional model comprises:
determining a scene type corresponding to the to-be-displayed area based on scene prompt information, the scene prompt information comprising at least one of current weather information and current time information (
PNG
media_image6.png
344
344
media_image6.png
Greyscale
“Control interface 411 includes play button 416, forward/rewind button 418 and preferences button 420. As can be seen, play button 416 plays map frames with current and predicted weather data. Forward/rewind button 418 permits user 102 to forward or replay map frames. Preferences 420, among other functionalities, allow users to choose weather data layers that are superimposed on map 400.” Gupta ¶ 62.
The current time information is determined by Forward/rewind button 418 permits user 102 to forward or replay map frames.
The current weather information is determined by “preferences 420.” Also see Gupta ¶ 77.); and
obtaining the same shared three-dimensional model based on the scene type, a texture of the same shared three-dimensional model matching at least one of weather information and time information corresponding to the scene type (
“Predictive server system 106 also includes layering engine 214 that layers past, current and predicted weather data on a map generated by map module 210. The weather data may be hailstorms, rainfall, temperature, snowfall, drought, etc. The map generated may be background maps such as terrain, roads, etc. that are selectable by the user. Layering engine 214 layers the weather data on the background map selected by the user. The layering engine 214 receives user input indicating layers desired for display and renders the layers.” Gupta ¶ 44.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Gupta’s with Zhao in view of Baker. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide users with useful information to make informed decisions.
Claims 19-20 are substantially similar to Claims 10-11. The rejection analyses for Claims 10-11 based on Zhao in view of Baker and Gupta are applied to Claims 19-20.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Baker as applied to Claim 1, in further view of 3D-Transform (“3D Transformation”).
Regarding Claim 12, Zhao in view of Baker teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining the same shared three-dimensional model (3D environment) and display style data (position, orientation, and/or scale) of the plurality of three-dimensional geological features (references the limitations recited in Claim 1) comprises:
obtaining, based on a model identifier (tile identifier) of the same shared three-dimensional model, target model information (e.g., LOD information ) corresponding to the model identifier from a style manager (
“First, the visual space of a viewpoint is a cone. LOD hierarchy provides a structure for data indexing. In data rendering, the LOD is evaluated to load data. In accordance with the position of the viewpoint and the direction of the optic cone, the tile data close to the viewpoint requires a higher resolution; otherwise, the tile with a lower resolution is loaded. At runtime, the geometric error is used to compute for the Screen Space Error (SSE), the error measured in pixels. SSE determines the Hierarchical Level of Detail (HLOD) refinement, if a tile is sufficiently detailed for the current view or if its children should be considered. Screen space error (SSE) [16] is an index to determine specific loading level.”
“When the first rendering instruction is given for the visualization of the 3D scene, the system determines the tile data and levels to be loaded on the basis of the optic cone parameters and index structure.”
The style manager includes managing information related to LOD.), and
parsing the target model information (LOD), to obtain the same shared three-dimensional model, the style manager having a plurality of model identifiers (tile identifiers) and model information (data of the tiles) respectively corresponding to the plurality of model identifiers stored therein, and the model identifier (tile identifiers) being obtained based on a map tile corresponding to the to-be-displayed area (“When the first rendering instruction is given for the visualization of the 3D scene, the system determines the tile data and levels to be loaded on the basis of the optic cone parameters and index structure.”); and
performing matrix transformation on display position information, and display angle information, and a display angle matrix
“The component within IFC model is a local coordinate system, while that of the data on display of 3D Tiles is a global coordinate system. In Fig. 6, the cube represents a building component with the local coordinate (xm,ym, zm). When the component performs coordinate transformation between a local and global coordinate system, the relative position of the building component also changes.” Zhao p. 6.
PNG
media_image4.png
260
796
media_image4.png
Greyscale
), and
using a product of the display position matrix (T matrix), and the display angle matrix (R matrix)and the display angle information
“The component within IFC model is a local coordinate system, while that of the data on display of 3D Tiles is a global coordinate system. In Fig. 6, the cube represents a building component with the local coordinate (xm,ym, zm). When the component performs coordinate transformation between a local and global coordinate system, the relative position of the building component also changes.” Zhao p. 6.).
Zhao in view of Baker does not explicitly disclose; however, 3D-Transform teaches performing matrix transformation on display size information based on a display size matrix; using a product that include the display size matrix, and the display size information are obtained (
PNG
media_image7.png
412
612
media_image7.png
Greyscale
).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine 3D-Transform’s scaling related operation with Zhao in view of Baker. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to display models with appropriate/desired size.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 3 is distinguished from Zhao in view of Baker because of the additional limitations recited in the Claim:
determining a field of view distal line of the to-be-displayed area based on a pitch angle of a virtual camera in the to-be-displayed area;
determining a field of view division line of the to-be-displayed area based on a field of view center line of the virtual camera and a first ratio, the first ratio being a ratio of a length of the field of view division line to a length of the field of view center line; and
displaying the to-be-displayed three-dimensional geological feature in the to-be-displayed area based on a segmented area . . ., the segmented area being an area between the field of view distal line and the field of view division line.
[BRI on the record]
Claim’s limitations shall be interpreted in light of figs. 6-7 of the specification and their associated paragraphs:
PNG
media_image8.png
318
660
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
272
286
media_image9.png
Greyscale
[0083] At a same size level of the electronic map, the field of view center line is unchanged, and shapes of the field of view corresponding to different pitch angles are different, so that the field of view distal lines are different. Referring to FIG. 6, FIG. 6 is a schematic diagram of a field of view distal line according to an embodiment of this application. It can be seen from the figure that different pitch angles correspond to different field of view distal lines, and positions and lengths of the field of view distal lines corresponding to the different pitch angles are different. A length of the field of view center line is not less than a length of the field of view near-end line and not greater than the length of the field of view distal line.
[0084] In this embodiment of this application, a first ratio is a ratio of a length of a field of view division line to the length of the field of view center line. The first ratio may be set and changed as needed. Therefore, a manner in which the terminal determines the field of view division line of the to-be-displayed area based on the field of view center line of the virtual camera and the first ratio may be that the terminal uses a product of the length of the field of view center line and the first ratio as the length of the field of view division line, and then determines the field of view division line in the to-be-displayed area based on the length of the field of view division line. The length of the field of view division line is not less than the length of the field of view center line. That is, the first ratio is not less than 1. Referring to FIG. 7, FIG. 7 is a schematic diagram of a field of view division line according to an embodiment of this application. In FIG. 7, the segment “4-5” corresponds to the field of view division line, the segment “0-3” corresponds to the field of view distal line, the segment “1-2” corresponds to the field of view near-end line, and an area between the field of view distal line and the field of view division line is a segmented area.
Spec. ¶¶ 83-84.
Zhao teaches rendering based on a virtual camera. Zhao’s figure 9 teaches the claimed field of view distal line. However, Zhao does not explicitly teach
determining a field of view division line of the to-be-displayed area based on a field of view center line of the virtual camera and a first ratio, the first ratio being a ratio of a length of the field of view division line to a length of the field of view center line;
the segmented area being an area between the field of view distal line and the field of view division line
PNG
media_image10.png
236
398
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
356
358
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Claims 4-5 depend on Claim 3 and include Claim 3’s allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhan et al. (“Zhan, Wenxiao, Yuxuan Chen, and Jing Chen. "3D tiles-based high-efficiency visualization method for complex BIM models on the web." ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 10.7 (2021): 476.”), which teaches 3D tile-based rendering that is similar to the claimed invention. However, the primary reference Zhan is a better reference to teach the claimed invention, and Zhan references Zhao.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGXI LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-7509. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kee Tung can be reached at 571-272-7794. 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.
/ZHENGXI LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights