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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14, 16-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,182,915 (hereinafter ‘915). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are viewed as doing the same thing; rendering image tiles that depict a floorplan.
In regards to claim(s) 1, 17, 19, the tables below map correspondence between the limitations of the independent claims of the instant application and limitations of independent claims 1, 18-19 of ‘915.
Claim 1 of Instant Application
Claim 1 of ‘915
A computer-implemented method comprising:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, from a user device, a request for presentation of image content that depicts a floorplan;
rendering image tiles using a vector image that depicts a floorplan;
rendering image tiles using a vector image that depicts the floorplan;
determining whether tiling is enabled for the floorplan; and
determining whether the image tiles are available for presentation, the determining including determining whether tiling is enabled for the floorplan; and
providing responsive to the determining, to a user device, one or more of the image tiles for outputting on a user interface.
providing, to the user device, one or more image tiles for outputting on a user interface of a display responsive to determining that tiling is enabled for the floorplan.
In regards to medium claim 17 and system claim 19, claim(s) 17, 19 recite(s) limitations that is/are similar in scope to the limitations recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim(s) 17, 19 is/are subject to rejections under the same rationale as applied hereinabove for claim 1. Furthermore, correspondence between medium claim 17 and system claim 19 of the instant application can also be made to medium claim 18 and system claim 19 of ‘915 respectively, similar to the correspondence made above for method claim 1 of the instant application to method claim 1 of ‘915.
Further, correspondence of the following dependent claims of the instant application can be made as follows:
claim(s) 2, 18, 20 to claim(s) 1-2 of ‘915;
claim(s) 3 to claim(s) 3 of ‘915;
claim(s) 4 to claim(s) 4 of ‘915;
claim(s) 5 to claim(s) 5 of ‘915;
claim(s) 6 to claim(s) 6 of ‘915;
claim(s) 7 to claim(s) 7 of ‘915;
claim(s) 8 to claim(s) 8 of ‘915;
claim(s) 9 to claim(s) 9 of ‘915;
claim(s) 10 to claim(s) 10 of ‘915;
claim(s) 11 to claim(s) 11 of ‘915;
claim(s) 12 to claim(s) 12 of ‘915;
claim(s) 13 to claim(s) 1, 13 of ‘915;
claim(s) 14 to claim(s) 14 of ‘915;
claim(s) 15 to claim(s) 16 of ‘915; and
claim(s) 16 to claim(s) 17 of ‘915.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14, 16-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,721,052 (hereinafter ‘052) in view of Eick et al. (US 2007/0226314 A1).
In regards to claim(s) 1, 17, 19, the tables below map correspondence between the limitations of the independent claims of the instant application and limitations of independent claims 1, 13, 18-19 of ‘052.
Claim 1 of Instant Application
Claims 1, 13 of ‘052
A computer-implemented method comprising:
(Claim 1) A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, from a user device, a request for presentation of image content that depicts floorplan;
rendering image tiles using a vector image that depicts a floorplan; and
determining whether one or more criteria for providing image tiles instead of a vector image that depicts the floorplan are satisfied, each of the image tiles having the same tile size, having a file size that is smaller than a vector image file size for the vector image, and depicting a portion of the floorplan, wherein determining whether the one or more criteria for providing image tiles instead of the vector image that depicts the floorplan are satisfied comprises determining whether the image tiles are available for presentation of the floorplan or to provide the vector image that depicts the floorplan; and
determining whether tiling is enabled for the floorplan; and
Note: see Claim 13 in bottom right of table below.
providing responsive to the determining, to a user device, one or more image tiles for outputting on a user interface.
in response to determining that the one or more criteria for providing image tiles instead of the vector image that depicts the floorplan are satisfied, providing, to the user device, one or more image tiles from the image tiles to cause the user device to present the one or more image tiles on a display.
(Claim 13) the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the image tiles are available for presentation of the floorplan comprises determining whether tiling is enabled for the floorplan.
But claim 1 of ‘052 does not claim the limitation(s) of independent claim 1 of the instant application as bolded on the left side of the table above.
However, Eick teaches a method, comprising:
rendering image tiles using a vector image that depicts a floorplan (e.g. [0076]: if the client is able to render SVG data streams and objects and overlay such objects onto raster image data, then the server will supply feature data as an SVG data stream; however, if the client is not able to render SVG data streams and objects, the server renders the SVG data stream into raster data tiles, which are then forwarded to the client); and
providing, to a user device, one or more image tiles for outputting on a user interface (e.g. as above, [0076]: if the client is not able to render SVG data streams and objects, the server renders the SVG data stream into raster data tiles, which are then forwarded to the client; [0082],Fig.1: image view 160 displays various types of image information, including satellite images, …, map data, hybrid map/satellite data, or other image data representing a location or where a location in the image has meaning; Examiner’s note: shows display of image data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings/combination of ‘052 to render a floorplan, in the same conventional manner as taught by Eick as both deal with the presentation of a floorplan. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would allow the user to render the floorplan using image tiles.
In regards to medium claim 17 and system claim 19, claim(s) 17, 19 recite(s) limitations that is/are similar in scope to the limitations recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim(s) 17, 19 is/are subject to rejections under the same rationale as applied hereinabove for claim 1. Furthermore, correspondence between medium claim 17 and system claim 19 of the instant application can also be made to medium claim 18 and system claim 19 of ‘052 respectively, similar to the correspondence made above for method claim 1 of the instant application to method claim 1 of ‘052.
Further, correspondence of the following dependent claims of the instant application can be made as follows:
claim(s) 2, 18, 20 to claim(s) 1-2 of ‘052;
claim(s) 3 to claim(s) 3 of ‘052;
claim(s) 4 to claim(s) 4 of ‘052;
claim(s) 5 to claim(s) 5 of ‘052;
claim(s) 6 to claim(s) 6 of ‘052;
claim(s) 7 to claim(s) 7 of ‘052;
claim(s) 8 to claim(s) 8 of ‘052;
claim(s) 9 to claim(s) 9 of ‘052;
claim(s) 10 to claim(s) 10 of ‘052;
claim(s) 11 to claim(s) 11 of ‘052;
claim(s) 12 to claim(s) 12 of ‘052;
claim(s) 13 to claim(s) 1, 13 of ‘052;
claim(s) 14 to claim(s) 14 of ‘052;
claim(s) 15 to claim(s) 16 of ‘052; and
claim(s) 16 to claim(s) 17 of ‘052.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-10, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eick et al. (US 2007/0226314 A1) in view of Acharya et al. (US 2017/0116701 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Eick teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
rendering image tiles using a vector image that depicts a floorplan (e.g. [0076]: if the client is able to render SVG data streams and objects and overlay such objects onto raster image data, then the server will supply feature data as an SVG data stream; however, if the client is not able to render SVG data streams and objects, the server renders the SVG data stream into raster data tiles, which are then forwarded to the client; because the data supplied to the client can be based on the capabilities of the client, and the client's capabilities can vary depending on the capabilities of the underlying computer system the client is executing on, the processing can be divided efficiently between the server side and the client side; see also [0017]: typical examples of such images are maps and other types of geospatial or spatial images, such as floor plans, and other types of drawings that represent locations, whether of real or virtual places and/or things, and even data visualizations and other pure images, where "locations" within the image, i.e. the x-y pixel position, often need to be referenced);
determining for the floorplan (as above, [0076]: if the client is not able to render SVG data streams and objects, the server renders the SVG data stream into raster data tiles, which are then forwarded to the client; [0017]: images are maps and other types of geospatial or spatial images, such as floor plans); and
providing responsive to the determining, to a user device, one or more of the image tiles for outputting on a user interface (e.g. as above, [0076]: if the client is not able to render SVG data streams and objects, the server renders the SVG data stream into raster data tiles, which are then forwarded to the client; [0082],Fig.1: image view 160 displays various types of image information, including satellite images, …, map data, hybrid map/satellite data, or other image data representing a location or where a location in the image has meaning; Examiner’s note: Fig.1 shows display of image data within a user interface),
but does not explicitly teach the method,
wherein the determining is whether tiling is enabled.
However, Acharya teaches a method,
wherein the determining is whether tiling is enabled (e.g. [0060]: 2D graphics units 55 and/or 3D graphics units 53, to service a preemption request, may be configured to ensure the workload being executed could be preempted at a deterministic boundary (e.g. after completing a Drawcall) that was already in progress or after finishing a geometry binning operation if tiled rendering mode (binning rendering mode) is active; Examiner’s note: shows determination of tile rendering being active/enabled).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings/combination of Eick to determine if tile rendering is enabled in the same conventional manner as taught by Acharya as both deal with graphics processing. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would not only allow to determine if SVG streaming was possible, but also determine if tile rendering was active to determine how to proceed in rendering the image.
In regards to medium claim 17 and system claim 19, claim(s) 17, 19 recite(s) limitations that is/are similar in scope to the limitations recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim(s) 17, 19 is/are subject to rejections under the same rationale as applied hereinabove for claim 1.
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Eick and Acharya teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, from the user device, a request for presentation of image content that depicts a floor plan (e.g. Eick, [0016]: the user inputs an address of a thin or no client application web location into the address widget of the browser's user interface; in response, the accessed location returns the desired web page to the user's browser … pulls static image data, such as raster data, and graphic image data, such as scalable vector graphics (SVG), from the server as the user pans, zooms or otherwise alters the information displayed in the browser window using the thin or no client application; as above, [0017]: [0017]: images are maps and other types of geospatial or spatial images, such as floor plans);
receiving, from a second user device, a second request for presentation of the image content that depicts the floorplan (e.g. Eick, [0042]: as the user interacts with the thin or no client interface, the thin or no client application asynchronously generates and sends data requests to the server and/or returns collaboration data from the user to the server; in response to the data requests, the server accesses additional and/or updated image data, graphic data and/or analytic data and sends that data to the thin or no client application; Examiner’s note: in view of claim 5, the second device may be the same device, which in Eick is able to send multiple requests);
determining, for the second request, whether one or more criteria for providing additional image tiles instead of the vector image that depicts the floorplan are satisfied (e.g. Eick as above, [0076]: if the client is able to render SVG data streams and objects and overlay such objects onto raster image data, then the server will supply feature data as an SVG data stream; however, if the client is not able to render SVG data streams and objects, the server renders the SVG data stream into raster data tiles, which are then forwarded to the client); and
in response to determining that at least one of the one or more criteria are not satisfied, providing, to the second user device, the vector image that depicts the floorplan (e.g. Eick as above, [0076]: if the client is able to render SVG data streams and objects and overlay such objects onto raster image data, then the server will supply feature data as an SVG data stream).
In regards to medium claim 18 and system claim 20, claim(s) 18, 20 recite(s) limitations that is/are similar in scope to the limitations recited in claim 2. Therefore, claim(s) 18, 20 is/are subject to rejections under the same rationale as applied hereinabove for claim 2.
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Eick and Acharya teaches a method, wherein the user device is equivalent to the second user device (e.g. Eick as above, [0042]: as the user interacts with the thin or no client interface, the thin or no client application asynchronously generates and sends data requests to the server and/or returns collaboration data from the user to the server; Examiner’s note: as noted above, the device can send multiple requests).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Eick and Acharya teaches a method, wherein providing the vector image occurs prior to receiving the second request (e.g. Eick as above, [0042]: as the user interacts with the thin or no client interface, the thin or no client application asynchronously generates and sends data requests to the server and/or returns collaboration data from the user to the server; [0076]: if the client is able to render SVG data streams and objects and overlay such objects onto raster image data, then the server will supply feature data as an SVG data stream; however, if the client is not able to render SVG data streams and objects, the server renders the SVG data stream into raster data tiles, which are then forwarded to the client; Examiner’s note: as such, there may be a case where, during a first request, it is determined that the client may render SVG, and therefore would be provided the SVG prior to a second request).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Eick and Acharya teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, from an interactive layer presented at the user device, data that indicates user interaction with the user interface, the user interaction being at least one of a zoom action, a pan action, or an object selection action (e.g. Eick, [0082],[0084]: image view 160 displays various types of image information, including satellite images, such as that shown in Fig.1, map data, hybrid map/satellite data, or other image data representing a location or where location in the image has meaning; the image view 160 displays an image 162, which in this exemplary embodiment is a satellite image, and a plurality of data icons 170; the user can arbitrarily zoom in and out on the satellite image 162).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Eick and Acharya teaches a method, comprising:
in response to receiving the data that indicates the user interaction with the user interface, determining whether the user interaction indicates a request for a change in the image content depicted in the user interface (e.g. Eick as above, [0084]: the user can arbitrarily zoom in and out on the satellite image 162; see also [0107]: the image data has a plurality of layers, where each layer represents a different level of zooming or magnification into the image; in such exemplary embodiments, the thin or no client application 100 requests image layers and image tiles using the WMS (web mapping service) specification; [0118]: if image tiles corresponding to the requested image data have not already been stored in the tile cache 1400, the image data request from the thin or no client application 100 is forwarded from the map servlet 1210 to the extractor handlers 1240; Examiner’s note: this suggests that a zoom request may request different image layers/tiles to be displayed);
in response to determining that the user interaction indicates the request for the change in the image content depicted in the user interface, determining one or more second image tiles from the image tiles to send to the user device based on the user interaction (e.g. Eick as above, [0107]: the image data has a plurality of layers, where each layer represents a different level of zooming or magnification into the image; in such exemplary embodiments, the thin or no client application 100 requests image layers and image tiles using the WMS (web mapping service) specification; [0118]: if image tiles corresponding to the requested image data have not already been stored in the tile cache 1400, the image data request from the thin or no client application 100 is forwarded from the map servlet 1210 to the extractor handlers 1240; Examiner’s note: this suggests that a zoom request may request different image layers/tiles to be displayed); and
providing, to the user device, the one or more second image tiles to cause the user device to present the one or more second image tiles on a display (e.g. Eick as above, [0107]: the image data has a plurality of layers, where each layer represents a different level of zooming or magnification into the image; in such exemplary embodiments, the thin or no client application 100 requests image layers and image tiles using the WMS (web mapping service) specification; [0118]: if image tiles corresponding to the requested image data have not already been stored in the tile cache 1400, the image data request from the thin or no client application 100 is forwarded from the map servlet 1210 to the extractor handlers 1240; Examiner’s note: this suggests that a zoom request may request different image layers/tiles to be displayed).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Eick and Acharya teaches a method, wherein the receiving of the request comprises receiving data that indicates a refresh of the user interface that presents the vector image that depicts the floorplan (e.g. Eick as above, [0082],[0084]: image view 160 displays various types of image information, including satellite images, such as that shown in Fig.1, map data, hybrid map/satellite data, or other image data representing a location or where location in the image has meaning; the image view 160 displays an image 162, which in this exemplary embodiment is a satellite image, and a plurality of data icons 170; the user can arbitrarily zoom in and out on the satellite image 162; Examiner’s note: a zoom can be viewed as a refresh of the displayed image in the interface).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Eick and Acharya teaches a method, wherein the receiving of the request comprises receiving data that indicates a request for a change in a zoom level for the floorplan (e.g. Eick as above, [0082],[0084]: image view 160 displays various types of image information, including satellite images, such as that shown in Fig.1, map data, hybrid map/satellite data, or other image data representing a location or where location in the image has meaning; the image view 160 displays an image 162, which in this exemplary embodiment is a satellite image, and a plurality of data icons 170; the user can arbitrarily zoom in and out on the satellite image 162; Examiner’s note: a zoom can be viewed as a refresh of the displayed image in the interface).
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Eick and Acharya teaches a method, wherein:
determining whether one or more criteria for providing image tiles instead of the vector image that depicts the floorplan are satisfied comprises:
determining one or more properties of the user device (e.g. Eick as above, [0076]: if the client is able to render SVG data streams and objects and overlay such objects onto raster image data, then the server will supply feature data as an SVG data stream; however, if the client is not able to render SVG data streams and objects, the server renders the SVG data stream into raster data tiles, which are then forwarded to the client; because the data supplied to the client can be based on the capabilities of the client, and the client's capabilities can vary depending on the capabilities of the underlying computer system the client is executing on, the processing can be divided efficiently between the server side and the client side); and
determining whether the one or more properties of the user device satisfy one or more threshold property values (e.g. Eick as above, [0076]: the data supplied to the client can be based on the capabilities of the client; Examiner’s note: this suggests that the capabilities would be determined based on a threshold amount); and
providing, to the user device, one or more image tiles from the image tiles to cause the user device to present the one or more image tiles on a display responsive to determining that the one or more properties of the user device satisfy the one or more threshold property values (e.g. Eick as above, [0076]: if the client is not able to render SVG data streams and objects, the server renders the SVG data stream into raster data tiles, which are then forwarded to the client; Examiner’s note: this can be viewed as satisfying criteria to provide image tiles instead of SVG).
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Eick and Acharya teaches a method, wherein the vector image comprises a scalable vector graphics file (e.g. Eick as above, [0016]: graphic image data, such as scalable vector graphics (SVG)).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combinatinon of Eick and Acharya as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Ding et al. (US 2021/0225064 A1).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Eick and Acharya teaches the method of claim 2, but does not explicitly teach the method, wherein determining whether the image tiles are available for presentation of the floorplan comprises determining whether rendering the image tiles using the vector image has finished.
However, Ding teaches a method, wherein determining whether the image tiles are available for presentation comprises determining whether rendering the image tiles using the vector image has finished (e.g. [0046],[0050],[0056]: a virtual reality scene is obtained and it is determined whether the virtual reality scene is in a rendering idle state; if it is known that the device is in a scene display state, for example, it is determined that the device is in the scene display state when the virtual reality device displays the virtual reality scene, and image rendering on a gaze area has completed, it is determined that the virtual reality scene is in the rendering idle state; a target area to be displayed of the virtual reality scene is obtained, a target display image corresponding to the target area is called according to the correspondence and displayed; Examiner’s note: this shows that determination of rendering of images being completed is made (and determination of availability of images), in which rendered images can then be displayed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings/combination of Eick and Acharya to display images, in the same conventional manner as taught by Ding as both deal with rendering and displaying of images. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would allow the user/system to determine if the image tiles have been completely rendered and available for display.
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Eick and Acharya teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
receiving the request for presentation of image content that depicts the floorplan comprises receiving the request for presentation of the image content that depicts a particular zoom level for the floorplan (e.g. Eick as above, [0084]: the user can arbitrarily zoom in and out on the satellite image 162; see also [0107]: the image data has a plurality of layers, where each layer represents a different level of zooming or magnification into the image; in such exemplary embodiments, the thin or no client application 100 requests image layers and image tiles using the WMS (web mapping service) specification; [0118]: if image tiles corresponding to the requested image data have not already been stored in the tile cache 1400, the image data request from the thin or no client application 100 is forwarded from the map servlet 1210 to the extractor handlers 1240; Examiner’s note: this suggests that a zoom request may request different image layers/tiles to be displayed);
but does not explicitly teach the method, comprising:
determining whether rendering the image tiles using the vector image has finished, the determining comprises determining whether the rendering of the image tiles has finished for the particular zoom level.
However, Ding teaches a method, comprising:
determining whether rendering the image tiles using the vector image has finished, the determining comprises determining whether the rendering of the image tiles has finished (e.g. [0046],[0050],[0056]: a virtual reality scene is obtained and it is determined whether the virtual reality scene is in a rendering idle state; if it is known that the device is in a scene display state, for example, it is determined that the device is in the scene display state when the virtual reality device displays the virtual reality scene, and image rendering on a gaze area has completed, it is determined that the virtual reality scene is in the rendering idle state; a target area to be displayed of the virtual reality scene is obtained, a target display image corresponding to the target area is called according to the correspondence and displayed; Examiner’s note: this shows that determination of rendering of images being completed is made (and determination of availability of images), in which rendered images can then be displayed).
In addition, the same rationale/motivation of claim 11 is used for claim 12.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Eick and Acharya as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roegelein et al. (US 2015/0379957 A1).
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Eick and Acharya teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, from the user device, a request for presentation of image content that depicts a floor plan (e.g. Eick as above, [0084]: the user can arbitrarily zoom in and out on the satellite image 162; see also [0107]: the image data has a plurality of layers, where each layer represents a different level of zooming or magnification into the image; in such exemplary embodiments, the thin or no client application 100 requests image layers and image tiles using the WMS (web mapping service) specification; [0118]: if image tiles corresponding to the requested image data have not already been stored in the tile cache 1400, the image data request from the thin or no client application 100 is forwarded from the map servlet 1210 to the extractor handlers 1240; Examiner’s note: this suggests that a zoom request may request different image layers/tiles to be displayed),
but does not explicitly teach the method, comprising:
providing the vector image that depicts the floorplan responsive to determining that the image tiles are not available for the presentation.
However, Roegelein teaches a method, comprising:
providing the vector image responsive to determining that the image tiles are not available for the presentation (e.g. [0078]: rendering process engine 108 may determine that image tiles associated with the requested first vector data are not yet available, so that the determining, by the remote server, of the one or more image tiles further includes: rendering, by the rendering process engine 108 at the remote server, the requested vector data; generating, by the remote server, the one or more image tiles from the rendered vector data according to the display property, the zoom level and the location; Examiner’s note: this shows that when image tiles aren’t available, the vector image would be provided in order to generate the image tiles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings/combination of Eick and Acharya to provide vector data, in the same conventional manner as taught by Roegelein as both deal with rendering image tiles corresponding to vector data. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would allow the generation of image tiles that are not available using the vector data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3-4, 14 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. To note, claim 4 is included as it depends on claim 3. Also to note, claim(s) 3-4, 14 is/are rejected under Double Patenting above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim(s) 3-4, 14 was/were carefully reviewed and a search with regards to independent claim(s) 1 and intervening claim(s) 2 has been made. Accordingly, those claim(s) are believed to be distinct from the prior art searched.
Regarding claim(s) 3-4 (and specifically independent claim(s) 1), the prior art search was found to neither anticipate nor suggest the method of claim 2, wherein: determining whether the one or more criteria for providing image tiles instead of the vector image that depicts the floorplan are satisfied comprises determining whether the image tiles are available for presentation of the floorplan or to provide the vector image that depicts the floorplan; and providing, to the second user device, the vector image that depicts the floorplan is responsive to determining that the image tiles are not available for presentation of the floorplan and to provide the vector image that depicts the floorplan (emphasis added).
Regarding claim(s) 14 (and specifically independent claim(s) 1), the prior art search was found to neither anticipate nor suggest the method of claim 13, comprising: storing, in memory, first data that indicates that tiling is not enabled for the floorplan; receiving, from the user device, second data that indicates a refresh of the user interface that presents the vector image that depicts the floorplan; and determining, using the first data that indicates that tiling is not enabled for the floorplan, to skip a search for image tiles for the floorplan (emphasis added).
It is viewed that any of the previously cited references or any of the prior art searched, in part or in whole, cannot be combined in such a way to render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JED-JUSTIN IMPERIAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am - 6pm.
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, Daniel Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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.
/JED-JUSTIN IMPERIAL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2616
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights