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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed April 28th, 2026, have overcome each and every claim objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action sent on January 28th, 2026.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of claims 1-6, 15 and 19-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner notes claims 2 and 7 have also been cancelled. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection has been made for amended claims and newly added claims 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 incorporating additional reference Tatipamula (US Patent Pub. No. 2024/0083465 A1), which is directed towards controlling autonomous vehicle operations based on changing weather conditions and adverse weather states.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-6, 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wehrlen et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2007/0233339 A1) in view of Tatipamula (US Patent Pub. No. 2024/0083465 A1), published March 14th, 2024.
Regarding Claims 1 and 19, Wehrlen discloses a golf vehicle fleet system for responding to behavior within a fleet of golf vehicles (See 0024, “[…] a golf course system for control of movement of golf carts 10 on a golf course 46. Overall golf course management is provided by a base station 48 that communicates with golf carts […]”), the golf vehicle fleet system comprising:
one or more memory devices having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors (See 0025, “[…] status module 64 tracks golf cart status based on information processed by limited access controllers 12 from on board controllers […]”), cause the one or more processors to:
determine a value related to a need for a golf vehicle of a plurality of golf vehicles of the fleet of golf vehicles to mitigate a risk of a behavior of the golf vehicle, (See 0018, “[…] defining limited access areas with associated golf cart movement restrictions […] to determine if a limited access area has been entered or a violation is likely […] managed by restricting movement of the golf cart to prevent or minimize the violations, or issuing visual and/or audible alerts to a golfer or to course personnel.” Examiner notes a golf cart entering an area predefined as a limited access area is an undesired operation)
responsive to the value exceeding a threshold value, transmit a command to at least the golf vehicle of the fleet of golf vehicles to implement an action to mitigate a future occurrence of the behavior of the golf vehicle (See 0018 as referenced above. See also 0019-0020, “[…] type of golf cart movement restrictions may vary for different limited access areas to include, for example, a prohibition of any movement, a limitation of movement to a reduced speed, or a limitation of movement in restricted directions, such as reverse […] determines that the likelihood of golf cart 10 entering a limited access area exceeds a given threshold.”).
But does not explicitly disclose the value is based on at least one of:
an adverse weather condition in a weather forecast; or
a calendar entry for a planned golf event indicating increased golf vehicle traffic.
Tatipamula, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the value is based on at least one of:
an adverse weather condition in a weather forecast (See 0021, “[…] prediction stack 116 can receive information from the localization stack 114 and objects identified by the perception stack 112 and predict a future path for the objects […] For each predicted path, the prediction stack 116 can also output a range of points along the path corresponding to a predicted location of the object along the path at future time intervals along with an expected error value for each of the points that indicates a probabilistic deviation from that point.” See also 0038, “[…] a weather state that is changing in an environment during operation of an AV is identified […] can include an occurrence of inclement weather conditions, e.g., in relation to operation of a vehicle in an environment. Specifically, a weather state can include weather conditions that cause rainy, wet, snowy, or otherwise hazardous road conditions.”); or
a calendar entry for a planned golf event indicating increased golf vehicle traffic.
In view of Tatipamula’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with golf vehicle fleet management system detecting environmental and mechanical risks and commanding individual vehicles to mitigate these behaviors as disclosed by Wehrlen, associating values with the adverse weather conditions to determine an action command, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the golf fleet system clearly discloses commanding corrective responses when undesirable operations are detected, and using multi-factor likelihood values for adverse weather conditions is a straightforward integration of known art through adjusting commands dynamically based on computed values.
Regarding Claim 3, Wehrlen further discloses the golf vehicle fleet system of claim 1, wherein detecting the risk of the behavior comprises:
acquiring vehicle data regarding a second golf vehicle of the plurality of golf vehicles of the fleet of golf vehicles (See 0028, “Each active golf cart is identified by a cart number with position, playing pace, playing status, battery charge and fault information displayed in a tabular format. More specific information about a selected golf cart is displayed automatically if a critical situation arises or by selection of the golf cart identifier […] If a golf cart violates a limited access area, the violation is highlighted by a different color […] the golf cart is identified with a pop-up window.”); and
detecting an occurrence of the behavior of the second golf vehicle of the plurality of golf vehicles (See 0028 as referenced above).
Regarding Claim 4, Wehrlen further discloses the golf vehicle fleet system of claim 3, wherein the action is based on a type of the behavior and the vehicle data and, wherein the behavior includes at least one of: wheel spin, skid, or one or more wheels leaving a driving surface (See 0019 as referenced above, and “[…] stores limited access areas as geographic perimeters and golf cart movement restrictions associated with golf cart positions within the geographic perimeters. Typical limited access areas within a golf course are greens, tees, wet fairways, sand traps, water traps, areas in which driving a golf cart causes damage to the golf course grounds, and areas in which driving a golf cart presents a danger to the driver or others, such as sharp turns, steep hills and crowded parking areas.” Examiner notes the described conditions defined as potential risk areas or conditions necessarily include undesirable operation of the wheels).
