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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the communication filed 08/07/2023. Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Benefit is given to the priority document JP2022-127359 and the effective filing date of 08/09/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/07/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: “operates” in line 3 of claim 1 and line 5 of claim 16 should read “operating” for grammar and clarity.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a number of the plurality” in both instances should read “the number of the plurality” to improve the clarity of the claim. Examiner notes that inherent components of elements recited have antecedent basis in the recitation of the elements themselves (see MPEP 2173.05(e)), and thus the suggested change will not create issues of antecedent basis.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6, a comma should follow the word “information” for grammatical correctness.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“…an ID management unit configured to allocate…” in claims 1 and 16, and
“…a correction information acquisition unit configured to…” in claims 1 and 16.
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.
Support for these limitations are as follows:
Both of the above limitations are interpreted as computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations. The ID management unit and correction information acquisition unit are part of the control unit 11 (see Fig. 5), which is in turn part of the management device 10 (see Fig. 3). The management device is taught in [0070] of the specification to be implemented on a server computer or a plurality of computers.
Support for the specific computer function performed by the ID management unit is given in Figs. 10A and 10B, which show the algorithm used in allocating connection IDs.
The correction information acquisition unit performs the functions of transmitting and receiving data, which are coextensive with the functionality of a general purpose computer (see MPEP 2181.II.B). Therefore, the disclosure of a computer in [0070] provides sufficient structure.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a mobile body” in line 3, “a plurality of mobile bodies” in lines 7-8, “a first mobile body” in line 17 and “a second mobile body” in line 19. It is unclear whether the mobile body of line 3 is the same or different than the plurality of mobile bodies, the first mobile body and the second mobile body. Therefore the claim is indefinite.
Claims 15 and 16 likewise recite “a mobile body”, “a plurality of mobile bodies”, “a first mobile body” and “a second mobile body”, and are indefinite for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the mobile body IDs" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as mobile body IDs have not been previously recited in claim 5 or in claim 1, on which claim 5 depends. For examination purposes, claim 5 will be read as depending on claim 4, which introduces mobile body IDs.
Claims 2-14 are also rejected since the claims are dependent on a previously rejected claim.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Below, supporting analysis follows the Subject Matter Eligibility Test described in MPEP § 2106.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Independent claims 1 and 15 are directed towards a system and a method, respectively. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1 and 15, and the corresponding dependent claims 2-14 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 1
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Regarding Prong 1, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below):
A mobile body operation system that receives, from a distribution device, correction information for calculating high-accuracy position information of a mobile body from provisional position information of the mobile body and operates the mobile body using the high-accuracy position information,
the operation system comprising:
an ID management unit configured to allocate, to a plurality of mobile bodies, connection IDs used for connection to the distribution device; and
a correction information acquisition unit configured to transmit the provisional position information of the mobile bodies to the distribution device and receive, from the distribution device, the correction information corresponding to a provisional position indicated by the provisional position information, wherein
the ID management unit allocates a first connection ID to a first mobile body, which is one of the plurality of mobile bodies, in a first period and allocates the first connection ID to a second mobile body, which is another one of the plurality of mobile bodies, in a second period, and
the correction information acquisition unit connects to the distribution device using the first connection ID and receives the correction information for the first mobile body from the distribution device in the first period and connects to the distribution device using the first connection ID and receives the correction information for the second mobile body from the distribution device in the second period.
Independent claim 15 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below):
A mobile body operation method for receiving, from a distribution device, correction information for calculating high-accuracy position information of a mobile body from provisional position information of the mobile body and operating the mobile body using the high-accuracy position information
the method comprising:
an ID management step for allocating, to the mobile body, connection IDs used for connection to the distribution device; and
a correction information acquisition step for transmitting the provisional position information of the mobile bodies to the distribution device and receiving, from the distribution device, the correction information corresponding to a provisional position indicated by the provisional position information, wherein
the ID management step in a first period includes allocating a first connection ID to a first mobile body, and the ID management step in a second period includes allocating the first connection ID to a second mobile body, and
the correction information acquisition step in the first period includes connecting to the distribution device using the first connection ID and receiving the correction information for the first mobile body from the distribution device, and the correction information acquisition step in the second period includes connecting to the distribution device using the first connection ID and receiving the correction information for the second mobile body from the distribution device.
These limitations, as drafted, are a system that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental concept. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as a mental process. For example, “…allocate, to a plurality of mobile bodies, connection IDs used for connection to the distribution device” may be interpreted as a mental determination made according to observable data and may be documented using a pen and paper. The mere recitation of generic computing components does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 2
If the claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A, Prong 2. In Step 2A, Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Regarding Prong 2, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in MPEP § 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In claim 1, the additional elements beyond the above-noted idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A mobile body operation system that receives, from a distribution device, correction information for calculating high-accuracy position information of a mobile body from provisional position information of the mobile body and operates the mobile body using the high-accuracy position information,
the operation system comprising:
an ID management unit configured to allocate, to a plurality of mobile bodies, connection IDs used for connection to the distribution device; and
a correction information acquisition unit configured to transmit the provisional position information of the mobile bodies to the distribution device and receive, from the distribution device, the correction information corresponding to a provisional position indicated by the provisional position information, wherein
the ID management unit allocates a first connection ID to a first mobile body, which is one of the plurality of mobile bodies, in a first period and allocates the first connection ID to a second mobile body, which is another one of the plurality of mobile bodies, in a second period, and
the correction information acquisition unit connects to the distribution device using the first connection ID and receives the correction information for the first mobile body from the distribution device in the first period and connects to the distribution device using the first connection ID and receives the correction information for the second mobile body from the distribution device in the second period.
In claim 15, the additional elements beyond the above-noted idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A mobile body operation method for receiving, from a distribution device, correction information for calculating high-accuracy position information of a mobile body from provisional position information of the mobile body and operating the mobile body using the high-accuracy position information
the method comprising:
an ID management step for allocating, to the mobile body, connection IDs used for connection to the distribution device; and
a correction information acquisition step for transmitting the provisional position information of the mobile bodies to the distribution device and receiving, from the distribution device, the correction information corresponding to a provisional position indicated by the provisional position information, wherein
the ID management step in a first period includes allocating a first connection ID to a first mobile body, and the ID management step in a second period includes allocating the first connection ID to a second mobile body, and
the correction information acquisition step in the first period includes connecting to the distribution device using the first connection ID and receiving the correction information for the first mobile body from the distribution device, and the correction information acquisition step in the second period includes connecting to the distribution device using the first connection ID and receiving the correction information for the second mobile body from the distribution device.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional elements of claim 1, “a mobile body operation system,” “an ID management unit” and “a correction information acquisition unit” are interpreted in light of the specification to be instances of programming on generic components that allow the abstract idea to be applied (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)). The examiner submits that these elements are mere computers or other machinery used as a tool to perform the existing process. The “mobile body” and “plurality of mobile bodies,” while not positively recited, merely indicate field of use. In addition, “transmit the provisional position information,” and “receive…the correction information,” amount to extra-solution activity.
Regarding the additional elements of claim 15, “transmitting the provisional position information,” and “receiving…the correction information,” amount to extra-solution activity. In addition, the “mobile body” and “plurality of mobile bodies,” while not positively recited, merely indicate field of use.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2B
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong 2, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether it provides an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional elements of “a mobile body operation system,” “an ID management unit” and “a correction information acquisition unit” amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, the communication between the “correction information acquisition unit” and “the distribution device” amounts to extra-solution activity. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Also, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
As discussed above, “a mobile body” and “a plurality of mobile bodies” amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claims 2-3 merely narrow the previously-recited field of use (i.e., placing further limitations on the mobile bodies). For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claim 4 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations (i.e., further characterization of allocating the connection IDs, in particular that they are associated to mobile body IDs). For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claim 5 recite a mental process (i.e., selecting connection IDs allocated to the mobile body IDs after a particular condition is satisfied). For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claim 6-7 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations (i.e., further characterization how connection IDs are allocated). For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claim 8 merely narrow the previously recited collection or receipt of data over a network (i.e., implementing the correction information acquisition unit as part of a management device). For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claim 9 merely narrow the previously recited collection or receipt of data over a network (i.e., receiving information through a monitoring unit) and narrow the previously-recited field of use (i.e., monitoring drive state information). For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 10, with respect to the managing function of the monitoring unit, the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The various metrics/limitations of claim 11 merely narrow the previously-recited field of use (i.e., limitations on the drive state of the mobile bodies). For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claim 12-13 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations (i.e., further characterization how connection IDs are allocated with limitations on the number of connection IDs and number of mobile bodies). For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claim 14 merely narrow the previously-recited field of use (i.e., limitations on the time periods in which the abstract idea is applied). For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not call within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it recites transitory signals.
Claim 16 recites “A mobile body operation program for causing a computer to function as a system that…”. The specification does not provide further clarification on the meaning of the computer program product. Therefore, because the BRI of the claim covers both subject matter that falls within a statutory category (e.g., non-volatile memories, non-transitory computer readable storage media), as well as subject matter that does not (e.g., storage media not specified to be non-transitory), the claim as a whole does not fall in a statutory category and thus fails the criterion for eligibility. Examiner notes that specifying the computer program product to be non-transitory would be sufficient to direct claim 16 to statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106(II).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US-20160033651-A1; hereinafter Johnson) in view of Takahashi et al. (US-20180321387-A1; hereinafter Takahashi).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses [Note: what Johnson fails to disclose is strike-through]
A mobile body (see at least Fig. 1, machines 12 and 14) operation system (see at least Fig. 1, GNSS accuracy improvement system 10) that receives, from a distribution device (see at least Fig. 1, base station 18), correction information for calculating high-accuracy position information of a mobile body from provisional position information of the mobile body and operates the mobile body using the high-accuracy position information (see at least [0022]; “As is known, the base station 18 receives the GNSS information from the satellites 27 and also a carrier phase that is tracked to provide real-time correction to the GNSS information based on the carrier phase and known coordinates of the base station 18. The RTK correction is communicated (e.g., broadcast) to the GNSS receiver systems 16 of the machines 12 and 14, which is used along with the GNSS information received from the satellites 27 to provide for a geographical position of each machine 12 and 14 to centimeter-level accuracy.”), the operation system comprising:
an ID management unit (see at least Fig. 12A, subscription pool manager 124) configured to allocate, to a plurality of mobile bodies, connection IDs used for connection to the distribution device (see at least [0034]; “The subscription pool manager software 124 comprises a web-interface module 126 that enables access by browser software located on a remote computing device, enabling a user or operator at a remote location to interact with the server 114 to register a fleet of machines and the associated operators as well as to purchase and then select for mutually exclusive use the purchased subscriptions pertaining to GNSS accuracy improvement services, such as RTK correction as well as other correction services that improve upon the accuracy of coarse acquisition GNSS receivers.”); and
a correction information acquisition unit (see at least Fig. 1, GNSS receiver systems 16 perform the functions of the correction information acquisition unit) configured to (see at least [0022]; “The RTK correction is communicated (e.g., broadcast) to the GNSS receiver systems 16 of the machines 12 and 14, which is used along with the GNSS information received from the satellites 27 to provide for a geographical position of each machine 12 and 14 to centimeter-level accuracy.”), wherein
the ID management unit allocates a first connection ID to a first mobile body, which is one of the plurality of mobile bodies, in a first period and allocates the first connection ID to a second mobile body, which is another one of the plurality of mobile bodies, in a second period, and the correction information acquisition unit connects to the distribution device using the first connection ID and receives the correction information for the first mobile body from the distribution device in the first period and connects to the distribution device using the first connection ID and receives the correction information for the second mobile body from the distribution device in the second period (see at least [0020]; “In contrast, certain embodiments of a GNSS accuracy improvement service enables a floating pool of subscriptions, where the subscription is not tied to any single piece of hardware, but rather, shared among a fleet of machines for which the pool of subscriptions applies. For instance, although a farmer may use six (6) machines that host a corresponding GNSS receiver system, he may choose to purchase only three (3) subscriptions for the accuracy improvement system. Three of the subscriptions may be used in conjunction with GNSS receiver systems for three (3) of the machines used during one season or portion of the season, and three (3) machines hosting a respective GNSS receiver system may be used in conjunction with the pool of subscriptions for another season or part of the season. Accordingly, the farmer need not purchase subscriptions for machines that sit idle for most of the subscription period, and he need not worry about the time and effort of moving each GNSS receiver from machine-to-machine or the purchase of another subscription because of a recent purchase of a new machine.” Examiner maps subscription to connection ID.).
However, Johnson does not explicitly teach transmitting the provisional position information to the distribution device.
Johnson discloses reassigning licenses for a GNSS accuracy improvement service, and Takahashi is directed to a GNSS correction data distribution device. Takahashi teaches:
A system (see at least Fig. 1, GPS correction data distribution system 1) that receives, from a distribution device (see at least Fig. 1, GPS correction data server 30), correction information for calculating high-accuracy position information of a mobile body from provisional position information of the mobile body (see at least [0047]; “RTK terminal device 20 makes a request for GPS correction data (an example of the GNSS correction data) with respect to the tentative position to GPS correction data distribution device 10 through network 40 such as a WWAN (Wireless Wide Area Network) and the Internet, and obtains the GPS correction data from GPS correction data distribution device 10 through network 40.”),
the operation system comprising:
a correction information acquisition unit (see at least Fig. 1, GPS correction data distribution device 10) configured to transmit the provisional position information of the mobile bodies to the distribution device and receive, from the distribution device, the correction information corresponding to a provisional position indicated by the provisional position information (see at least [0048]; “GPS correction data server 30 receives a GPS correction data distribution request (an example of the GNSS correction data distribution request) from GPS correction data distribution device 10 through network 40. The GPS correction data distribution request includes a coordinate of the GPS correction data to be distributed as a request position. GPS correction data server 30 distributes the GPS correction data including the coordinate information and the phase information about a Virtual Reference Station (VRS) corresponding to the request position to GPS correction data distribution device 10 through network 40.”).
Both Johnson and Takahashi teach GNSS systems including RTK positioning using a GNSS. In the system of Johnson, the GNSS receivers of the mobile bodies communicate directly with the base station to receive correction data. In the system of Takahashi, the receivers send requests and receive correction data through a network and data distribution service. 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 system used in Johnson to include a GNSS correction data distribution device, as taught by Takahashi. Such a modification would represent applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see for example [0006] of Takahashi; “In the GNSS correction data distribution device of the present disclosure, it is possible to shorten time necessary for the obtainment of the GNSS correction data since the terminal device makes the request for the GNSS correction data.”).
Regarding claim 2, Johnson in view of Takahashi teaches the mobile body operation system according to claim 1. Johnson further teaches:
wherein a use of the first mobile body and a use of the second mobile body are different (see again [0020]; “In contrast, certain embodiments of a GNSS accuracy improvement service enables a floating pool of subscriptions, where the subscription is not tied to any single piece of hardware, but rather, shared among a fleet of machines for which the pool of subscriptions applies. For instance, although a farmer may use six (6) machines that host a corresponding GNSS receiver system, he may choose to purchase only three (3) subscriptions for the accuracy improvement system. Three of the subscriptions may be used in conjunction with GNSS receiver systems for three (3) of the machines used during one season or portion of the season, and three (3) machines hosting a respective GNSS receiver system may be used in conjunction with the pool of subscriptions for another season or part of the season. Accordingly, the farmer need not purchase subscriptions for machines that sit idle for most of the subscription period, and he need not worry about the time and effort of moving each GNSS receiver from machine-to-machine or the purchase of another subscription because of a recent purchase of a new machine.”).
Regarding claim 3, Johnson in view of Takahashi teaches the mobile body operation system according to claim 1. Johnson further teaches:
wherein a drive area permitted to the first mobile body and a drive area permitted to the second mobile body are different (see at least [0020]; “In contrast, certain embodiments of a GNSS accuracy improvement service enables a floating pool of subscriptions, where the subscription is not tied to any single piece of hardware, but rather, shared among a fleet of machines for which the pool of subscriptions applies. For instance, although a farmer may use six (6) machines that host a corresponding GNSS receiver system, he may choose to purchase only three (3) subscriptions for the accuracy improvement system. Three of the subscriptions may be used in conjunction with GNSS receiver systems for three (3) of the machines used during one season or portion of the season, and three (3) machines hosting a respective GNSS receiver system may be used in conjunction with the pool of subscriptions for another season or part of the season. Accordingly, the farmer need not purchase subscriptions for machines that sit idle for most of the subscription period, and he need not worry about the time and effort of moving each GNSS receiver from machine-to-machine or the purchase of another subscription because of a recent purchase of a new machine.” As the use case envisions some machines sitting idle while others are in use and using the subscription, Examiner interprets the drive areas of the two machines as being different.).
Regarding claim 4, Johnson in view of Takahashi teaches the mobile body operation system according to claim 1. Johnson further teaches:
wherein the ID management unit has ID management information (see at least [0034]; “The subscription pool manager software 124 comprises a web-interface module 126 that enables access by browser software located on a remote computing device, enabling a user or operator at a remote location to interact with the server 114 to register a fleet of machines and the associated operators as well as to purchase and then select for mutually exclusive use the purchased subscriptions pertaining to GNSS accuracy improvement services, such as RTK correction as well as other correction services that improve upon the accuracy of coarse acquisition GNSS receivers.”) that associates mobile body IDs for identifying the plurality of mobile bodies (see at least Fig. 9, where each available machine is identified. See also [0031]; “Referring again to FIG. 6, there is a machine selection (94). For instance, and referring to FIG. 9, the icon 92A corresponding to the machine identified as “combine765” is selected, as noted by the boldface outline in the web-interface 72B.”) and a plurality of connection IDs (see at least Fig. 10, icons 98 representing subscriptions of the subscription pool), and the ID management unit associates a first mobile body ID given to the first mobile body with the first connection ID (see at least [0032]; “In this example, the operator selects (106) the icon 98A from the available subscriptions in region 100 and performs a drag and drop operation on the icon 98A, as represented by the dashed and boldface outline of the icon 98A and the arrow-head overlapping the delineator 104 signifying a real-time transfer of the subscription corresponding to icon 98A to the unavailable region 102. In effect, the subscription has now been activated (108) (e.g., status has changed to in-use), and a web-interface 72D is presented with the revised subscription pool (110) where the selected RTK correction subscription is shown changed in status from available (not in use) to unavailable (in use), as depicted in FIG. 11. The subscription pool has now been altered such that there are two (2) subscriptions available for use (instead of three (3)) in the fleet while the selected subscription is in use and unavailable. Further, with the subscription activated for RTK correction, the GNSS receiver system 16 is now equipped for centimeter-level navigational guidance for that machine.”) in the first period (see at least [0033]; “When the subscription in use is no longer in use (e.g., based on a predetermined time of no RTK use, or as shut-down by an operator), the subscription is automatically returned back to the available status.”) and associates a second mobile body ID given to the second mobile body with the first connection ID in the second period (see at least [0020]; “In contrast, certain embodiments of a GNSS accuracy improvement service enables a floating pool of subscriptions, where the subscription is not tied to any single piece of hardware, but rather, shared among a fleet of machines for which the pool of subscriptions applies. For instance, although a farmer may use six (6) machines that host a corresponding GNSS receiver system, he may choose to purchase only three (3) subscriptions for the accuracy improvement system. Three of the subscriptions may be used in conjunction with GNSS receiver systems for three (3) of the machines used during one season or portion of the season, and three (3) machines hosting a respective GNSS receiver system may be used in conjunction with the pool of subscriptions for another season or part of the season.”).
Regarding claim 5, Johnson in view of Takahashi teaches the mobile body operation system according to claim 4. Johnson further teaches:
wherein, when a predetermined condition is satisfied, the ID management unit (see at least Fig. 12A, subscription pool manager 124) selects, from a plurality of connection IDs, connection IDs allocated to the mobile body IDs of the mobile bodies (see at least [0033]; “When the subscription in use is no longer in use (e.g., based on a predetermined time of no RTK use, or as shut-down by an operator), the subscription is automatically returned back to the available status.”).
Regarding claim 6, Johnson in view of Takahashi teaches the mobile body operation system according to claim 1. Johnson further teaches:
wherein the ID management unit selectively allocates the first connection ID to the first mobile body and the second mobile body based on drive schedule information indicating a period in which the correction information is used in control of the plurality of mobile bodies (see at least [0020]; “In contrast, certain embodiments of a GNSS accuracy improvement service enables a floating pool of subscriptions, where the subscription is not tied to any single piece of hardware, but rather, shared among a fleet of machines for which the pool of subscriptions applies. For instance, although a farmer may use six (6) machines that host a corresponding GNSS receiver system, he may choose to purchase only three (3) subscriptions for the accuracy improvement system. Three of the subscriptions may be used in conjunction with GNSS receiver systems for three (3) of the machines used during one season or portion of the season, and three (3) machines hosting a respective GNSS receiver system may be used in conjunction with the pool of subscriptions for another season or part of the season.”).
Regarding claim 7, Johnson in view of Takahashi teaches the mobile body operation system according to claim 1. Johnson further teaches:
wherein the ID management unit selectively allocates the first connection ID to the first mobile body and the second mobile body based on drive information of the first mobile body and the second mobile body (see at least flow chart of Fig. 12B and interface of Fig. 10, where subscriptions are allocated based on which subscriptions are available. In light of instance specification [0065], which states that “the information concerning traveling and a state of the vehicles V1 and V2 is referred to as ‘drive information’, Examiner interprets a vehicle having a subscription assigned to is as a state of the vehicle, and therefore as drive information).
Regarding claim 8, Johnson in view of Takahashi teaches the mobile body operation system according to claim 1. Johnson further teaches:
further comprising a management device (see at least web interface 72A-D of Figs. 8-11) including the ID management unit (see at least Figs. 9 and 10, showing an example interface for managing the licenses by assigning them to particular machines)
(see at least Fig. 1, base station 18) is sent to the first mobile body (see at least [0022]; “The RTK correction is communicated (e.g., broadcast) to the GNSS receiver systems 16 of the machines 12 and 14, which is used along with the GNSS information received from the satellites 27 to provide for a geographical position of each machine 12 and 14 to centimeter-level accuracy.”) in the first period and is sent to the second mobile body in the second period (see at least [0020]; “In contrast, certain embodiments of a GNSS accuracy improvement service enables a floating pool of subscriptions, where the subscription is not tied to any single piece of hardware, but rather, shared among a fleet of machines for which the pool of subscriptions applies. For instance, although a farmer may use six (6) machines that host a corresponding GNSS receiver system, he may choose to purchase only three (3) subscriptions for the accuracy improvement system. Three of the subscriptions may be used in conjunction with GNSS receiver systems for three (3) of the machines used during one season or portion of the season, and three (3) machines hosting a respective GNSS receiver system may be used in conjunction with the pool of subscriptions for another season or part of the season. Accordingly, the farmer need not purchase subscriptions for machines that sit idle for most of the subscription period, and he need not worry about the time and effort of moving each GNSS receiver from machine-to-machine or the purchase of another subscription because of a recent purchase of a new machine.”).
However, in Johnson, there is no intermediary between the distribution device (mapped to the base station of Johnson) and the mobile bodies (mapped to the machines of Johnson), and therefore no unit of Johnson fulfills the role of the correction information acquisition unit as described in claim 8.
Takahashi teaches a correction information acquisition unit (see at least Fig. 1, GPS correction data distribution device 10) that transmits correction information (see at least [0047]; “Then, RTK terminal device 20 makes a request for GPS correction data (an example of the GNSS correction data) with respect to the tentative position to GPS correction data distribution device 10 through network 40 such as a WWAN (Wireless Wide Area Network) and the Internet, and obtains the GPS correction data from GPS correction data distribution device 10 through network 40.”) received from the distribution device (see at least Fig. 1, GPS correction data server 30. See also [0048]; “GPS correction data server 30 distributes the GPS correction data including the coordinate information and the phase information about a Virtual Reference Station (VRS) corresponding to the request position to GPS correction data distribution device 10 through network 40.”) to a mobile body (see at least Fig. 1, RTK terminal device 20).
Both Johnson and Takahashi teach GNSS systems including RTK positioning usin