DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for two or more processing circuits, does not reasonably provide enablement for only one processing circuit as claimed (i.e. reads on the claimed language of “one or more”) (emphasis added). The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claim 19, in the specification, Fig 2 shown a vehicle having a processing circuit for determining a corrective position of the vehicle based on the vehicle GPS position and the corrective position data, while Fig 3 shown a RTK hub (i.e. on-site system) having another processing circuit for determining corrective position data based on the hub GPS position and the known location; therefore, only one processing circuit fails scope of enablement because two or more processing circuits are required for operating Applicant’s vehicle system as claimed.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected claim(s).
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 1-20 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.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claims fail to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter. Applicant appears to be attempting to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims, which as noted above is improper.
Regarding claim 1, based on 35 USC 112(a) rejection above, the claim is rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential step(s), such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted step is: receiving, by the vehicle, corrective position data from the RTK hub.
Regarding claim 15, it recited “a controller configured to: determine a corrective position of the golf cart based on (i) corrective position data received from the RTK system and (ii) the GPS position of the golf cart”; however, there is no corrective position data determined and received from the RTK system in the claim which amounts to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Regarding claim 19, based on 35 USC 112(a) rejection above, the claim is rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential step(s), such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted step is: receiving, by the vehicle, corrective position data from the RTK system.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
It is Applicant’s responsibility to draft a clear and concise set of claims defining the metes and bounds of Applicant’s invention. While the Office has noted numerous instances of these issues above, the claims consistently show that they lack a clear definition of the Applicant’s invention. Applicant should review all of the outstanding claims in response hereto. All of the claims should be reviewed for issues related to clarity and scope as the errors/issues are not constrained to those listed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over prior art. However, 35 USC 112(a) and/or 35 USC 112(b) rejections must be overcome.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2025/0353514 discloses a golf vehicle system includes a golf vehicle and a control system. The golf vehicle includes a chassis, a plurality of tractive assemblies coupled to the chassis, a prime mover configured to drive one or more of the plurality of tractive assemblies, and an indicator configured to provide one or more indications to an operator of the golf vehicle. The control system is configured to monitor a location of the golf vehicle relative to a restricted operation area of a golf course, and control the indicator to provide an indication responsive to a determination that the golf vehicle has entered the restricted operation area based on the location of the golf vehicle relative to the restricted operation area.
US 2025/0225795 discloses a vehicle system includes a vehicle and a control system. The vehicle includes a chassis, a plurality of tractive assemblies coupled to the chassis, a prime mover configured to drive one or more of the plurality of tractive assemblies, a first sensor configured to facilitate monitoring a tracked location of the vehicle, and a second sensor configured to facilitate detecting a surface type of a ground surface. The control system is configured to monitor the tracked location of the vehicle based on a first signal acquired from the first sensor, determine the surface type of the ground surface based on a second signal acquired from the second sensor, and permit unrestricted operation of the vehicle when the tracked location indicates that the vehicle is located in a restricted operation area but the surface type indicates that the vehicle is not in the restricted operation area.
US 2024/0427024 discloses a technique corrects errors in locations of a vehicle in response to current locations falling within one or more geofences that define regions where the vehicle is unlikely to be traveling. In response to a current location of the vehicle falling within the bounds of such a geofence, the technique adjusts the current location by a defined offset. The offset has the effect of modifying the current location toward a more likely, actual location of the vehicle.
US 12,158,527 discloses a reference station includes a GNSS antenna configured to receive a plurality of GNSS signals including augmentation information, and a GNSS receiver having a positioning processor, a signal processor, and a signal transmitter. The positioning processor calculates a current position of the reference station based on received GNSS signals including the augmentation information without using position information of another reference station or error correction information sent via a non-GNSS satellite communication link, and thus the reference station can be independently installed at a desirable location without surveying or measuring the desirable location. The signal processor generates error correction information including the current position of the reference station in a predetermined data format such as RTCM or CMR, based on the received GNSS signals. The signal transmitter transmits the error correction information via a communication link, allowing rovers to perform centimeter-level RTK positioning using the current position of the reference station.
US 12,169,243 discloses an apparatus provides independent precise positioning for a reference station including a GNSS antenna and a GNSS receiver. The GNSS receiver generates GNSS data based on a plurality of GNSS signals received at the GNSS antenna, including GNSS signals having augmentation information. The apparatus includes a positioning processor, a signal processor, and a signal transmitter. The positioning processor calculates a current position of the reference station based on GNSS observation data and GNSS augmentation data obtained from the augmentation information included in the received GNSS signals, without using position information of another reference station, whereby the reference station is independently installed at a desirable location without surveying or measuring the desirable location. The signal processor generates error correction information including the current position of the reference station in a predetermined data format such as RTCM or CMR, based on the GNSS augmentation data.
US 10,908,297 discloses methods for determining corrected positions of a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) rover using a GNSS base station and one or more GNSS reference stations include determining a statistical representation of position measurements from the GNSS reference stations and an instantaneous position measurement from the GNSS reference stations. A position correction is determined based on the statistical representation and the instantaneous position measurement. A corrected position of the GNSS rover is determined based on a position of the GNSS rover and the position correction.
US 2006/0152407 discloses a method for a combined use of a local positioning system, a local RTK system and a regional, wide-area, or global differential carrier-phase positioning system (WADGPS) in which disadvantages associated with the local positioning system, the RTK and the WADGPS navigation techniques when used separately are avoided. The method includes using a known position of a user receiver that has been stationary or using an RTK system to initialize the floating ambiguity values in the WADGPS system when the user receiver is moving. Thereafter, the refraction-corrected carrier-phase measurements obtained at the user GPS receiver are adjusted by including the corresponding initial floating ambiguity values and the floating ambiguity values are treated as well known (small variance) in subsequent processes to position the user receiver in the WADGPS system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights