DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 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.
Request of Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/1st ¶:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) 12-15 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/1st ¶, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection.
(a) Claim 12 recites a second optimized position and a third optimized position, each of which are different than the first optimized position. Claim 13 depends upon claim 12. Claims 14-15 each refer to a second optimized position that is different from the first optimized position. However, it is unclear where there is support for this in the originally-filed disclosure. In fact, from the structure of these claims, it appears that the first optimized position, the second optimized position, and the third optimized position are all the same position. For example, in claim 12, lines 4-6 recite:
"- calibrating the base station; and
- operating the base station in a stationary mode using a second optimized position", then the claim describes the step of calibrating in more detail, including "determining a third optimized position of the base station", which would provide the position for the base station for the subsequent operating step. A similar structure appears in claims 14-15 with regard to the first optimized position and the second optimized position.
(b) Claim 22, line 5 recites "an absolute accuracy of about 1 to 3 centimeters". However, while the originally-filled disclosure repeatedly refers to a range of +/- 2 to 3 cm, the range of 1 to 3 cm is not disclosed. There does not appear to be any specific disclosure of an absolute accuracy as low as 1 cm. The smallest absolute accuracy disclosed is 1.27 cm on p. 65, lines 1-4.
“Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. It extends only to that which is disclosed. While the meaning of terms, phrases, or diagrams in a disclosure is to be explained or interpreted from the vantage point of one skilled in the art, all the limitations must appear in the specification. The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification. Rather, [the disclosure] must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought. ... the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the [claimed] invention ... is not sufficient.” -- Lockwood v. American Airlines Inc., 41 USPQ2d 1961 at 1966.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd ¶:
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.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd ¶, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
In line 5, the term “about” is used. According to MPEP 2173.05(b): “When a term of degree is presented in a claim, first a determination is to be made as to whether the specification provides some standard for measuring that degree. If it does not, a determination is made as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the prior art and the status of the art, would be nevertheless reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Even if the specification uses the same term of degree as in the claim, a rejection may be proper if the scope of the term is not understood when read in light of the specification. While, as a general proposition, broadening modifiers are standard tools in claim drafting in order to avoid reliance on the doctrine of equivalents in infringement actions, when the scope of the claim is unclear a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112[(b)/2nd ¶] is proper. See In re Wiggins, 179 USPQ 421 at 423.” (emphasis added).
It is unclear what standard there is for measuring how close to 1 cm or to 3 cm the absolute accuracy must be to be considered “about” 1 to 3 cm. Since there is no basis disclosed for determining this, the scope of the claim(s) is unclear and a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd ¶ is proper.
“We note that the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation.”, Halliburton Energy Services Inc. v. M-I LLC., 85 USPQ2d 1654 at 1663.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-9, and 12-15, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2019/0110270 A1) in view of McClure (US 2012/0127032 A1) and Park (WO 2019117401 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Chen discloses a base station (104, Fig. 1) for a real-time kinematic (RTK) positioning system (Fig. 1) with one or more rover units (102, Fig. 1; ¶19), the base station comprising:
a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver (¶17-18),
a transmission device for transmitting RTK correction data to the one or more rover units, wherein the transmission device is configured to transmit the correction data to the one or more rover units via a wired connection (610, Fig. 6; ¶17; ¶19; ¶42; ¶119-120);
a wireless LAN (WLAN) module (610, Fig. 6; ¶17; ¶42; ¶119-120) [where a WLAN (WI-FI) module and another transmission device (e.g. wire-based) may be used in combination (¶120)],
and at least one control unit (¶39).
wherein the at least one control unit is adapted to operate the base station in a rover mode comprising receiving the RTK correction data (¶17; ¶19), and
wherein the at least one control unit is adapted to determine a first optimized position of the base station (¶17) [where the PPP corrected base station position is an optimized position of the base station].
Chen fails to disclose the correction data is from a Networked Transport of RTCM via Internet Protocol (NTRIP) server and determining two or more rover mode positions of the base station based on the received NTRIP RTK correction data; and where the first optimized position of the base station is by averaging the two or more rover mode positions.
McClure teaches [that it is common practice to determine the position of a base station transmitting corrections by] determining two or more rover mode positions of a base station and determining an optimized position of the base station is by averaging the two or more rover mode positions (¶7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement determining the absolute location of the base station disclosed by Chen.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the absolute location of the base station is determined using a known method.
Park teaches an RTK-PPP system (p. 2, ¶4) and that PPP systems generally provide correction data from a Networked Transport of RTCM via Internet Protocol (NTRIP) server (p. 3, ¶1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the PPP corrections of the base station disclosed by Chen.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the PPP corrections are transmitted to the base station using a known method.
In regard to claim 3, Chen further discloses the transmission device is wireless (¶119-120). The Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention for a wireless [WLAN/WI-FI] transmission device to comprises a radio modem including a radio antenna.
In regard to claim 4, the Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention for a device that receives signals, performs positioning calculations, and transmits signals to be powered by at least one energy source.
In regard to claim 5, Chen further discloses a wireless LAN (WLAN) module (610, Fig. 6; ¶17; ¶42; ¶120). The Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention for a WI-FI/WLAN module of a base station providing corrections to the rovers to be a Wireless Access Point comprising a router.
In regard to claim 6, Chen further discloses a real-time kinematic (RTK) positioning system (Fig. 1) with a base station (104, Fig. 1) and one or more rover units (102, Fig. 1).
In regard to claim 8, Chen discloses a method for calibrating a base station (104, Fig. 1) for use in a real-time kinematic (RTK) positioning system (Fig. 1) with one or more rover units (102, Fig. 1; ¶19), the method comprising
providing a base station with a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver (¶17-18), a transmission device and a wireless LAN (WLAN) module, wherein the transmission device is configured to transmit RTK correction data to the one or more rover units via a wired connection (610, Fig. 6; ¶17; ¶19; ¶42; ¶119-120) [where a WLAN (WI-FI) module and another transmission device (e.g. wire-based) may be used in combination (¶120)],
operating the base station in a rover mode comprising receiving RTK correction data (¶17; ¶19), and
determining a first optimized position of the base station (¶17) [where the PPP corrected base station position is an optimized position of the base station].
Chen fails to disclose the RTK correction data is from a Networked Transport of RTCM via Internet Protocol (NTRIP) server and determining two or more rover mode positions of the base station based on the received NTRIP correction data; and where the first optimized position of the base station is by averaging the two or more rover mode positions.
McClure teaches [that it is common practice to determine the position of a base station transmitting corrections by] determining two or more rover mode positions of a base station and determining an optimized position of the base station is by averaging the two or more rover mode positions (¶7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement determining the absolute location of the base station disclosed by Chen.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the absolute location of the base station is determined using a known method.
Park teaches an RTK-PPP system (p. 2, ¶4) and that PPP systems generally provide correction data from a Networked Transport of RTCM via Internet Protocol (NTRIP) server (p. 3, ¶1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the PPP corrections of the base station disclosed by Chen.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the PPP corrections are transmitted to the base station using a known method.
In regard to claim 9, Chen further discloses the base station is stationary during operation in the rover mode (¶67, final sentence) [where the base station determines its position while it is stationary].
In regard to claims 12 and 14-15, Chen discloses a method for operating a real-time kinematic (RTK) positioning system (Fig. 1) with a base station (104, Fig. 1) and one or more rover units (102, Fig. 1; ¶19) [including the use of program commands stored in a computer program product (¶108-11; ¶115-117)], the method comprising
calibrating the base station (¶17); and
operating the base station in a stationary mode using the optimized position (¶67),
wherein the step of calibrating the base station comprises:
providing a base station with a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver (¶17-18), a transmission device and a wireless LAN (WLAN) module (610, Fig. 6; ¶17; ¶42; ¶119-120) [where a WLAN (WI-FI) module and another transmission device (e.g. cellular) may be used in combination (¶120)],
operating the base station in a rover mode comprising receiving correction data (¶17), and
determining the optimized position of the base station (¶17) [where the PPP corrected base station position is the optimized position of the base station].
Chen fails to disclose the correction data is from a Networked Transport of RTCM via Internet Protocol (NTRIP) server and determining two or more rover mode positions of the base station based on the received NTRIP correction data; and where the optimized position of the base station is by averaging the two or more rover mode positions.
McClure teaches [that it is common practice to determine the position of a base station transmitting corrections by] determining two or more rover mode positions of a base station and determining an optimized position of the base station is by averaging the two or more rover mode positions (¶7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement determining the absolute location of the base station disclosed by Chen.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the absolute location of the base station is determined using a known method.
Park teaches that PPP systems generally provide correction data from a Networked Transport of RTCM via Internet Protocol (NTRIP) server (p. 3, ¶1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the PPP corrections of the base station disclosed by Chen.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the PPP corrections are transmitted to the base station using a known method.
In regard to claim 13, Chen further discloses transmitting correction data to the one or more rover units via the transmission device (610, Fig. 6; ¶17; ¶42; ¶119-120).
McClure further teaches transmitting correction data in a standardized correction data format according to the Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services (RTCM) (¶5). Park also further teaches transmitting correction data in a standardized correction data format according to the Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services (RTCM) (p. 3, ¶1).
In regard to claim 21, Chen further discloses the base station receives the RTK correction data from the NTRIP server via the WLAN module (¶42).
In regard to claim 23, Chen further discloses responsive to determining the first optimized position of the base station, the at least one control unit is adapted to switch from the rover mode to a stationary mode in which the at least one control unit transmits the RTK correction data to the one or more rover units (¶17; ¶19-20).
Claim(s) 2 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, McClure, and Park, as applied to claims 1 and 8, and further in view of Vollath (US 2011/0285587 A1).
In regard to claims 2 and 11, the combination fails to explicitly disclose configuring the base station with regard to the length of a period for operation in the rover mode and/or with regard to a number of rover mode positions to be averaged.
Vollath teaches configuring a device with regard to the length of a period for operation in the rover mode and with regard to a number of rover mode positions to be averaged [in order to achieve a desired position accuracy] (¶62) [where the number of epochs multiplied by the length of an epoch gives the length of the period].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to achieve a desired position accuracy.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that a desired position accuracy is achieved.
In regard to claim 10, Chen further discloses the base station is operated in the rover mode for a predetermined period of time (¶67, final sentence).
Vollath further teaches the predetermined period of time being less than 15 minutes (¶62) [where six epochs at 1 Hz or more results in a period less than 15 minutes].
Claim(s) 7 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, McClure, and Park, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Perez-Ruiz (GNSS in Precision Agricultural Operations).
In regard to claim 7, the combination further discloses a method of using a base station according to claim 1 in a real-time kinematic (RTK) positioning system to transmit from the base station of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1, above) to a rover receiving positioning data from the base station of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1, above).
McClure further teaches the system is for [use in agricultural operations, including] placing planting material in a first location (¶12).
Perez-Ruiz teaches [more details of using RTK in agricultural operations, including]:
placing planting material in a first location based on the positioning data, wherein:
the first location comprises one or more of a georeferenced field management unit,
an environment without positionally known waypoints,
an application area where high accuracy of position data is necessary (p. 12, lines 1-4; p. 19, ¶1), or
a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the details of applying the combination to the application of agricultural operations, as motivated by McClure, ¶12.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that a method of applying the combination to agricultural operations is implemented.
In regard to claim 17, Perez-Ruiz further teaches the application area comprises one or more of a breeding application area, a seed variety development application area, a seed research application area (p. 19, ¶1) [where research by UC Davis is occurring], or a combination thereof.
In regard to claim 18, Chen further teaches connecting the base station to the one or more rover units via the wired connection, wherein the one or more rover units comprise a machine, wherein the positioning data is received via the wired connection (¶119-120).
McClure further teaches the machine is an agricultural machine (¶12).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, McClure, and Park, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Povilaitis (EP 2928243 A1).
Chen further discloses the at least one control unit is adapted to determine the first optimized position of the base station with an absolute accuracy of about 1 to 3 centimeters (cm) (¶21). McClure also further teaches an absolute accuracy of about 1 to 3 centimeters (¶11) [where sub-centimeter is about 1 cm].
Chen, McClure, and Park fail to explicitly teach the two or more rover mode positions comprise between 500 and 1,000 rover mode positions of the base station, where the 500 and 1,000 rover mode positions are averaged. In particular, McClure fails to disclose the number of positions to use in averaging the positions.
Povilaitis teaches using between 500 and 1,000 positions in determining a final position in a positioning process (¶20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the number of positions to use in the positioning process of McClure.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the number of positions to average is implemented.
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
Networked Transport of RTCM via Internet Protocol (Ntrip), Version 1.0, which teaches that corrections can be streamed from a single reference station rather than from networked reference stations (p. 6-2, final entry at the bottom of the table).
Lorenz (US 2013/0149974 A1), which teaches communicating via WLAN using a wireless modem (¶57).
Kishimoto ‘629 (US 2021/0341629 A1), which teaches a base station with a rover mode averaging positions to optimize the position and transmitting using NTRIP (abstract; ¶4; ¶50; ¶52).
Kishimoto ‘446 (US 2021/0318446 A1), which is similar to Kishimoto ‘629.
Applicant is encouraged to consider these documents in formulating their response (if one is required) to this Office Action, in order to expedite prosecution of this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on p. 8, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejection(s), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on p. 8-11, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues "Chen explicitly teaches away from the use of receiving RTK correction data from an RTK network: 'In this manner, the digital UAV positioning system can quickly and inexpensively determine precise locations of a UAV in flight without the need to access RTK correction data from an established RTK network.'".
However, the claims do not recite an RTK network nor a plurality of RTK reference stations (see ¶36 of Chen). Each recitation in the claims is to a base station in the singular. Chen explicitly teaches using RTK corrections from a single base station:
PNG
media_image1.png
194
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that a Networked Transport of RTCM via Internet Protocol (NTRIP) server does not require there to be a plurality of RTK reference stations. It can relay RTK corrections from a single base station. See Networked Transport of RTCM via Internet Protocol (Ntrip), Version 1.0, which teaches that corrections can be streamed from a single reference station rather than from networked reference stations (p. 6-2, final entry at the bottom of the table). Additionally, Chen discloses a server providing RTK correction data from a single base station (or multiple base stations):
PNG
media_image2.png
346
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where RTK correction data manager 418 can be implemented by the server:
PNG
media_image3.png
128
544
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues "McClure discloses that '[m]ost applications do not need absolute accuracy.'". However, it is unclear what claim language this is relevant to. Only claim 22 recites absolute accuracy, and even then, McClure does not teach that no applications require absolute accuracy. McClure explicitly teaches performing absolute positioning (¶14; ¶33).
Since applicant has not traversed the Official Notice taken by the Office, the well-known in the art statements outlined in the Official Notice are taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03(C), ¶2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred H. Mull whose telephone number is 571-272-6975. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from approximately 9-5:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Hodge, can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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.
Fred H. Mull
Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/F. H. M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645