DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: The recitation “both the first positioning position and the second positioning position are positioned determined” lacks grammatical consistency.
Claim 6 recites “receives packets form the product” which should read “receives packets from the product” in order to ensure grammatical consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a system communication unit that receives a first position data set indicating a first positioning position of a shipped product with first frequency” which is indefinite for four reasons. First, it is unclear whether the recitation is a method step of receiving position data, or a structural limitation of the system communication unit. Second, it is unclear where the first position data set is coming from, i.e., what is sending the first position data set. Third, it is unclear whether or not the system communication set is receiving the first position data set electronically or physically, due to the fact that the system communication set is not claimed to have any particular structure or capability. Fourth, it is unclear what “first frequency” means in the context, i.e., does it relate to a signal frequency or simply the number of times in a given timespan that it receives first position data? The subsequent recitation of the second position data is likewise rejected. Independent claims 10 and 11 are likewise rejected. Dependent claims 2-9 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “a display control unit that displays, on a map, at least one of n first position display objects respectively indicating n first positions based on N first position data sets” which is indefinite for four reasons. First, it is unclear whether the display control unit is generating the map, e.g., a digital map on a screen, or whether the map is preexisting and the display control unit is merely using a map. Second, it is unclear how the invention can indicate “n first positions” in an embodiment of the invention where display control unit only displays a single first position display object, i.e., the “one” of at least one. Third, it is unclear how there can be “N” first position data sets” when the previously recited system communication unit apparently only received a single first position data set. The subsequent recitation of “m second position display objects respectively indicating m second positions based on M second position data sets” is likewise rejected. Fourth, it is unclear what is the difference between the “first positioning position” and the “first positions.” Independent claims 10 and 11 are likewise rejected. Dependent claims 2-9 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “(A) the first positioning position is a position determined by single point positioning which is GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) positioning based on signals from satellites” which is indefinite, because it is unclear how the first positioning position can be “a position determined by a single point positioning” when the first positioning position was not even necessarily part of the first position data set. Claim 1 previously recited that the first position data set only “indicat[es]” the first positioning position, therefore the first position data set may not necessarily contain the first positioning position. In other words, the first positioning position may only be determined through analysis of the first position data set, in which case it would not be accurate to subsequently state that the first positioning position is “determined” by single point positioning. Subsequent similar recitations are likewise rejected. Independent claims 10 and 11 are likewise rejected. Dependent claims 2-9 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “a display mode for the n first position display objects is different from a display mode for the m second position display objects” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, it is unclear whether or not the “display mode” relates back to the previously recited display control unit, i.e., it is a display mode of the display control unit, or whether the display mode relates back to another element of the invention or an unclaimed aspect of the invention. Second, the nature of the “differen[ce]” between the two display modes is unclear because the nature of both the map is unclear and the nature of the display modes is unclear. In other words, it is unclear what types of differences are even being contemplated, or are within the scope of the claimed invention, e.g., different icons, different colors, different resolution, physical vs. digital vs. analog, etc. Independent claims 10 and 11 are likewise rejected. Dependent claims 2-9 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 2 recites “each of the first positions” and “each of the second positions” which both lack proper antecedent basis.
Claim 4 recites “the display control unit sets a display mode for the first position display object as a display mode according to accuracy of a single point positioning position indicated by a first position data set related to the first position display object” which is indefinite, because it is unclear if the recitation is a method step or a structural limitation of the display control unit.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the accuracy of the single point positioning position is the number of satellites based on which the single point positioning position is determined” which is indefinite, because the meaning is unclear. While the accuracy may be dependent or reliant on the number of satellites, the accuracy cannot literally be the number of satellites.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the system communication unit receives packets form the product with first frequency” which is indefinite, because it is unclear if the recitation is a method step or a structural limitation of the system communication unit.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the system communication unit transmits a request for the base station positioning to the product” which is indefinite, because it is unclear if the recitation is a method step or a structural limitation of the system communication unit.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the display control unit: decides a range based on at least one of the n first positions and the m second positions; and displays a display object indicating the range on a map” which is indefinite for three reasons. First, the display control unit lacks antecedent basis for the ability to “decide” anything, i.e., the display control unit has not claimed or inherent processing capability. Second, it is unclear how a range can be decided based only on a single position of the first and second positions. Third, it is unclear if “a map” relates back to the map claimed in claim 1, or if the map in claim 8 is independent and distinct from the previously recited map.
Claim 9 recites “an optimum driving decision unit that…decides control information for optimum driving control of the product” which is indefinite, because claim 9 lacks antecedent basis for the capability of the product to be driven in the first place.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the system communication unit transmits the decided control information to the product” which is indefinite, because it is unclear if the recitation is a method step or a structural limitation of the system communication unit.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is (469)295-9263. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/BRADY W FRAZIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648