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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 9, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 8-17, 19-26 remain
pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that Boehm does not identically disclose a golf vehicle system including a control system configured to "control, based on the location of the golf vehicle relative to the restricted operation area, the indicator to provide a first indication responsive to a first determination of a first one of (i) the golf vehicle approaching but not yet entering the restricted operation area, (ii) the golf vehicle being within the restricted operation area while operating in a forward drive mode of operation, or (iii) the golf vehicle being within the restricted area while operating in a reverse drive mode of operation," and "control, based on the location of the golf vehicle relative to the restricted operation area, the indicator to provide a second indication responsive to a second determination of a second one of (i) the golf vehicle being within the restricted operation area while operating in the forward drive mode of operation, (ii) the golf vehicle being within the restricted operation area while operating in the reverse drive mode of operation, or (iii) the golf vehicle exiting the restricted operation area after entering the restricted operation area," "wherein the first one and the second one are different," and "wherein the first indication is different from the second indication," as recited by amended independent Claim 1. Applicant similarly argued for the other independent claims.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As explained in the office action, the limitations are rejected with reasoning based on paragraphs [0057], [0077], [0058], [0066] of Boehm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-8, 10-16, 18, 20-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boehm (US 20240061129 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Boehm discloses:
A golf vehicle system comprising: a golf vehicle including: 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 {Fig. 1, paragraph [0005]}; and an indicator configured to provide one or more indications to an operator of the golf vehicle {[0058] discloses a small tablet having user input/output (I/O) componentry such as a touchscreen display}; and
a control system configured to: monitor a location of the golf vehicle relative to a restricted operation area of a golf course {[0057]: the utility vehicle control device… if the utility vehicle reaches the boundary of a particular area (or geofence) to prevent the driver from inadvertently driving the utility vehicle from the area. [0063]: GPS}; and
control, based on the location of the golf vehicle relative to the restricted operation area, the indicator to provide a first indication responsive to a first determination of a first one of (i) the golf vehicle approaching but not yet entering the restricted operation area, (ii) the golf vehicle being within the restricted operation area while operating in a forward drive mode of operation, or (iii) the golf vehicle being within the restricted area while operating in a reverse drive mode of operation {[[0057], [0077] discloses approaching an area and entering, that is, reaching an area. [0058] discloses indication of location information: rendering location information. [0066]: The control circuitry 230 is constructed and arranged to provide control to a utility vehicle 100 based on the geofencing data 260 stored within the geofencing data repository 220. Such control may include speed control, enabling/disabling forward and/or reverse, outputting alerts/warning when the utility vehicle control device 130 has entered particular geofencing areas, left particular geofencing areas, reached boundaries for particular geofencing areas, combinations thereof, and so on}; and
control, based on the location of the golf vehicle relative to the restricted operation area, the indicator to provide a second indication responsive to a second determination of a second one of (i) the golf vehicle being within the restricted operation area while operating in the forward drive mode of operation, (ii) the golf vehicle being within the restricted operation area while operating in the reverse drive mode of operation, or (iii) the golf vehicle exiting the restricted operation area after entering the restricted operation area {[0057], [0058], [0077] discloses exiting restricted operation area: allowing the vehicle 100 to reach a maximum speed when the vehicle 100 is in an open and flat fairway of the geo-site, [0066]}.
wherein the first one and the second one are different and wherein the first indication is different from the second indication {[0058]: rendering location information to one or more passengers/operators, displaying geofence warnings/maps/notices. Examiner notes that the first indication indicates that the golf vehicle is approaching the restricted operation area (first one) by rendering the location information and displaying geofence warnings, and the second indication indicates that the golf vehicle is exiting the restricted operation area after entering the restricted area (second one) by rendering the location information and displaying notices. Since at least that the location information for the first indication and the location information for the second indication are different from each other, the first one and the second one are different and the first indication is different from the second indication. Examiner also notes that since the first and second indications indicate different situations (the first one, the second one) and display the information to the passenger/operator, the two indications must be different in order to be recognized by the passenger/operator}.
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, Boehm discloses: wherein the second one is the golf vehicle exiting the restricted operation area, wherein the control system is configured to remove the first indication responsive to a first determination that the golf vehicle exits the restricted operation area, and wherein the second indication is the lack of the first indication {[0066], [0057], [0077], [0058] Examiner notes that the warning (indication) is given only when the golf vehicle reaches the restricted operation area, and therefore when the golf vehicle exits the restricted operation area the indication is removed and removal of the warning is the second indication to the passenger/operator}.
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 1, Boehm discloses: wherein the first indication and the second indication include at least one of an audible sound, a visual alert, or haptic feedback {[0077]: alerting the driver via an audible alarm. [0076]: provide audio output to a speaker or buzzer}.
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 10, Boehm discloses: wherein the first indication and the second indication include the audible sound, wherein the indicator includes at least one of a reverse buzzer, a horn, or a speaker, and wherein the audible sound has a certain tone, a certain volume, a certain pattern, or a certain verbal message {[0076]. The audible sound having a certain characteristic is implied}.
Regarding claim 12, which depends from claim 10, Boehm discloses: wherein the first indication and the second indication include the visual alert, and wherein the indicator includes at least one of a display or a light {[0058]: displaying geofence warnings}.
Regarding claim 13, which depends from claim 1, Boehm discloses: wherein the control system is configured to: permit unrestricted operation of the golf vehicle when the location of the golf vehicle indicates that the golf vehicle is located outside of the restricted operation area; and limit operation of the golf vehicle when the location of the golf vehicle indicates that the golf vehicle is located in the restricted operation area {[0077]}.
Regarding claim 14, which depends from claim 1, Boehm discloses: wherein the control system includes one or more processing circuits including at least one of (a) a first processing circuit located on the golf vehicle or (b) a second processing circuit located remote from the golf vehicle {[0039]: communicating geolocation indicated by the GPS output to a remote golf car management server}.
Regarding claim 15, Boehm discloses: A vehicle system comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: monitor a location of a vehicle relative to a restricted operation area; and in response to determining that the vehicle entered the restricted operation area based on the location of the vehicle relative to the restricted operation area: at least partially limit operation of a drivetrain of the vehicle; provide a first indication to an operator of the vehicle responsive to a first determination of at least one of (i) the location of the vehicle at a first location relative to the restricted operation area or (ii) the vehicle operating in a first mode of operation; and provide a second indication to the operator of the vehicle responsive to a second determination of at least one of (i) the location of the vehicle at a second location, different from the first location, relative to the restricted operation area or (ii) the vehicle operating in a second mode of operation different from the first mode of operation; wherein the first indication is different from the second indication {Fig. 1, [0005], [0058], [0057]: disable the propulsion system, [0063], [0077], [0066]}.
Regarding claim 16, which depends from claim 15, Boehm discloses: further comprising the vehicle including: 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 the first indication and the second indication to the operator of the vehicle; wherein the vehicle is a golf cart, an all-terrain vehicle, a utility task vehicle, a low speed vehicle, a lightweight or recreational vehicle, a lawnmower, a turf mower, a push mower, a ride-on mower, a stand-on mower, an aerator, a turf sprayer, or a bunker rake {Fig. 1, [0005], [0058]}.
Regarding claim 20, Boehm discloses: A vehicle system comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: monitor a location of a vehicle relative to a restricted operation area; in response to determining that the vehicle entered the restricted operation area based on the location of the vehicle relative to the restricted operation area: at least partially limit operation the vehicle; and provide a first indication to an operator of the vehicle that the vehicle entered the restricted operation area; and in response to determining that the vehicle exited the restricted operation area based on the location of the vehicle relative to the restricted operation area: stop limiting operation of the vehicle; and provide a second indication to the operator of the vehicle that the vehicle exited the restricted operation area, wherein a first characteristic of the first indication is different from a second characteristic of the second indication such that the operator is provided different information indicative of the location of the vehicle relative to the restricted operation area{Fig. 1, [0005], [0058], [0057], [0063], [0077] discloses stop limiting operation when the vehicle exited restricted operation area: allowing the vehicle 100 to reach a maximum speed when the vehicle 100 is in an open and flat fairway of the geo-site, [0066]};
Regarding claim 21, which depends from claim 1, Boehm discloses: wherein the first one is the golf vehicle approaching but not yet entering the restricted operation area {[0077]}, and wherein the second one is one of (i) the golf vehicle being within the restricted operation area while operating in the forward drive mode of operation or (ii) the golf vehicle being within the restricted operation area while operating in the reverse drive mode of operation {[0077]: lower the maximum speed of the vehicle 100 when the vehicle 100 is driving within certain areas of the geo-site. Lowering speed means that the golf vehicle is operating either in the forward drive mode or in the reverse drive mode. [0036]: limiting driving capabilities of the golf car within the areas of the golf course}.
Regarding claim 22, which depends from 21, Boehm discloses: wherein the control system is configured to control the indicator to provide the first indication responsive to the first determination of the golf vehicle approaching the restricted operation area within a threshold distance from the restricted operation area {[0077], [0058]. With in a threshold distance is implied in order to determine approaching}.
Regarding claim 23, which depends from claim 1, Boehm discloses: wherein the first one is the golf vehicle being within the restricted operation area while operating in the forward drive mode of operation, and wherein the second one is the golf vehicle being within the restricted operation area while operating in the reverse drive mode of operation {[0058], [0066]}.
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 23, Boehm discloses: wherein the control system is configured to control the indicator to provide a third indication responsive to a third determination of the golf vehicle exiting the restricted operation area {[0066], [0077]: reached an area boundary of the geo-site 410(1), or allowing the vehicle 100 to reach a maximum speed when the vehicle 100 is in an open and flat fairway of the geo-site. [0066]}.
Regarding claim 24, which depends from claim 1, Boehm discloses: wherein the first one is the golf vehicle being within the restricted area while operating in the reverse drive mode of operation, and wherein the second one is the golf vehicle exiting the restricted operation area after entering the restricted operation area {[0058], [0066]}
Regarding claim 25, which depends from claim 1, Boehm discloses: wherein a first characteristic of the first indication is different from a second characteristic of the second indication such that the operator is provided different information {[0058]}.
Regarding claim 26, which depends from claim 25, Boehm discloses: wherein the first characteristic and the second characteristic include at least one of (i) audible sounds, (ii) visual alerts, or (iii) haptic feedback, and wherein the at least one of (i) the audible sounds, (ii) the visual alerts, or (iii) the haptic feedback is different for the first characteristic and the second characteristic {[0058], [0076], [0077]}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehm in view of O’hara et al. (US 20180257492 A1}.
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 8, Boehm does not disclose: wherein the second indication includes a continuous reverse buzzer, and the third indication includes periodically cutting the reverse buzzer.
O’hara teaches a continuous reverse buzzer and periodically cutting the reverse buzzer in paragraph [0144}: beeping a particular audio sequence (e.g., via a reverse buzzer). Examiner notes that a particular audio sequence may include continuous sound or periodically cut sound.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reverse buzzer feature of O’hara to include continuous or periodically cut sound and incorporate the modification with the described invention of Boehm in order to facilitate warning of a reverse moving vehicle.
Claim(s) 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehm.
Regarding claim 17, which depends from claim 15, Boehm teaches: wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to limit operation of the drivetrain to reverse only operation {[0057]: to prevent the driver from inadvertently driving the utility vehicle 100 from the area}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control system of Boehm to limit operation of the drivetrain to reverse only operation in order to prevent entering into restricted area.
Regarding claim 19, which depends from claim 15, Boehm teaches: wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: stop providing the first indication in response to the first location indicating that the vehicle has exited the restricted operation area; or provide the second indication in response to the second location indicating that the vehicle has exited the restricted operation area {[0058]: rendering location information. [0077]: when the vehicle 100 is in an open and flat fairway}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of Boehm to stop providing the indication or provide subsequent indication in response to the vehicle exiting the restricted operation area in order to facilitate informing the driver that the vehicle exited the restricted operation area.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang et al. (US 20230399021 A1) discloses detecting restricted traffic zones for autonomous driving golf cart.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANMIN PARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights