DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 and 17-20 in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/13/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/12/2024, 06/03/2024, 03/05/2025, 05/21/2025, 08/05/2025, 10/28/2025 and 11/18/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Due to the large volume of material presented in the IDS of 11/09/2023, Applicant’s IDSs has received only a cursory consideration wherein U.S. and Foreign patent literation was crossed with a text search and CPC search. Foreign references 367-368 and 383-535 were not able to be retrieved and thus were not considered. Tellingly, those same citations had the word “Unavailable” in the “Name of Patentee or Applicant of Cited Document” field.
Significantly, an applicant's duty of disclosure of material information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with “a mountain of largely irrelevant [material] from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical [material]. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work.” Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573 [220 USPQ 289] (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The purpose of this comment is to document on the record that the disclosed prior art has only received a cursory consideration. Should this level of consideration be acceptable to the Applicant, no further action is needed. However, should Applicant desire a more thorough consideration of the disclosed prior art, Applicants are requested to identify the relevant references including relevant sections highlighted in each of the relevant references, since they are believed to be the most knowledgeable about the content of the information included in the IDS. If Applicants indicate that all the submitted documents are highly pertinent, then they are requested to provide an explanation of the pertinence of every single cited reference in the Information Disclosure Statement. This information is necessary to more thoroughly evaluate the large volume of prior art submitted with the IDS.
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 5, 10 and 19 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.
Regarding claims 5 and 19, it is unclear and not readily understood what is meant by “predetermined satellite amount”. “predetermined satellite amount” is not defined by the claim language, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the meaning, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, the examiner has interpreted this phrasing to mean “3 or more satellites” since 3 satellites is the minimum required to find a position.
Claim 20 is also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim.
Regarding claim 10, the final claim element seems to be a typo. The final claim element of claim 10 is identical to the final claim element of claim 9: “provide the location calibration information to the robotic garden tool, wherein the location calibration information is based on the respective location signals received from one of the first antenna and the second antenna that has a greater signal strength than the other of the one of the first antenna and the second antenna.”, but claim 10 is dependent upon claim 1, not claim 9, and “two antennas” are only introduced in claim 9.
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 1-5 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-5 recite a GNSS base station device for providing navigational assistance data to a robotic gardening tool (rover) that estimates the signal strength of the GNSS satellite signal to output to a ‘user’. Claims 17-19 recite a method of controlling a GNSS base station device for providing navigational assistance data to a robotic gardening tool (rover) that estimates the signal strength of the GNSS satellite signal to output to a ‘user’. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, merely indicate a field of use with some interspersed insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering/transmission. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)); and mental processes {Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” {Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267-68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour {Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” , 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation” fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well- understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 (and its dependents) recites a device. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 17 (and its dependents) recites a method. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
As set forth above, claims 1-5 and similarly claims 17-19, recite a judicial exception since the claims set forth a plurality of mental process as defined at least by the claimed steps of:
determine a first signal strength of the base station device at the first location;
determine the first signal strength based on a first amount of satellites of the first plurality of satellites from which respective first location signals were received by the base station device;
compare the first amount of satellites of the first plurality of satellites from which the respective first location signals were received by the base station device to a predetermined satellite amount threshold; and
determine whether the first location is an adequate location for the base station device based on the comparison
The steps of “determine a first signal strength” may be performed by observing and evaluating the data received (i.e. carrier amplitude or any of the well-defined GNSS signal quality metrics – signal power, signal to noise ratio, number of satellites, etc. ) which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
The steps of “determine the first signal strength based on a first amount of satellites of the first plurality of satellites from which respective first location signals were received by the base station device” may be performed by observing and evaluating the data received (i.e. number of satellites data) which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion
The step of “compare the first amount of satellites of the first plurality of satellites from which the respective first location signals were received by the base station device to a predetermined satellite amount threshold” may be performed by noting the number of satellites observed at a given time at a prospective location and judging the relative value against a reference number which may be practically performed using paper and pencil to record the results.
The step of “determine whether the first location is an adequate location for the base station device based on the comparison” may be performed by selecting one of the fixed data which also may be practically performed in the human mind using judgment, and opinion.
Since the claims recite an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two, we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.
Claims 1 and 17 additionally discloses “wherein the first location is a first potential location of the base station device from which the base station device is configured to provide location calibration information based on communication with the first plurality of satellites to a robotic garden tool” and “wherein an indication of the first signal strength is output via an output device for consumption by a user”. Claim 3 discloses “the electronic processor is configured to transmit, via the network interface, the first signal strength to the external device for outputting via the output device.” These additional steps are all extraneous pre-solution activity. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Further, claims 1, 3-5 and 17-19 recited the method as being performed by an electronic processor. The electronic processor is recited at a high level of generality. The electronic processor is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data and perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field.
As stated above, claims 1-5 and 17-19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The applications disclosure, through the claims and speciation, amount to generally linking the judicial exceptions to a particular technological environment (Specification, [0066] The systems, methods, and devices described herein use the robotic mower 105, the base station 145, external device 115, or a combination thereof to identify locations associated with a sufficient and insufficient signal strength for use of RTK GNSS principles and provide an output of such signal strength to a user.). The disclosure fails to point out how this is accomplished. Is the user expected to wander the intended area of use using the base station as a divining rod? Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than data gathering steps that collect necessary data for determining and comparing which requires no more than a generic computer to perform operations and generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
The courts have considered the following examples to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: 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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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).
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dai (US 20150185331).
Regarding claim 1, Dai discloses a base station device (Fig. 1. Moving Base (Mobile Base Station) 120) comprising:
a network interface including a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver; and an electronic processor coupled to the network interface ([0040] Mobile base station system 250 typically includes one or more processors (CPU's) 252 for executing programs or instructions; satellite receiver 254 for receiving satellite navigation signals; one or more communication interfaces 256, 258; memory 260; and one or more communication buses 255 for interconnecting these components. Mobile base station system 250 optionally includes a user interface 259 comprising a display device and one or more input devices (e.g., one or more of a keyboard, mouse, touch screen, keypad, etc.). The one or more communication buses 255 may include circuitry (sometimes called a chipset) that interconnects and controls communications between system components.) and
configured to receive, via the GNSS receiver, a first location signal from each of a first plurality of satellites while the base station device is located at a first location ([0017] Moving base 120 measures the received satellite navigation signals at the specific times and communicates those measurements (e.g., code measurements or code measurement-based pseudoranges to each of the satellites, and carrier phase measurements)), and
determine a first signal strength of the base station device at the first location ([0069] The initial measurement data 552, sent by moving base 120 at the beginning of the epoch, includes measurement data 560 for each of a plurality of satellites. In some embodiments, the measurement data 560 for any one of the satellites includes...one or more signal resolution values to indicate the quality of the satellite signal received at moving base 120. [0070] and optionally includes satellite information 576 (e.g., indicating the number of satellites on which the position update is based)),
wherein the first location is a first potential location of the base station device from which the base station device is configured to provide location calibration information based on communication with the first plurality of satellites to a robotic garden tool (Fig. 5A; 554-1/2 Position Update 1/2 554-1 and 554-2; [0070] In some embodiments, position update data 554 for a single position update sent by mobile base 120 includes a change in position 574 of the mobile base station since a prior position of or position update for the mobile base 120 (e.g., a change in position relative to the mobile base station position determined, sent or reported for the beginning of the current epoch); a timestamp and/or delta time value (indicating an amount of time since the most recent epoch boundary time) 572, indicating the time corresponding to the position update values 574; and optionally includes satellite information 576 (e.g., indicating the number of satellites on which the position update is based), Examiner’s note – as claimed, robotic gardening tool is a statement of intended use. It does not confer any patentably distinct structure to what is known as a rover in the art.),
wherein an indication of the first signal strength ([0044] An optional database 264 of data transmitted by mobile base station 110 to moving base 120 (as described in more detail below with respect to FIG. 5A).) is output via an output device for consumption by a user ([0040] Mobile base station system 250 optionally includes a user interface 259 comprising a display device – Examiner’s note: See Fig. 2B: the user interface is operably connected to the database of data transmitted to the moving base (rover) where the data transmitted includes GNSS signal quality according to Fig. 5A and [0069]-[0072]).
Regarding claim 2, Dai discloses the base station device of claim 1, further comprising the output device ([0040] Mobile base station system 250 optionally includes a user interface 259 comprising a display device).
Regarding claim 3, Dai discloses the base station device of claim 1, wherein the output device is included on an external device ([0021] FIG. 2A is a block diagram illustrating a moving object system 200, corresponding to moving object 110 in the moving-base RTK system 100 of FIG. 1, according to some embodiments. Moving object system 200 typically includes one or more processors (CPU's) 202 for executing programs or instructions; satellite receiver 204 for receiving satellite navigation signals; one or more communication interfaces 206, 208; memory 210; and one or more communication buses 205 for interconnecting these components. Moving object system 200 optionally includes a user interface 209 comprising a display device), and wherein the electronic processor is configured to transmit ([0069] FIG. 5A depicts a data structure for a database 214 of data received from moving base 120, also sometimes called the mobile base station. The database includes data 550 received from moving base 120 for each epoch (e.g., one second intervals)… Data 550 for a respective epoch include initial measurement data 552 and a sequence of position updates 554.), via the network interface, the first signal strength ([0070] In some embodiments, position update data 554 for a single position update sent by mobile base 120 includes a change in position 574 of the mobile base station since a prior position of or position update for the mobile base 120 (e.g., a change in position relative to the mobile base station position determined, sent or reported for the beginning of the current epoch); a timestamp and/or delta time value (indicating an amount of time since the most recent epoch boundary time) 572, indicating the time corresponding to the position update values 574; and optionally includes satellite information 576 (e.g., indicating the number of satellites on which the position update is based)) to the external device for outputting via the output device (Examiner’s note: See Fig. 2A: the user interface is operably connected to the database of data transmitted to the moving base (rover) where the data transmitted includes GNSS signal quality according to Fig. 5A and [0069]-[0072]).
Regarding claim 4, Dai discloses the base station device of claim 1, wherein the electronic processor is configured to determine ([0050] Operating system 262 and each of the above identified modules of mobile base station system 250 and applications correspond to a set of instructions for performing a function described above. The set of instructions can be executed by the one or more processors 252 of mobile base station system 250.) the first signal strength based on a first amount of satellites of the first plurality of satellites ([0069] The initial measurement data 552, sent by moving base 120 at the beginning of the epoch, includes measurement data 560 for each of a plurality of satellites. In some embodiments, the measurement data 560 for any one of the satellites includes...one or more signal resolution values to indicate the quality of the satellite signal received at moving base 120. [0070] and optionally includes satellite information 576 (e.g., indicating the number of satellites on which the position update is based) from which respective first location signals were received by the base station device ([0070] position update data 554 … includes satellite information 576 (e.g., indicating the number of satellites on which the position update is based)).
Regarding claim 17, Dai discloses a method of controlling a base station device, the method comprising:
receiving, with an electronic processor of the base station device via a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver of a network interface of the base station device ([0040] Mobile base station system 250 typically includes one or more processors (CPU's) 252 for executing programs or instructions; satellite receiver 254 for receiving satellite navigation signals; one or more communication interfaces 256, 258; memory 260; and one or more communication buses 255 for interconnecting these components.),
a first location signal from each of a first plurality of satellites ([0017] Moving base 120 measures the received satellite navigation signals at the specific times and communicates those measurements (e.g., code measurements or code measurement-based pseudoranges to each of the satellites, and carrier phase measurements)) while the base station device is located at a first location (Fig. 5A; 554-1 Position Update 1 554-1); and
determining, with the electronic processor, a first signal strength of the base station device at the first location ([0069] The initial measurement data 552, sent by moving base 120 at the beginning of the epoch, includes measurement data 560 for each of a plurality of satellites. In some embodiments, the measurement data 560 for any one of the satellites includes...one or more signal resolution values to indicate the quality of the satellite signal received at moving base 120. [0070] and optionally includes satellite information 576 (e.g., indicating the number of satellites on which the position update is based)), wherein the first location is a first potential location of the base station device from which the base station device is configured to provide location calibration information based on communication with the first plurality of satellites to a robotic garden tool ([0070] In some embodiments, position update data 554 for a single position update sent by mobile base 120 includes a change in position 574 of the mobile base station since a prior position of or position update for the mobile base 120 (e.g., a change in position relative to the mobile base station position determined, sent or reported for the beginning of the current epoch); a timestamp and/or delta time value (indicating an amount of time since the most recent epoch boundary time) 572, indicating the time corresponding to the position update values 574; and optionally includes satellite information 576 (e.g., indicating the number of satellites on which the position update is based));
wherein an indication of the first signal strength ([0070] In some embodiments, position update data 554 for a single position update sent by mobile base 120 includes a change in position 574 of the mobile base station since a prior position of or position update for the mobile base 120 (e.g., a change in position relative to the mobile base station position determined, sent or reported for the beginning of the current epoch); a timestamp and/or delta time value (indicating an amount of time since the most recent epoch boundary time) 572, indicating the time corresponding to the position update values 574; and optionally includes satellite information 576 (e.g., indicating the number of satellites on which the position update is based)) is output via an output device for consumption by a user ([0040] Mobile base station system 250 optionally includes a user interface 259 comprising a display device – Examiner’s note: See Fig. 2B: the user interface is operably connected to the database of data transmitted to the moving base (rover) where the data transmitted includes GNSS signal quality according to Fig. 5A and [0069]-[0072]).
Regarding claim 18, Dai discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising: transmitting, with the electronic processor via the network interface, the first signal strength ([0069] The initial measurement data 552, sent by moving base 120 at the beginning of the epoch, includes measurement data 560 for each of a plurality of satellites. In some embodiments, the measurement data 560 for any one of the satellites includes...one or more signal resolution values to indicate the quality of the satellite signal received at moving base 120. [0070] and optionally includes satellite information 576 (e.g., indicating the number of satellites on which the position update is based)) to an external device ([0021] FIG. 2A is a block diagram illustrating a moving object system 200, corresponding to moving object 110 in the moving-base RTK system 100 of FIG. 1, according to some embodiments. Moving object system 200 typically includes one or more processors (CPU's) 202 for executing programs or instructions; satellite receiver 204 for receiving satellite navigation signals; one or more communication interfaces 206, 208; memory 210; and one or more communication buses 205 for interconnecting these components. Moving object system 200 optionally includes a user interface 209 comprising a display device) for outputting via the output device (Examiner’s note: See Fig. 2A: the user interface is operably connected to the database of data transmitted to the moving base (rover) where the data transmitted includes GNSS signal quality according to Fig. 5A and [0069]-[0072]), wherein the output device is included on the external device ([0021] FIG. 2A is a block diagram illustrating a moving object system 200, corresponding to moving object 110 in the moving-base RTK system 100 of FIG. 1, according to some embodiments. Moving object system 200 typically includes one or more processors (CPU's) 202 for executing programs or instructions; satellite receiver 204 for receiving satellite navigation signals; one or more communication interfaces 206, 208; memory 210; and one or more communication buses 205 for interconnecting these components. Moving object system 200 optionally includes a user interface 209 comprising a display device).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US 20150185331) in view of Park (KR 102365291 – machine translation).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Dai discloses the base station device of claim 4 and method of claim 17, accordingly the rejection of claims 4 and 17 above are incorporated. Dai further discloses determining, with the electronic processor, the first signal strength based on a first amount of satellites of the first plurality of satellites from which respective first location signals were received by the base station device. Dai fails to disclose the electronic processor is configured to: compare the first amount of satellites of the first plurality of satellites from which the respective first location signals were received by the base station device to a predetermined satellite amount threshold; and determine whether the first location is an adequate location for the base station device based on the comparison, wherein the indication of the first signal strength indicates whether the first location is an adequate location for the base station device.
However, Park teaches a mobile GNSS base station system ([0055] For this purpose, the reference station device (300) may include a GNSS correction information generation unit (310), an altitude information generation unit (320), an altitude correction information generation unit (330), and a correction information transmission unit (340).) where the electronic processor is configured to: compare the first amount of satellites of the first plurality of satellites from which the respective first location signals were received by the base station device to a predetermined satellite amount threshold; and determine whether the first location is an adequate location for the base station device based on the comparison, wherein the indication of the first signal strength indicates whether the first location is an adequate location for the base station device ([0018] the reference station device may be a mobile reference station that moves to an area where the number of visible satellites exceeds the threshold number when the number of visible satellites among multiple satellites falls below a preset threshold number.).
Dai and Park are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of mobile base station assisted GNSS technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base station device of Dai by including the satellite threshold criteria for determining the location of the mobile base station, according to Park, to yield a predictable result of determining a position for the base station that would provide useful correction signals for the robotic gardening tool (rover) with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – mobile base station assisted GNSS technology.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US 20150185331) in view of Ogawa (US 20070268179).
Regarding claim 6, Dai discloses the base station device of claim 4, accordingly the rejection of claim 4 above is incorporated. Dai further discloses wherein the electronic processor is configured to: receive, via the network interface, data from the robotic garden tool ([0045] Message services applications 266 that operate in conjunction with communication interface 256 (e.g., a transmitter or transceiver) to handle communications between mobile base station system 250 and moving object 110 (moving object system 200)). Dai fails to explicitly disclose the data indicates a second amount of satellites of the first plurality of satellites from which the respective first location signals were received by the robotic garden tool, and wherein the data indicates respective second identities of each of the satellites of the second amount of satellites; compare first identities of each of the satellites of the first amount of satellites of the first plurality of satellites from which the respective first location signals were received by the base station device to the second identities of each of the satellites of the first plurality of satellites from which the respective first location signals were received by the robotic garden tool to determine a third amount of common satellites of the first plurality of satellites from which the respective first location signals were received by both the base station device and the robotic garden tool; and determine the first signal strength of the base station device at the first location based on the third amount of common satellites of the first plurality of satellites from which the respective first location signals were received by both the base station device and the robotic garden tool.
However, Ogawa teaches a system ([0014] Connected to the satellite positioning system, by way of the GPS positioning data server Dsb, are at least one rover station M2, a plurality of base stations M1 and M1', and communication devices Sx and Sy that establish communications between the rover station M2 and the base stations M1 and M1'.) wherein the data indicates a second amount of satellites of the first plurality of satellites from which the respective first location signals were received by the robotic garden tool ([0030] the control unit of the base station includes an estimate device for estimating an area in a sky map in which an S/N ratio of a received signal is lower than a reference value, and the control unit of the rover station removes correction data based on the radio waves from artificial satellites existing in the area in the sky map to perform an RTK-GPS processing.), and wherein the data indicates respective second identities of each of the satellites of the second amount of satellites ([0082] In the sky map 20 created by the rover station 15 exist the artificial satellites Zs1 through Zs5);
compare first identities of each of the satellites of the first amount of satellites of the first plurality of satellites from which the respective first location signals were received by the base station device ([0082] in the sky map 21 created by the base station exist the artificial satellites Zs2, Zs3, Zs4, Zs5, and Zs6;) to the second identities of each of the satellites of the first plurality of satellites from which the respective first location signals were received by the robotic garden tool to determine a third amount of common satellites of the first plurality of satellites from which the respective first location signals were received by both the base station device and the robotic garden tool ([0083] The operator compares the sky maps 20, 21, and 22 displayed on the display 13D of the rover station 15, and judges which one of the base stations 16 and 17 should be used.); and
determine the first signal strength of the base station device at the first location based on the third amount of common satellites of the first plurality of satellites from which the respective first location signals were received by both the base station device and the robotic garden tool ([0083] The operator selects the base station 17 that has the largest number of the common artificial satellites Zsi.).
Dai and Ogawa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of base station assisted GNSS technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base station device of Dai by including the GNSS satellite comparison technique of Ogawa to yield the predictable result of ensuring that the GNSS satellites observed by the base station correspond to the GNSS satellites observed by the robotic gardening tool/rover. Including the technique of Ogawa would improve the accuracy of the system by ensuring that the corrections applied to the robotic gardening tool/rover are for the same set of GNSS satellites being used by the robotic gardening tool/rover.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Dai discloses the base station device of claim 4 and Dai as modified by Park teaches the method of claim 19, accordingly the rejections of claim 4 and 19 above are incorporated. Dai further discloses wherein the electronic processor is configured to: receive, via the network interface, data from the robotic garden tool ([0015] The system furthermore sends, via a transmitter of the moving object, a signal reporting information corresponding to the relative position.) and a second base station device ([0035] The accuracy of the absolute position values generated by moving base 120 may be improved through the use of any of a variety of navigation assistance technologies, such wide area differential GPS or RTK (e.g., using a fixed base station 170, FIG. 1).). Dai fails to disclose wherein the data indicates a second signal strength of the one of the robotic garden tool and the second base station device based on a second amount of satellites of the first plurality of satellites from which the respective first location signals were received by the one of the robotic garden tool and the second base station device, wherein the one of the robotic garden tool and the second base station device is located at a second location different than the first location, and wherein the second location is a second potential location of the base station device from which the base station device is configured to provide the location calibration information to the robotic garden tool; and compare the second signal strength of the one of the robotic garden tool and the second base station device at the second location to the first signal strength of the base station device at the first location; and wherein the indication indicates whether the second signal strength of the one of the robotic garden tool and the second base station device at the second location is greater than the first signal strength of the base station device at the first location.
Ogawa teaches a system ([0014] Connected to the satellite positioning system, by way of the GPS positioning data server Dsb, are at least one rover station M2, a plurality of base stations M1 and M1', and communication devices Sx and Sy that establish communications between the rover station M2 and the base stations M1 and M1'.) wherein the data indicates a second signal strength of the one of the robotic garden tool and the second base station device based on a second amount of satellites of the first plurality of satellites from which the respective first location signals were received by the one of the robotic garden tool and the second base station device ([0082] In the sky map 20 created by the rover station 15 exist the artificial satellites Zs1 through Zs5; in the sky map 21 created by the base station exist the artificial satellites Zs2, Zs3, Zs4, Zs5, and Zs6; and in the sky map 22 created by the base station exist the artificial satellites Zs1 through Zs7.), wherein the one of the robotic garden tool and the second base station device is located at a second location different than the first location (See Fig. 3 – Base Stations 16 and 17 are at different locations than rover 15), and wherein the second location is a second potential location of the base station device from which the base station device is configured to provide the location calibration information to the robotic garden tool; and compare the second signal strength of the one of the robotic garden tool and the second base station device at the second location to the first signal strength of the base station device at the first location ([0083] The operator compares the sky maps 20, 21, and 22 displayed on the display 13D of the rover station 15, and judges which one of the base stations 16 and 17 should be used. The operator selects the base station 17 that has the largest number of the common artificial satellites Zsi.); and wherein the indication indicates whether the second signal strength of the one of the robotic garden tool and the second base station device at the second location is greater than the first signal strength of the base station device at the first location ([0020] Among the correction data delivered from the base stations M1, M1', . . . , a base station should be selected that is usable based on the number of satellites common to the base stations and rover stations and is in good condition for receiving the artificial satellite Sa.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base station device of Dai and the method of Dai as modified by Park by including the Base Station and robotic gardening tool/rover satellite ID and number comparison technique of Ogawa to select the base station with the greatest number of satellites in common with the robotic gardening tool/rover. Including the technique of Ogawa would improve the accuracy of the system by ensuring that the corrections applied to the robotic gardening tool/rover are for the same set of GNSS satellites being used by the robotic gardening tool/rover.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US 20150185331) in view of Park (KR 102365291 – machine translation) and Vollath (US 20120229332).
Regarding claim 8, Dai discloses the base station device of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Dai further discloses wherein the electronic processor is configured to: receive, via the GNSS receiver, a second location signal from each of a second plurality of satellites while the base station device is located at a second location different than the first location and determine a second signal strength of the base station device at the second location (Fig. 5A; 554-1/2 Position Update 1/2 554-1 and 554-2; [0070] In some embodiments, position update data 554 for a single position update sent by mobile base 120 includes a change in position 574 of the mobile base station since a prior position of or position update for the mobile base 120 (e.g., a change in position relative to the mobile base station position determined, sent or reported for the beginning of the current epoch); a timestamp and/or delta time value (indicating an amount of time since the most recent epoch boundary time) 572, indicating the time corresponding to the position update values 574; and optionally includes satellite information 576 (e.g., indicating the number of satellites on which the position update is based)), wherein the second location is a second potential location of the base station device from which the base station device is configured to provide the location calibration information based on communication with the second plurality of satellites to the robotic garden tool. Dail fails to explicitly disclose comparing the second signal strength of the base station device at the second location to the first signal strength of the base station device at the first location; and control the output device to indicate whether the second signal strength of the base station device at the second location is greater than the first signal strength of the base station device at the first location.
Park teaches comparing the second signal strength of the base station device at the second location to the first signal strength of the base station device at the first location ([0018] the reference station device may be a mobile reference station that moves to an area where the number of visible satellites exceeds the threshold number when the number of visible satellites among multiple satellites falls below a preset threshold number.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base station device of Dai by including the satellite threshold criteria for determining the location of the mobile base station, according to Park, to yield a predictable result of determining a position for the base station that would provide useful correction signals for the robotic gardening tool (rover) with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – mobile base station assisted GNSS technology.
Vollath teaches a device for reporting quality of GNSS position fixes (Abstract; Methods and apparatus are provided for reporting quality of GNSS position fixes. A desired quality mode selection is obtained. Position fixes with respective precision estimates and satellite tracking information are obtained. For each of a plurality of position fixes a current positioning quality is determined, based on the precision estimates and satellite tracking information and quality mode selection. Current positioning quality is reported.) which controls the output device ([0054] FIG. 8 shows a screen display 800 in accordance with some embodiments. In this example a status indicator 805 is present in the upper right corner next to the satellite information. When the positioning accuracy is reduced and the user accepts the reduced accuracy, the corresponding threshold icon (Gold, Silver, Bronze) is displayed.) to indicate whether the second signal strength of the base station device at the second location is greater than the first signal strength of the base station device at the first location ([0074] Some embodiments base DGPS accuracy or error estimates on DOP value, number of satellites tracked, and age of correction.).
Dai, Park and Vollath are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of assisted GNSS technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base station device of Dai by including outputting the relative signal strength of each location of Vollath to improve the utility of the base station device by informing the user of the GNSS signal strength at a given location.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US 20150185331) in view of Michaelis (US 20180372881).
Regarding claim 9, Dai discloses the base station device of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Dai further discloses wherein the GNSS receiver includes a first antenna located at the first location wherein the first signal strength corresponds to the first signal strength of respective first location signals received by the first antenna ([0016] Moving object 110 and mobile base station 120 are both equipped with satellite receivers, including satellite antennas 130 and 140, respectively). Dai fails to disclose a second antenna located at a second location different than the first location; wherein the electronic processor is configured to determine a second signal strength of the respective first location signals received by the second antenna, compare the second signal strength associated with the second antenna to the first signal strength associated with the first antenna, and provide the location calibration information to the robotic garden tool, wherein the location calibration information is based on the respective location signals received from one of the first antenna and the second antenna that has a greater signal strength than the other of the one of the first antenna and the second antenna.
However, Michaelis teaches a GNSS base station with a second antenna located at a second location different than the first location ([0015] A processor (not shown) within one or more of the GNSS antennas 101, 103, or separate from the GNSS antennas 101, 103, may parse the received GPS satellite signals to obtain carrier phase information, carrier wavelength information, and satellite ephemeris information. Using the position information of each GNSS antenna 101, 103,); wherein the electronic processor is configured to determine a second signal strength of the respective first location signals received by the second antenna, compare the second signal strength associated with the second antenna to the first signal strength associated with the first antenna, and provide the location calibration information to the robotic garden tool, wherein the location calibration information is based on the respective location signals received from one of the first antenna and the second antenna that has a greater signal strength than the other of the one of the first antenna and the second antenna ([0019] The processor 209 may monitor the number of satellites that each of the GNSS antennas 201, 203, 205, 207 is receiving signals from at any given moment in time, and select two of the GNSS antennas 201, 203, 205, 207 that are tracking the greatest number of GPS satellites.).
Dai and Michaelis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of GNSS base station technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base station device by including more than one antennas as taught by Michaelis to yield a predictable result of increased coverage for acquiring a sufficient number of GNSS satellites with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – GNSS base station technology.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US 20150185331) in view of Ogawa (US 20070268179) and Michaelis (US 20180372881).
Regarding claim 10, Dai discloses the base station device of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Dai further discloses wherein the electronic processor is configured to: receive, via the network interface, data from a second base station device ([0041] Communication interface 258 (e.g., a receiver or transceiver, such as a radio receiver or transceiver, or a wired communication receiver or transceiver), if provided, is used by mobile base station system 250 to exchange information with home system 160, for example receiving satellite navigation information from a fixed position base station 170) and provide the location calibration information to the robotic gardening tool ([0016] FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating moving-base RTK system 100, according to some embodiments. Moving-base RTK system 100 enables a moving object 110 (e.g., a rover such as a boat, a robot, a haul, etc.) to determine, at any point of time, its current relative position with respect to a moving base 120 (e.g., a ship, a command vehicle, a truck, etc.), instead of a stationary base that conventional RTK navigation systems use. Moving base 120 is sometimes called a mobile base, mobile base station, or mobile reference receiver.). Dai fails to disclose wherein the data indicates a second signal strength of the second base station device based on a second amount of satellites of the first plurality of satellites from which the respective first location signals were received by the second base station device, wherein the second base station device is located at a second location different than the first location; and determine whether the base station device, the second base station device, or both should provide respective location calibration information to the robotic garden tool based on the first signal strength of the base station device and the second signal strength of the second base station device, and compare the second signal strength of the second base station device to the first signal strength of the base station device; and provide the location calibration information to the robotic garden tool, wherein the location calibration information is based on the respective location signals received from one of the first antenna and the second antenna that has a greater signal strength than the other of the one of the first antenna and the second antenna.
Ogawa teaches a system ([0014] Connected to the satellite positioning system, by way of the GPS positioning data server Dsb, are at least one rover station M2, a plurality of base stations M1 and M1', and communication devices Sx and Sy that establish communications between the rover station M2 and the base stations M1 and M1'.) wherein the data indicates a second signal strength of the second base station device based on a second amount of satellites of the first plurality of satellites from which the respective first location signals were received by the second base station device, wherein the second base station device is located at a second location different than the first location ([0015] In the satellite positioning system, as a common practice, the base stations M1 and M1' are fixedly located at positions whose coordinates are already known. The base stations M1 and M1' receive radio waves from the artificial satellite Sa continuously or periodically, and acquire the correction data of the positions in which they are located.); and determine whether the base station device, the second base station device, or both ([0048] At least one of the observational stations is used as a base station that transmits correction data for the analysis and processing of measured locations, and at least one of the rest of the observational stations is used as a rover station that receives the correction data.) should provide respective location calibration information to the robotic garden tool based on the first signal strength of the base station device and the second signal strength of the second base station device ([0082] In the sky map 20 created by the rover station 15 exist the artificial satellites Zs1 through Zs5; in the sky map 21 created by the base station 16 exist the artificial satellites Zs2, Zs3, Zs4, Zs5, and Zs6; and in the sky map 22 created by the base station 17 exist the artificial satellites Zs1 through Zs7.), and compare the second signal strength of the second base station device to the first signal strength of the base station device ([0083] The operator compares the sky maps 20, 21, and 22 displayed on the display 13D of the rover station 15, and judges which one of the base stations 16 and 17 should be used. The operator selects the base station 17 that has the largest number of the common artificial satellites Zsi.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base station device of Dai by including the second base station with signal strength measurement of Ogawa to gain the advantage of increasing the likelihood of having a number of satellites above the threshold for a given base station to provide navigational corrections to the robotic gardening tool (rover); and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Michaelis teaches a system teaches a GNSS base station with a second antenna located at a second location different than the first location ([0015] A processor (not shown) within one or more of the GNSS antennas 101, 103, or separate from the GNSS antennas 101, 103, may parse the received GPS satellite signals to obtain carrier phase information, carrier wavelength information, and satellite ephemeris information. Using the position information of each GNSS antenna 101, 103,); wherein the location calibration information is based on the respective location signals received from one of the first antenna and the second antenna that has a greater signal strength than the other of the one of the first antenna and the second antenna ([0019] The processor 209 may monitor the number of satellites that each of the GNSS antennas 201, 203, 205, 207 is receiving signals from at any given moment in time, and select two of the GNSS antennas 201, 203, 205, 207 that are tracking the greatest number of GPS satellites.).
Dai, Ogawa, and Michaelis are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of GNSS base station technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base station device by including more than one antennas as taught by Michaelis to yield a predictable result of increased coverage for acquiring a sufficient number of GNSS satellites with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – GNSS base station technology.
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 7482974 discloses an RTK-GPS survey system. The survey system includes a server in an IP-VPN communication network for establishing communications between base stations that transmit correction data and a rover station that receives the correction data. Each satellite positioning device includes a satellite positioning unit that receives radio waves from artificial satellites, a communication unit that performs a communication between the satellite positioning device, and a control unit that controls the satellite positioning unit and the communication unit. The control unit of the rover can receive interference information registered in the control unit of each base stations, and select a base station that transmits most appropriate correction data among the plural base stations.
US 20090121927 discloses an assisted global positioning system (GPS) method and system. Wireless access points send assistance data to GPS receivers that are integrated into cellular chipsets and other chipsets. The access points may also act as fixed location references for differential GPS (DGPS) mobile stations. Errors caused by multipath travel of the GPS signals are reduced by using fixed location reference receivers.
US 8594879 discloses a global navigation satellite sensor system (GNSS) and gyroscope control system for vehicle steering control comprising a GNSS receiver and antennas at a fixed spacing to determine a vehicle position, velocity and at least one of a heading angle, a pitch angle and a roll angle based on carrier phase position differences. The roll angle facilitates correction of the lateral motion induced position errors resultant from motion of the antennae as the vehicle moves based on an offset to ground and the roll angle. The system also includes a control system configured to receive the vehicle position, heading, and at least one of roll and pitch, and configured to generate a steering command to a vehicle steering system. Alternative aspects include multiple-antenna GNSS guidance methods for high-dynamic roll compensation, real-time kinematic (RTK) using single-frequency (L1) receivers, fixed and moving baselines between antennas, multi-position GNSS tail guidance ("breadcrumb following") for crosstrack error correction, guiding multiple vehicles and pieces of equipment relative to each other and earth-moving equipment and method applications.
US 20170003398 disclosed a method of calculating a geospatial position with a mobile device by monitoring a first control channel of a cellular communications system; monitoring with the mobile device a second control channel from a second cell of the cellular communications system at the same time as the first cellular control channel; receiving with the mobile device a first correction value sent over the first control channel; receiving with the mobile device a second correction value sent over the second control channel; receiving with the mobile device a signal from a global navigation satellite system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BS ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4145. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at (571)272-6878. 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.
/JBSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646