Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to Application filed on November 15, 2024. Claims 1-24 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/15/24 and 6/5/25 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig 6, element 610 has a typo where the term ‘orientation’ is misspelt; Fig 8 has a typo in the spelling of ‘hierarchical’ and ‘orientation’ in element 808. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 21, the terms “coarser that the first resolution” in lines 8-9 appear to be repeatedly redundantly. Examiner suggests removal of these terms.
In claim 22, the term ‘the first resolutions’ should read ‘the first resolution’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 10 and 23 are 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.
Referring to claim 10, it is unclear as to what the limitation “wherein the skip table has a skip table orientation, and further wherein, for a target cell having the skip table orientation the at least M cells at M successive coarser resolutions than the resolution of the target cell” is referring to. Specifically, it is unclear as to what the italicized limitation has to do with the skip table orientation.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the skip" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, Examiner will assume that the limitation reads “the skip table”.
Due to the 35 USC 112 rejections, the claims have been examined as best understood by the Examiner.
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
identifying a target cell associated with a selected location in a hierarchical grid system; and
applying a skip table to determine cell indices for at least a first cell and a second cell associated with the target cell at successively coarser resolutions.
Step 1: The claims as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: At least claim 1 recites limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitation “identifying a target cell associated with a selected location in a hierarchical grid system” is a mental step. A user can mentally perform data based on a selected criteria, in this case, a location. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Furthermore, the limitation “applying a skip table to determine cell indices for at least a first cell and a second cell associated with the target cell at successively coarser resolutions” is also a mental step. A user mentally determine cell indices for cells based on accessing the skip table and using different filtering criteria, in this case, resolutions. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
Furthermore, Claim 1 recites the following additional element “a processor”, note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Claim 15 recites: determining a hierarchical address of a target cell using a skip table.
Step 1: The claim as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: At least claim 15 recite limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitation “determining a hierarchical address of a target cell using a skip table” is a mental step. One can perform mentally determine the hierarchical address of a target cell by looking at its position using the skip table. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
Furthermore, Claim 15 recites the following additional elements “navigation apparatus”, “at least one logical processor”, and “processor readable storage medium”, note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Claim 21 recites:
obtaining an M-level skip table associated with a skip table entry resolution, wherein M is an integer greater than 1; and
applying the M-level skip table to a cell in the grid system at a first resolution to obtain a cell index for the cell at the first resolution and M-1 cell indices for M-1 cells in the grid system at successive resolutions coarser than the first resolution.
Step 1: The claim as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: At least claim 21 recites limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitation “applying the M-level skip table to a cell in the grid system at a first resolution to obtain a cell index for the cell at the first resolution and M-1 cell indices for M-1 cells in the grid system at successive resolutions coarser than the first resolution” is a mental step. A user can repeatedly visually obtain data using various selection criteria (resolutions) from an index. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claim 21 recites the limitation “obtaining an M-level skip table associated with a skip table entry resolution, wherein M is an integer greater than 1”. This limitation is an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Furthermore, Claim 21 recites the following additional elements “a processor”, note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
With respect to the "obtaining” limitation identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Claim 24 recites:
determining cell coordinates of a coarsest cell associated with a target location;
obtaining an M-level inverse skip table, wherein M is an integer greater than 1;
successively applying the M-level inverse skip table to find coordinates of M finer cells in the hierarchical grid system; and
obtaining a target spatial location based on coordinates of a cell associated with a finest resolution.
Step 1: The claim as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: At least claim 24 recites limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitation “determining cell coordinates of a coarsest cell associated with a target location” is a mental step. One can visually determine the coordinates of a location by accessing an index. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “successively applying the M-level inverse skip table to find coordinates of M finer cells in the hierarchical grid system” is a mental step. A person can repeatedly consult an index to look up coordinates of data using different selection criteria. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Furthermore, the limitation “obtaining a target spatial location based on coordinates of a cell associated with a finest resolution” is also a mental step. One can mentally determine a target data based on looking up its coordinates within the index. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claim 24 recites the limitation “obtaining an M-level inverse skip table, wherein M is an integer greater than 1”. This limitation is an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Furthermore, Claim 24 recites the following additional elements “a processor”, note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
With respect to the "obtaining” limitation identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 depend from claim 1 and thus include all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claims 2, 3,12 and 13 furthermore recite:
(claim 2) wherein the successively coarser resolutions are resolutions coarser than a resolution of the target cell;
(claim 3): wherein the successively coarser resolutions include a resolution of the target cell and a successively coarser resolution than that of the target cell and the cell indices include an index of the target cell;
(claim 12): wherein the hierarchical grid is an aperture 7 hexagonal hierarchical grid or an aperture 3 hexagonal hierarchical grid or a hexagonal hierarchical grid with a mixture of one or more of aperture 3, aperture 4, and aperture 7;
(claim 13): wherein the skip table includes cell indices associated with cells of a skip table sector;
Step 1: Claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 recite limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitations “wherein the successively coarser resolutions are resolutions coarser than a resolution of the target cell” and “wherein the successively coarser resolutions include a resolution of the target cell and a successively coarser resolution than that of the target cell and the cell indices include an index of the target cell” further define the successively coarser resolutions under the “determining step” in claim 1 that is considered a mental step. As such, these limitations are also considered mental steps.
The limitation “wherein the hierarchical grid is an aperture 7 hexagonal hierarchical grid or an aperture 3 hexagonal hierarchical grid or a hexagonal hierarchical grid with a mixture of one or more of aperture 3, aperture 4, and aperture 7” further defines the hierarchical grid in the “identifying” step in claim 1 that is considered a mental step. As such this limitation is also considered a mental step.
The limitation “wherein the skip table includes cell indices associated with cells of a skip table sector” further defines the skip table in the “applying to determine” step in claim 1 that is considered a mental step. As such this limitation is also considered a mental step.
Step 2A prong 2: Claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 do not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 do not recite any additional elements that would provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 2, 3, 12 and 13 as a whole are ineligible.
Claims 4-7, 10 and 20 depend from claims 1 and 15 and thus include all the limitations of claims 1 and 15, therefore claims 4-7, 10 and 20 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claims 4-7 and 10 furthermore recite:
(claim 4) wherein the skip table is an M-level skip table, wherein M is an integer greater than one, and the M-level skip table is applied to determine cell indices for at least M cells at M successively coarser resolutions;
(claim 5): wherein the at least M cells at M successively coarser resolutions are cells at resolutions coarser than a resolution of the target cell;
(claim 6): wherein the at least M cells at M successively coarser resolutions include a cell at the resolution of the target cell and the cell indices include an index of the target cell;
(claim 7): wherein the M-level skip table is applied to determine coordinates of a cell associated with the target cell at a resolution that is successively coarser than the coarsest resolution of the at least M cells;
(claim 10): wherein the skip table has a skip table orientation, and further wherein, for a target cell having the skip table orientation the at least M cells at M successive coarser resolutions than the resolution of the target cell;
Step 1: Claims 4-7 and 10 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 4-7 and 10 recite limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitations “wherein the skip table is an M-level skip table, wherein M is an integer greater than one, and the M-level skip table is applied to determine cell indices for at least M cells at M successively coarser resolutions” ,”wherein the at least M cells at M successively coarser resolutions are cells at resolutions coarser than a resolution of the target cell”, “wherein the at least M cells at M successively coarser resolutions include a cell at the resolution of the target cell and the cell indices include an index of the target cell”, “wherein the M-level skip table is applied to determine coordinates of a cell associated with the target cell at a resolution that is successively coarser than the coarsest resolution of the at least M cells”, and “wherein the skip table has a skip table orientation, and further wherein, for a target cell having the skip table orientation the at least M cells at M successive coarser resolutions than the resolution of the target cell” further define the skip table under the “applying to determine step” in claim 1 that is considered a mental step. As such, these limitations are also considered mental steps.
Step 2A prong 2: Claims 4-7 and 10 do not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 4-7 and 10 do not recite any additional elements that would provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 4-7 and 10 as a whole are ineligible.
Claim 20 is a combination of claims 4, 5 and 6 and as such is rejected for the same reasons as the latter claims.
Claims 8, 9, and 11 depend from claim 1 and thus include all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claims 8, 9, and 11 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claims 8, 9, and 11 furthermore recite:
(claim 8) finding at least one route to or from a location associated with the target cell based on the at least M cells;
(claim 9): wherein the at least one route is a shortest route or a route with a shortest travel time;
(claim 11): finding an index associated with a cell at a resolution coarser than that of the at least M cells and having a cell orientation different from a skip table orientation.
Step 1: Claims 8, 9, and 11 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 8, 9, and 11 recite limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitations “finding at least one route to or from a location associated with the target cell based on the at least M cells” ,” wherein the at least one route is a shortest route or a route with a shortest travel time” are mental steps. A user can determine a shortest route by referring to an index of route data. As such, these limitations are considered mental steps.
The limitation “finding an index associated with a cell at a resolution coarser than that of the at least M cells and having a cell orientation different from a skip table orientation” is a mental step. A user can visually determine lookup data in an index with a specific criteria in mind. As such, this limitation is considered a mental step.
Step 2A prong 2: Claims 8, 9, and 11 do not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 8, 9, and 11 do not recite any additional elements that would provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 8, 9, and 11 as a whole are ineligible.
Claim 14 and 17 depend from claims 1 and 15 and thus include all the limitations of claims 1 and 15, therefore claims 14 and 17 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claims 14 and 17 furthermore recite:
(claim 14) receiving location data and identifying the target cell based on the location data.
(claim 17): identify the target cell based on a latitude and longitude.
Step 1: Claims 14 and 17 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 14 and 17 recite limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitations “identifying the target cell based on the location data” and ” identify the target cell based on a latitude and longitude” are mental steps. A user can determine visually select data based by looking at a map based on specific coordinates. As such, these limitations are considered mental steps.
Step 2A prong 2:
Claim 14 recites the limitation “receiving location data”. This limitation is an additional element and is insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
With respect to the "receiving” limitation identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)” and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion.
As such, claims 14 and 17 as a whole are ineligible.
Claims 16, 18 and 19 depend from claim 15 and thus include all the limitations of claim 15, therefore claims 16, 18 and 19 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claims 16, 18 and 19 furthermore recite:
(claim 16) wherein determining the hierarchical address of a target cell using the skip table are based on integer arithmetic;
(claim 18): determine cell indices for at least a first cell and a second cell associated with the target cell at successively coarser resolutions based on application of the skip table;
(claim 19): wherein the successively coarser resolutions include a resolution of the target cell and a successively coarser resolution than that of the target cell and the cell indices include an index of the target cell.
Step 1: Claims 16, 18 and 19 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 16, 18 and 19 recite limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitations “determining the hierarchical address of a target cell using the skip table are based on integer arithmetic” further defines the “determining” step in claim 15 which is a mental step. As such, this limitation is also considered a mental step.
The limitations “determine cell indices for at least a first cell and a second cell associated with the target cell at successively coarser resolutions based on application of the skip table”, “wherein the successively coarser resolutions include a resolution of the target cell and a successively coarser resolution than that of the target cell and the cell indices include an index of the target cell” are also mental steps. A user mentally determine cell indices for cells based on accessing the skip table and using different filtering criteria, in this case, resolutions. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claims 16, 18 and 19 do not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 16, 18 and 19 do not recite any additional elements that would provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 16, 18 and 19 as a whole are ineligible.
Claims 22 and 23 depend from claim 21 and thus include all the limitations of claim 21, therefore claims 22-23 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claims 22-23 furthermore recite:
(claim 22) wherein applying the skip table to the cell at the first resolutions produces coordinates of a corresponding cell at a resolution M;
(claim 23): repetitively applying the skip table to cells having coordinates produced with the skip at successively coarser skip table output resolutions to obtain a cell index for the cell at the respective skip table output resolution and M-1 cell indices for M-1 cells in the grid system at the successively coarser resolutions.
Step 1: Claims 22-23 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 22-23 recite limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitations “wherein applying the skip table to the cell at the first resolutions produces coordinates of a corresponding cell at a resolution M” and “repetitively applying the skip table to cells having coordinates produced with the skip at successively coarser skip table output resolutions to obtain a cell index for the cell at the respective skip table output resolution and M-1 cell indices for M-1 cells in the grid system at the successively coarser resolutions” further define the “applying the skip table” step in claim 21 which is a mental step. As such, these limitations are also considered mental steps.
Step 2A prong 2: Claims 22-23 do not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 22-23 do not recite any additional elements that would provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 22-23 as a whole are ineligible.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory} above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to place them within the four statutory categories of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 10-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0289045 by Malhotra et al (hereafter Malhotra).
Referring to claim 1, Malhotra discloses a method of determining an address of a location in a hierarchical grid system [Abstract; locating hexagon vector tiles corresponding to geospatial grid cells, Fig. 4, 10], comprising, with a processor [processor 1110, para 100, Fig 11]:
identifying a target cell associated with a selected location in a hierarchical grid system [finest-resolution geospatial grid cells (reads on: target cell) associated with geospatial location contained by a selected vector tile are identified and aggregated in first phase 410, para 30, 41-45; Fig 4, elements 410, 415; para 86-88, Fig 10, element 1010; tile map service (TMS) configured to allow clients to request vector tiles for a geospatial location, para 61]; and
applying a skip table to determine cell indices for at least a first cell and a second cell associated with the target cell at successively coarser resolutions [wherein execution of the query produces a CLOB table for the finest resolution hexagons containing data points, after which a common ancestor packing process is performed where common ancestors of the finest resolution hexagons are found at progressively coarser hexagon resolution levels, para 57-58; para 35, 42-56, Fig 4, element 420; cell aggregation and packing preliminary step, para 90, Fig 10; see H3 CLOB table, Fig 5 and corresponding portions of specification].
Referring to claim 15, Malhotra discloses a navigation apparatus [computing system 1100, para 100, Fig 11], comprising:
at least one logical processor [processor 1110, para 100, Fig 11]; and
at least one processor readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions [memory 1115 with encoding logic 1130, para 39, Fig 11] to determine a hierarchical address of a target cell using a skip table [finest-resolution geospatial grid cells (reads on: target cell) associated with geospatial location contained by a selected vector tile are identified and aggregated in first phase 410, para 30, 41-45; Fig 4, elements 410, 415; para 86-88, Fig 10, element 1010; tile map service (TMS) configured to allow clients to request vector tiles for a geospatial location, para 61].
Referring to claim 21, Malhotra discloses a method of determining cell indices in a hierarchical grid system having resolutions associated with cells at a common orientation at regular intervals [Abstract; locating hexagon vector tiles corresponding to H3 geospatial grid cells, Fig. 4, 10; H3 grid precision resolution levels, para 22-23; common ancestor grouped hexagon tiles of H3 geospatial grid, see para 35, Fig 1A-B; method 400, 1000 initiated at defined times or time intervals, para 87], comprising, with a processor [processor 1110, para 100, Fig 11]:
obtaining an M-level skip table associated with a skip table entry resolution, wherein M is an integer greater than 1 [CLOB object stores hexagon indexes and associated aggregation values for each of 15 resolution levels (0 to 15) for the H3-based geospatial grid implementation, para 42-44; see H3 CLOB table, Fig 5 and corresponding portions of specification]; and
applying the M-level skip table to a cell in the grid system at a first resolution to obtain a cell index for the cell at the first resolution and M-1 cell indices for M-1 cells in the grid system at successive resolutions coarser than the first resolution, coarser that the first resolution [common-ancestor packing of the CLOB object is implemented by packing the finest resolution hexagon cells together by their common ancestor which is the coarser level hexagon of the group of finer resolution hexagons, para 42-44; finest-resolution hexagons are found first (at 15) after which ancestors from 0-15 resolution levels are found, see para 45 and 58; Fig 4, element 420; cell aggregation and packing preliminary step, para 90, Fig 10].
Referring to claim 24, Malhotra discloses a method of determining a target location based on a set of cell indices in a hierarchical grid system [Abstract; locating hexagon vector tiles corresponding to H3 geospatial grid cells, Fig. 4, 10; H3 grid precision resolution levels, para 22-23; common ancestor grouped hexagon tiles of H3 geospatial grid, see para 35; method 400, 1000 initiated at defined times or time intervals, para 87], comprising, with a processor [processor 1110, para 100, Fig 11]:
determining cell coordinates of a coarsest cell associated with a target location [finest-resolution hexagonal geospatial grid cells associated with geospatial location (reads on: target location) contained by a selected vector tile are identified in first phase 410, para 30, 41-45; Fig 4, elements 410, 415; para 86-88, Fig 10, element 1010; tile map service (TMS) configured to allow clients to request vector tiles for a geospatial location, para 61; although the citation cites first identifying finest-resolution hexagons, Malhotra teaches hierarchy traversals that include parent-child hexagons, para 24, i.e. moving from coarsest to finest resolution levels; para 73; bottom up approach for finding and aggregating hexagons at different resolutions, para 45; H3 index includes 52 bits allocated for index coordinate bits for parent-child traversal, para 73, see H3 CLOB table, Fig 5 and corresponding portions of specification];
obtaining an M-level inverse skip table, wherein M is an integer greater than 1 [CLOB object stores hexagon indexes and associated aggregation values for each of 15 resolution levels (0 to 15) for the H3-based geospatial grid implementation, para 42-44; see H3 CLOB table, Fig 5 and corresponding portions of specification; parent-child traversals achieved based on a change in precision/resolution level of the hexagon and few bitwise operations on hexagon ID, para 24];
successively applying the M-level inverse skip table to find coordinates of M finer cells in the hierarchical grid system [common-ancestor packing of the CLOB object is implemented by packing the finest resolution hexagon cells together by their common ancestor which is the coarser level hexagon of the group of finer resolution hexagons, para 42-44; finest-resolution hexagons are found first (at 15) after which ancestors from 0-15 resolution levels are found, see para 45 and 58; Fig 4, element 420; although the citation cites first identifying finest-resolution hexagons, Malhotra teaches hierarchy traversals that include parent-child hexagons, para 24, i.e. moving from coarsest to finest resolution levels; para 73; bottom up approach for finding and aggregating hexagons at different resolutions, para 45; cell aggregation and packing preliminary step, para 90, Fig 10]; and
obtaining a target spatial location based on coordinates of a cell associated with a finest resolution [for each point in the dataset, the finest resolution hexagons are aggregated and stored in a database table, para 45; CLOB table unpacked and finest resolution hexagons used, para 62, Fig 4, element 435].
Referring to claim 2, Malhotra discloses that the successively coarser resolutions are resolutions coarser than a resolution of the target cell [common ancestors of the finest-resolution hexagons found at coarser hexagon resolution levels, para 58].
Referring to claim 3, Malhotra discloses that the successively coarser resolutions include a resolution of the target cell and a successively coarser resolution than that of the target cell and the cell indices include an index of the target cell [common ancestors of the finest resolution hexagons also include the hexagon resolution, para 58; all hexagons with a common ancestor stored together in a single CLOB, para 58].
Referring to claim 4, Malhotra discloses that the skip table is an M-level skip table, wherein M is an integer greater than one, and the M-level skip table is applied to determine cell indices for at least M cells at M successively coarser resolutions [CLOB object stores hexagon indexes and associated aggregation values for each of 15 resolution levels (0 to 15) for the H3-based implementation, para 42-44; see H3 CLOB table, Fig 5 and corresponding portions of specification; execution of query produces CLOB table for finest resolution hexagons, after which common ancestor packing process is performed where common ancestors of the finest resolution hexagons are found at progressively coarser hexagon resolution levels, para 57-58; para 35, 42-56, Fig 4, element 420; cell aggregation and packing preliminary step, para 90, Fig 10; see H3 CLOB table, Fig 5 and corresponding portions of specification].
Referring to claim 5, Malhotra discloses that the at least M cells at M successively coarser resolutions are cells at resolutions coarser than a resolution of the target cell [common ancestors of the finest resolution hexagons also include the hexagon resolution, para 58].
Referring to claim 6, Malhotra discloses that the at least M cells at M successively coarser resolutions include a cell at the resolution of the target cell and the cell indices include an index of the target cell [common ancestors of the finest resolution hexagons also include the hexagon resolution, para 58; all hexagons with a common ancestor stored together in a single CLOB, para 58].
Referring to claim 7, Malhotra discloses that the M-level skip table is applied to determine coordinates of a cell associated with the target cell at a resolution that is successively coarser than the coarsest resolution of the at least M cells [CLOB considers close vicinity hexagons, para 58, common ancestor groups, para 37].
Referring to claim 10, Malhotra discloses that the skip table has a skip table orientation, and further wherein, for a target cell having the skip table orientation the at least M cells at M successive coarser resolutions than the resolution of the target cell [common ancestor grouped hexagon tiles of H3 geospatial grid, see para 35; H3 CLOB table, Fig 5 and corresponding portions of specification].
Referring to claim 11, Malhotra discloses finding an index associated with a cell at a resolution coarser than that of the at least M cells and having a cell orientation different from a skip table orientation [CLOB considers close vicinity hexagons, para 58, common ancestor groups, para 37].
Referring to claim 12, Malhotra discloses that the hierarchical grid is an aperture 7 hexagonal hierarchical grid or an aperture 3 hexagonal hierarchical grid or a hexagonal hierarchical grid with a mixture of one or more of aperture 3, aperture 4, and aperture 7 [para 73].
Referring to claim 13, Malhotra discloses that the skip table includes cell indices associated with cells of a skip table sector [CLOB stores hexagon indexes and associated aggregate values, para 43; Fig 5].
Referring to claim 14, Malhotra discloses receiving location data and identifying the target cell based on the location data [vector tile resolution level (zoom level) is selected, new cell generated, para 38, see Fig. 4 elements 440-455].
Referring to claim 16, Malhotra discloses that determining the hierarchical address of a target cell using the skip table are based on integer arithmetic [H3 with aperture 7 specifies that each hexagon has 1/7 the area of a hexagon at the next coarser hexagon and the unit length of each hexagon is the unit length of a hexagon at the next coarser resolution divided by the product of seven and the square root of 7, para 23].
Referring to claim 17, Malhotra discloses identifying the target cell based on a latitude and longitude [para 46-52].
Referring to claim 18, Malhotra discloses determining cell indices for at least a first cell and a second cell associated with the target cell at successively coarser resolutions based on application of the skip table [CLOB object stores hexagon indexes and associated aggregation values for each of 15 resolution levels (0 to 15) for the H3-based implementation, para 42-44; see H3 CLOB table, Fig 5 and corresponding portions of specification; execution of query produces CLOB table for finest resolution hexagons, after which common ancestor packing process is performed where common ancestors of the finest resolution hexagons are found at progressively coarser hexagon resolution levels, para 57-58; para 35, 42-56, Fig 4, element 420; cell aggregation and packing preliminary step, para 90, Fig 10; see H3 CLOB table, Fig 5 and corresponding portions of specification].
Referring to claim 19, Malhotra discloses that the successively coarser resolutions include a resolution of the target cell and a successively coarser resolution than that of the target cell and the cell indices include an index of the target cell [common ancestors of the finest resolution hexagons also include the hexagon resolution, para 58; all hexagons with a common ancestor stored together in a single CLOB, para 58].
Referring to claim 20, Malhotra discloses that:
the skip table is an M-level skip table, wherein M is an integer greater than one [CLOB object stores hexagon indexes and associated aggregation values for each of 15 resolution levels (0 to 15) for the H3-based implementation, para 42-44; see H3 CLOB table, Fig 5 and corresponding portions of specification; execution of query produces CLOB table for finest resolution hexagons, after which common ancestor packing process is performed where common ancestors of the finest resolution hexagons are found at progressively coarser hexagon resolution levels, para 57-58; para 35, 42-56, Fig 4, element 420; cell aggregation and packing preliminary step, para 90, Fig 10; see H3 CLOB table, Fig 5 and corresponding portions of specification];
the M-level skip table is applied to determine cell indices for at least M cells at M successively coarser resolutions, wherein the cells at M successively coarser resolutions are cells at resolutions coarser than a resolution of the target cell or the cells at M successively coarser resolutions include the target cell [common ancestors of the finest resolution hexagons also include the hexagon resolution, para 58]; and
the M-level skip table is applied to determine cell coordinates for at least one cell at a next coarser resolution than the M cells [common ancestors of the finest resolution hexagons also include the hexagon resolution, para 58; all hexagons with a common ancestor stored together in a single CLOB, para 58].
Referring to claim 22, Malhotra discloses that applying the skip table to the cell at the first resolutions produces coordinates of a corresponding cell at a resolution M [H3 index includes 52 bits allocated for index coordinate bits for child-parent traversal, para 73, see H3 CLOB table, Fig 5 and corresponding portions of specification].
Referring to claim 23, Malhotra discloses repetitively applying the skip table to cells having coordinates produced with the skip at successively coarser skip table output resolutions to obtain a cell index for the cell at the respective skip table output resolution and M-1 cell indices for M-1 cells in the grid system at the successively coarser resolutions [H3 index includes 52 bits allocated for index coordinate bits for child-parent traversal, para 73, see H3 CLOB table, Fig 5 and corresponding portions of specification].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0289045 by Malhotra et al (hereafter Malhotra), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 2023/0069833 by Frey et al (hereafter Frey).
Referring to claim 8, while Malhotra discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses application of its H3 geo-spatial indexing using the resolution levels stored in the H3 CLOB table to display target hexagonal vector tiles [see Fig 1A-B; Fig 4, element 455], it remains silent as to finding at least one route to or from a location associated with the target cell. Frey teaches a navigation unit 150 that uses geographical positions provided by geolocation and a weather map that includes locations indicative of geographical coordinates of second locations 220 to calculate a preferred route between a mobile device and trajectories of the mobile device for passing the second locations 220 [para 60-61, 66].
Malhotra and Frey are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- storing and processing of geolocation data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retrieval and display of the target hexagonal vector tiles in Malhotra to include the calculation of preferred route between a mobile device and locations on a weather map, as in Frey because it would achieve predicable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because while both Malhotra and Frey disclose using geolocation data, the teaching of a determination of a preferred route in Frey would provide refinement for the vector tile zoom level user query input in Malhotra.
Referring to claim 9, Malhotra/Frey discloses that the at least one route is a shortest route or a route with a shortest travel time [Frey, shortest route represents shortest line connecting the second locations, para 66].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Samavati et al (US Patent 10417820) directed to: retrieval of geospatial data using indexing e.g. PYIS indexing at different resolution levels [entire document].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERYL M SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4018. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached on 571-270-1698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CHERYL M SHECHTMANPatent Examiner
Art Unit 2164
/C.M.S/
/AMY NG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164