Regarding Claims 5 and 20, Wehrlen further discloses the golf vehicle fleet system of claims 3 and 19, wherein a magnitude of the action is determined based on a magnitude of the behavior (See 0021, “[…] the maximum speed available is decreased by greater amounts as the distance of the golf cart to green 18 decreases until all movement is prohibited at the edge of the green. In this manner, the risk is reduced of a violation of green 18 with a positioning of golf cart 10 within the perimeter of green 18 by layering limited access layers to have escalating movement restrictions as golf cart 10 moves closer […]”).
Regarding Claim 6, Wehrlen further discloses the golf vehicle fleet system of claim 3, wherein the action includes at least one of:
indicating the occurrence on an operator interface of the golf vehicle or a user device associated with the golf vehicle (See 0023, “Driver interface unit 34 presents limited access information to a driver of golf cart 10 visually through display 38 and audibly through speaker 40.”);
restricting an acceleration of the golf vehicle (See 0019 as referenced above. See also 0022, “[…] motor controller allows polling of its configuration settings, such as speed settings, and its status information, such as throttle setting, battery voltage and motor operating parameters, so that limited access controller 14 is able to override driver inputs, such as throttle settings input through an accelerator pedal 28 […] commanding on board controller 24 to override driver accelerator inputs, to override ignition inputs, to override gear selection inputs or by setting the maximum setting of motor 26 to a speed of zero. Alternatively, limited access controller 12 interfaces with a power switch 30 to shut off main current from a battery 32 to motor 26.”);
restricting a torque produced by a driveline of the golf vehicle (See 0019 and 0022 as referenced above);
restricting a power produced by the driveline of the golf vehicle (See 0019 and 0022 as referenced above); or
restricting a maximum speed of the golf vehicle (See 0019 and 0022 as referenced above).
Regarding Claim 15, Wehrlen further discloses the golf vehicle fleet system of claim 3, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to acquire the vehicle data from at least one of the second golf vehicle or a global positioning system (See 0006, “[…] use of golf carts equipped with positioning equipment, such as Global Positioning System (“GPS”) equipment. GPS positions of a golf cart are compared with a map of the golf course so that the golfer knows his position for play, such as distance from the green, and is given tips and instructions for more efficient play. GPS positions available at a golf cart can be used to inform a golf cart driver when the golf cart travels to an unauthorized location and may be stored for later analysis […]”).
Claims 8-14, 16-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wehrlen et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2007/0233339 A1) in view of Tatipamula (US Patent Pub. No. 2024/0083465 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 15 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Ghanbari et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2022/0163976 A1), herein “Ghanbari”.
Regarding Claim 8, Wehrlen in view of Tatipamula does not explicitly teach the golf vehicle fleet system of claim 3, wherein the value is based on at least one of:
a difference between a first location of the golf vehicle and a second location of the occurrence of the behavior;
a count of occurrences of the behavior of the plurality of golf vehicles of the fleet within a previous time period;
an amount of time since a most recent occurrence of the behavior of any of the plurality of golf vehicles;
a magnitude of the most recent occurrence of the behavior;
an age of at least one of the golf vehicle or one or more components thereof;
a difference between a current time of day and a time at which the behavior of the second golf vehicle occurred; or
a driver of the golf vehicle.
Ghanbari, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the value is based on at least one of:
a difference between a first location of the golf vehicle and a second location of the occurrence of the behavior (See 0003 as referenced above);
a count of occurrences of the behavior of the plurality of golf vehicles of the fleet within a previous time period (See 0003 as referenced above, and “The values may be based on previously detected vehicle events.”);
an amount of time since a most recent occurrence of the behavior of any of the plurality of golf vehicles (See 0003 as referenced above);
a magnitude of the most recent occurrence of the behavior (See 0003 as referenced above);
an age of at least one of the golf vehicle or one or more components thereof;
a difference between a current time of day and a time at which the behavior of the second golf vehicle occurred (See 0003 as referenced above); or
a driver of the golf vehicle (See 0003 as referenced above).
In view of Ghanbari’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with golf vehicle fleet management system detecting environmental and mechanical risks and commanding individual vehicles to mitigate these undesirable operations as taught by Wehrlen in view of Tatipamula, associating values with the type or severity of risk for comparison preceding a command, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the golf fleet system clearly discloses commanding corrective responses when undesirable operations are detected, and using multi-factor likelihood values across location or event types for comparison is a common and straightforward integration of known art through adjusting commands dynamically based on computed values.
Regarding Claim 9, Wehrlen in view of Tatipamula does not explicitly teach the golf vehicle fleet system of claim 8, wherein the value is based on the difference between the first location of the golf vehicle and the second location, wherein the value is calculated for a plurality of locations at a golf course.
Ghanbari, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the value is based on the difference between the first location of the golf vehicle and the second location, wherein the value is calculated for a plurality of locations at a golf course (See 0003 as referenced above. See also 0026, “[…] the vehicle event information for the vehicle events may include one or more of locations of vehicle events, vehicle types involved in vehicle events, types of vehicle events, identifiers of vehicle operators involved in vehicle events, and/or other information. For example, locations of vehicle events may include geographical locations, including but not limited to global positioning system (GPS) coordinates.”).
In view of Ghanbari’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with golf vehicle fleet management system detecting environmental and mechanical risks and commanding individual vehicles to mitigate these undesirable operations as taught by Wehrlen in view of Tatipamula, associating values with the relative locations of a cart or multiple carts in the fleet for comparison preceding a command, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the golf fleet system clearly discloses commanding corrective responses when undesirable operations are detected, and using multi-factor likelihood values across location or event types for comparison is a common and straightforward integration of known art through adjusting commands dynamically based on computed values.
Regarding Claims 10 and 17, Wehrlen in view of Tatipamula does not explicitly teach the golf vehicle fleet system of claim 8 or off-road vehicle fleet system of claim 16, wherein the value is calculated using a multi-dimensional function based on (a) the first location of the golf vehicle and (b) at least one of:
the count of occurrences of the behavior;
the amount of time since the most recent occurrence of the behavior;
the magnitude of the most recent occurrence of the behavior;
the age of at least one of the golf vehicle or the one or more components thereof;
the difference between the current time of day and the time at which the behavior of the second golf vehicle occurred; or
the driver of the golf vehicle.
Ghanbari, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the value is calculated using a multi-dimensional function based on (a) the first location of the golf vehicle and (b) at least one of:
the count of occurrences of the behavior;
the amount of time since the most recent occurrence of the behavior;
the magnitude of the most recent occurrence of the behavior;
the age of at least one of the golf vehicle or the one or more components thereof;
the difference between the current time of day and the time at which the behavior of the second golf vehicle occurred; or
the driver of the golf vehicle (See 0003 as referenced above. See also 0020, “[…] vehicle event information may be structured and/or organized into records representing individual vehicle events. In some implementations, vehicle event information may be structured and/or organized in such a way that multiple individual vehicle events contribute to a single data point within the vehicle event information. For example, such a data point may be an aggregation of information from the information regarding multiple individual vehicle events.”).
In view of Ghanbari’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with golf vehicle fleet management system detecting environmental and mechanical risks and commanding individual vehicles to mitigate these undesirable operations as taught by Wehrlen in view of Tatipamula, calculating risk values using a variety of factors including cart locations, time of occurrence(s) of undesirable operations, and severity of these occurrences, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the golf fleet system clearly discloses commanding corrective responses when undesirable operations are detected, and using multi-factor likelihood values across a variety of risk conditions including location or event information for comparison is a common and straightforward integration known in the art of telematics through combining multi-dimensional risk profiles into a composite function.
Regarding Claims 11 and 18, Wehrlen in view of Tatipamula does not explicitly teach the golf vehicle fleet system of claim 10 or off-road vehicle fleet system of claim 16, wherein, after the occurrence of the behavior, the value is increased by a second multi-dimensional function of the first location, the second multi-dimensional function based on a distance between the first location and the second location.
Ghanbari, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches after the occurrence of the behavior, the value is increased by a second multi-dimensional function of the first location, the second multi-dimensional function based on a distance between the first location and the second location (See 0003 and 0020 as referenced above).
In view of Ghanbari’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with golf vehicle fleet management system detecting environmental and mechanical risks and commanding individual vehicles to mitigate these undesirable operations as taught by Wehrlen in view of Tatipamula, weighing events by proximity and frequency, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the golf fleet system clearly discloses commanding corrective responses when undesirable operations are detected, and risk profiling necessarily weighs events by proximity and frequency, thus making it obvious to include distance weighing in multi-dimensional risk functions to reflect greater influence of nearby events on an individual cart’s risk.
Regarding Claim 12, Wehrlen further discloses the golf vehicle fleet system of claim 1, wherein a magnitude of the action is dependent on a difference between the value and the threshold value (See 0020, “Movement by golf cart 10 is restricted if limited access controller 12 analyzes the position provided by GPS receiver 14, or a dead reckoning position estimate based on the last GPS position, and determines that the likelihood of golf cart 10 entering a limited access area exceeds a given threshold. For instance, if the position provided by GPS receiver 14 matches a position within green 18, the limited access area associated with green 18 is violated and movement by the golf cart is prevented to reduce the risk of damage to green 18. In a situation in which a golf cart actually traverses a green, a complete shutdown of the golf cart may be warranted […]”).
Regarding Claim 13, Wehrlen in view of Tatipamula does not explicitly teach the golf vehicle fleet system of claim 1, wherein the value is based on a location of the golf vehicle, wherein a plurality of values is calculated for a plurality of locations, wherein the value for a current location is found via interpolation using the plurality of values.
Ghanbari, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the value is based on a location of the golf vehicle, wherein a plurality of values is calculated for a plurality of locations, wherein the value for a current location is found via interpolation using the plurality of values (See 0003, 0020 and 0026 as referenced above.
In view of Ghanbari’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with golf vehicle fleet management system detecting environmental and mechanical risks and commanding individual vehicles to mitigate these undesirable operations as taught by Wehrlen in view of Tatipamula, interpolating risk values across spatial data grids, since the golf fleet system clearly discloses commanding corrective responses when undesirable operations are detected, and integrating the interpolated values with a risk profile refines spatial risk estimation.
Regarding Claim 14, Wehrlen further discloses the golf vehicle fleet system of claim 1, wherein the value is increased after each detection of the behavior and decreased using at least one of:
a reset mechanism;
periodically decreasing the value over time by an amount (See 0026, “The specific limited access periods applicable for a golf course 46 may change daily or even throughout a day such as when water hazards 70 change dimensions or conditions on fairway 22 change, and may also vary based on the quality of GPS or dead reckoning position accuracy.”); or
periodically decreasing the value by multiplying the value by a fraction between zero and one.
Regarding Claim 16, Wehrlen further discloses an off-road vehicle fleet system for responding to behavior within a fleet of off-road vehicles, the fleet of off-road vehicles including a first off-road vehicle configured to transmit vehicle data about operations thereof and a second off-road vehicle configured to receive commands to mitigate the behavior (See 0024-0025 as referenced above. Examiner notes the golf cart fleet can simply be renamed an off-road vehicle fleet), the off-road vehicle fleet system comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors (See 0024-0025 as referenced above), cause the one or more processors to:
acquire the vehicle data regarding the first off-road vehicle (See 0028 as referenced above);
detect an occurrence of a behavior of the first off-road vehicle using the vehicle data (See 0018 as referenced above); and
transmit a command to the second off-road vehicle to implement the action to mitigate the subsequent occurrence of the behavior in response to the value satisfying a criterion (See 0018-0019 as referenced above).
But does not explicitly disclose to calculate a value related to a need for the second off-road vehicle to take an action to mitigate a subsequent occurrence of the behavior; and
wherein the value is calculated using a multi-dimensional function of at least a first location of the second off-road vehicle and a second location of the occurrence of the behavior.
Ghanbari, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches to calculate a value related to a need for the second off-road vehicle to take an action to mitigate a subsequent occurrence of the behavior (See 0003 and 0026-0027 as referenced above); and
wherein the value is calculated using a multi-dimensional function of at least a first location of the second off-road vehicle and a second location of the occurrence of the behavior (See 0003 and 0020 as referenced above).
In view of Ghanbari’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with golf vehicle fleet management system detecting environmental and mechanical risks and commanding individual vehicles to mitigate these undesirable operations as taught by Wehrlen in view of Tatipamula, associating and calculating values with the type or severity of risk for comparison preceding a command using a multi-dimensional function, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the golf fleet system clearly discloses commanding corrective responses when undesirable operations are detected, and using multi-factor likelihood values across location or event types for comparison is a common and straightforward integration of known art through adjusting commands dynamically based on computed values.
Regarding Claim 21, Wehrlen further discloses the off-road vehicle fleet system of claim 16, wherein the action is based on a type of the behavior and the vehicle data, and wherein the behavior includes at least one of: wheel spin, skid, or one or more wheels leaving a driving surface (See 0019 as referenced above).
Regarding Claim 22, Wehrlen further discloses the off-road vehicle fleet system of claim 16, wherein the value increases in response to additional occurrences of the behavior exhibited in the fleet of off-road vehicles and decreases as time between a most recent occurrence of the behavior and a current time increases (See 0026 as referenced above).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Bryant Tang whose telephone number is (571)270-0145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 CST.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/BRYANT TANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights