DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/1st ¶:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 10-17, and 20-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/1st ¶, as failing to comply with the written description requirement The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection.
(a) Independent claims 1, 11, and 17 recite the management center having a processor. Independent claims 1 and 11 recite the management center having an interface. However, there is no disclosure for this in the originally-filed disclosure. While Fig. 6 illustrates a processor and an interface, Fig. 6 is described in the disclosure as a processing system. There is no disclosure linking the management center with the processing system of Fig. 6.
(b) In claim 13, the final limitation recites "the mobile RTK rover unit is configured to use the second first RTK correction information to determine the position of the vehicle when the processor of the management center determines that the second RTK correction information is invalid" (emphasis added). However, there is no disclosure of this in the originally-filed disclosure.
(c) In claim 28, line 3 recites "a probability of failure per hour being about 10-8 and 10-9". However, the originally-filed disclosure doesn't disclose the probability of failure per hour being "about" 10-8 and 10-9.
“Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. It extends only to that which is disclosed. While the meaning of terms, phrases, or diagrams in a disclosure is to be explained or interpreted from the vantage point of one skilled in the art, all the limitations must appear in the specification. The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification. Rather, [the disclosure] must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought. ... the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the [claimed] invention ... is not sufficient.” -- Lockwood v. American Airlines Inc., 41 USPQ2d 1961 at 1966.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/112 2nd ¶, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 28, line 3, the term “about” is used. According to MPEP 2173.05(b): “When a term of degree is presented in a claim, first a determination is to be made as to whether the specification provides some standard for measuring that degree. If it does not, a determination is made as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the prior art and the status of the art, would be nevertheless reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Even if the specification uses the same term of degree as in the claim, a rejection may be proper if the scope of the term is not understood when read in light of the specification. While, as a general proposition, broadening modifiers are standard tools in claim drafting in order to avoid reliance on the doctrine of equivalents in infringement actions, when the scope of the claim is unclear a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112[(b)/2nd ¶] is proper. See In re Wiggins, 179 USPQ 421 at 423.” (emphasis added).
It is unclear what standard there is for measuring how close to between 10-8 and 10-9 the probability of failure per hour must be to be considered “about” between 10-8 and 10-9. Since there is no basis disclosed for determining this, the scope of the claim(s) is unclear and a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd ¶ is proper.
“We note that the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation.”, Halliburton Energy Services Inc. v. M-I LLC., 85 USPQ2d 1654 at 1663.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 5,936,573 A) in view of Kane (US 2009/0043435 A1).
In regard to claim 17, Smith discloses:
a base station (102, Fig. 2 and 5) that includes an RTK base unit (104, Fig. 2 and 5) and a static RTK rover unit (106 and 120, Fig. 2 and 5) [where 120 is shared by the RTK base unit and the static RTK rover unit to provide information to both], the RTK base unit and the static RTK rover unit being collocated (known point, Fig. 5; col. 10, lines 18-30);
receiving positions of an RTK base unit and a static RTK rover unit colocated with the RTK base unit in a base station (col. 6, line 66 to col. 7, line 17),
the RTK base unit and the static RTK rover unit sharing a single physical GPS antenna (122, Fig. 5; col. 10, lines 18-30),
wherein the static RTK rover unit is configured to determine its position according to GPS data received from the single physical GPS antenna and RTK correction information received from the RTK base unit (col. 6, line 66 to col. 7, line 17);
determining, by a processor of a management center (20, Fig. 1) [where a computer inherently includes a processor], the base station to be healthy when the positions determined by the RTK base unit and the static RTK rover unit are consistent with a known reference position of the single physical GPS antenna within a defined position tolerance (314, Fig. 6; col. 6, line 66 to col. 7, line 17; col. 9, lines 20-27); and
determining, by the processor of the management center, the base station to be unhealthy when the positions determined by the RTK base unit and the static RTK rover unit are not consistent with the known reference position of the single physical GPS antenna within the defined position tolerance (col. 6, line 66 to col. 7, line 17).
Smith fails to disclose receiving speeds determined by the RTK base unit and the static RTK rover unit; determining the base station to be healthy when the speed determined by both the RTK base unit and the static RTK rover unit is zero within a defined speed tolerance; determining the base station to be unhealthy when the speed determined by either the RTK base unit or the static RTK rover unit is greater than zero by more than the defined speed tolerance.
Kane teaches receiving speeds determined by a first unit and a second unit; determining the system to be healthy when the positions determined by a first unit and a second unit are consistent with a known reference position within a defined position tolerance and the speed determined by both the first unit and the second unit is different than an expected speed by more than the defined speed tolerance; determining the system to be unhealthy when either the positions determined by the first unit and the second unit are not consistent with the known reference position within the defined position tolerance the speed determined by either the first unit or the second unit is different than an expected speed by more than the defined speed tolerance (Fig. 3 and 5; ¶7; ¶59; ¶68; ¶72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the chance that invalid correction information is detected by performing an additional test that can detect invalid correction information.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that invalid correction information is detected more often.
It is well known to determine that there is an error if a measured speed differs from a known speed more than a defined tolerance.
In the combination, the known speed of the base station is zero, and the result of determining an error is to determine the correction information is unhealthy.
In the combination, the first unit and the second unit of Kane correspond to the RTK base unit and the static RTK rover unit.
In regard to claim 20, Smith further discloses the base station is a first base station at a first location, and a second base station is at a second location [different] from the first location (col. 1, lines 29-33; col. 2, lines 16-26).
It is well known for a mobile RTK rover unit to configured to receive first RTK correction information from the first base station, and receive second RTK correction information from the second base station (e.g. near an interface between the coverage areas of two base stations, or when multiple base stations are provided for redundancy for applications where being able to determine accurate position is critical).
It would be common sense to determine a position of a vehicle using RTK correction information received from a second base station if a first base station is determined to be unhealthy [when second RTK correction information is available]. The use of common sense in the obviousness analysis is endorsed by KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Kane, as applied to claim 17, and further in view of El Fassi (US 2013/0046421 A1).
Smith and Kane fail to disclose the base station and the management center are configured such that determining the base station to be healthy or unhealthy is performed with a probability of failure per hour of between about 10-8 and 10-9.
El Fassi teaches that probability of failure per hour of between 10-8 and 10-9 is a known value to be achieved is safety standards.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order for the achieved a failure level to be low enough that the system in considered safe.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that a failure level is low enough for the system to be considered safe.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 10-16, 22, 24, and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 5,936,573 A) in view of King '999 (US 5,525,999 A) and Kane (US 2009/0043435 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Smith discloses:
a base station (102, Fig. 2 and 5) that includes an RTK base unit (104, Fig. 2 and 5) and a static RTK rover unit (106 and 120, Fig. 2 and 5) [where 120 is shared by the RTK base unit and the static RTK rover unit to provide information to both], the RTK base unit and the static RTK rover unit being at a same fixed location (known point, Fig. 5; col. 10, lines 18-30);
a single physical GPS antenna corresponding to the base station and being at a first position (122, Fig. 5; col. 10, lines 18-30); and
a management center (20, Fig. 1) comprising an interface (interface in 20, Fig. 1 that allows the connection with DGPS RX/RADIO 12), in communication with the base station, and a processor (20, Fig. 1) [where a computer inherently includes a processor], wherein:
the RTK base unit includes a first GPS receiver coupled to the single physical GPS antenna (120, 122, Fig. 5),
the static RTK rover unit includes the first GPS receiver coupled to the single physical GPS antenna, such that the RTK base unit and the static RTK rover unit share the single physical GPS antenna (120, Fig. 2 and 5) [where 120 is shared by the RTK base unit and the static RTK rover unit to provide information to both],
the static RTK rover unit is configured to determine its position as a second position according to GPS information received via the single physical GPS antenna and RTK correction information received from the RTK base unit (col. 6, line 66 to col. 7, line 17),
the processor of the management center is configured to determine that the RTK correction information is invalid when the first position and the second position differ by more than a defined position tolerance (col. 6, line 66 to col. 7, line 17).
Smith fails to disclose the static RTK rover unit includes a second GPS receiver coupled to the single physical GPS antenna; and the RTK base unit and the static RTK rover unit are configured to determine their speeds.
King '999 teaches replacing a GPS receiver with a first GPS receiver and a second GPS receiver coupled to a single physical GPS antenna [in order to increase the number of channels available to receive satellite signals so that all the visible satellite signals can be received] (12, 16, 18, Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 22-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the number of channels available to receive satellite signals so that all the visible satellite signals can be received.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that all the visible satellite signals are received.
In the combination, the static RTK rover unit [as well as the RTK base unit] includes a second GPS receiver [as well as a first GPS receiver].
Kane teaches a first unit and a second unit are configured to determine their speeds [in order to determine whether a determined GPS position is valid or not] (Fig. 5; ¶59; ¶68; ¶72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the chance that invalid correction information is detected by performing an additional test that can detect invalid correction information.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that invalid correction information is detected more often.
In the combination, the first unit and the second unit of Kane correspond to the RTK base unit and the static RTK rover unit.
In regard to claim 11, Smith discloses:
a base station (102, Fig. 2 and 5) that includes an RTK base unit (104, Fig. 2 and 5) and a static RTK rover unit (106 and 120, Fig. 2 and 5) [where 120 is shared by the RTK base unit and the static RTK rover unit to provide information to both], the RTK base unit and the static RTK rover unit being at a same fixed location (known point, Fig. 5; col. 10, lines 18-30) along a track (col. 5, lines 41-49) [where trains and automobiles are known vehicles, where trains travel on railroad tracks, and automobiles travel on roadways, where a roadway is explicitly a track in applicant's disclosure (¶2; ¶21), and where a [single] base station being along a track is interpreted as the base station being close to the track, where the base station needs to be close to the vehicles in order for the vehicles to receive and use the corrections transmitted by the base station];
a single physical GPS antenna corresponding to the base station and being at a first position (122, Fig. 5; col. 10, lines 18-30);
a management center (20, Fig. 1) comprising an interface (interface in 20, Fig. 1 that allows the connection with DGPS RX/RADIO 12), in communication with the base station, and a processor (20, Fig. 1) [where a computer inherently includes a processor]; and
a vehicle that includes a mobile RTK rover unit (110, Fig. 2) and is movable along the track (col. 5, lines 41-49) [where trains and automobiles are known vehicles, where trains travel on railroad tracks, and automobiles travel on roadways, where a roadway is explicitly a track in applicant's disclosure (¶2; ¶21)], wherein:
the RTK base unit includes a first GPS receiver coupled to the single physical GPS antenna (120, 122, Fig., 5),
the static RTK rover unit includes the first GPS receiver coupled to the GPS antenna (120, 122, Fig., 5),
the mobile RTK rover unit includes a third GPS receiver (150 in 110, Fig. 7),
the static RTK rover unit is configured to determine its position as a second position according to GPS information received via the single physical GPS antenna and RTK correction information received from the RTK base unit (col. 6, line 66 to col. 7, line 17),
the processor of the management center is configured to determine, based on a comparison of the first and second positions, whether the RTK correction information is used by the mobile RTK rover unit to determine a position of the vehicle (56, Fig. 7; col. 9, lines 44-53), wherein the management center inhibits the mobile RTK rover unit from using said RTK correction information when the first position and the second position differ by more than a defined position tolerance (col. 6, line 66 to col. 7, line 17) [where it is well known for an operator to not use a position known to be unacceptably inaccurate/unreliable, including a position determined with inaccurate RTK correction information. In this case, the determined value is not accurate/reliable enough to be set/accepted/used as the position of the vehicle. Thus, the RTK correction information is not used to determine a value set/accepted/used as the position of the vehicle.].
Smith fails to disclose the static RTK rover unit includes a second GPS receiver; and the RTK base unit and the static RTK rover unit are configured to determine their speeds.
King '999 teaches replacing a GPS receiver with a first GPS receiver and a second GPS receiver coupled to a single physical GPS antenna [in order to increase the number of channels available to receive satellite signals so that all the visible satellite signals can be received] (12, 16, 18, Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 22-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the number of channels available to receive satellite signals so that all the visible satellite signals can be received.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that all the visible satellite signals are received.
In the combination, the static RTK rover unit [as well as the RTK base unit] includes a second GPS receiver [as well as a first GPS receiver].
Kane teaches a first unit and a second unit are configured to determine their speeds [in order to determine whether a determined GPS position is valid or not] (Fig. 5; ¶59; ¶68; ¶72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the chance that invalid correction information is detected by performing an additional test that can detect invalid correction information.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that invalid correction information is detected more often.
In the combination, the first unit and the second unit of Kane correspond to the RTK base unit and the static RTK rover unit.
In regard to claim 4, Smith further discloses the processor of the management center determines the RTK correction information to be invalid when the first position and the second position differ by more than about 10 cm (col. 2, lines 9-26) [where position accuracy to +/- 1 cm is required, and thus positions that differ by more than about 1 cm would be determined invalid, which encompasses positions that differ more than about 10 cm being determined invalid].
In regard to claim 10, Smith further discloses the first position is determined by other than the base station (col. 1, lines 64-65; col. 7, lines 2-4) [where a survey is used].
In regard to claim 12, Smith further discloses the base station is a first base station at a first location, and the system further comprises a second base station at a second location different from the first location (col. 1, lines 29-33; col. 2, lines 16-26).
It is well known for a mobile RTK rover unit to configured to receive first RTK correction information from the first base station, and receive second RTK correction information from the second base station (e.g. near an interface between the coverage areas of two base stations, or when multiple base stations are provided for redundancy for applications where being able to determine accurate position is critical).
It would be common sense for a mobile RTK rover unit to be configured to use second RTK correction information to determine a position of a vehicle when a management center determines that a first RTK correction information is invalid [when second RTK correction information is available]. The use of common sense in the obviousness analysis is endorsed by KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385.
In regard to claim 13, Smith further discloses the base station is a first base station at a first location, and the system further comprises a second base station at a second location different from the first location (col. 1, lines 29-33; col. 2, lines 16-26).
It is well known for a mobile RTK rover unit to configured to receive first RTK correction information from the first base station, and receive second RTK correction information from the second base station (e.g. near an interface between the coverage areas of two base stations, or when multiple base stations are provided for redundancy for applications where being able to determine accurate position is critical).
It would be common sense for a mobile RTK rover unit to be configured to use first RTK correction information to determine a position of a vehicle when a management center determines that a second RTK correction information is invalid [when second RTK correction information is available]. The use of common sense in the obviousness analysis is endorsed by KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385.
In regard to claim 14, Smith further discloses the mobile RTK rover unit is configured to determine the position of the vehicle as a third position (col. 9, lines 47-49).
Kane further teaches map (¶9), where a position of a vehicle is compared the map (¶9) [in order to determine if the position is plausible, and to discard the position if it is not plausible].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent a calculated position that is incorrect from being adopted as the position of the vehicle.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that adopted positions are the vehicle are more likely to be accurate.
In regard to claim 15, Kane further teaches determining the third position is invalid if the third position differs from a spline of the map by more than a defined tolerance (¶9) [where Kane represents the track as a path vector rather than an area, and if the track is being treated as a one-dimensional path, it would be common sense to use the spline (the centerline between the tracks/rails) as the one-dimensional path representing the tracks, where ¶65 of applicant's disclosure defines spline as the centerline between the tracks/rails]. The use of common sense in the obviousness analysis is endorsed by KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385.
In regard to claim 16, Smith further discloses the base station is a first base station at a first location, and the system further comprises a second base station at a second location and a third base station at a third location, the second location being between the first and third locations (col. 1, lines 29-33; col. 2, lines 16-26) [where multiple base stations encompasses three base stations, and when multiple base stations are deployed in some cases a second location of a second base station may be between the location of two other base stations].
It is well known that a base station may cover an area of track/a map has a spline section that is covered by a zone of coverage of the second base station.
It would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in the art to deploy the base stations such that a section of the tracks/the entire spline section is also covered by a zone of coverage of at least one of other base station in order to provide redundance correction information in case one of the base stations fails or otherwise provides invalid correction information.
In regard to claim 22, Smith further discloses the first position is a known reference position of the single physical GPS antenna established by survey prior to operation of the base station (col 7, lines 2-4).
In regard to claim 24, Smith further discloses the base station is configured to inhibit transmission of the RTK correction information to any RTK rover unit in response to the processor of the management center determining that the RTK correction information is invalid (col. 6, line 66 to col. 7, line 17) [where it is well known for an operator to not use a position known to be unacceptably inaccurate/unreliable, including a position determined with inaccurate RTK correction information. In this case, the determined value is not accurate/reliable enough to be set/accepted/used as the position of the vehicle. Thus, the RTK correction information is not used to determine a value set/accepted/used as the position of the vehicle.].
In regard to claim 26, Kane further teaches a non-GPS speed sensor onboard the vehicle, wherein the processor of the management center is further configured to determine the position of the vehicle to be invalid when a speed of the vehicle determined by the mobile RTK rover unit is inconsistent with a speed of the vehicle determined by the non-GPS speed sensor by more than a defined tolerance (Fig. 5; ¶59).
In regard to claim 27, Smith further discloses the management center is further configured to transmit a health status of the base station to the vehicle (316, Fig. 6; col. 8, lines 60-67), and wherein the mobile RTK rover unit is configured to use the RTK correction information to determine the position of the vehicle only when the health status indicates that the base station is healthy (col. 9, lines 20-28) [where when a base station is healthy, its correction information is transmitted, but when a base station is not healthy, the base station network switches to another base station, i.e., the unhealthy correction information not transmitted, resulting in the mobile RTK rover unit only using healthy correction information].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, King '999, and Kane, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Bobye (US 2024/0288587 A1).
Smith, King '999, and Kane fail to explicitly teach the management center determines the RTK correction information to be invalid when the first speed differs from the second speed by more than about 2 cm/second.
Bobye teaches that it is known in the art that an expected tolerance between two speeds determined for the same device is about 2 cm/second (¶63) [where 19 cm/s is about 2 cm/s].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the speed tolerance of the combination using a known speed tolerance in the art.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that a particular value for the speed tolerance is specified.
In the combination, if the first and second speed differ by more than about 2 cm/s, the correction information will be determined invalid.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, King '999, and Kane, as applied to claim 11, above, and further in view of Trimble (US 6,473,032 B1).
The combination fails to teach the first base station and the second base station are positioned along the track such that their zones of coverage overlap by at least 10 km.
Trimble teaches a first base station and a second base station are positioned along the track such that their zones of coverage overlap by at least 10 km (Fig. 1; col. 33, lines 41-43; col. 9, lines 27-28 [where the overlap between the first base station and the second base station in Fig. 1 is clearly more than 10% of the radius, and 10% of a radius of 150 km is 15 km, which is at least 10 km].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the base station network of the combination by using known implementation details of how to construct a base station network.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being known spacing between base stations and known overlaps between station coverage areas are used to implement the base station network of the combination.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, King '999, and Kane, as applied to claim 11, above, and further in view of Wang (CN-107807368-A).
The combination fails to teach the processor of the management center is further configured to determine the RTK correction information to be invalid when the base station reports at least one of: the first GPS receiver is not locked to a GPS signal, a temperature, voltage, or antenna voltage standing wave ratio of the base station is outside a defined operational range, or spoofing or interference is detected at the base station.
Wang teaches determining the correction information to be invalid when the base station reports interference is detected at the base station (p. 5, final sentence to p. 6, ¶2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine when correction information is invalid so as to not transmit the invalid correction information.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being increased accuracy of position by the consumer of the correction information where invalid correction information is not used by the consumer of the correction information.
In the combination, the correction information is RTK correction information.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, King '999, and Kane, as applied to claim 11, above, and further in view of Ikeda (JP 2000329839 A) and Carter (US 2016/0259061 A1).
The combination fails to teach the vehicle further comprises a second mobile RTK rover unit disposed at a second end of the vehicle opposite a first end of the vehicle at which the mobile RTK rover unit is disposed, the mobile RTK rover unit and the second mobile RTK rover unit being separated by a known distance, and wherein the processor of the management center is further configured to determine the position of the vehicle to be invalid when a difference between a position determined by the mobile RTK rover unit and a position determined by the second mobile RTK rover unit is inconsistent with the known distance by more than a defined tolerance.
Ikeda teaches the vehicle further comprises a second mobile RTK rover unit disposed at a second end of the vehicle opposite a first end of the vehicle at which the mobile RTK rover unit is disposed, the mobile RTK rover unit and the second mobile RTK rover unit being separated by a known distance, and determining the position of the vehicle to be invalid when a difference between a position determined by the mobile RTK rover unit and a position determined by the second mobile RTK rover unit is inconsistent with the known distance by more than a defined tolerance (Fig. 1; abstract; ¶16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine whether the position of the rover unit is valid and should be used.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the rover unit determines whether or not its determined position is valid and should be used.
Carter teaches offloading the position determination of a mobile station to a fixed base station [in order to reduce the energy consumption of the mobile station] (¶7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the energy consumption of the mobile station.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the energy consumption of the mobile station is reduced.
In the combination, the base station corresponding to the mobile station/rover is the RTK base station.
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
Batchelor '504 (US 2022/0024504 A1), which teaches that it is known for track geometry data to include the centerlines of tracks (¶19).
Marmet (US 2018/0114441 A1), which teaches that RTK is a type of GBAS (¶59).
Ellum (US 2014/0043187 A1), which teaches a management center/RTK server that is separate from and in communication with multiple base stations and rovers (Fig. 2; ¶29).
Arethens (US 2007/0090993 A1), which teaches a base station (100, Fig. 3) that includes a base unit (3, Fig. 3) and a static rover unit (4, Fig. 3), in communication with a management center (43, Fig. 3) for determining whether correction information is valid (¶24), with a first GPS receiver associated with the base unit (31a, Fig. 3) and a second GPS receiver associated with the static rover (41a, Fig. 3).
Applicant is encouraged to consider these documents in formulating their response (if one is required) to this Office Action, in order to expedite prosecution of this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on p. 11, with respect to the objection(s), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection(s) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on p. 12-13, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejection(s), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on p. 13-16, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment of 8-21-2026 necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, e.g., claim(s) 1, 11, 17, and 21-28 was/were amended, necessitating the new grounds of rejection. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred H. Mull whose telephone number is 571-272-6975. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from approximately 9-5:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai, can be reached at 571-270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Fred H. Mull
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/F. H. M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights