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.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84 because:
The label of what is now FIG. 1E should be changed to FIG. 1D, and the label of what is now FIG. 1D should be changed to FIG. 1E. This will make the drawings correspond to the originally-filed disclosure. See ¶33 and the original-filed drawings dated 3-22-2024.
In FIG. 2, on the right side, "speed" should be replaced by --position--. This will make the drawings correspond to the originally-filed disclosure. See ¶80 and the original-filed drawings dated 3-22-2024. It will also make the right side of FIG. 2 self-consistent.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to under 37 CFR 1.71(a) because of the following informalities:
In ¶84, line 4, "units(s)" should be replaced by --unit(s)--.
In ¶84, subparagraph 1, line 1, "units(s)" should be replaced by --unit(s)--.
In ¶84, subparagraph 2, line 1, "units(s)" should be replaced by --unit(s)--.
In ¶84, subparagraph 3, line 1, "units(s)" should be replaced by --unit(s)--.
In ¶84, subparagraph 4, line 1, "units(s)" should be replaced by --unit(s)--.
In ¶85, line 2, "units(s)" should be replaced by --unit(s)--.
In ¶114, line 1, "804" should be replaced by --806-- to be consistent with FIG. 8.
In ¶1146, line 1, "804" should be replaced by --806-- to be consistent with FIG. 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)/6th ¶
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f)/6th ¶ (hereinafter 112(f)):
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
· Claim(s) 1: management center ... configured to determine whether the RTK correction information is valid,
· Claim(s) 11: management center ... 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.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd ¶:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1-16 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.
The following limitation(s) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function, or to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function.
· Claim(s) 1: management center ... configured to determine whether the RTK correction information is valid,
· Claim(s) 11: management center ... 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.
Here, according to ¶32, the management center includes a radio, but that is not sufficient structure to perform all of the claimed functions.
While Fig. 6 illustrates a processing system, where the processor could perform the function along with disclosed algorithms, there is nothing in the disclosure that clearly links the processing system to the management center.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
“We hold that, pursuant to this provision, structure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim. This duty to link or associate structure to function is the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing 112[(f)]”. B. Braun Medical, Inc v. Abbott Labs, 43 USPQ2d 1896 at 1900.
Claim 4, line 2, 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 10 cm the difference between the first position and second position must be to be considered “about” 10 cm. Since there is no basis disclosed for determining this, the scope of the claim(s) is unclear and a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd ¶ is proper.
Claim 8, line 2, 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 2 cm/second the difference between the first speed and second speed must be to be considered “about” 2 cm/second. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d)/4th ¶:
Subject to subsection (e) [directed to multiple dependent form claims], a claim in dependent
form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further
limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to
incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. (emphasis added)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 13 has the same scope as parent claim 12. There is no limitation added by claim 13 that is not already present in parent claim 12. The language from lines 4-9 of claim 12 is simply repeated in claim 13.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-13, 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 Arethens (US 2007/0090993 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, Fig. 2 and 5), 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 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 in communication with the base station (128, Fig. 5; col. 6, line 66 to col. 7, line 17), wherein:
the RTK base unit includes a GPS receiver coupled to the GPS antenna (120, 122, Fig., 5),
the static RTK rover unit includes the GPS receiver coupled to the GPS antenna (120, 122, Fig., 5),
the static RTK rover unit is configured to determine its position as a second position according to GPS information received via the GPS antenna and RTK correction information received from the RTK base unit (col. 6, line 66 to col. 7, line 17), and
the management center is configured to determine whether the RTK correction information is valid/reliable (col. 6, line 66 to col. 7, line 17).
Smith fails to disclose the GPS receiver is a first GPS receiver associated with the RTK base unit and a second GPS receiver associated with the static RTK rover.
Arethens 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).
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 identify when the correction information is invalid/unreliable due to a fault in the base unit GPS receiver. (That is, if the same GPS receiver is used for both determining the corrections and checking the corrections, as in Smith, an error in the corrections caused by a fault in the GPS receiver may not be identified.)
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that invalid/unreliable corrections are identified when caused by a fault in the base unit GPS receiver.
In regard to claim 2, Smith further discloses at least one of the base station and the management center is configured to compare the first position and the second position (314, FIg. 6; col. 6, line 66 to col. 7, line 17). This is also taught by Arethens (¶24).
In regard to claim 3, Smith further discloses the management center determines the RTK correction information to be invalid when the first position and the second position differ by more than a defined tolerance (col. 6, line 66 to col. 7, line 17; col. 9, lines 20-27). This is also taught by Arethens (¶53).
In regard to claim 4, Smith further discloses 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 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, Fig. 2 and 5), 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 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 (156, Fig. 7) in communication with the base station (156 to 154 to 112, Fig. 7; 112 to 102, Fig. 5, Fig. 7); 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 GPS receiver coupled to the GPS antenna (120, 122, Fig., 5),
the static RTK rover unit includes the 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 GPS antenna and RTK correction information received from the RTK base unit (col. 6, line 66 to col. 7, line 17), and
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) [where it is well known for an operator to not use a position known to be unacceptably inaccurate, including a position determined with inaccurate RTK correction information. In this case, the determined value is not accurate 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 GPS receiver is a first GPS receiver associated with the RTK base unit and a second GPS receiver associated with the static RTK rover.
Arethens 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).
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 identify when the correction information is invalid/unreliable due to a fault in the base unit GPS receiver. (That is, if the same GPS receiver is used for both determining the corrections and checking the corrections, as in Smith, an error in the corrections caused by a fault in the GPS receiver may not be identified.)
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that invalid/unreliable corrections are identified when caused by a fault in the base unit GPS receiver.
Arethens further teaches 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 (4 controlling the switch in the upper right, Fig. 3; ¶25) [where when the comparison of the first and second position indicates invalid corrections, the management center prevents the corrections from being transmitted to the mobile RTK rover unit, thus preventing the RTK correction information from being used by the mobile RTK rover unit to determine a position of the vehicle].
In regard to claims 12-13, 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 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 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, Fig. 2 and 5), 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 collocated 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 same 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 GPS antenna and RTK correction information received from the RTK base unit (col. 6, line 66 to col. 7, line 17);
determining the base station to be healthy/reliable if the positions determined by the RTK base unit and the static RTK rover unit are consistent within a defined tolerance; and determining the base station to be unhealthy/unreliable if the positions determined by the RTK base unit and the static RTK rover unit are not consistent within the defined tolerance (col. 6, line 66 to col. 7, line 17).
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) 5-7, 9, 14-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Arethens, as applied to claims 1, 11, and 17, above, and further in view of Kane (US 2009/0043435 A1).
In regard to claims 5-7, Smith and Arethens fail to teach the RTK base unit is configured to determine its speed as a first speed, and the static RTK rover unit is configured to determine its speed as a second speed.
Kane teaches determining a first speed and a a second speed of a device and comparing the first speed and the second speed in order to determine correction information to be invalid when the first speed differs from the second speed by more than a defined tolerance (Fig. 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.
In regard to claim 9, Kane further teaches determining correction information to be invalid when a speed differs from an expected speed (Fig. 5; ¶7; ¶59; ¶68; ¶72).
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 invalid.
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).
Smith and Arethens fail to teach a map, wherein: the management center is configured to compare the third position to the map.
Kane 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 18, Smith and Arethens fail to teach determining the base station to be unhealthy if speeds determined by the RTK base unit and the static RTK rover unit are not consistent within a defined tolerance.
Kane teaches determining a first speed and a a second speed of a device and comparing the first speed and the second speed in order to determine correction information to be unhealthy when the first speed and the second speed are not consistent within a defined tolerance (Fig. 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 unhealthy 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 unhealthy correction information is detected more often.
In regard to claim 19, Kane further teaches determining correction information to be invalid when a speed differs from an expected speed (Fig. 5; ¶7; ¶59; ¶68; ¶72).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Arethens, and Kane, as applied to claim 6, above, and further in view of Bobye (US 2024/0288587 A1).
Smith, Arethens, 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.
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
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).
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.
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
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights