DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The following is a NON-FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/962,272 filed on 11/27/2024. Claims 19-38 are pending in this application, and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The preliminary amendment filed on 02/10/2025 has been entered, which cancels claims 1-18, and presents new claims 19-38.
Priority
Application 18/962,272 filed 11/27/2024 is a Continuation of application 17/092,985, filed 11/09/2020. Application 17/092,985 is a Continuation of application 14/926,400, filed 10/29/2015. Application 14/926,400 claims Priority from Provisional Application 62/073,143, filed 10/31/2014.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 05/20/2025 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 19, 23, 27, and 36 are objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical and typographical errors.
Claim 19 recites “a comparison system configured to receive the tagged software objects and produces two or more…” The phrase “configured to receive the tagged software objects and produces” is grammatically incorrect. Claim 19 should recite ““a comparison system configured to receive the tagged software objects and produce two or more…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 recites “The system of claim 19, further comprising instructions to cause the system to provide sets of controls for the two or more synchronized visual views, and wherein system is configured to: receive a selection…” Claim 23 should recite “The system of claim 19, further comprising instructions to cause the system to provide sets of controls for the two or more synchronized visual views, and wherein the system is configured to: receive a selection…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 recites “The system of claim 26, wherein further comprising instructions to cause the system to: receive a user indication…” The phrase “wherein further comprising instructions to cause the system to” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 36 recites “The system of claim 19, wherein the one or more criteria comprises at least one of (i) a topic, (ii) a scale, or (iii) a spatial orientation, and wherein the subprojects of for the project represent one or more…” The phrase “of for” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
7. The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
8. Claims 19-38 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Patent No. US 12,159,248 B2 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 of the instant application is obvious in view of claim 1 in the listed patent. Claim 19 of the instant application recites “A system comprising: at least one processor; memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory executing computer instructions to cause the system to: receive software objects configured to store input data in different formats from an organizing framework structure; wherein the organizing framework structure comprises a framework of the software objects organized according to one or more criteria, wherein a top level of the framework comprises a first subset of the software objects configured for project planning of a project and wherein at least one lower level of the framework relative to the top level of the framework comprises a second subset of the software objects configured for project planning of subprojects for the project; attach a tag to the software objects; and a comparison system configured to receive the tagged software objects and produces two or more synchronized visual views based on information included in the tagged software objects at two or more different spatial scales to simultaneously view the produced two or more synchronized visual views at the two or more different spatial scales, each view from the two or more synchronized visual views comprising an overlay of one or more layers of spatially mapped data, wherein a movement in one view results in a corresponding relative synchronized movement in other views, the relative synchronized movement being relative to a spatial scale of a respective view and the one or more layers of spatially mapped data represented by the overlay of the respective view.” Claim 1 of the ‘248 patent recites “A system comprising: one or more processor units; memory coupled to the one or more processor units, with the one or more processor units and the memory executing computer instructions to cause the system to: receive planning units from a database, with the planning units being software objects having programmatic, spatial, and interactive capabilities that allow the software objects to be filled with information including statistics, photos, diagrams, maps, qualitative data, and stakeholders inputs in different formats including observations and images from an organizing framework structure stored in the database; wherein the organizing framework structure is comprised as a framework of planning units, with the planning units being organized according to one or more of topic, scale, and spatial orientation, and with a top level of the framework being a project planning unit, and with the framework having lower level units for community sections, existing conditions, and proposed development as second level planning units; attach a tag to the planning units; and a comparison system that receives the tagged planning units and produces two or more synchronized visual views based on the information included in the tagged planning units at two or more different spatial scales to simultaneously view the produced two or more synchronized visual views at the two or more different spatial scales, each view from the two or more synchronized visual views comprising an overlay of one or more layers of spatially mapped data, wherein a user-initiated movement in one view results in a corresponding relative synchronized movement in other views, the relative synchronized movement being relative to a spatial scale of a respective view and the one or more layers of spatially mapped data represented by the overlay of the respective view.” The differences between the claims amount to: use of the term “software objects” instead of “planning units,” which represents obvious nomenclature variation for the same software structures (see Specification at paragraph 0007: “The system includes a smart planning unit including a software object that contains planning information…”), recitation of subprojects instead of the specific lower-level planning units of the ‘248 patent (which is an obvious generalization of the parent’s disclosed hierarchical planning framework), and omission of certain limitations (i.e., receiving planning units from a database, with the planning units being software objects having programmatic, spatial, and interactive capabilities that allow the software objects to be filled with information including statistics, photos, diagrams, maps, qualitative data, and stakeholders inputs in different formats including observations and images). These differences do not constitute a patentably distinct invention, as claim 19 of the instant application merely restates the same core invention using broader terminology and omits limitations present in the ‘248 patent. Such changes would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Accordingly, the instant claims are not patentably distinct from the claims of the ‘248 patent and are therefore rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting.
Claims of instant application (as filed on 02/10/2025)
Claims of U.S. Pat. 12,159,248 B2
(issued on 12/03/2024)
19
1
20
7
21
2
22
8
23
3, 4
24
2, 5, 6
25
6
26
9
27
10
28
11
29
12
30
13
31
14
32
15
35
1
36
1
37
16
38
16
The chart above maps claims of the instant application to corresponding claims of U.S. Patent 12,159,248 B2 that are patentably indistinct, though not identical. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the slight differences between the claim language of the corresponding claims as being directed towards intention, slight variations in terminology, or obvious variants of claim elements and therefore these claims are not patentably distinct from one another despite these slight differences.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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.
10. Claim 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
11. Claim 20 recites “The system of claim 19, wherein the comparison system is configured to identify patterns of inter-scale features in the two or more synchronized visual views by generating a comparison of the two or more synchronized visual.” The phrase “the two or more synchronized visual” lacks antecedent basis and therefore render the claim indefinite. While claim 19 introduces “two or more synchronized visual views,” claims 19/20 do not introduce “two or more synchronized visual.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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 of this title, 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.
14. 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.
15. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
16. Claims 19-26, 28-32, and 35-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orton et al., Pub. No.: US 2002/0010572 A1, [hereinafter Orton], in view of Fernandes et al., Pub. No.: US 2013/0218890 A1, [hereinafter Fernandes], in further view of Song, Pub. No.: US 2006/0044307 A1, [hereinafter Song].
As per claim 19, Orton teaches a system (paragraph 0024, discussing an integrated system for and method of supporting spatial decision-making) comprising:
at least one processor (paragraph 0014, discussing an integrated system for supporting spatial decision-making and land-use scenario analysis, preferably including: a main unit that includes (a) a RAM device: (b) one or more CPUs; (c) a hard disk drive that stores (i) an operating system; (ii) a spatial database; (iii) third-party applications; and (iv) a preferred integrated software suite for spatial decision making…; paragraph 0025, discussing that FIG. 1 illustrates a PC used for supporting spatial decision-making….The PC includes a main unit, a high-resolution display, a mouse, a keyboard, and a CD-ROM drive. The main unit further includes one or more CPUs),
memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory executing computer instructions to cause the system (paragraph 0014, discussing an integrated system for supporting spatial decision-making…, preferably including: a main unit that includes (a) a RAM (Random Access Memory) device: (b) one or more CPUs; (c) a hard disk drive that stores (i) an operating system; (ii) a spatial database; (iii) third-party applications; and (iv) a preferred integrated software suite for spatial decision making…; paragraph 0025, discussing that FIG. 1 illustrates a PC used for supporting spatial decision-making… The PC includes a main unit, a high-resolution display, a mouse, a keyboard, and a CD-ROM drive. Main unit further includes one or more CPUs, RAM, a high-speed graphics card, and a hard disk drive) to:
receive software objects configured to store input data in different formats from an organizing framework structure (paragraph 0017, discussing recording the scenario data modification in a spatial database; paragraph 0024, discussing an integrated system for and method of supporting spatial decision-making and land-use scenario analysis. The integrated method utilizes a software suite to conduct a real-time analytical, visual, and predictive evaluation of land-use scenarios. Modifications made to land-use scenarios in one software module are immediately reflected in other modules via a common spatial database, providing a fully interactive and integrated planning tool; paragraph 0028, discussing that a user creates a scenario view using available data. The user then enters spatial data via the keyboard, CD-ROM drive, or another data source, and the spatial database is updated accordingly. The user then defines a modeling framework using the separate modules of Integrated Software Suite, creates various land-use planning scenarios, and views the visual results of these scenarios on high-resolution display; paragraph 0036, discussing creating a scenario view. In this step, a technical user who has knowledge of spatial modeling, Integrated Software Suite, and Desktop GIS, creates a Desktop GIS map upon which spatial scenarios can be explored. For example, if a user wishes to explore scenarios associated with placing a shopping mall in Smalltown, U.S.A, a scenario view entitled Smalltown Mall could be created. This forms the basis upon which all future scenarios involving a shopping mall in Smalltown, U.S.A are performed. This is the empty framework upon which scenarios are explored [i.e., the empty framework upon which scenarios are explored suggests software objects – this interpretation is consistent with Applicant’s Specification at paragraph 0102 indicating that “The smart planning unit tool object initially is an empty object.”]; paragraph 0037, discussing that the technical user loads into Desktop GIS GIS spatial data applicable to the geographic location and scenarios being explored. This data updates the spatial database. For example, the user might load road systems, current building locations, river locations, etc. This data defines the geographic location, as it exists at the present time; paragraph 0046, discussing that the visual "attributes" that are associated with the projected x-y coordinates are also dynamically recorded in the spatial database; paragraph 0048, discussing that the spatial database used for establishing spatial context and results exchange between the modules of the suite is typical of any common GIS spatial database. Distinct map "layers" exist which define various spatial characteristics of a location; paragraph 0060, discussing specifying terrain, draping an image, and adding 3D features. In this step, a technical user utilizes 3D Visualization Module to update the spatial database with terrain descriptions within a spatial data layer, a satellite or aerial photograph draped over the geography, and additional features, such as trees and buildings; paragraphs 0009, 0016, 0029, 0063);
wherein the organizing framework structure comprises a framework of the software objects organized according to one or more criteria (paragraph 0009: “the consideration of a wide range of variables, conditions, relationships, and parameters is critical to the development of an optimal land-use strategy”; paragraph 0028, discussing that the user creates a scenario view...The user then enters spatial data…and the spatial database is updated accordingly. The user then defines a modeling framework using the separate modules of Integrated Software Suite, creates various land-use planning scenarios, and views the visual results of these scenarios on high-resolution display; paragraph 0037, discussing that the technical user loads GIS spatial data applicable to the geographic location and scenarios being explored…the user might load road systems, current building locations, river locations, etc. This data defines the geographic location, as it exists at the present time; paragraph 0040, discussing defining an impacts-modeling framework. In this step, the technical user defines the impacts for a modeling framework within the Impact Analysis Module. This framework defines the modeling environment. During this process, the following relationships are typically defined: assumptions, constraints, causality relationships, and indicators. For example, if the user wishes to explore the traffic impacts of new development proposals, the Impact Analysis Module requires data, such as assumptions for traffic volumes from a new development, current traffic volume on existing roads, and apartment complex vs. single family unit traffic volume differentials. An example relationship could take the form: If an apartment building of X units is placed at a specific location, then a traffic volume of Y cars will appear on the highway; paragraph 0045, discussing that the layout for a proposed Master Plan is recorded in the common spatial database. The Forecasting Module can be used to project new structures likely to be built over the next decade as a result of a proposed Master Plan. The spatial context for Forecasting Module's projection includes the locations for each projected structure; paragraph 0048, discussing that each module can "tag" any spatial data element with information specific to that module's integration requirements; paragraphs 0017, 0030, 0065),
wherein a top level of the framework comprises a first subset of the software objects configured for project planning of a project (paragraph 0012, discussing that the invention provides multi-objective land-use planning capabilities and enables users to interactively perform land-use planning in real-time; paragraph 0028, discussing that the user creates a scenario view...The user then enters spatial data…, and the spatial database is updated accordingly. The user then defines a modeling framework using the separate modules of Integrated Software Suite, creates various land-use planning scenarios, and views the visual results of these scenarios on high-resolution display; paragraph 0040, discussing that the modeling framework defines the modeling environment. During this process, the following relationships are typically defined: assumptions, constraints, causality relationships, and indicators. For example, if the user wishes to explore the traffic impacts of new development proposals, the Impact Analysis Module requires data, such as assumptions for traffic volumes from a new development, current traffic volume on existing roads, and apartment complex vs. single family unit traffic volume differentials…; paragraph 0045, discussing that the layout for a proposed Master Plan is recorded in the common spatial database. The Forecasting Module can be used to project new structures likely to be built over the next decade as a result of a proposed Master Plan. The spatial context for Forecasting Module's projection includes the locations for each projected structure);
attach a tag to the software objects (paragraph 0018, discussing a method of providing a fully interactive and integrated planning tool in an integrated software suite for spatial decision making comprising spatial decision-making and land-use planning software modules wherein modifications made to land-use scenarios in one software module are immediately reflected in other modules; paragraph 0019, discussing an integrated software-based system for spatial decision making comprising: a common spatial database;…; and a plurality of spatial decision-making and land-use planning software modules, wherein each module is operative to record in the common spatial database each scenario data modification performed by that module and operative to immediately inform the clearinghouse hub of each scenario data modification performed by that module…; paragraph 0036, discussing creating a scenario view. In this step, a technical user who has knowledge of spatial modeling, Integrated Software Suite, and Desktop GIS, creates a Desktop GIS 240 map upon which spatial scenarios can be explored. For example, if a user wishes to explore scenarios associated with placing a shopping mall in Smalltown, U.S.A, a scenario view entitled Smalltown Mall could be created. This forms the basis upon which all future scenarios involving a shopping mall in Smalltown, U.S.A are performed. This is the empty framework upon which scenarios are explored; paragraph 0048, discussing that each module can tag any spatial data element with information specific to that module's integration requirements. The spatial database used for establishing spatial context and results exchange between the modules of the suite is typical of any common GIS spatial database. Distinct map "layers" exist which define various spatial characteristics of a location. To enable efficient interpretation and reaction to changes within the layers by the individual modules of the suite, an additional data layer tagging architecture is used. Any module can tag any spatial data layer. Multiple tags can exist for any data layer; paragraph 0049: “These "auxiliary data" tags include context-specific metadata required for operation of each module...”; paragraph 0050); and
a comparison system configured to receive the tagged software objects and produces two or more visual views based on information included in the tagged software objects to view the produced two or more visual views (paragraph 0005, discussing side-by-side comparison of land-use scenarios; paragraph 0012, discussing that the invention integrates analytical, visual, and predictive evaluation of land-use scenarios; paragraph 0016, discussing visualizing, modifying, and walking through scenario alternatives in 3D; paragraph 0018, discussing that the user defines a modeling framework, creates various land-use planning scenarios, and views the visual results of these scenarios on high-resolution display 140; paragraph 0041, discussing experimenting with scenario alternatives and monitoring impacts. In this step, a land-use planner evaluates impacts of the scenario defined, generates derivative scenarios by varying the placement of features, changing attributes, and changing assumptions. The land-use planner also evaluates the impacts of the derivative scenarios; paragraph 0042, discussing that each modification of the scenario data in the Impact Analysis Module is immediately reflected in the 3D Visualization Module; paragraph 0046, discussing that the 3D Visualization Module also functions within the context of spatial database and can readily interpret the x-y coordinates. However, the 3D Visualization Module might add visual context to this simple x-y location by associating it with placement on a mountainous terrain and/or by associating 3-dimensional models with unique appearances from the Model Library for each coordinate. This allows the user to see the projected future from the Forecasting Module…; paragraph 0061, discussing visualizing, modifying, and walking through scenario alternatives in 3D. In this step, a land-use planner visualizes on high-resolution display the virtual location set up. The land-use planner may also alter, modify, or delete any dynamic feature. For example, the land-use planner may remove a tree or add a row of cars in front of a building…The land-use planner may also navigate the virtual location from different perspectives ("flying" or "walking" through Smalltown, U.S.A, for example). Navigation gives the land-use planner a sense of the visual impact of feature modifications; paragraphs 0036, 0047).
Orton does not explicitly teach wherein at least one lower level of the framework relative to the top level of the framework comprises a second subset of the software objects configured for project planning of subprojects for the project; a comparison system configured to receive the tagged software objects and produces two or more synchronized visual views based on information included in the tagged software objects at two or more different spatial scales to simultaneously view the produced two or more synchronized visual views at the two or more different spatial scales, each view from the two or more synchronized visual views comprising an overlay of one or more layers of spatially mapped data, wherein a movement in one view results in a corresponding relative synchronized movement in other views, the relative synchronized movement being relative to a spatial scale of a respective view and the one or more layers of spatially mapped data represented by the overlay of the respective view. Fernandes in the analogous art of geographic information systems teaches:
a comparison system configured to receive the tagged software objects and produces two or more synchronized visual views based on information included in the tagged software objects at two or more different spatial scales to simultaneously view the produced two or more synchronized visual views at the two or more different spatial scales, each view from the two or more synchronized visual views comprising an overlay of one or more layers of spatially mapped data (paragraph 0006, discussing that the geographic asset management system provides a visual portal to users' information, allowing them to better determine the spatial relationships between the assets that they are monitoring. This visual representation may, for example, be used to help reduce travel expenses to remote offices, plan locations of medical clinics or stores to optimize coverage in a given area, or compare designs for a new construction project with the existing environment [i.e., the geographical asset management system including a visual portal providing visual representations and comparison of designs suggests a comparison system that produces two or more synchronized visual views]; paragraph 0008, discussing that the one or more processors are configured to cause display on the user terminal a three dimensional rendering of a landscape retrieved from the geographical information system and one or more of the three dimensional models retrieved from the one or more databases, each displayed model located and oriented in the rendering of the landscape according to its geographic coordinates and orientation; paragraph 0066, discussing that the spatial display (map) is the third part of the core of the architecture. The spatial display may have layers [i.e., each view comprising an overlay of one or more layers] that are configurable by admin and secured by role. GIS tools may be included, such as pan, zoom, extent, identify and feature query. Feature query may display a link to the asset details; paragraph 0097, discussing that the map section of the system allows users to see maps with various layers added to identify the assets recorded in the system; paragraph 0121, discussing that FIGS. 26 and 27 show screenshots with a building model present and absent, respectively, as viewed using the 3D component 98 [i.e., This shows that two or more synchronized visual views are produced]. FIG. 26 shows a scene with a 3D model of a building that has been clicked on by a user. As a result of clicking on the building model, a marker is displayed that indicates the building model; paragraph 0122, discussing that the information window is also displayed, which contains metadata and positional information about the selected building or other object. Information may include building name, address, purpose, type of construction, year and date built, height, etc. At the bottom of the information window there are three buttons. The first button is used to hide and show the currently selected object. The second button is used to show and hide all objects of the same type. The third button is used to zoom to the selected building and rotate the point of view around it…; paragraph 0125, discussing that the environment item of the menu bar allows users to toggle layers, adjust settings and conduct shadow studies. When selected, an environment settings window as shown in FIG. 28 is displayed on the screen, either beside the 3D view or overlaid on it…; paragraph 0129, discussing that FIGS. 30 and 31 respectively show screenshots of a view with underground detail hidden and displayed. FIG. 30 shows a building such as a hospital, with pillars at its entrance and a road. In the background there is a smaller building and trees. In FIG. 31, some of the layers have been removed to reveal the footprint of the hospital and underground pipes. The smaller building and pillars are still visible; paragraphs 0099, 0114, FIGS. 30 and 31).
Orton is directed towards an integrated system for and method of supporting spatial decision making and land-use scenario analysis. Fernandes is directed toward a method and system for combining an organization's asset related data with multi-dimensional spatial information. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning using visualization tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Orton with Fernandes because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for decision making and planning support, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning system using spatial-based visualization aids), and because modifying Orton to include Fernandes’ feature for including a comparison system configured to receive the tagged software objects and produces two or more synchronized visual views based on information included in the tagged software objects at two or more different spatial scales to simultaneously view the produced two or more synchronized visual views at the two or more different spatial scales, each view from the two or more synchronized visual views comprising an overlay of one or more layers of spatially mapped data, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing a scalable decision support application that combines an organization's asset related data with multi-dimensional spatial information, providing real-world visualization of anything that can be associated with a geographical location (Fernandes at paragraph 0005), or in the pursuit of providing a visual portal and allowing users to better determine the spatial relationships between the assets that they are monitoring (Fernandes at paragraph 0006); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Orton-Fernandes combination does not explicitly teach wherein at least one lower level of the framework relative to the top level of the framework comprises a second subset of the software objects configured for project planning of subprojects for the project; and wherein a movement in one view results in a corresponding relative synchronized movement in other views, the relative synchronized movement being relative to a spatial scale of a respective view and the one or more layers of spatially mapped data represented by the overlay of the respective view. However, Song in the analogous art of visual representation system teaches these concepts. Song teaches:
wherein at least one lower level of the framework relative to the top level of the framework comprises a second subset of the software objects configured for project planning of subprojects for the project (paragraph 0003, discussing a 3D model-based visual representation system; paragraph 0144, discussing that network schedules simulate a project by taking the planned tasks or events and tying them together with constraint or dependency lines; paragraph 0602, discussing that architects create the design of a building, using 2-dimensional drawings and 3-dimensional models as spatial information. Engineers in all fields produce drawings and specifications for structural, electrical, and plumbing, based on the spatial information produced by the architect. From this information, the contractor develops a schedule and work logic, using various scheduling and accounting techniques. Design is expressed mainly using spatial information, process with temporal information, and cost is related to both temporal and spatial aspects of a project; paragraph 0658, discussing that the clearest method for integrating spatial and temporal information is, to synchronize the work breakdown structure in the schedule with the space breakdown structure. This enables the 3D object to have a one-to-one relationship with the schedule; paragraph 0712, discussing that in a 3D model, the percentage completed can be expressed in changes in object scale. Using ghost images, the 3D objects representing the as-built model and percentage of completed are superimposed. Because the user can control the opacity of each object group, as-built model and scaled model, they can visually compare the plan and actual progress. As is shown in FIG. 82, the model displaying the actual progress can change its scale depending on the input percentage of completion. If 50 percent is completed, the relevant 3D object is scaled down by 50 percent and superimposed with the as-built (100% in size), making it easy to see the progress. Along with such ghost effects, the CPI/SPI index value is simultaneously expressed in color on the object surface, allowing identification of both progress and performance in each part of the construction; paragraph 0737, discussing that the estimate at completion (EAC) is expressed through scale changes in the 3D model. The 3D models made up of two clones are superimposed, with the size of the as-build model showing BCWS (budgeted cost work scheduled), and the superimposed model size showing EAC. Cost summary for work in progress, in case of Activity A, is shown in Table 21; paragraphs 0804, 0806); and
wherein a movement in one view results in a corresponding relative synchronized movement in other views, the relative synchronized movement being relative to a spatial scale of a respective view and the one or more layers of spatially mapped data represented by the overlay of the respective view (paragraph 0653, discussing that links between spatial and temporal information can be changed according to the level of detail of the 3D objects; paragraph 0662, discussing that dynamic properties include scaling and various kinds of movements; paragraph 0664, discussing concurrent representation of multivariable data by multiple visual properties of a 3D model; paragraph 0712, discussing that in a 3D model, the percentage completed can be expressed in changes in object scale. Using ghost images, the 3D objects representing the as-built model and percentage of completed are superimposed. Because the user can control the opacity of each object group, as-built model and scaled model, they can visually compare the plan and actual progress. As is shown in FIG. 82, the model displaying the actual progress can change its scale depending on the input percentage of completion. If 50 percent is completed, the relevant 3D object is scaled down by 50 percent and superimposed with the as-built (100% in size), making it easy to see the progress. Along with such ghost effects, the CPI/SPI index value is simultaneously expressed in color on the object surface, allowing identification of both progress and performance in each part of the construction; paragraph 0737, discussing that the estimate at completion (EAC) is expressed through scale changes in the 3D model. The 3D models made up of two clones are superimposed, with the size of the as-build model showing BCWS (budgeted cost work scheduled), and the superimposed model size showing EAC. Cost summary for work in progress, in case of Activity A, is shown in Table 21; paragraph 0804, discussing that the models presented in the 3D model viewer always superimpose two identical models, in order to compare plan with actual status. The as-build slider provides opacity control of the basic geometric shape of building 3D objects, that is, the as-build model; paragraph 0806, discussing that the other slider controls opacity of the 3D model, which goes through scale changes when percentage of completion or actual cost is assigned. By superimposing these two sliders and simultaneously comparing the 3D objects displaying the plan and the actual performance, respectively, the project status can easily and intuitively be known; paragraph 0599).
The Orton-Fernandes combination describes features related to spatial information analysis. Song is directed toward a visual representation system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning using visualization tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Orton-Fernandes combination with Song because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for decision making and planning support, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning system using spatial-based visualization aids), and because modifying the Orton-Fernandes combination to include Song’s features for including wherein at least one lower level of the framework relative to the top level of the framework comprises a second subset of the software objects configured for project planning of subprojects for the project; and wherein a movement in one view results in a corresponding relative synchronized movement in other views, the relative synchronized movement being relative to a spatial scale of a respective view and the one or more layers of spatially mapped data represented by the overlay of the respective view, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of obtaining an accurate picture of the project at any given point in time and to implement efficient control (Song at paragraph 0007) and providing a multi-dimensional depiction of project control data, thereby allowing determination of the accurate status of a project and diagnosis of problems (Song at paragraph 0831); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 20, the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination teaches the system of claim 19. Although not explicitly taught by Orton, Fernandes in the analogous art of geographic information systems teaches wherein the comparison system is configured to identify patterns of inter-scale features in the two or more synchronized visual views by generating a comparison of the two or more synchronized visual (paragraph 0080, discussing that as an organization collects data on assets over time, it can make use of the timescale functionality to track historical trends in order to better configure the notification system (i.e., an equipment failure at plant A will raise the load at plant B to critical levels within 2 days, unless plant C is brought online). Where most traditional GIS systems are reactive in nature, the present system provides users with a decision support system to optimize their future plans; paragraph 0084, discussing that the controls are for configuration settings for the application. These allow the user to pull new information from the server, search for items, or load a pre-saved configuration).
Orton is directed towards an integrated system for and method of supporting spatial decision making and land-use scenario analysis. Fernandes is directed toward a method and system for combining an organization's asset related data with multi-dimensional spatial information. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning using visualization tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Orton with Fernandes because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for decision making and planning support, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning system using spatial-based visualization aids), and because modifying Orton to include Fernandes’ feature for including wherein the comparison system is configured to identify patterns of inter-scale features in the two or more synchronized visual views by generating a comparison of the two or more synchronized visual, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing a scalable decision support application that combines an organization's asset related data with multi-dimensional spatial information, providing real-world visualization of anything that can be associated with a geographical location (Fernandes at paragraph 0005), or in the pursuit of providing a visual portal and allowing users to better determine the spatial relationships between the assets that they are monitoring (Fernandes at paragraph 0006); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 21, the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination teaches the system of claim 19. Orton further teaches wherein the system attaches the tag to the software objects in the organizing framework structure to identify and track data for planning the project (paragraph 0016, discussing an integrated method of supporting spatial decision-making and land-use scenario analysis, including the steps of: installing Integrated Software Suite applications, including a Desktop GIS;…; creating a scenario view; loading spatial data; selecting an application; determining whether appropriate impacts-modeling framework definitions exist;…; defining an impacts-modeling framework; experimenting with scenario alternatives and monitoring impacts; specifying the terrain, draping an image and adding 3D features; visualizing, modifying, and walking through scenario alternatives in 3D; parametrizing and calibrating a forecasting model; forecasting long-term implications of alternative scenarios and experimenting with policy options; determining whether to save a scenario for future reference...; paragraph 0019, discussing an integrated software-based system for spatial decision making comprising: a common spatial database;…; and a plurality of spatial decision-making and land-use planning software modules, wherein each module is operative to record in the common spatial database each scenario data modification performed by that module and operative to immediately inform the clearinghouse hub of each scenario data modification performed by that module; wherein the clearinghouse hub is operative to receive notifications of scenario data modifications from each of the modules and to immediately notify all other of the modules of each scenario data modification; and wherein each module is operative to respond to each notification of a scenario data modification received from the clearinghouse hub by immediately accessing the modified scenario data in the common spatial database; paragraph 0041, discussing experimenting with scenario alternatives and monitoring impacts. In this step, a land-use planner evaluates impacts of the scenario, generates derivative scenarios by varying the placement of features, changing attributes, and changing assumptions. The land-use planner also evaluates the impacts of the derivative scenarios; paragraph 0048, discussing that each module can tag any spatial data element with information specific to that module's integration requirements. The spatial database used for establishing spatial context and results exchange between the modules of the suite is typical of any common GIS spatial database. Distinct map "layers" exist which define various spatial characteristics of a location. To enable efficient interpretation and reaction to changes within the layers by the individual modules of the suite, an additional data layer tagging architecture is used. Any module can tag any spatial data layer. Multiple tags can exist for any data layer; paragraph 0049: “These "auxiliary data" tags include context-specific metadata required for operation of each module. Examples of spatial layer data tags used within the suite are a Forecasting Module policy lookup table associated with a particular tax zone data layer or a 3D Visualization Module's last known viewing position and direction within a 3-dimensional scene; paragraphs 0036, 0049).
As per claim 22, the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination teaches the system of claim 19. Although not explicitly taught by Orton, Fernandes in the analogous art of geographic information systems teaches wherein the system is configured to distribute data from the organizing framework structure over a computer network comprising one or more devices (paragraph 0052, discussing that based on the contents of the query, the system retrieves GIS information and retrieves further data relating to the assets that are being queried. Data may be retrieved from multiple repositories; paragraph 0086, discussing that devices 10, allow users in the cloud to connect to the system via the Internet...; paragraph 0131, discussing that the system allows: ease of management of all electronic assets; enterprise-wide dissemination of relevant data; access to 2D, 3D, tabular, and spatial data from a centralized location; access via mobile devices; access independently of platform; extendable cost recovery via the ability to support resalable data subsets, with extended functionality, via consumables such as mobile applications; the aggregation of electronic information from other data sets via web services; and an excellent level of security).
Orton is directed towards an integrated system for and method of supporting spatial decision making and land-use scenario analysis. Fernandes is directed toward a method and system for combining an organization's asset related data with multi-dimensional spatial information. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning using visualization tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Orton with Fernandes because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for decision making and planning support, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning system using spatial-based visualization aids), and because modifying Orton to include Fernandes’ feature for including wherein the system is configured to distribute data from the organizing framework structure over a computer network comprising one or more devices, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing a scalable decision support application that combines an organization's asset related data with multi-dimensional spatial information, providing real-world visualization of anything that can be associated with a geographical location (Fernandes at paragraph 0005), or in the pursuit of providing a visual portal and allowing users to better determine the spatial relationships between the assets that they are monitoring (Fernandes at paragraph 0006); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 23, the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination teaches the system of claim 19. Although not explicitly taught by Orton, Fernandes in the analogous art of geographic information systems teaches further comprising instructions to cause the system to provide sets of controls for the two or more synchronized visual views (paragraph 0078, discussing that FIG. 7 shows an example screen shot 300 of a landscape provided by GIS system component 4 enhanced according to the system 2 with 3D component 98. A user is shown to be logged in as Matt, according to the security setting of the system 2. A log out button may be present adjacent to the display of the logged in status. At the top right of the screen is a compass indicating the direction of the view. The geographic (x, y) coordinates of the view are also displayed...A search box may be included in the display, for searching for buildings, rooms, space type, or any other item or feature related to the landscape…The building may be selected, or floors or rooms of the building may be selected, and then navigated to; paragraph 0079, discussing that a menu bar allows a user to easily move around the site. For example, the user may switch from a 3D view to a 2D view. The user may toggle the buildings model layer on and off. The user may go to the main page, the settings page or the admin page; paragraph 0084, discussing that at the lower right portion of the screen are a further set of buttons, for accessing the controls, the management system and to logout. The controls are for configuration settings for the application. These allow the user to pull new information from the server, search for items, or load a pre-saved configuration. The controls may be condensed into the toolbar; paragraph 0125), and
wherein system is configured to: receive a selection of a control from one or more of the sets of controls (paragraph 0078, discussing that a search box may be included in the display, for searching for buildings, rooms, space type, or any other item or feature related to the landscape…The building may be selected, or floors or rooms of the building may be selected, and then navigated to; paragraph 0079, discussing that a menu bar allows a user to easily move around the site. For example, the user may switch from a 3D view to a 2D view. The user may toggle the buildings model layer on and off. The user may go to the main page, the settings page or the admin page; paragraph 0084, discussing that at the lower right portion of the screen are a further set of buttons, for accessing the controls, the management system and to logout. The controls are for configuration settings for the application. These allow the user to pull new information from the server, search for items, or load a pre-saved configuration. The controls may be condensed into the toolbar; paragraph 0123, discussing that FIG. 27 shows the same scene as in FIG. 26, without the building model, as a result of a user clicking the button 720 or 722. Instead of the building 712, the footprint of the building is shown; paragraph 0125, discussing that the environment item of the menu bar allows users to toggle layers, adjust settings and conduct shadow studies. When selected, an environment settings window is displayed on the screen, either beside the 3D view or overlaid on it. It may be partially transparent if overlaid. The environment setting window includes settings for layers that that can toggled on and off with buttons 732. Layers may include trees, ortho/painted, buildings, clouds, roads, road names, shadows, etc. A field of view slider may be included to allow a user to adjust the angle of the field of view…A section 744 for setting user controls may be included, with a slider for adjusting the mouse sensitivity and a slider for adjusting the "flying speed" of the user as his point of view of the 3D scene is changed; paragraph 0124).
apply the selection of the control to the organizing framework structure (paragraph 0084, discussing that at the lower right portion of the screen are a further set of buttons, for accessing the controls, the management system and to logout. The controls are for configuration settings for the application. These allow the user to pull new information from the server, search for items, or load a pre-saved configuration. The controls may be condensed into the toolbar; paragraph 0123, discussing that FIG. 27 shows the same scene as in FIG. 26, without the building model, as a result of a user clicking the button 720 or 722. Instead of the building 712, the footprint of the building is shown; paragraph 0125, discussing that the environment item of the menu bar allows users to toggle layers, adjust settings and conduct shadow studies. When selected, an environment settings window is displayed on the screen, either beside the 3D view or overlaid on it. It may be partially transparent if overlaid. The environment setting window includes settings for layers that that can toggled on and off with buttons 732. Layers may include trees, ortho/painted, buildings, clouds, roads, road names, shadows, etc. A field of view slider may be included to allow a user to adjust the angle of the field of view…A section 744 for setting user controls may be included, with a slider for adjusting the mouse sensitivity and a slider for adjusting the "flying speed" of the user as his point of view of the 3D scene is changed); and
provide output data from the organizing framework structure based on the selection of the control (paragraph 0122, discussing that the information window is also displayed, which contains metadata and positional information about the selected building or other object. Information may include building name, address, purpose, type of construction, year and date built, height, etc. At the bottom of the information window 716 there are three buttons. The first button 720 is used to hide and show the currently selected object. The second button 722 is used to show and hide all objects of the same type. The third button 724 is used to zoom to the selected building and rotate the point of view around it. Clicking the button 724 again will stop the rotation; paragraph 0124, discussing that when the user selects the find building item 704 from the menu bar 700, a building search tool is provided to the user. Users can search for a building by name or number by typing all or part of their query into the search box and clicking `Go` (for example) to get a list of possible matches. By clicking on a record in the list, the 3D view zooms to the corresponding building; paragraph 0125, discussing that the environment item of the menu bar allows users to toggle layers, adjust settings and conduct shadow studies. When selected, an environment settings window is displayed on the screen, either beside the 3D view or overlaid on it. It may be partially transparent if overlaid. The environment setting window includes settings for layers that that can toggled on and off with buttons 732. Layers may include trees, ortho/painted, buildings, clouds, roads, road names, shadows, etc. A field of view slider may be included to allow a user to adjust the angle of the field of view…A section 744 for setting user controls may be included, with a slider for adjusting the mouse sensitivity and a slider for adjusting the "flying speed" of the user as his point of view of the 3D scene is changed).
Orton is directed towards an integrated system for and method of supporting spatial decision making and land-use scenario analysis. Fernandes is directed toward a method and system for combining an organization's asset related data with multi-dimensional spatial information. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning using visualization tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Orton with Fernandes because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for decision making and planning support, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning system using spatial-based visualization aids), and because modifying Orton to include Fernandes’ features for including further comprising instructions to cause the system to provide sets of controls for the two or more synchronized visual views, and wherein system is configured to: receive a selection of a control from one or more of the sets of controls; apply the selection of the control to the organizing framework structure; and provide output data from the organizing framework structure based on the selection of the control, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing a scalable decision support application that combines an organization's asset related data with multi-dimensional spatial information, providing real-world visualization of anything that can be associated with a geographical location (Fernandes at paragraph 0005), or in the pursuit of providing a visual portal and allowing users to better determine the spatial relationships between the assets that they are monitoring (Fernandes at paragraph 0006); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 24, the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination teaches the system of claim 19. Orton further teaches wherein the organizing framework structure is configured to store the input data, the input data corresponding to one or more of (i) a factor, (ii) an effect, (iii) a problem, or (iv) a solution, of the project (paragraph 0016, discussing an integrated method of supporting spatial decision-making and land-use scenario analysis, including the steps of: installing Integrated Software Suite applications, including a Desktop GIS;…; creating a scenario view; loading spatial data; selecting an application; determining whether appropriate impacts-modeling framework definitions exist;…; defining an impacts-modeling framework; experimenting with scenario alternatives and monitoring impacts; specifying the terrain, draping an image and adding 3D features; visualizing, modifying, and walking through scenario alternatives in 3D; parametrizing and calibrating a forecasting model; forecasting long-term implications of alternative scenarios and experimenting with policy options; determining whether to save a scenario for future reference...; paragraph 0019, discussing an integrated software-based system for spatial decision making comprising: a common spatial database;…; and a plurality of spatial decision-making and land-use planning software modules, wherein each module is operative to record in the common spatial database each scenario data modification performed by that module and operative to immediately inform the clearinghouse hub of each scenario data modification performed by that module; wherein the clearinghouse hub is operative to receive notifications of scenario data modifications from each of the modules and to immediately notify all other of the modules of each scenario data modification; and wherein each module is operative to respond to each notification of a scenario data modification received from the clearinghouse hub by immediately accessing the modified scenario data in the common spatial database; paragraph 0041, discussing experimenting with scenario alternatives and monitoring impacts. In this step, a land-use planner evaluates impacts of the scenario, generates derivative scenarios by varying the placement of features, changing attributes, and changing assumptions. The land-use planner also evaluates the impacts of the derivative scenarios; paragraph 0048, discussing that each module can tag any spatial data element with information specific to that module's integration requirements. The spatial database used for establishing spatial context and results exchange between the modules of the suite is typical of any common GIS spatial database. Distinct map "layers" exist which define various spatial characteristics of a location. To enable efficient interpretation and reaction to changes within the layers by the individual modules of the suite, an additional data layer tagging architecture is used. Any module can tag any spatial data layer. Multiple tags can exist for any data layer; paragraph 0049: “These "auxiliary data" tags include context-specific metadata required for operation of each module. Examples of spatial layer data tags used within the suite are a Forecasting Module policy lookup table associated with a particular tax zone data layer or a 3D Visualization Module's last known viewing position and direction within a 3-dimensional scene; paragraphs 0036, 0049), but it does not explicitly teach wherein the input data is derived from inputs received from a distributed network of mobile devices communicatively coupled to the system. However, Fernandes in the analogous art of geographic information systems teaches this concept. Fernandes teaches:
wherein the input data is derived from inputs received from a distributed network of mobile devices communicatively coupled to the system (paragraph 0052, discussing that based on the contents of the query, the system retrieves GIS information and retrieves further data relating to the assets that are being queried. Data may be retrieved from multiple repositories; paragraph 0086, discussing that devices 10, allow users in the cloud to connect to the system via the Internet [i.e., distributed network of mobile device inputs]...; paragraph 0131, discussing that the system allows: ease of management of all electronic assets; enterprise-wide dissemination of relevant data; access to 2D, 3D, tabular, and spatial data from a centralized location; access via mobile devices; access independently of platform; extendable cost recovery via the ability to support resalable data subsets, with extended functionality, via consumables such as mobile applications; the aggregation of electronic information from other data sets via web services; and an excellent level of security).
Orton is directed towards an integrated system for and method of supporting spatial decision making and land-use scenario analysis. Fernandes is directed toward a method and system for combining an organization's asset related data with multi-dimensional spatial information. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning using visualization tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Orton with Fernandes because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for decision making and planning support, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning system using spatial-based visualization aids), and because modifying Orton to include Fernandes’ feature for including wherein the input data is derived from inputs received from a distributed network of mobile devices communicatively coupled to the system, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing a scalable decision support application that combines an organization's asset related data with multi-dimensional spatial information, providing real-world visualization of anything that can be associated with a geographical location (Fernandes at paragraph 0005), or in the pursuit of providing a visual portal and allowing users to better determine the spatial relationships between the assets that they are monitoring (Fernandes at paragraph 0006); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 25, the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination teaches the system of claim 19. Orton further teaches wherein the input data is provided by a computer-generated input from one or both of (i) a user interaction with a computing device coupled to the system, or (ii) the computing device (para graph 0028, discussing that in operation, third-party applications and Integrated Software Suite are installed on a hard disk drive . A user creates a scenario view using a keyboard, mouse, and available data. The user then enters spatial data via the keyboard, CD-ROM drive, or another data source, and a spatial database is updated accordingly; paragraph 0063, discussing parametrizing and calibrating the forecasting model…A technical user parametrizes the Forecasting Module forecasting model by entering current policies, population, zoning, census data, parameters within the virtual location of the scenario view created).
As per claim 26, the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination teaches the system of claim 19. Orton further teaches further comprising instructions to cause the system to link data between two or more different software objects from the software objects in the organizing framework structure (paragraph 0036, discussing creating a scenario view. In this step, a technical user who has knowledge of spatial modeling, Integrated Software Suite, and Desktop GIS, creates a Desktop GIS map upon which spatial scenarios can be explored. For example, if a user wishes to explore scenarios associated with placing a shopping mall in Smalltown, U.S.A, a scenario view entitled Smalltown Mall could be created. This forms the basis upon which all future scenarios involving a shopping mall in Smalltown, U.S.A are performed. This is the empty framework upon which scenarios are explored; paragraph 0046, discussing that 3D Visualization Module also functions within the context of spatial database and can readily interpret the x-y coordinates. However, 3D Visualization Module might add visual context to this simple x-y location by associating it with placement on a mountainous terrain and/or by associating 3-dimensional models with unique appearances from the Model Library for each coordinate. This allows the user to "see" the projected future from the Forecasting Module. The visual "attributes" that are associated with the projected x-y coordinates are also dynamically recorded in common spatial database 134; paragraph 0048, discussing that each module can "tag" any spatial data element with information specific to that module's integration requirements. The spatial database used for establishing spatial context and results exchange between the modules of the suite is typical of any common GIS spatial database. Distinct map "layers" exist which define various spatial characteristics of a location. To enable efficient interpretation and reaction to changes within the layers by the individual modules of the suite, an additional data layer tagging architecture is used. Any module can tag any spatial data layer. Multiple tags can exist for any data layer; paragraph 0049, discussing that "auxiliary data" tags include context-specific metadata required for operation of each module. Examples of spatial layer data tags used within the suite are a Forecasting Module policy lookup table associated with a particular tax zone data layer or a 3D Visualization Module's last known viewing position and direction within a 3-dimensional scene; paragraph 0050] Software maintenance links are provided as part of the auxiliary data tag management system. Any module linked to the software suite can dynamically update the auxiliary data tags index using maintenance functions... The index of auxiliary data tags for each spatial data layer is maintained, saved, and retrieved as part of a scenario view).
As per claim 28, the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination teaches the system of claim 19. Although not explicitly taught by Orton, Fernandes in the analogous art of geographic information systems teaches wherein the software objects are prepopulated with information provided from at least one prior interaction with organizing framework structure, wherein the prior interaction is from one or more of (i) a user-generated input, or (ii) an input generated by a computer algorithm (paragraph 0092, discussing that the placement of asset models occurs by two methods: placement of existing structures; and placement of proposed structures with optional terrain changes. Before an asset model can appear in the 3D component 98 it must be associated, in step 432, with a record in the asset management system 120. Where this record is conjoined with GIS data, the position of the model will be determined by the position (or footprint) recorded in the GIS. This is most often the case for an existing structure. These models will appear by default in the 3D component 98, when the data is displayed; paragraph 0107, discussing that when a proposed building has been approved for construction it is first added to the default building database and has a unique ID assigned to it. Once this has been done, the detailed building record 570 can be opened and the status of the building can be updated. This may be done using a drop down button, for example. The unique ID creates an association between the building record and its corresponding 3D model; paragraph 0108, discussing that once a building status is changed from ‘Proposed’ to a different status, most of the data fields will be automatically populated with the information recorded in the default building database. In order for the building to appear on the map screen, the building footprint should also be added to the appropriate layer in the GIS system 4; paragraph 0134, discussing that the software solution can access and update multiple internal and external data sources. As appropriate, existing databases will be accessed, and new tables created to support any enhanced functions.).
Orton is directed towards an integrated system for and method of supporting spatial decision making and land-use scenario analysis. Fernandes is directed toward a method and system for combining an organization's asset related data with multi-dimensional spatial information. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning using visualization tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Orton with Fernandes because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for decision making and planning support, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning system using spatial-based visualization aids), and because modifying Orton to include Fernandes’ feature for including wherein the software objects are prepopulated with information provided from at least one prior interaction with organizing framework structure, wherein the prior interaction is from one or more of (i) a user-generated input, or (ii) an input generated by a computer algorithm, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing a scalable decision support application that combines an organization's asset related data with multi-dimensional spatial information, providing real-world visualization of anything that can be associated with a geographical location (Fernandes at paragraph 0005), or in the pursuit of providing a visual portal and allowing users to better determine the spatial relationships between the assets that they are monitoring (Fernandes at paragraph 0006); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 29, the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination teaches the system of claim 19. Although not explicitly taught by the Orton-Fernandes combination, Song in the analogous art of visual representation system teaches wherein each of the one or more layers of spatially mapped data is configured to show different types of data based on the spatial scale of the respective view (paragraph 0658, discussing that the clearest method for integrating spatial and temporal information is, to synchronize the work breakdown structure in the schedule with the space breakdown structure. This enables the 3D object to have a one-to-one relationship with the schedule; paragraph 0662, discussing that dynamic properties include scaling and various kinds of movements; paragraph 0664, discussing concurrent representation of multivariable data by multiple visual properties of a 3D model; paragraph 0712, discussing that in a 3D model, the percentage completed can be expressed in changes in object scale. Using ghost images, the 3D objects representing the as-built model and percentage of completed are superimposed. Because the user can control the opacity of each object group, as-built model and scaled model, they can visually compare the plan and actual progress. As is shown in FIG. 82, the model displaying the actual progress can change its scale depending on the input percentage of completion. If 50 percent is completed, the relevant 3D object is scaled down by 50 percent and superimposed with the as-built (100% in size), making it easy to see the progress. Along with such ghost effects, the CPI/SPI index value is simultaneously expressed in color on the object surface, allowing identification of both progress and performance in each part of the construction; paragraph 0737, discussing that the estimate at completion (EAC) is expressed through scale changes in the 3D model. The 3D models made up of two clones are superimposed, with the size of the as-build model showing BCWS (budgeted cost work scheduled), and the superimposed model size showing EAC. Cost summary for work in progress, in case of Activity A, is shown in Table 21; paragraph 0806, discussing that the other slider controls opacity of the 3D model, which goes through scale changes when percentage of completion or actual cost is assigned. By superimposing these two sliders and simultaneously comparing the 3D objects displaying the plan and the actual performance, respectively, the project status can easily and intuitively be known; paragraphs 0599, 0804).
The Orton-Fernandes combination describes features related to spatial information analysis. Song is directed toward a visual representation system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning using visualization tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Orton-Fernandes combination with Song because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for decision making and planning support, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning system using spatial-based visualization aids), and because modifying the Orton-Fernandes combination to include Song’s feature for including wherein each of the one or more layers of spatially mapped data is configured to show different types of data based on the spatial scale of the respective view, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of obtaining an accurate picture of the project at any given point in time and to implement efficient control (Song at paragraph 0007) and providing a multi-dimensional depiction of project control data, thereby allowing determination of the accurate status of a project and diagnosis of problems (Song at paragraph 0831); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 30, the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination teaches the system of claim 19. Although not explicitly taught by Orton, Fernandes in the analogous art of geographic asset management systems teaches wherein the comparison system is configured to: generate two or more images, each image having a spatial visualization with layered information, the layered information for each image comprising one or more topical layers representing a topic of interest to a user device and data related to the topic of interest (paragraph 0005, discussing that the disclosed subject matter of the invention provides a geographic asset management system representing a scalable, platform agnostic decision support application that combines an organization's asset related data with multi-dimensional spatial information, providing real-world visualization of anything that can be associated with a geographical location; paragraph 0006, discussing that the geographic asset management system provides a visual portal to users' information, allowing them to better determine the spatial relationships between the assets that they are monitoring. This visual representation may, for example, be used to help reduce travel expenses to remote offices, plan locations of medical clinics or stores to optimize coverage in a given area, or compare designs for a new construction project with the existing environment; paragraph 0008, discussing that the one or more processors are configured to cause display on the user terminal a three dimensional rendering of a landscape retrieved from the geographical information system and one or more of the three dimensional models retrieved from the one or more databases, each displayed model located and oriented in the rendering of the landscape according to its geographic coordinates and orientation; paragraph 0066, discussing that the spatial display (map) is the third part of the core of the architecture. The spatial display may have layers that are configurable by admin and secured by role. GIS tools may be included, such as pan, zoom, extent, identify and feature query. Feature query may display a link to the asset details; paragraph 0097, discussing that the map section of the system allows users to see maps with various layers added to identify the assets recorded in the system; paragraph 0121, discussing that FIGS. 26 and 27 show screenshots with a building model present and absent, respectively, as viewed using the 3D component. FIG. 26 shows a scene with a 3D model of a building that has been clicked on by a user. As a result of clicking on the building model, a marker is displayed that indicates the building model; paragraph 0122, discussing that the information window is also displayed, which contains metadata and positional information about the selected building or other object. Information may include building name, address, purpose, type of construction, year and date built, height, etc. At the bottom of the information window there are three buttons. The first button is used to hide and show the currently selected object. The second button is used to show and hide all objects of the same type. The third button is used to zoom to the selected building and rotate the point of view around it…; paragraph 0125, discussing that the environment item of the menu bar allows users to toggle layers, adjust settings and conduct shadow studies. When selected, an environment settings window as shown in FIG. 28 is displayed on the screen, either beside the 3D view or overlaid on it…; paragraph 0129, discussing that FIGS. 30 and 31 respectively show screenshots of a view with underground detail hidden and displayed. FIG. 30 shows a building such as a hospital, with pillars at its entrance and a road. In the background there is a smaller building and trees. In FIG. 31, some of the layers have been removed to reveal the footprint of the hospital and underground pipes. The smaller building and pillars are still visible).
Orton is directed towards an integrated system for and method of supporting spatial decision making and land-use scenario analysis. Fernandes is directed toward a method and system for combining an organization's asset related data with multi-dimensional spatial information. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning using visualization tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Orton with Fernandes because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for decision making and planning support, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning system using spatial-based visualization aids), and because modifying Orton to include Fernandes’ feature for including a comparison system configured to receive the tagged software objects and produces two or more synchronized visual views based on information included in the tagged software objects at two or more different spatial scales to simultaneously view the produced two or more synchronized visual views at the two or more different spatial scales, each view from the two or more synchronized visual views comprising an overlay of one or more layers of spatially mapped data, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing a scalable decision support application that combines an organization's asset related data with multi-dimensional spatial information, providing real-world visualization of anything that can be associated with a geographical location (Fernandes at paragraph 0005), or in the pursuit of providing a visual portal and allowing users to better determine the spatial relationships between the assets that they are monitoring (Fernandes at paragraph 0006); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The Orton-Fernandes combination does not explicitly teach a real-time spatial visualization; and synchronize the two or more images according to a spatial location common in each image, with each real-time spatial visualization displaying (i) the layered information at the spatial scale of a respective image, (ii) a portion of data related to the topic of interest associated with the one or more topical layers of the layered information at the spatial scale of the respective image. However, Song in the analogous art of visual representation system teaches these concepts. Song teaches:
a real-time spatial visualization (paragraph 0128, discussing that the project manager could access all information and can send requests electronically to relevant professionals to modify information. In such a system, all information would be transparent and the person in charge would be clearly known. If the information required by the project manager for data analysis, identification, and interpretation, could be provided intuitively with an optimum level of detail in real-time among the diverse systems of the field management team, architect, and engineer and control system of the project manager, it would greatly reduce the time and effort required for the control process; paragraph 0464, discussing another example of visualization using the tree map. It is a web-based tree map, which shows changes in the stock market every fifteen minutes in real time; paragraph 0556); and
synchronize the two or more images according to a spatial location common in each image, with each real-time spatial visualization displaying (i) the layered information at the spatial scale of a respective image, (ii) a portion of data related to the topic of interest associated with the one or more topical layers of the layered information at the spatial scale of the respective image (paragraph 0003, discussing a 3D model-based visual representation system; paragraph 0128, discussing that the project manager could access all information and can send requests electronically to relevant professionals to modify information. In such a system, all information would be transparent and the person in charge would be clearly known. If the information required by the project manager for data analysis, identification, and interpretation, could be provided intuitively with an optimum level of detail in real-time among the diverse systems of the field management team, architect, and engineer and control system of the project manager, it would greatly reduce the time and effort required for the control process; paragraph 0602, discussing that architects create the design of a building, using 2-dimensional drawings and 3-dimensional models as spatial information. Engineers in all fields produce drawings and specifications for structural, electrical, and plumbing, based on the spatial information produced by the architect. From this information, the contractor develops a schedule and work logic, using various scheduling and accounting techniques. Design is expressed mainly using spatial information, process with temporal information, and cost is related to both temporal and spatial aspects of a project; paragraph 0653, discussing that links between spatial and temporal information can be changed according to the level of detail of the 3D objects; paragraph 0662, discussing that dynamic properties include scaling and various kinds of movements; paragraph 0664, discussing concurrent representation of multivariable data by multiple visual properties of a 3D model; paragraph 0658, discussing that the clearest method for integrating spatial and temporal information is, to synchronize the work breakdown structure in the schedule with the space breakdown structure. This enables the 3D object to have a one-to-one relationship with the schedule; paragraph 0712, discussing that in a 3D model, the percentage completed can be expressed in changes in object scale. Using ghost images, the 3D objects representing the as-built model and percentage of completed are superimposed. Because the user can control the opacity of each object group, as-built model and scaled model, they can visually compare the plan and actual progress. As is shown in FIG. 82, the model displaying the actual progress can change its scale depending on the input percentage of completion. If 50 percent is completed, the relevant 3D object is scaled down by 50 percent and superimposed with the as-built (100% in size), making it easy to see the progress. Along with such ghost effects, the CPI/SPI index value is simultaneously expressed in color on the object surface, allowing identification of both progress and performance in each part of the construction; paragraph 0737, discussing that the estimate at completion (EAC) is expressed through scale changes in the 3D model. The 3D models made up of two clones are superimposed, with the size of the as-build model showing BCWS (budgeted cost work scheduled), and the superimposed model size showing EAC. Cost summary for work in progress, in case of Activity A, is shown in Table 21; paragraph 0804, discussing that the models presented in the 3D model viewer always superimpose two identical models, in order to compare plan with actual status. The as-build slider provides opacity control of the basic geometric shape of building 3D objects, that is, the as-build model; paragraph 0806, discussing that the other slider controls opacity of the 3D model, which goes through scale changes when percentage of completion or actual cost is assigned. By superimposing these two sliders and simultaneously comparing the 3D objects displaying the plan and the actual performance, respectively, the project status can easily and intuitively be known; paragraph 0599).
The Orton-Fernandes combination describes features related to spatial information analysis. Song is directed toward a visual representation system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning using visualization tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Orton-Fernandes combination with Song because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for decision making and planning support, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning system using spatial-based visualization aids), and because modifying the Orton-Fernandes combination to include Song’s features for including a real-time spatial visualization; and synchronize the two or more images according to a spatial location common in each image, with each real-time spatial visualization displaying (i) the layered information at the spatial scale of a respective image, (ii) a portion of data related to the topic of interest associated with the one or more topical layers of the layered information at the spatial scale of the respective image, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of obtaining an accurate picture of the project at any given point in time and to implement efficient control (Song at paragraph 0007) and providing a multi-dimensional depiction of project control data, thereby allowing determination of the accurate status of a project and diagnosis of problems (Song at paragraph 0831); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 31, the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination teaches the system of claim 30. Although not explicitly taught by Orton, Fernandes in the analogous art of geographic information systems teaches wherein when changing a view of one of the two or more images, the system is configured to: receive an indication to zoom in or zoom out on a first one of the two or more images (paragraph 0066, discussing that the map may have layers that are configurable by admin and secured by role. GIS tools may be included, such as pan, zoom, extent, identify and feature query. Feature query may display a link to the asset details; paragraph 0098, discussing that the map includes a scale, a zoom bar and navigation buttons. The zoom bar may be used to enlarge or shrink the detail of the map. Alternately, a user may double click on a point in the map to zoom in at that point; paragraph 0122, discussing that the information window is also displayed, which contains metadata and positional information about the selected building or other object. Information may include building name, address, purpose, type of construction, year and date built, height, etc. At the bottom of the information window there are three buttons. The first button is used to hide and show the currently selected object. The second button is used to show and hide all objects of the same type. The third button is used to zoom to the selected building and rotate the point of view around it); and
in response to the indication to zoom, construct a query in the organizing framework structure for available data according to context and relevance of data at the spatial scale of the zoomed image and topics relevant at the spatial scale and to the spatial scale of at least a second one of the two or more images and topical layers (paragraph 0066, discussing that the map may have layers that are configurable by admin and secured by role. GIS tools may be included, such as pan, zoom, extent, identify and feature query. Feature query may display a link to the asset details; paragraph 0098, discussing that the map includes a scale, a zoom bar and navigation buttons. The zoom bar may be used to enlarge or shrink the detail of the map. Alternately, a user may double click on a point in the map to zoom in at that point; paragraph 0122, discussing that the information window is also displayed, which contains metadata and positional information about the selected building or other object. Information may include building name, address, purpose, type of construction, year and date built, height, etc. At the bottom of the information window there are three buttons. The first button is used to hide and show the currently selected object. The second button is used to show and hide all objects of the same type. The third button is used to zoom to the selected building and rotate the point of view around it; paragraph 0124, discussing that when the user selects the find building item 704 from the menu bar 700, a building search tool is provided to the user. Users can search for a building by name or number by typing all or part of their query into the search box and clicking ‘Go’ (for example) to get a list of possible matches. By clicking on a record in the list, the 3D view zooms to the corresponding building).
Orton is directed towards an integrated system for and method of supporting spatial decision making and land-use scenario analysis. Fernandes is directed toward a method and system for combining an organization's asset related data with multi-dimensional spatial information. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning using visualization tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Orton with Fernandes because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for decision making and planning support, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning system using spatial-based visualization aids), and because modifying Orton to include Fernandes’ features for including wherein when changing a view of one of the two or more images, the system is configured to: receive an indication to zoom in or zoom out on a first one of the two or more images; and in response to the indication to zoom, construct a query in the organizing framework structure for available data according to context and relevance of data at the spatial scale of the zoomed image and topics relevant at the spatial scale and to the spatial scale of at least a second one of the two or more images and topical layers, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing a scalable decision support application that combines an organization's asset related data with multi-dimensional spatial information, providing real-world visualization of anything that can be associated with a geographical location (Fernandes at paragraph 0005); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 32, the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination teaches the system of claim 19. While Orton describes data layers and map layers (paragraphs 0043, 0048), Orton does not explicitly teach wherein each of the two or more synchronized visual views are configured to show a plurality of layers, wherein each layer from the plurality of layers for a respective view is configured to show visual features relevant to one or more of (i) the spatial scale of the respective view, (ii) a context of data at the spatial scale of the respective view, or (iii) a comparative context between the two or more synchronized visual views. However, Fernandes in the analogous art of geographic information systems teaches this concept (paragraph 0066, discussing that the map may have layers that are configurable by admin and secured by role. GIS tools may be included, such as pan, zoom, extent, identify and feature query. Feature query may display a link to the asset details; paragraph 0079, discussing that a menu bar allows a user to easily move around the site. For example, the user may switch from a 3D view to a 2D view. The user may toggle the buildings model layer on and off; paragraph 0097, discussing that the map section of the system allows users to see maps with various layers added to identify the assets recorded in the system; paragraph 0099, discussing that to the right of the map a side bar 479 is displayed which includes a legend for the various main layers, such as imagery 480, of the map 450. Sub-layers may also be included, such as forested areas 482. The side bar 479 includes check boxes 484 which allow the user to toggle the display of the relevant layer on and off. Slider bars 486 are also included, which can be used by the user to set the display opacity of the respective layer; paragraph 0114, discussing that the map layers tab 660 provides access to a screen shown in FIG. 23 that allows users to add new layers from the associated GIS system 4 for display on the map screen. Layers are shown as a list 670, each layer defined by a name 672, a type 674, a URL 676 and an order 678 in which it is displayed in the layer window of the map; paragraph 0122, discussing that the information window is also displayed, which contains metadata and positional information about the selected building or other object. Information may include building name, address, purpose, type of construction, year and date built, height, etc. At the bottom of the information window there are three buttons; paragraphs 0108, 0129).
Orton is directed towards an integrated system for and method of supporting spatial decision making and land-use scenario analysis. Fernandes is directed toward a method and system for combining an organization's asset related data with multi-dimensional spatial information. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning using visualization tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Orton with Fernandes because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for decision making and planning support, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning system using spatial-based visualization aids), and because modifying Orton to include Fernandes’ feature for including wherein each of the two or more synchronized visual views are configured to show a plurality of layers, wherein each layer from the plurality of layers for a respective view is configured to show visual features relevant to one or more of (i) the spatial scale of the respective view, (ii) a context of data at the spatial scale of the respective view, or (iii) a comparative context between the two or more synchronized visual views, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of providing a scalable decision support application that combines an organization's asset related data with multi-dimensional spatial information, providing real-world visualization of anything that can be associated with a geographical location (Fernandes at paragraph 0005); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 35, the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination teaches the system of claim 19. Orton further teaches wherein the software objects are configured to have programmatic, spatial, and interactive capabilities that allow the software objects to store the input data, and wherein the input data comprises at least one of statistics, photos, diagrams, maps, qualitative data, or analytical data (abstract: “the present invention comprises a method of providing a fully interactive and integrated planning tool in an integrated software suite for spatial decision making comprising spatial decision-making and land-use planning software modules wherein modifications made to land-use scenarios in one software module are immediately reflected in other modules.” [i.e., This shows that the software objects are configured to have programmatic, spatial, and interactive capabilities]; paragraph 0012, discussing that the invention provides multi-objective land-use planning capabilities; the invention enables users to interactively perform land-use planning in real-time; and the invention integrates analytical, visual, and predictive evaluation of land-use scenarios; paragraph 0017, discussing recording the scenario data modification in a spatial database; paragraph 0025, discussing that FIG. 1 illustrates a PC 100 used for supporting spatial decision-making and land-use scenario analysis. PC 100 includes a main unit 105...Main unit 105 includes one or more CPUs,…, and a hard disk drive 130. Hard disk drive 130 stores an operating system, a spatial database,…, and Integrated Software Suite; paragraph 0028, discussing that the user then enters spatial data, and the spatial database is updated accordingly…As the user experiments with different scenarios, visualizes scenario alternatives, and forecasts long-term implications of scenario alternatives, the spatial database is continually updated to reflect the changes in the data; paragraph 0036, discussing that step 310 comprises creating a scenario view. In this step, a technical user who has knowledge of spatial modeling, Integrated Software Suite 138, and Desktop GIS 240, creates a Desktop GIS 240 map upon which spatial scenarios can be explored. For example, if a user wishes to explore scenarios associated with placing a shopping mall in Smalltown, U.S.A, a scenario view entitled Smalltown Mall could be created. This forms the basis upon which all future scenarios involving a shopping mall in Smalltown, U.S.A are performed. This is the empty framework upon which scenarios are explored; paragraph 0037, discussing that the technical user loads into Desktop GIS 240 GIS spatial data applicable to the geographic location and scenarios being explored. This data updates the spatial database. For example, the user might load road systems, current building locations, river locations, etc. This data defines the geographic location, as it exists at the present time; paragraph 0045, discussing that the spatial context for Forecasting Module 220's projection includes the locations (x-y coordinates) for each projected structure. These x-y coordinates are dynamically recorded in the spatial database; paragraph 0046, discussing that the visual "attributes" that are associated with the projected x-y coordinates are also dynamically recorded in the spatial database; paragraph 0047: “This new layout is recorded in the common spatial database 134.; paragraph 0048, discussing that the spatial database used for establishing spatial context and results exchange between the modules of the suite is typical of any common GIS spatial database. Distinct map "layers" exist which define various spatial characteristics of a location (e.g., road systems, water features, soil types, building locations, tax zones, etc.) [i.e., the spatial characteristics of a location including the soil types correspond to information including qualitative data]; paragraph 0060, discussing that step 335 comprises specifying terrain, draping an image, and adding 3D features. In this step, a technical user utilizes 3D Visualization Module 250 to update the spatial database with terrain descriptions within a spatial data layer, a satellite or aerial photograph draped over the geography, and additional features, such as trees and buildings [i.e., the satellite or aerial photograph recorded in the spatial database corresponds to the photos]; paragraphs 0024, 0029, 0063).
As per claim 36, the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination teaches the system of claim 19. Orton further teaches wherein the one or more criteria comprises at least one of (i) a topic, (ii) a scale, or (iii) a spatial orientation (paragraph 0028, discussing that the user creates a scenario view...The user then enters spatial data…, and the spatial database is updated accordingly; paragraph 0048, discussing that each module can "tag" any spatial data element with information specific to that module's integration requirements. The spatial database used for establishing spatial context and results exchange between the modules of the suite is typical of any common GIS spatial database. Distinct map "layers" exist which define various spatial characteristics of a location. To enable efficient interpretation and reaction to changes within the layers by the individual modules of the suite, an additional data layer tagging architecture is used. Any module can tag any spatial data layer. Multiple tags can exist for any data layer; paragraph 0049, discussing that these "auxiliary data" tags include context-specific metadata required for operation of each module. Examples of spatial layer data tags used within the suite are a Forecasting Module policy lookup table associated with a particular tax zone data layer or a 3D Visualization Module's last known viewing position and direction within a 3-dimensional scene; paragraph 0050).
Although not explicitly taught by the Orton-Fernandes combination, Song in the analogous art of visual representation systems teaches wherein the subprojects of for the project represent one or more of: (i) community sections, (ii) existing conditions, or (iii) proposed development, for the project (paragraph 0012, discussing that monitoring and control, in particular, enable management to assess the current status of a project, predict project completion and take proper actions before schedule and cost deviation of any kind occur; paragraph 0044, discussing that the actual data from the jobsite during construction is input and analyzed in the system; paragraph 0077, discussing that providing accurate explanation of the actual project condition by gathering and compiling this raw data from other professionals or different subsystems and by organizing them for predictive purposes are the first part of a project managers responsibility during construction; paragraph 0741, discussing that if schedule deviation occurs on part of the construction, information such as criticality, reason for deviation, estimate at completion, and performance index can be applied to the 3D model to see the current issue, its impact on other construction parts, and future trends all at once; paragraphs 0705, 0717).
The Orton-Fernandes combination describes features related to spatial information analysis. Song is directed toward a visual representation system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning using visualization tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Orton-Fernandes combination with Song because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for decision making and planning support, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning system using spatial-based visualization aids), and because modifying the Orton-Fernandes combination to include Song’s feature for including wherein the subprojects of for the project represent one or more of: (i) community sections, (ii) existing conditions, or (iii) proposed development, for the project, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of obtaining an accurate picture of the project at any given point in time and to implement efficient control (Song at paragraph 0007) and providing a multi-dimensional depiction of project control data, thereby allowing determination of the accurate status of a project and diagnosis of problems (Song at paragraph 0831); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 37 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 1, as discussed above. Further, as per claim 37 the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination teaches a computer implemented method (Orton, paragraphs 0016, 0017, 0018, 0057).
Claim 38 recites substantially similar limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 1, as discussed above. Further, as per claim 37 the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations (Orton, paragraph 0014, discussing an integrated system for supporting spatial decision-making…, preferably including: a main unit that includes (a) a RAM (Random Access Memory) device: (b) one or more CPUs; (c) a hard disk drive that stores (i) an operating system; (ii) a spatial database; (iii) third-party applications; and (iv) a preferred integrated software suite for spatial decision making…; paragraph 0025, discussing that FIG. 1 illustrates a PC used for supporting spatial decision-making… The PC includes a main unit, a high-resolution display, a mouse, a keyboard, and a CD-ROM drive. Main unit further includes one or more CPUs, RAM, a high-speed graphics card, and a hard disk drive; Fernandes, paragraph 0010, discussing that the invention further relates to one or more computer readable media carrying computer readable instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors cause said processors to: store, in one or more databases, asset related data…).
17. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orton in view of Fernandes, in view of Song, in further view of Tyagi et al., Patent No.: US 9,760,840 B1, [hereinafter Tyagi].
As per claim 27, the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination teaches the system of claim 26. Orton further teaches wherein further comprising instructions to cause the system to: receive a user indication of particular objects from the software objects identified by one or both of spatial location or topic (paragraph 0036, discussing creating a scenario view. In this step, a technical user who has knowledge of spatial modeling, Integrated Software Suite, and Desktop GIS, creates a Desktop GIS map upon which spatial scenarios can be explored. For example, if a user wishes to explore scenarios associated with placing a shopping mall in Smalltown, U.S.A, a scenario view entitled Smalltown Mall could be created. This forms the basis upon which all future scenarios involving a shopping mall in Smalltown, U.S.A are performed. This is the empty framework upon which scenarios are explored; paragraph 0037, discussing loading spatial data. In this step, the technical user loads into Desktop GIS GIS spatial data applicable to the geographic location and scenarios being explored; paragraph 0045).
The Orton-Fernandes-Song combination does not explicitly teach tag at least one first object from the particular objects as a factor of the project; tag a different one of the particular objects as an effect in the project; and link the at least one first object tagged as a factor to the different one of the particular object tagged as an effect. However, Tyagi in the analogous art of geospatial data analysis teaches these concepts. Tyagi teaches:
tag at least one first object from the particular objects as a factor of the project (col. 8, lines 29-52, discussing that the unit planning system, and in particular the analytics layer thereof, may be programmed to provide a graphical user interface to one or more of the user devices. The graphical user interface may provide the user devices with access to the various functionalities of the unit planning system...The menu screen may provide links to other screens for allowing the user devices (and users thereof) to access specific functionalities of the unit planning system. A store development field comprises various buttons linking to unit planning system functionalities related to the development and implementation of market plans for opening new retail units. A Locations field comprises various buttons linking to unit planning system functionalities related to existing locations. A Franchise Development field comprises various buttons linking to unit planning system functionality for monitoring the operations of franchises. An Analytics field comprises various buttons linking to unit planning system functionality for performing various analytical analyses of market areas, targets, sites, etc.; col. 10, lines 10-37, discussing a Stores button 478, when selected, may cause the unit planning system to populate the mapping screen with existing stores or other retail units of the implementing company. The stores may be indicated by any suitable type of marker. A Stores Closed button 480, when selected, may cause the unit planning system 302 to populate the mapping screen 440 with stores of the implementing company that have closed within a threshold amount of time (e.g., in the past year, in the past two years, etc.). The threshold time, in some embodiments, is selected by the user. A Trade Area—Stores button may cause the unit planning system to populate the mapping screen with indications of trade areas corresponding to stores of the implementing company...A Mini-Market button 488, when selected, may cause the unit planning system 302 to populate the mapping screen with indications of mini-markets. Mini-markets may represent any suitable geospatial subdivision and are associated with a contiguous market area);
tag a different one of the particular objects as an effect in the project (col.15, lines 28-38, discussing that the unit planning system is configured to automatically generate various data describing a target upon creation of the target. For example, the unit planning system may be configured to automatically generate the data described in FIG. 13. For example, various data may be derived and/or received from the various layers of the unit planning system such as the spatial layer, the geographic layer, the map entities layer, etc. Examples of such data may include the geospatial data displayed at the map field, some or all of the demographic data shown at field 4179, etc.; col. 16, lines 7-33; col. 17, lines 48-67 & col. 18, lines 1-2); and
link the at least one first object tagged as a factor to the different one of the particular object tagged as an effect (col. 17, lines 48-67 & col. 18, lines 1-2, discussing that the Locations field may comprise various buttons linking to unit planning system functionalities related to existing locations. A Stores button, when selected, may provide the user with various data relating to stores and/or other retail units that are already in existence. Such data may include, for example, sales history, sales forecasts, demographic reports, etc. A Competitors button, when selected, may provide the user with various data relating to existing or planned retail units of competitors of the implementing company. Such data may include, for example, sales history, demographic reports regarding the retail units, etc. Shopping Center button, when selected, may provide the user with various data relating to selected shopping centers. Shopping centers of interest may include, for example, shopping centers that include an existing retail unit of the implementing company, shopping centers that are within an existing target area and/or associated with an existing site, etc. Data describing the shopping centers may comprise, for example, demographic reports for areas surrounding the shopping centers, sales forecasts for hypothetical or actual sites surrounding the shopping center, etc.; col. 18, lines 19-22, discussing that upon selection of Map button associated with a retail unit, the unit planning system may modify the geographic area shown at map field 4252 to show the selected retail unit and surrounding area.).
The Orton-Fernandes-Song combination describes features related to spatial information analysis. Tyagi is directed toward geospatial data analysis. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards planning using visualization tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination with Tyagi because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for decision making and planning support, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning system using spatial-based visualization aids), and because modifying the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination to include Tyagi’s features for tagging at least one first object from the particular objects as a factor of the project; tagging a different one of the particular objects as an effect in the project; and linking the at least one first object tagged as a factor to the different one of the particular object tagged as an effect, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of facilitating the planning, placement and/or analysis of retail units such as stores or other locations where retail or other goods are sold (Tyagi at col. 3, lines 19-24); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
18. Claims 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orton in view of Fernandes, in view of Song, in further view of Plost et al., Pub. No.: US 2014/0195290 A1 [hereinafter Plost].
As per claim 33, the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination teaches the system of claim 19, but it does not explicitly teach wherein the organizing framework structure comprises a third subset of software objects from the software objects, the third subset of software objects are configured for transportation planning in the project. However, Plost in the analogous art of task management system teaches this concept (paragraph 0027, discussing dynamically routing workers to where they are needed most, allowing tasks to be dynamically updated and/or amended throughout the day, all while minimizing non-productive time spent driving; paragraph 0032, discussing that the system may analyze a list of stored tasks that need to be completed and cross-reference the locations for each of those tasks. For example, a list of tasks may include inspection of a pipeline and related hardware. Once the locations are identified the system may analyze a transportation route for a worker to take to perform the task, identify the most efficient path for a particular worker given their present location; paragraph 0048, discussing that the system may provide route editing features through which an organization may view routes for each worker via a Geographical Information System (GIS) or other suitable functionality…Further, the system may generate a driving route for one or more workers using information from the worker's customary route and then generate a data capture description ordered by priority and/or geographical distance; paragraph 0052, discussing that the various technologies described herein may be implemented in connection with hardware, software or a combination of both; paragraph 0055, discussing software for executing acts that produce a desired result.).
The Orton-Fernandes-Song combination describes features related to spatial information analysis. Plost is directed toward a task management system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards project and task planning tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination with Plost because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for decision making and planning support, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning system using spatial-based visualization aids), and because modifying the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination to include Plost’s features for including wherein the organizing framework structure comprises a third subset of software objects from the software objects, the third subset of software objects are configured for transportation planning in the project, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of identifying the most efficient path (Plost at paragraph 0032); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 34, the Orton-Fernandes-Song-Plost combination teaches the system of claim 33. Although not explicitly taught by the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination, Plost in the analogous art of task management system teaches wherein the third subset of software objects indicates a transportation route between two or more spatial locations associated with the project (paragraph 0027, discussing dynamically routing workers to where they are needed most, allowing tasks to be dynamically updated and/or amended throughout the day, all while minimizing non-productive time spent driving; paragraph 0032, discussing that the system may analyze a list of stored tasks that need to be completed and cross-reference the locations for each of those tasks. For example, a list of tasks may include inspection of a pipeline and related hardware. Once the locations are identified the system may analyze a transportation route for a worker to take to perform the task, identify the most efficient path for a particular worker given their present location; paragraph 0048, discussing that the system may provide route editing features through which an organization may view routes for each worker via a Geographical Information System (GIS) or other suitable functionality…Further, the system may generate a driving route for one or more workers using information from the worker's customary route and then generate a data capture description ordered by priority and/or geographical distance; paragraph 0052, discussing that the various technologies described herein may be implemented in connection with hardware, software or a combination of both; paragraph 0055, discussing software for executing acts that produce a desired result.).
The Orton-Fernandes-Song combination describes features related to spatial information analysis. Plost is directed toward a task management system. Therefore, they are deemed to be analogous as they both are directed towards project and task planning tools. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination with Plost because the references are analogous art because they are both directed to solutions for decision making and planning support, which falls within applicant’s field of endeavor (planning system using spatial-based visualization aids), and because modifying the Orton-Fernandes-Song combination to include Plost’s features for including wherein the third subset of software objects indicates a transportation route between two or more spatial locations associated with the project, in the manner claimed, would serve the motivation of identifying the most efficient path (Plost at paragraph 0032); and further obvious because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kapler et al., Pub. No.: US 2006/0238538 A1 – describes a system and method for data visualization using a synchronous display of sequential time data and on-map planning.
Al-Kodmany, Kheir. "Visualization tools and methods for participatory planning and design." Journal of Urban Technology 8.2 (2001): 1-37 – describes that the geographical visualization of urban and regional landscapes is a powerful technique for engaging actors involved in decision-making processes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. EST.
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, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on (571) 270-5389. 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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625