DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is considered by examiner.
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 1-12, 14-16, 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12, 22, 23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,180, hereinafter referred to as the ‘180 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application are more broad in scope than those of the '180 patent as indicated below:
Current Application
US 12,148,180
Claim comparison
Claim 1. A method for image processing to identify locations of interest, comprising:
Claim 1. A method for image processing to identify locations of interest, comprising:
Identical limitation
receiving, at a computer, information associated with a street address of a physical structure;
receiving, at a computer, geographic coordinate information associated with a street address of a physical structure;
Substantively equivalent
retrieving, from a database, a geospatial image of a geographic area including the physical structure based on the received information;
retrieving, from a database, a geospatial image of a geographic area including the physical structure based on the geographic coordinate information;
Current application is more broad
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein generating the virtual geofence around the physical structure includes: processing the geospatial image to extract a first boundary outline of the physical structure; calculating a second boundary outline offset outside of the first boundary outline based on an offset value;
processing, by an image processor, the geospatial image to extract a first boundary outline of the physical structure; calculating a second boundary outline offset outside of the first boundary outline based on an offset value;
Identical limitation
(Claim 1) generating a virtual geofence around the physical structure;
(Claim 2) and generating the virtual geofence around the physical structure corresponding to the second boundary outline.
generating a virtual geofence around the physical structure corresponding to the second boundary outline;
Current application is more broad (Claim 1)
Identical limitation (Claim 2)
storing, in a memory, geofence information for the physical structure based on the generated virtual geofence;
storing, in a memory, geofence information for the physical structure based on the virtual geofence corresponding to the second boundary outline;
Current application is more broad
receiving and analyzing global positioning system (GPS) information from a plurality of computer devices within the virtual geofence, with each of the plurality of computer devices associated with a corresponding vehicle;
receiving and analyzing global positioning system (GPS) information from a plurality of devices within the virtual geofence, with each of the plurality of devices associated with a corresponding vehicle
Identical limitation
Claim 14. The method of claim 1, wherein each vehicle is used for at least one of delivery or pick-ups.
and the corresponding vehicle being used for delivery or pick-ups;
Substantively equivalent
generating one or more locations of interest within the virtual geofence by tracking density of GPS clusters based on the GPS information;
and generating one or more locations of interest within the virtual geofence by tracking density of GPS clusters based on the GPS information.
Identical limitation
and causing the computer device, associated with the corresponding vehicle, to display the one or more locations of interest on a display screen of the computer device.
Claim 7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: configuring a vehicle to display the location of interest on a display screen located within the vehicle.
Current application is more broad
Claim 3. The method of claim 2, wherein calculating the second boundary outline offset outside of the first boundary outline includes: determining a first set of latitude and longitude coordinates for a first plurality of geographic points of the first boundary outline; identifying a second set of latitude and longitude coordinates for a second plurality of geographic points by stepping out and away from each of the first set of latitude and longitude coordinates by a geographic distance defined by the offset value; and determining the second boundary outline based on the second set of latitude and longitude coordinates.
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein calculating the second boundary outline offset outside of the first boundary outline includes: determining a first set of latitude and longitude coordinates for a first plurality of geographic points of the first boundary outline; identifying a second set of latitude and longitude coordinates for a second plurality of geographic points by stepping out and away from each of the first set of latitude and longitude coordinates by a geographic distance defined by the offset value; and determining the second boundary outline based on the second set of latitude and longitude coordinates.
Identical limitation
Claim 4. The method of claim 2, wherein calculating the second boundary outline offset outside of the first boundary outline includes: determining a first set of latitude and longitude coordinates for a first plurality of geographic points of the first boundary outline; converting the first set of latitude and longitude coordinates into a first set of pixel space coordinates for a first plurality of pixels of the first boundary outline; identifying a second set of pixel space coordinates for a second plurality of pixels by stepping out and away from each of the first set of pixel space coordinates by a pixel space distance defined by the offset value; converting the second set of pixel space coordinates into a second set of latitude and longitude coordinates for a second plurality of geographic points; and determining the second boundary outline based on the second set of latitude and longitude coordinates.
Claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein calculating the second boundary outline offset outside of the first boundary outline includes: determining a first set of latitude and longitude coordinates for a first plurality of geographic points of the first boundary outline; converting the first set of latitude and longitude coordinates into a first set of pixel space coordinates for a first plurality of pixels of the first boundary outline; identifying a second set of pixel space coordinates for a second plurality of pixels by stepping out and away from each of the first set of pixel space coordinates by a pixel space distance defined by the offset value; converting the second set of pixel space coordinates into a second set of latitude and longitude coordinates for a second plurality of geographic points; and determining the second boundary outline based on the second set of latitude and longitude coordinates.
Identical limitation
Claim 5. The method of claim 3, wherein calculating the second boundary outline offset outside of the first boundary outline includes applying a polygon offset function to the first boundary outline.
Claim 4. The method of claim 1, wherein calculating the second boundary outline offset outside of the first boundary outline includes applying a polygon offset function to the first boundary outline.
Identical limitation
Claim 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the offset value is a value that varies depending on a physical structure characteristic of the physical structure.
Claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the offset value is a value that varies depending on a physical structure characteristic of the physical structure.
Identical limitation
Claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein processing the geospatial image to extract the first boundary outline of the physical structure comprises: applying a computer vision function to the geospatial image to remove background noise from the geospatial image; detecting boundary edges of the physical structure by analyzing the geospatial image absent the background noise; and determining the first boundary outline based on the boundary edges.
Claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein processing the geospatial image to extract the first boundary outline of the physical structure comprises: applying a computer vision function to the geospatial image to remove background noise from the geospatial image; detecting boundary edges of the physical structure by analyzing the geospatial image absent the background noise; and determining the first boundary outline based on the boundary edges.
Identical limitation
Claim 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more locations of interest includes at least one of docking stations or parking spaces.
Claim 7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying a location of interest at the physical structure that is within the virtual geofence, wherein the location of interest includes docking stations or parking spaces tailored to accommodate trucks; and
Current application is more broad
Claim 9. The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a notice when GPS data associated with the computer device indicates that the computer device has either entered or exited the virtual geofence around the physical structure, wherein the notice includes a message indicating that the computer device has arrived or departed the physical structure; and transmitting the notice to a remote computer identifying when the device has entered or exited the physical structure.
Claim 8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a notice when GPS data associated with a device indicates that the device has either entered or exited the virtual geofence around the physical structure, wherein the notice includes a message indicating that the device has arrived or departed the physical structure; and transmitting the notice to a remote computer identifying when the device has entered or exited the physical structure.
Substantively equivalent
Claim 10. The method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting that the computer device, in route to the physical structure, is within a predetermined distance of the virtual geofence around the physical structure based on GPS data associated with the computer device; generating a notice indicating that the computer device will be arriving at the physical structure based on detecting that the computer device is within the predetermined distance of the virtual geofence; and transmitting the notice to a remote dispatcher prior to arrival at the physical structure.
Claim 9. The method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting that a device, in route to the physical structure, is within a predetermined distance of the virtual geofence around the physical structure based on GPS data associated with the device; generating a notice indicating that the device will be arriving at the physical structure based on detecting that the device is within the predetermined distance of the virtual geofence; and transmitting the notice to a remote dispatcher prior to arrival at the physical structure.
Substantively identical
Claim 11. The method of claim 1, wherein the received information comprises geographic coordinates associated with the street address include longitude and latitude coordinates of the physical structure.
Claim 10. The method of claim 1, wherein the geographic coordinates associated with the street address include longitude and latitude coordinates of the physical structure.
Substantively identical
Claim 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the physical structure is a warehouse, a shipping physical structure, or a physical location.
Claim 11. The method of claim 1, wherein the physical structure is a warehouse, a shipping physical structure, or a physical location that includes access for trucks.
Current application is more broad
Claims 15, 16, 18, 19 of the current application recite an apparatus (claims 15-16, 18) and non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 19) with teaching equivalent limitations in patent US 12,148,180 with claims 12, 22, 23.
Claim 15 plus 18 of the current application is the apparatus of the invention claimed in parallel to claim 1, with limitations claimed broader than limitations of the equivalent ‘180 claim 12.
Claim 16 of the current application recites equivalent limitations of the ‘180 patent claim 22.
Claim 19 of the current application is the non-transitory computer readable medium of the invention claimed in parallel to claim 1, with limitations claimed broader than limitations of the equivalent ‘180 claim 23.
Therefore, Claims 1-12, 14-16, 18-19 of the current application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12, 22, 23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,148,180.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7, dependent on claim 1, recites the limitation “wherein processing the geospatial image to extract the first boundary outline of the physical structure comprises:” and the limitation of “processing the geospatial image to extract a first boundary outline of the physical structure” is recited in claim 2, also dependent on claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 lacks antecedent basis for “the first boundary outline of the physical structure.” Thus, Applicant has failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
For purposes of examination, claim 7 will be considered dependent on claim 2.
No claims are dependent on claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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, 8, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northrup et al (US 2019/0340876) in view of Finlow-Bates (US 2014/0258201, disclosed in IDS 03/25/2025).
Regarding Claim 1, Northrup et al teach a method for image processing to identify locations of interest (method of using a navigation system for routing and control of vehicle in a virtual geographic zone; Fig 38-39, 41 and ¶ [0605],[0621], [0645]), comprising:
receiving, at a computer, information associated with a street address of a physical structure (a navigation system (computer) receives an input from a user regarding a destination (user indicates to vehicle 3904 to route to a street address 3905 (such as a home 3802) and receives information associated with the location; Fig 38-39 and ¶ [0611]-[0615], [0625]);
retrieving, from a database, a geospatial image of a geographic area including the physical structure based on the received information (the user interface for vehicle navigation displays a map 3800, with map and zone information stored in a cloud server 3806 (VGZ server system 201 Fig 2A includes multiple databases ¶ [0188], [0194]-[0195]), including locations of vehicle/device and destination (house 3802); [0611]-[0613]);
generating a virtual geofence around the physical structure (a geographical virtual zones (geofences) 4104 with boundary 4116, 4132 is generated around the physical building (such as a stadium with geofence and boundary in 3D); Fig 41 and ¶ [0647]-[0650]);
storing, in a memory, geofence information for the physical structure based on the generated virtual geofence (the VGZ system server 201 stores all zone information, including the boundaries of the zone (geofence); ¶ [0613], [0652]);
receiving and analyzing global positioning system (GPS) information from a plurality of computer devices within the virtual geofence, with each of the plurality of computer devices associated with a corresponding vehicle (GPS information associated with the vehicle is detected, and can include to navigate multiple vehicles into the zone 4104; ¶ [0612], [0622], [0661]); and
causing the computer device, associated with the corresponding vehicle, to display the one or more locations of interest on a display screen of the computer device (the map 3700 is displayed on a user interface of a user device 205, as part of a vehicle navigation system and includes display of the location of navigation and nearby map information associated with a given zone; ¶ [0611]-[0614]).
Northrup et al does not teach generating one or more locations of interest within the virtual geofence by tracking density of GPS clusters based on the GPS information.
Finlow-Bates is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in the current application and teaches generating one or more locations of interest within the virtual geofence by tracking density of GPS clusters based on the GPS information (a scattergraph 300 of physical locations of interest 308, 310, 312 is generated based on tracking frequency (density) of the positional data (GPS clusters), used to create geofence locations 402, 404, 406 with probability density functions; Fig 3, 4 and ¶ [0030], [0033]-[0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates including generating one or more locations of interest within the virtual geofence by tracking density of GPS clusters based on the GPS information. By using a density function to track locations and frequency of a device, thereby providing a detailed means to perform tracking to examine both contextual and temporal data, as recognized by Finlow-Bates (¶ [0022]-[0023]).
Regarding Claim 8, Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates teach the method of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the one or more locations of interest includes at least one of docking stations or parking spaces (Northrup et al, location of interest may be based on parking spaces in a parking lot; Fig 40A and ¶ [0629]-[0630]).
Regarding Claim 11, Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates teach the method of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the received information comprises geographic coordinates associated with the street address include longitude and latitude coordinates of the physical structure (Northrup et al, a geographic area and position of user device 205 is based on a geographic point, based on a latitude and longitude position using the GPS; ¶ [0218]-[0219], [0612]).
Regarding Claim 12, Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates teach wherein the physical structure is a warehouse, a shipping physical structure, or a physical location (Northrup et al, the address is associated with a physical address, such as a home 3702; ¶ [0259], [0608]).
Regarding Claim 13, Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates teach the method of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the computer device is at least one of an electronic logging device (ELD) or a mobile device with the mobile device being a smart phone or an in-cab telematics device (Northrup et al, the mobile device may be a user smartphone device 205; ¶ [0611]).
Regarding Claim 14, Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates teach the method of claim 1 (as described above), wherein each vehicle is used for at least one of delivery or pick-ups (Northrup et al, vehicles may be used for delivery along a delivery route within the zone; ¶ [0221], [0259]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northrup et al (US 2019/0340876) in view of Finlow-Bates (US 2014/0258201, disclosed in IDS 03/25/2025) and Myllymaki et al (US 2015/0230054, disclosed in IDS 03/25/2025).
Regarding Claim 2, Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates teach the method of claim 1 (as described above), including generating the virtual geofence around the physical structure (Northrup et al, a geographical virtual zones (geofences) 4104 with boundary 4116, 4132 is generated around the physical building (such as a stadium with geofence and boundary in 3D); Fig 41 and ¶ [0647]-[0650]).
Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates does not teach processing the geospatial image to extract a first boundary outline of the physical structure; calculating a second boundary outline offset outside of the first boundary outline based on an offset value; and generating the virtual geofence around the physical structure corresponding to the second boundary outline.
Myllymaki et al is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in the current application and teaches processing the geospatial image to extract a first boundary outline of the physical structure (a diagram (geospatial image) 400 of a place (physical structure) 401 has an interior composite geofence (first boundary outline) 403; Fig 4 and ¶ [0037]);
calculating a second boundary outline offset outside of the first boundary outline based on an offset value (an exterior composite geofence 404 around the place (structure) and interior (first boundary outline) geofence 403, with the outer boundary determined based on a dynamic geofencing module 140 calculation (offset value); Fig 4 and ¶ [0038]-[0039]); and
generating the virtual geofence around the physical structure corresponding to the second boundary outline (the exterior composite geofence 404 is generated around the physical place 401 and may consider nearby features 402 to incorporate when determining the composite exterior geofence 404; Fig 4 and ¶ [0038]-[0039], [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates with Myllymaki et al including processing the geospatial image to extract a first boundary outline of the physical structure; calculating a second boundary outline offset outside of the first boundary outline based on an offset value; and generating the virtual geofence around the physical structure corresponding to the second boundary outline. By using an interior and exterior geofence, multiple features associated with the physical building are considered and may allow for better tracking of a user in the vicinity of the physical object, thereby improving tracking, as recognized by Myllymaki et al (¶ [0037]).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northrup et al (US 2019/0340876) in view of Finlow-Bates (US 2014/0258201, disclosed in IDS 03/25/2025), Myllymaki et al (US 2015/0230054, disclosed in IDS 03/25/2025) and Wang et al (US PG PUB 2017/0236024, disclosed in IDS 03/25/2025).
Regarding Claim 3, Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates and Myllymaki et al teach the method of claim 2 (as described above), including calculating the second boundary outline offset outside of the first boundary outline (Myllymaki et al, an exterior composite geofence 404 around the place (structure) and interior (first boundary outline) geofence 403, with the outer boundary determined based on a dynamic geofencing module 140 calculation (offset value) that accounts for the first boundary (of the structure); Fig 4 and ¶ [0038]-[0039]).
Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates and Myllymaki et al does not teach determining a first set of latitude and longitude coordinates for a first plurality of geographic points of the first boundary outline; identifying a second set of latitude and longitude coordinates for a second plurality of geographic points by stepping out and away from each of the first set of latitude and longitude coordinates by a geographic distance defined by the offset value; and determining the second boundary outline based on the second set of latitude and longitude coordinates.
Wang et al is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in the current application and teaches determining a first set of latitude and longitude coordinates for a first plurality of geographic points of the first boundary outline (buildings 106 are identified with latitude/longitude coordinates and a boundary 138 may be determined); Figs 1, 7, 9 and ¶ [0038], [0097]-[0098]);
identifying a second set of latitude and longitude coordinates for a second plurality of geographic points by stepping out and away from each of the first set of latitude and longitude coordinates by a geographic distance defined by the offset value (the pixel data points identifying the man-made structures 122 is composed of a local area pixel matrix and the data points are then grouped into a region (Region A, B, C, D, for example); Figs 1, 7, 9 and ¶ [0038], [0097]-[0098]); and
determining the second boundary outline based on the second set of latitude and longitude coordinates (the latitude/longitude coordinates for structures 122 are then used to further organize data points into regions, thereby defining a second boundary (Region A, B, C, D, for example; Figs 1, 7, 9 and ¶ [0038], [0042], [0097]-[0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates and Myllymaki et al with Wang et al including determining a first set of latitude and longitude coordinates for a first plurality of geographic points of the first boundary outline; identifying a second set of latitude and longitude coordinates for a second plurality of geographic points by stepping out and away from each of the first set of latitude and longitude coordinates by a geographic distance defined by the offset value; and determining the second boundary outline based on the second set of latitude and longitude coordinates. By converting geographical coordinate positions to pixels allows for analyzing data precisely and allowing for grouping of points detected by the pixel point, thereby increasing the accuracy and efficiency of the point cloud grouping and classification of objects detected, as recognized by Wang et al (¶ [0037]-[0038]).
Regarding Claim 4, Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates and Myllymaki et al teach the method of claim 2 (as described above), including calculating the second boundary outline offset outside of the first boundary outline (Myllymaki et al, an exterior composite geofence 404 around the place (structure) and interior (first boundary outline) geofence 403, with the outer boundary determined based on a dynamic geofencing module 140 calculation (offset value) that accounts for the first boundary (of the structure); Fig 4 and ¶ [0038]-[0039]).
Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates and Myllymaki et al does not teach determining a first set of latitude and longitude coordinates for a first plurality of geographic points of the first boundary outline; converting the first set of latitude and longitude coordinates into a first set of pixel space coordinates for a first plurality of pixels of the first boundary outline; identifying a second set of pixel space coordinates for a second plurality of pixels by stepping out and away from each of the first set of pixel space coordinates by a pixel space distance defined by the offset value; converting the second set of pixel space coordinates into a second set of latitude and longitude coordinates for a second plurality of geographic points; and determining the second boundary outline based on the second set of latitude and longitude coordinates.
Wang et al is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in this application and teaches determining a first set of latitude and longitude coordinates for a first plurality of geographic points of the first boundary outline (buildings 106 are identified with latitude/longitude coordinates and a boundary 138 may be determined); Figs 1, 7, 9 and ¶ [0038], [0097]-[0098]);
converting the first set of latitude and longitude coordinates into a first set of pixel space coordinates for a first plurality of pixels of the first boundary outline (pixel points are used to identify the building 106 as man-made structures 122 and thereafter used to determine the structure boundary 138); Figs 1, 7, 9 and ¶ [0038], [0097]-[0098]);
identifying a second set of pixel space coordinates for a second plurality of pixels by stepping out and away from each of the first set of pixel space coordinates by a pixel space distance defined by the offset value (the pixel data points identifying the man-made structures 122 is composed of a local area pixel matrix and the data points are then grouped into a region (Region A, B, C, D, for example); Figs 1, 7, 9 and ¶ [0038], [0097]-[0098]);
converting the second set of pixel space coordinates into a second set of latitude and longitude coordinates for a second plurality of geographic points (boundaries (understood to include the building region) are identified with latitude/longitude coordinates and pixel coordinates); Figs 1, 7, 9 and ¶ [0038], [0042], [0097]-[0098]); and
determining the second boundary outline based on the second set of latitude and longitude coordinates (the latitude/longitude coordinates for structures 122 are then used to further organize data points into regions, thereby defining a second boundary (Region A, B, C, D, for example; Figs 1, 7, 9 and ¶ [0038], [0042], [0097]-[0098]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates and Myllymaki et al with Wang et al including determining a first set of latitude and longitude coordinates for a first plurality of geographic points of the first boundary outline; converting the first set of latitude and longitude coordinates into a first set of pixel space coordinates for a first plurality of pixels of the first boundary outline; 21035380.00759 identifying a second set of pixel space coordinates for a second plurality of pixels by stepping out and away from each of the first set of pixel space coordinates by a pixel space distance defined by the offset value; converting the second set of pixel space coordinates into a second set of latitude and longitude coordinates for a second plurality of geographic points; and determining the second boundary outline based on the second set of latitude and longitude coordinates. By converting geographical coordinate positions to pixels allows for analyzing data precisely and allowing for grouping of points detected by the pixel point, thereby increasing the accuracy and efficiency of the point cloud grouping and classification of objects detected, as recognized by Wang et al (¶ [0037]-[0038]).
Regarding Claim 5, Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates, Myllymaki et al and Wang et al teach the method of claim 3 (as described above), wherein calculating the second boundary outline offset outside of the first boundary outline includes applying a polygon offset function to the first boundary outline (Myllymaki et al, a polygon shape may be used by the geofencing module 140 to determine the first interior composite geofence 403 and exterior composite geofence 404, with the offset being dynamic to incorporate given objects and created based on basic shapes so the interior and exterior geofences do not overlap; ¶ [0031], [0039], [0042], [0044]).
Regarding Claim 6, Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates, Myllymaki et al and Wang et al teach the method of claim 5 (as described above), wherein the offset value is a value that varies depending on a physical structure characteristic of the physical structure (Myllymaki et al, the geofencing module 140 is dynamic to determine the exterior composite geofence 404 based on closely related features of the physical building and interior composite geofence 403 (402 relationship to 401, for example) and a polygon shape may be used by the geofencing module 140 to determine the geofence; ¶ [0037]-[0039], [0042], [0044]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northrup et al (US 2019/0340876) in view of Finlow-Bates (US 2014/0258201, disclosed in IDS 03/25/2025), Myllymaki et al (US 2015/0230054, disclosed in IDS 03/25/2025) and Bones et al (US PG PUB 2019/0347745, disclosed in IDS 03/25/2025).
Regarding Claim 7, Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates teach the method of claim 1 (as described above, note the claim should be dependent on claim 2, in view of Myllymaki et al; see 112(b) rejection for lack of antecedent basis above), including processing the geospatial image to extract the first boundary outline of the physical structure (Myllymaki et al, a diagram (geospatial image) 400 of a place (physical structure) 401 has an interior composite geofence (first boundary outline) 403; Fig 4 and ¶ [0037]).
Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates and Myllymaki et al does not teach applying a computer vision function to the geospatial image to remove background noise from the geospatial image; detecting boundary edges of the physical structure by analyzing the geospatial image absent the background noise; and determining the first boundary outline based on the boundary edges.
Bones et al is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in this application and teaches applying a computer vision function to the geospatial image to remove background noise from the geospatial image (preprocessing of the agromatic field data 106 (vision function of geospatial image) includes filtering noise; Figs 1 and ¶ [0103], [0106]);
detecting boundary edges of the physical structure by analyzing the geospatial image absent the background noise (during data analysis on the server 170, a boundary 1502 of a region can be drawn (analyzed after noise is removed); Fig 1, 15 and ¶ [0134], [0152]); and
determining the first boundary outline based on the boundary edges (boundary 1502 line can be drawn for the specific region of interest and specific coordinates (boundary edges are determined); Fig 1, 15 and ¶ [0152]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates and Myllymaki et al with Bones et al including applying a computer vision function to the geospatial image to remove background noise from the geospatial image; detecting boundary edges of the physical structure by analyzing the geospatial image absent the background noise; and determining the first boundary outline based on the boundary edges. By using geospatial boundaries based on image analysis and preprocessing steps to remove noise and similar filtering steps to improve the image data image processing is enhanced to provide clear distinction in the image for data analysis, as recognized by Bones et al (¶ [0106]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Northrup et al (US 2019/0340876) in view of Finlow-Bates (US 2014/0258201, disclosed in IDS 03/25/2025) and Belzer et al (US PG PUB 2008/0157990, disclosed in IDS 03/25/2025).
Regarding Claim 9, Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates teach the method of claim 1 (as described above).
Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates does not teach generating a notice when GPS data associated with the computer device indicates that the computer device has either entered or exited the virtual geofence around the physical structure, wherein the notice includes a message indicating that the computer device has arrived or departed the physical structure; and transmitting the notice to a remote computer identifying when the device has entered or exited the physical structure.
Belzer et al is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in this application and teaches generating a notice when GPS data associated with a device indicates that the device has either entered or exited the virtual geofence22035380.00759 around the physical structure (a GPS enabled device is prompted when the device is within close proximity of the region of interest; ¶ [0059], [0061]),
wherein the notice includes a message indicating that the device has arrived or departed the physical structure (the user is alerted that the device is in close proximity and signaled to general information of the region; ¶ [0059], [0061]); and
transmitting the notice to a remote computer identifying when the device has entered or exited the physical structure (the phone can wirelessly send and store information to the remote database when the user leaves the region; ¶ [0061]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates with Belzer et al including generating a notice when GPS data associated with a device indicates that the device has either entered or exited the virtual geofence around the physical structure, wherein the notice includes a message indicating that the device has arrived or departed the physical structure; and transmitting the notice to a remote computer identifying when the device has entered or exited the physical structure. Use of GPS enabled mobile devices in generating geospatial data allows for fast and reliable reporting of the land use to a remote computer wherein relevant analysis and instruction can then be communicated back to the GPS-enabled user device, thereby reducing data stored on the remote device and providing relevant instruction to effectively manage the land, as recognized by Belzer et al (¶ [0044]).
Regarding Claim 10, Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates teach the method of claim 1 (as described above).
Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates does not teach detecting that the computer device, in route to the physical structure, is within a predetermined distance of the virtual geofence around the physical structure based on GPS data associated with the computer device; generating a notice indicating that the computer device will be arriving at the physical structure based on detecting that the computer device is within the predetermined distance of the virtual geofence; and transmitting the notice to a remote dispatcher prior to arrival at the physical structure.
Belzer et al is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in this application and teaches detecting that a device (user GPS enabled device¶ [0059]), in route to the physical structure, is within a predetermined distance of the virtual geofence around the physical structure based on GPS data associated with the device (a map with a first zone boundary 12 around the region of interest (that may contain a building) 10 and a second boundary 14 identified around the region 10 boundary 12a and the GPS enabled device is prompted when the device is within close proximity of the region of interest; Fig 1, ¶ [0032]-[0034], [0059], [0061]);
generating a notice indicating that the device will be arriving at the physical structure based on detecting that the device is within the predetermined distance of the virtual geofence (when GPS enabled device is in close proximity of region, a notice is prompted that would indicate the device is near the region; ¶ [0059]); and
transmitting the notice to a remote dispatcher prior to arrival at the physical structure (the location of the GPS device is transmitted to a remote location computer (dispatcher) for identifying the geoposition and field boundary data; ¶ [0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Northrup et al in view of Finlow-Bates with Belzer et al including the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: detect that a device, in route to the physical structure, is within a predetermined distance of the virtual geofence around the physical structure based on GPS data associated with the device; generate a notice indicating that the device will be arriving at the physical structure based on detecting that the device is within the predetermined distance of the virtual geofence; and transmit the notice to a remote dispatcher prior to arrival at the physical structure. Use of GPS enabled mobile devices in generating geospatial data allows for fast and reliable processing of the geoposition and creation of a reliable record of the information while alerts about a specific region when approaching the region allows a user to obtain better information about the specific land region of interest to plan efficiently in managing the land, as recognized by Belzer et al (¶ [0059]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sheha et al (US 2015/0365799) teach a method and system for identifying and defining geofences based on geographical boundaries including determining an first, inner boundary and a second, outer boundary surrounding the first boundary.
Mitchell et al (US 2015/0077276) teach a method and system for identifying frequent stop locations and geofences within a mapping system including plotting the locations on a map and tracking based on GPS data and analyzing frequency of stopping locations as a mathematical function of frequency as compared to vehicles at same address.
Woo et al (US 2021/0209648) teach a method and system for determining a geofences for a first vehicle with the geofence space representing a home location and determining whether or not the vehicle is at a location other than the home, such as a dealership.
Miller (US 12,148,180 with associated provisional US 2021/0248776 (disclosed in IDS 03/25/2025), Application 17/169,431,) is from the same applicant and inventor and the non-provisional allowed claims are recited in the Non-obvious double patenting rejection above.
Miller (US 2021/0258722, application 17/175225) teach an automated and dynamic location and identification with geofencing based on GPS data, from the same inventor and applicant, which the current application is distinguishable from by claiming a street address for identifying a physical building and geographic area and generating a virtual geofence based on the a geofenced physical building.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN M BROUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/KATHLEEN M BROUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights