Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to Application filed on July 18, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8, 11-17 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 19/072812 (reference application) in view of US 2017/0059353 by Madine et al (hereafter Madine).
The claims of the reference application recite a ‘remote database’, however they do not recite that the remote database is a ‘geospatial indexing system database’ as recited in the claims of the instant application.
Madine teaches a geographic database 115 that is a master database that stores POI data records, includes mapping data that includes POIs, geographic coordinates and geocoding [para 51, 59-65].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the remote database of the reference application with the geographic geocoded POI database of Madine because it would achieve predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification because both the remote database and the geographic geocoded POI database of Madine contain objects having geolocations and the remote location merely defines the location of the geographic geocoded POI database of Madine.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 14 recite:
determining a device geolocation state of the mobile device, wherein the device geolocation state corresponds at least to a device geolocation of the mobile device;
determining a first geographical search area as a function of at least the device geolocation and a pre-determined range threshold relative to the device geolocation;
querying a geospatial indexing system database, wherein the geospatial indexing system database comprises a plurality of elements, and wherein each element of the geospatial indexing system has a corresponding geolocation that is within the first geographical search area;
obtaining a result set of object records encompassed by the elements of the geospatial indexing system corresponding to the first geographical search area in response to the querying;
populating the local object records database with the result set;
determining whether the result set comprises filterable object records, wherein an object record is a filterable object record if the object record includes a filter parameter;
comparing, for at least one filterable object record, if one exists in the result set, the filter parameter, and the device geolocation state; and
if the at least one filterable object record is present in the result set and the filter parameter does not match the device geolocation state, filtering the at least one filterable object record from the local object records database.
Step 1: The claims as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: At least claims 1 and 14 recite limitations that are abstract ideas.
The limitations “determining a device geolocation state of the mobile device, wherein the device geolocation state corresponds at least to a device geolocation of the mobile device” and “determining a first geographical search area as a function of at least the device geolocation and a pre-determined range threshold relative to the device geolocation” are mental steps. A user can determine its current location on its mobile device and mentally determine a surrounding search area and range for which to search using these as a search criteria. Thus, the claimed limitations can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “determining whether the result set comprises filterable object records, wherein an object record is a filterable object record if the object record includes a filter parameter” is a mental step. A user can look at a set of data and determine if the data contains a specific parameter. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “comparing, for at least one filterable object record, if one exists in the result set, the filter parameter, and the device geolocation state” is a mental step. A user can mentally perform this comparison for a given set of data. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “filtering the at least one filterable object record from the local object records database if the at least one filterable object record is present in the result set and the filter parameter does not match the device geolocation state” is a mental step. A user can mentally select data from a set of data based on certain criteria. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2:
Claims 1 and 14 recite the limitations “querying a geospatial indexing system database, wherein the geospatial indexing system database comprises a plurality of elements, and wherein each element of the geospatial indexing system has a corresponding geolocation that is within the first geographical search area” and “obtaining a result set of object records encompassed by the elements of the geospatial indexing system corresponding to the first geographical search area in response to the querying”.
These limitations are additional elements and are insignificant extra-solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Claims 1 and 14 recite the limitation “populating the local object records database with the result set”. This is also an additional element and is using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks such as storing or simply adding computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Furthermore, Claims 1 and 14 recite the following additional elements “at least one processor”, “computer system”, “storage medium storing instructions”, “geospatial indexing system database”, “object records database” and “mobile device”, note that these recited additional elements are a high-level recitation of generic computer hardware and software components to perform the mental process and applied on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: the conclusions for the additional elements representing mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more.
With respect to the “querying” and "obtaining” limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Furthermore, the “populating” limitation identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claims as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claims 2-5, 12, 15 and 16 depend from claims 1 and 14 and thus include all the limitations of claims 1 and 14, therefore claims 2-5, 12, 15 and 16 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claims 2-5, 12, 15 and 16 furthermore recite:
(claims 2, 15) wherein the device geolocation state corresponds at least to the geolocation of the mobile device and/or an orientation direction of the mobile device;
(claim 3) wherein the first geographical search area comprises a two-dimensional representation of a point or area on a surface of Earth;
(claim 4) wherein at least one of the filterable object records includes a plurality of filter parameters;
(claims 5, 16) wherein comparing the filter parameter and the device geolocation state comprises determining whether the device geolocation state matches within each constraint specified by the filter parameter;
(claim 12) wherein filtering the at least one filterable object record from the local database comprises masking the at least one filterable object record to filter the at least one filterable object record from a subsequent local retrieval of object records;
Step 1: Claims 2-5, 12, 15 and 16 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 2-5, 12, 15 and 16 recite limitations that are abstract ideas because they depend from claims 1 and 14 that recite mental steps.
The limitation “wherein the device geolocation state corresponds at least to the geolocation of the mobile device and/or an orientation direction of the mobile device” in claims 2 and 15 further define the device geolocation state in the “determining a device geolocation state of the mobile device” step in claims 1 and 14, which is considered as a mental step. As such, this limitation is also a mental step that can be achieved in the human mind.
The limitation “wherein the first geographical search area comprises a two-dimensional representation of a point or area on a surface of Earth” in claim 3 further defines the first geographical search area in the “determining a first geographical search area” step in claims 1 and 14, which is considered as a mental step. As such, this limitation is also a mental step that can be achieved in the human mind.
The limitation “wherein at least one of the filterable object records includes a plurality of filter parameters” in claim 4 further defines the filterable object records in the “determining whether the result set comprises filterable object records” step in claims 1 and 14, which is considered as a mental step. As such, this limitation is also a mental step that can be achieved in the human mind.
The limitation “wherein comparing the filter parameter and the device geolocation state comprises determining whether the device geolocation state matches within each constraint specified by the filter parameter” in claims 5 and 16 is a mental step. One can mentally determine whether a set of data matches a given criteria. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
The limitation “wherein filtering the at least one filterable object record from the local database comprises masking the at least one filterable object record to filter the at least one filterable object record from a subsequent local retrieval of object records” in claim 12 is a mental step. One can choose to ignore certain data within a set as not importable when considering it for analysis. Thus, the claimed limitation can be performed by the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claims 2-5, 12, 15 and 16 do not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 2-5, 12, 15 and 16 do not recite any additional elements that would provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 2-5, 12, 15 and 16 as a whole are ineligible.
Claims 6, 7, 10, 13, 19 and 20 depend from claims 1 and 14 and thus include all the limitations of claims 1 and 14, therefore claims 6, 7, 10, 13, 19 and 20 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claims 6, 7, 10, 13, 19 and 20 furthermore recite:
(claim 6) wherein the constraint specified by the filter parameter of the at least one filterable object record is that a device-object distance determined between the device geolocation and the corresponding geolocation of the object represented by the at least one filterable object record is less than or equal to some maximum device-object distance;
(claim 7) wherein the constraint specified by the filter parameter of the at least one filterable object record is that the device geolocation is within one or more elements of the geospatial indexing system;
(claims 10, 20) wherein the constraint specified by the filter parameter of the at least one filterable object record further constrains the object represented by the at least one filterable object record to have a corresponding geolocation within a limited range of angles around the object represented by the at least one filterable object record defined by an object access angle range, wherein if any portion of an element falls within the limited range of angles or a defined threshold, all object records associated with that element are included in the search result;
(claims 13, 19) wherein the filter parameter represents one or more of an access range limit, a geographically-defined closed area, and/or an object access angle range.
Step 1: Claims 6, 7, 10, 13, 19 and 20 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 6, 7, 10, 13, 19 and 20 recite limitations that are abstract ideas because they depend from claims 1 and 14 that recite mental steps.
The limitations “(claim 6) wherein the constraint specified by the filter parameter of the at least one filterable object record is that a device-object distance determined between the device geolocation and the corresponding geolocation of the object represented by the at least one filterable object record is less than or equal to some maximum device-object distance”, “(claim 7) wherein the constraint specified by the filter parameter of the at least one filterable object record is that the device geolocation is within one or more elements of the geospatial indexing system” and “(claims 10, 20) wherein the constraint specified by the filter parameter of the at least one filterable object record further constrains the object represented by the at least one filterable object record to have a corresponding geolocation within a limited range of angles around the object represented by the at least one filterable object record defined by an object access angle range, wherein if any portion of an element falls within the limited range of angles or a defined threshold, all object records associated with that element are included in the search result” further define the constraint specified by the filter parameter in the “determining whether the device geolocation state matches within each constraint specified by the filter parameter” step in claims 5 and 16, which is considered as a mental step. As such, these limitations are also mental steps that can be achieved in the human mind.
The limitation “wherein the filter parameter represents one or more of an access range limit, a geographically-defined closed area, and/or an object access angle range” in claims 13 and 19 further defines the filter parameter in the “determining whether the result set comprises filterable object records” step in claims 1 and 14, which is considered as a mental step. As such, these limitations are also mental steps that can be achieved in the human mind.
Step 2A prong 2: Claims 6, 7, 10, 13, 19 and 20 do not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 6, 7, 10, 13, 19 and 20 do not recite any additional elements that would provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 6, 7, 10, 13, 19 and 20 as a whole are ineligible.
Claims 8, 9, 17 and 18 depend from claims 1 and 14 and thus include all the limitations of claims 1 and 14, therefore claims 8, 9, 17 and 18 recite the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claims 8, 9, 17 and 18 furthermore recite:
(claims 8, 17) wherein an element of the geospatial indexing system is represented by a polygonal shape;
(claims 9, 18) wherein an element of the geospatial indexing system is represented by a hexagonal shape;
Step 1: Claims 8, 9, 17 and 18 as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claims 8, 9, 17 and 18 recite limitations that are abstract ideas because they depend from claims 1 and 14 that recite mental steps.
Step 2A prong 2:
The limitations “wherein an element of the geospatial indexing is represented by a polygonal shape” and “wherein an element of the geospatial indexing system is represented by a hexagonal shape” in claims 8, 9, 17 and 18 further define the one or more elements of the geospatial indexing system in the “querying” step in claims 1 and 14, which is considered as insignificant extra solution activity as retrieval/receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. As such, this limitation is also considered the same.
Step 2B:
As applied in Step 2A prong 2, with respect to the “querying” limitation identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated these elements is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);" and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claims as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and thus include all the limitations of claim 1, therefore claim 11 recites the same abstract ideas of "mental processes".
Claim 11 furthermore recites:
(claim 11) wherein filtering the at least one filterable object record from the local database comprises deleting the at least one filterable object record from the local database.
Step 1: Claim 11 as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1: Claim 11 recites limitations that are abstract ideas because it depends from claim 1 that recites mental steps.
Step 2A prong 2:
The limitation “wherein filtering the at least one filterable object record from the local database comprises deleting the at least one filterable object record from the local database”. This is an additional element and is using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks such as deleting data after the fact to an abstract idea (mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Step 2B:
Furthermore, the “deleting” limitation identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)” and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claims as a whole do not change this conclusion and the claims are ineligible.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory} above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to place them within the four statutory categories of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0059353 by Madine et al (hereafter Madine), and further in view of US 2015/0269624 by Cheng et al (hereafter Cheng).
Referring to claim 1, Madine discloses a method [Abstract] for populating a local object records database [local cache 305, i.e. local to UE 101 executing on client application 107, para 66, Fig 3A] wherein an object record in the local object records database represents information about an object to which the object record is associated, and the object having a geolocation represented in the object record [mapping data in geographic database 115 includes POIs, geographic coordinates, geocoding etc., para 51], the method comprising:
determining a device geolocation state of the mobile device, wherein the device geolocation state corresponds at least to a device geolocation of the mobile device [user equipment UE 101 executes client application 107 installed on a mobile phone, para 49, Fig 1; UE 101 sensors 111 (e.g. GPS receivers) collect contextual information such as current location for presenting targeted map displays, para 50];
determining a first geographical search area as a function of at least the device geolocation [wherein a targeted map is displayed by defining a target map object with specified parameters including a map area of interest, POIs to be presented on the targeted map display etc., para 32; wherein a relevant mapping area (reads on: geographical search space) of the targeted map displayed is defined based on a portion of the map displayed in client UE 301, the relevant mapping area including descriptions/content of relevant map items (e.g. as determined by the parameters specified in the targeted map object used to generate display), para 66-67, Fig 3A, element 307; the relevant mapping area is provided as contextual information to the targeted mapping platform 103 and used to request content tailored to the requested targeted map object, para 68; wherein the contextual information collected by sensors 111 are used to present targeted map displays, para 50];
querying a geospatial indexing system database, wherein the geospatial indexing system database comprises a plurality of elements, and wherein each element of the geospatial indexing system has a corresponding geolocation that is within the first geographical search area[calls are made to the targeted mapping platform 103 in response to requests from client UI 301 to retrieve content items assembled from a plurality of data sources tailored to the requested target map object, para 67-68, Fig 3A, element 309; para 66, geographic database 115 is a master database that stores POI data records, para 59-65, Fig 1];
obtaining a result set of object records encompassed by the elements of the geospatial indexing system corresponding to the first geographical search area in response to the querying [[in response to the calls, targeted mapping platform evaluates the parameters specified in the targeted map object associated with the request along with the provided contextual information and relevant mapping area to identify item detail records responsive to the request, para 69, Fig 3A, element 311];
populating the local object records database with the result set [local cache 305 (local to UE 101 executing on client application 107, para 66) stores item detail records locally on the client side, para 70; ‘items to add’ to cache, Fig 3A, element 315];
determining whether the result set comprises filterable object records, wherein an object record is a filterable object record if the object record includes a filter parameter [targeted map object includes set of parameters including validity criteria such as an expiration period for retrieved information (time to live) and an area in which the retrieved information is valid such as a radius from a location, para 32-38];
comparing, for at least one filterable object record, if one exists in the result set, the filter parameter, and the device geolocation state[determination as to whether any of the records present in the local cache are still valid and not expired and/or within a valid radius, para 70, Fig 3A, element 313]; and
if the at least one filterable object record is present in the result set and the filter parameter does not match the device geolocation state, filtering the at least one filterable object record from the local object records database [wherein if the records are invalid they can be removed or updated, para 70, Fig 3A, element 315; para 102].
Referring to claim 1, while Madine discloses all of the above claimed subject matter, and also discloses that a relevant mapping area (geographical search area) of a targeted map displayed is defined to search the targeted mapping platform 103 to request content tailored to the requested targeted map object [para 66-68, Fig 3A, element 307], it remains silent as to the geographical search area determined as a function of a pre-determined range threshold relative to the device geolocation. Cheng discloses that geolocated offers can be requested that include an identifier of a current geographic location or an identifier of a geofence with respect to a consumer mobile device moving more than a threshold distance from one area to another [para 48-49].
Madine and Cheng are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- querying of geocoded information. 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 definition of the relevant mapping area of Madine to include the threshold distance of a current geographic location or geofence of Cheng because it would achieve predictable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the threshold distance of Cheng would provide a criteria with which the relevant mapping area of Madine is defined.
Referring to claim 14, the limitations of the claim are similar to those of claim 1 in the form of a computer readable storage medium storing instructions [Madine, para 149, Fig 9, element 908] executed by at least one processor of a computer system [processor 902, para 144, Fig 9]. As such, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Referring to claims 2 and 15, Madine/Cheng discloses that the device geolocation state corresponds at least to the geolocation of the mobile device and/or an orientation direction of the mobile device [Madine, geocoding, para 51].
Referring to claim 3, Madine/Cheng discloses that the first geographical search area comprises a two-dimensional representation of a point or area on a surface of Earth [Madine, displayed map, para 67].
Referring to claim 4, Madine/Cheng discloses that at least one of the filterable object records includes a plurality of filter parameters [Madine, parameters, para 32-38].
Referring to claims 5 and 16, Madine/Cheng discloses that comparing the filter parameter and the device geolocation state comprises determining whether the device geolocation state matches within each constraint specified by the filter parameter [Madine, para 69, Fig 3A, element 311].
Referring to claim 6, Madine/Cheng discloses that the constraint specified by the filter parameter of the at least one filterable object record is that a device-object distance determined between the device geolocation and the corresponding geolocation of the object represented by the at least one filterable object record is less than or equal to some maximum device-object distance [Cheng, threshold distance, para 48].
Referring to claim 7, Madine/Cheng discloses that the constraint specified by the filter parameter of the at least one filterable object record is that the device geolocation is within one or more elements of the geospatial indexing system [Cheng, threshold distance, para 48].
Referring to claims 8 and 17, Madine/Cheng discloses that an element of the geospatial indexing system is represented by a polygonal shape [Cheng, geofence 16 defined by a polygon, para 25, 32, 52].
Referring to claims 9 and 18, Madine/Cheng discloses that an element of the geospatial indexing system is represented by a hexagonal shape [Cheng, geofence 16 defined by a polygon, para 25, 32, 52].
Referring to claims 10 and 20, Madine/Cheng discloses that the constraint specified by the filter parameter of the at least one filterable object record further constrains the object represented by the at least one filterable object record to have a corresponding geolocation within a limited range of angles around the object represented by the at least one filterable object record defined by an object access angle range [Cheng, determination whether a current location is within a geofence based on summing angles, para 52], wherein if any portion of an element falls within the limited range of angles or a defined threshold, all object records associated with that element are included in the search result [Madine, all item detail records that are responsive to the request based on evaluated parameters specified in the targeted map object associated with the request along with provided contextual information and relevant mapping area are shown to the client as results, para 69, Fig 3A, element 311].
Referring to claim 11, Madine/Cheng discloses that filtering the at least one filterable object record from the local database comprises deleting the at least one filterable object record from the local database [Madine, removing records in local cache, para 70].
Referring to claims 13 and 19, Madine/Cheng discloses that the filter parameter represents one or more of an access range limit, a geographically-defined closed area, and/or an object access angle range [Cheng, para 48].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madine, in view of Cheng, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0204019 by Lauterbach et al (hereafter Lauterbach).
Referring to claim 12, Madine/Cheng discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses that the records in the local cache can be removed or updated if the records are invalid [Madine, para 70, Fig 3A, element 315; para 102], however remains silent as to the filtering specifically including masking the records. Lauterbach discloses generating a filtered surfel map by hiding surfels that are determined to be unreliable [para 58].
Madine, Cheng and Lauterbach are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- displaying map data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the definition of the relevant mapping area of Madine to include the hiding of invalid surfels (objects) in the surfel map of Lauterbach because it would achieve predictable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the hiding of the invalid surfel objects of Lauterbach correlates to the filtering of the expired items of Madine and further refines the type of filtering disclosed by Madine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bitonti et al (US 20090281722) directed to: caching received POI data with existing POI data and maps and removing expired time-sensitive POI data to display current POI information on a display device [Abstract, para 6, 36; Fig 3-4 and related portions of specification];
Upstill et al (US 8239130) directed to: identifying one or more points of interest located within a zone of interest, determining, for each of the identified POIs, a distance between the mobile device and the respective POI, selecting one or more of the identified POIs based on the distances, and displaying information identifying the selected POIs on a user interface of the mobile device [Abstract], precaching of interesting POI information so that the data is immediately available to the user [col 3, lines 38-59]; [Fig 2-6, 9 and related portions of specification].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERYL M SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4018. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Ng can be reached on 571-270-1698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CHERYL M SHECHTMANPatent Examiner
Art Unit 2164
/C.M.S/
/AMY NG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights