DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “derivation unit”, “space configuration model generation unit”, “tile modeling unit”, “indoor space model generation unit “ in claims 1, “vectorization unit” in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapiro et al (US 20210409903 A1) in view of Vandenbrouck et al (US 20200193700 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Shapiro discloses an indoor space model generation apparatus for generating an indoor space model ([0021] computerized mapping system), comprising:
a derivation unit configured to derive, from a vectorized drawing image, information about space configuration objects included in the drawing image ([0025] generate map data 34 that is organized into a series of tiles 40 of varying levels of detail);
a tile modeling unit configured to perform tile modeling on the generated space configuration model ([0025] Each tile 40 may include an associated bitmap image 44 of a portion of a map rendered at a specified level of detail); and
an indoor space model generation unit configured to generate the indoor space model by using the space configuration model on which the tile modeling has been performed ([0048] e client device 14 may be configured to display a map image 76 including a plurality of tiles 40 within a map view of the client map program).
Vandenbrouck discloses a space configuration model generation unit configured to generate a space configuration model for each space configuration object in a tile unit based on the information about the space configuration objects ([0021] space hierarchy 120 is a tree or graph that models the relationships between space elements such as buildings, floors, and rooms)
Shapiro and Vandenbrouck are combinable because they are from the same field of invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computerized mapping system of Shapiro to include a space configuration model generation unit configured to generate a space configuration model for each space configuration object in a tile unit based on the information about the space configuration objects as described by Vandenbrouck
The motivation for doing so would have been to map-to-model service producing a space model from a map file (Vandenbrouck, [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shapiro and Vandenbrouck to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Shapiro discloses is silent to a vectorization unit configured to vectorize the drawing image by analyzing 2D vector graphics in an SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) format.
Vandenbrouck discloses a vectorization unit configured to vectorize the drawing image by analyzing 2D vector graphics in an SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) format ([0035] map file is a mesh model of a building or other space. In other embodiments, the map file is a CAD file, an SVG file, a geoJSON (geospatial javascript Object Notation) file, or the like)
Shapiro and Vandenbrouck are combinable because they are from the same field of invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computerized mapping system of Shapiro to include a vectorization unit configured to vectorize the drawing image by analyzing 2D vector graphics in an SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) format as described by Vandenbrouck
The motivation for doing so would have been to map-to-model service producing a space model from a map file (Vandenbrouck, [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shapiro and Vandenbrouck to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Shapiro discloses is silent to wherein the space configuration objects include at least one of a floor object, a wall object, and a door object.
Vandenbrouck discloses wherein the space configuration objects include at least one of a floor object, a wall object, and a door object (Scalable Vector Graphics) format ([0037] Space elements that can be identified may include elements other than geometric features such as rooms and floors. Identified space elements may be devices, building fixtures, furniture, and the like.)
Shapiro and Vandenbrouck are combinable because they are from the same field of invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computerized mapping system of Shapiro to include wherein the space configuration objects include at least one of a floor object, a wall object, and a door object as described by Vandenbrouck
The motivation for doing so would have been to map-to-model service producing a space model from a map file (Vandenbrouck, [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shapiro and Vandenbrouck to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Shapiro discloses wherein the space configuration model generation unit is further configured to calculate size information of a floor surface of the floor object based on coordinate information corresponding to the space configuration objects, and generate a space configuration model for the floor object based on the calculated size information of the floor surface ([0032] client map program 28 may send a request for tiles 40 to be displayed, the request including an address or coordinates for a location to be displayed to the map server).
Regarding claim 5, Shapiro discloses wherein the space configuration model generation unit is further configured to generate a space configuration model for the floor object in a grid format corresponding to the calculated floor surface by using a tile of a predetermined size ([0085] displaying a map image including a plurality of tiles, each tile including a server-side rendered bitmap image including building footprints.).
Regarding claim 6, Shapiro discloses is silent to wherein the space configuration model generation unit is further configured to separate a wall object in a room unit from the vectorized drawing image, and generate a space configuration model for the separated wall object of the room unit
Vandenbrouck discloses wherein the space configuration model generation unit is further configured to separate a wall object in a room unit from the vectorized drawing image, and generate a space configuration model for the separated wall object of the room unit ([0039] Nodes may also be inferred from the presence of objects such as devices or fixtures. If a floor is discerned in a map file and a commode is found in the map of the floor, then a bathroom room node may be inferred and added as a child node of the floor node (and containing the object that prompted its insertion))
Shapiro and Vandenbrouck are combinable because they are from the same field of invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computerized mapping system of Shapiro to include wherein the space configuration model generation unit is further configured to separate a wall object in a room unit from the vectorized drawing image, and generate a space configuration model for the separated wall object of the room unit as described by Vandenbrouck
The motivation for doing so would have been to map-to-model service producing a space model from a map file (Vandenbrouck, [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shapiro and Vandenbrouck to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Shapiro discloses wherein when a first wall object of a first space and a second wall object of a second space adjacent to the first space among spaces included in the drawing image are inner walls that adjoin each other and coordinate information of the first wall object does not match coordinate information of the second wall object, the space configuration model generation unit is further configured to correct the coordinate information of the first wall object and the coordinate information of the second wall object by vector correction ([0029] the bitmap image 44 would include image data for both the outdoor map, graphical depictions of building footprints 48, and indoor maps 52 that are geospatially located in the portion of the map covered by that tile)
Regarding claim 8, Shapiro discloses wherein when the first space and the second space adjacent to each other among the spaces included in the drawing image are connected by the door object, the space configuration model generation unit is further configured to generate a space configuration model for an adjacent wall object connected by the door object by using a first wall vector from the first space and a second wall vector from the second space ([0030] each client-side renderable geometric element 54 is associated with one or more tiles 40 that include the building 50 for the indoor map 52 associated with that client-side renderable geometric element 54. In some cases, a building 50 may be split across multiple tiles).
Regarding claim 9, Shapiro discloses wherein when the wall object among the space configuration objects includes a door object and ssthere is no a shared wall that includes the door object,
the space configuration model generation unit is further configured to divide a wall vector of the wall object into vectors ([0062] the metadata associated with the indoor map 52 may indicate notable locations within the building such as bathrooms, entrances, exits).
Regarding claim 10, Shapiro discloses wherein when the wall object among the space configuration objects includes a door object and there is a shared wall that includes the door object,
the space configuration model generation unit is further configured to divide a wall vector of the wall object into a wall vector of a space adjacent to the shared wall ([0062] the metadata associated with the indoor map 52 may indicate notable locations within the building such as bathrooms, entrances, exits).
Regarding claim 11, Shapiro discloses A method for generating an indoor space model by an indoor space model generation apparatus ([0021] computerized mapping system), comprising:
deriving, from a vectorized drawing image, information about space configuration objects included in the drawing image ([0025] generate map data 34 that is organized into a series of tiles 40 of varying levels of detail);
performing tile modeling on the generated space configuration model ([0025] Each tile 40 may include an associated bitmap image 44 of a portion of a map rendered at a specified level of detail); and
generating the indoor space model by using the space configuration model on which the tile modeling has been performed ([0048] e client device 14 may be configured to display a map image 76 including a plurality of tiles 40 within a map view of the client map program).
Vandenbrouck discloses generating a space configuration model for each space configuration object in a tile unit based on the information about the space configuration objects ([0021] space hierarchy 120 is a tree or graph that models the relationships between space elements such as buildings, floors, and rooms)
Shapiro and Vandenbrouck are combinable because they are from the same field of invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computerized mapping system of Shapiro to include generating a space configuration model for each space configuration object in a tile unit based on the information about the space configuration objects as described by Vandenbrouck
The motivation for doing so would have been to map-to-model service producing a space model from a map file (Vandenbrouck, [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shapiro and Vandenbrouck to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Shapiro discloses is silent to vectorizing the drawing image by analyzing 2D vector graphics in an SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) format (Scalable Vector Graphics) format.
Vandenbrouck discloses vectorizing the drawing image by analyzing 2D vector graphics in an SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) format ([0035] map file is a mesh model of a building or other space. In other embodiments, the map file is a CAD file, an SVG file, a geoJSON (geospatial javascript Object Notation) file, or the like)
Shapiro and Vandenbrouck are combinable because they are from the same field of invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computerized mapping system of Shapiro to include vectorizing the drawing image by analyzing 2D vector graphics in an SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) format as described by Vandenbrouck
The motivation for doing so would have been to map-to-model service producing a space model from a map file (Vandenbrouck, [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shapiro and Vandenbrouck to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Shapiro discloses is silent to wherein the space configuration objects include at least one of a floor object, a wall object, and a door object.
Vandenbrouck discloses wherein the space configuration objects include at least one of a floor object, a wall object, and a door object (Scalable Vector Graphics) format ([0037] Space elements that can be identified may include elements other than geometric features such as rooms and floors. Identified space elements may be devices, building fixtures, furniture, and the like.)
Shapiro and Vandenbrouck are combinable because they are from the same field of invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computerized mapping system of Shapiro to include wherein the space configuration objects include at least one of a floor object, a wall object, and a door object as described by Vandenbrouck
The motivation for doing so would have been to map-to-model service producing a space model from a map file (Vandenbrouck, [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shapiro and Vandenbrouck to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Shapiro discloses wherein the generating a space configuration model for each space configuration object in a tile unit includes: calculating size information of a floor surface of the floor object based on coordinate information corresponding to the space configuration objects; and generating a space configuration model for the floor object based on the calculated size information of the floor surface.([0032] client map program 28 may send a request for tiles 40 to be displayed, the request including an address or coordinates for a location to be displayed to the map server).
Regarding claim 15, Shapiro discloses wherein the generating a space configuration model for each space configuration object in a tile unit includes: generating a space configuration model for the floor object in a grid format corresponding to the calculated floor surface by using a tile of a predetermined size.e ([0085] displaying a map image including a plurality of tiles, each tile including a server-side rendered bitmap image including building footprints.).
Regarding claim 16, Shapiro discloses is silent to wherein the generating a space configuration model for each space configuration object in the tile unit includes: separating a wall object in a room unit from the vectorized drawing image; and generating a space configuration model for the separated wall object of the room unit.
Vandenbrouck discloses wherein the generating a space configuration model for each space configuration object in the tile unit includes: separating a wall object in a room unit from the vectorized drawing image; and generating a space configuration model for the separated wall object of the room unit [0039] Nodes may also be inferred from the presence of objects such as devices or fixtures. If a floor is discerned in a map file and a commode is found in the map of the floor, then a bathroom room node may be inferred and added as a child node of the floor node (and containing the object that prompted its insertion))
Shapiro and Vandenbrouck are combinable because they are from the same field of invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computerized mapping system of Shapiro to include wherein the generating a space configuration model for each space configuration object in the tile unit includes: separating a wall object in a room unit from the vectorized drawing image; and generating a space configuration model for the separated wall object of the room unit as described by Vandenbrouck
The motivation for doing so would have been to map-to-model service producing a space model from a map file (Vandenbrouck, [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shapiro and Vandenbrouck to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Shapiro discloses when a first wall object of a first space and a second wall object of a second space adjacent to the first space among spaces included in the drawing image are inner walls that adjoin each other and coordinate information of the first wall object does not match coordinates information of the second wall object, correcting the coordinate information of the first wall object and the coordinate information of the second wall object by vector correction. ([0029] the bitmap image 44 would include image data for both the outdoor map, graphical depictions of building footprints 48, and indoor maps 52 that are geospatially located in the portion of the map covered by that tile)
Regarding claim 18, Shapiro discloses when the first space and the second space adjacent to each other among the spaces included in the drawing image are connected by the door object, generating a space configuration model for each space configuration object in the tile unit includes: generating a space configuration model for an adjacent wall object connected by the door object by using a first wall vector from the first space and a second wall vector from the second space. ([0030] each client-side renderable geometric element 54 is associated with one or more tiles 40 that include the building 50 for the indoor map 52 associated with that client-side renderable geometric element 54. In some cases, a building 50 may be split across multiple tiles).
Regarding claim 19, Shapiro discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program including a sequence of instructions to generate an indoor space model, which when executed by a computing device, causes the computing device to:
derive, from a vectorized drawing image, information about space configuration objects included in the drawing image ([0025] generate map data 34 that is organized into a series of tiles 40 of varying levels of detail);
perform tile modeling on the generated space configuration model ([0025] Each tile 40 may include an associated bitmap image 44 of a portion of a map rendered at a specified level of detail); and
generate the indoor space model by using the space configuration model on which the tile modeling has been performed ([0048] e client device 14 may be configured to display a map image 76 including a plurality of tiles 40 within a map view of the client map program).
Vandenbrouck discloses generate a space configuration model for each space configuration object in a tile unit based on the information about the space configuration objects ([0021] space hierarchy 120 is a tree or graph that models the relationships between space elements such as buildings, floors, and rooms)
Shapiro and Vandenbrouck are combinable because they are from the same field of invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computerized mapping system of Shapiro to include generate a space configuration model for each space configuration object in a tile unit based on the information about the space configuration objects as described by Vandenbrouck
The motivation for doing so would have been to map-to-model service producing a space model from a map file (Vandenbrouck, [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shapiro and Vandenbrouck to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIVANG I PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8964. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached on (571) 272-2330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIVANG I PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights