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
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 should be rewritten to recite,
“The animal tracking system of claim 18, wherein the server stores a list of the one or more other RTK base stations operating in a base station mode as trusted base stations.“
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the base station calibration" in line 2.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the process" in line 2.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in these claims, and thus they are rendered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Stoffregen et al. (US 20230251386 A1), hereinafter Stoffregen.
Regarding claim 1, Stoffregen teaches a method of initializing a realtime kinematic (RTK) base station within an environment (see para. 5), the method comprising:
in a base station initialization process, entering an initialization mode and receiving trusted observation data from one or more other RTK base stations operating in a base station mode, utilizing the trusted observation data as observation data of the RTK base station as it resolves its precise location (para. 28, “While the base station is operated in the rover mode and preferably functions as an NTRIP client, two or more so-called rover mode positions of the base stations are determined based on the NTRIP correction data received from the NTRIP server. According to the solution described herein, the at least one control unit is adapted to determine an optimized position of the base station by averaging the two or more rover mode positions.”; the NTRIP server provides RTK correction data, which necessarily originates from an RTK base station; see para. 31 for evidence that the correction data provides an optimized base station position solution and is construed by Examiner as trusted observation data),
transitioning from the initialization mode to a base station mode at the RTK base station, and after transitioning to the base station mode, transmitting the observation data from the RTK base station, based on its precise location, for receipt by a rover device (para. 29, “Preferably, once an optimized position of the base station has been determined, the operation of the base station is switched from the rover mode to the stationary mode, in which the base station transmits correction data to the rover units.”).
Regarding claim 10, Stoffregen teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising
determining a refined position of the base station by obtaining and averaging GPS positions of the RTK base station to obtain refined observation data associated with the RTK base station and adopting the refined observation data as the observation data associated with the RTK base station (para. 13, “For example, the at least one control unit of the base station may be adapted to determine two or more rover mode positions and to determine an optimized position of the base station by averaging the two or more rover mode positions.”).
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.
Claims 3-5, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoffregen in view of Solinsky et al. (US 9924314 B2), hereinafter Solinsky.
Regarding claim 3, Stoffregen teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the rover device comprises an animal tracking device.
However, Solinsky teaches
wherein the rover device comprises an animal tracking device (col. 2 lines 49-56, “With the RTK system, the base is stationary and can minimize the overall positioning error by using carrier phase tracking. Error corrections are then sent by the base station to the rover/collar to reduce positional error of the collar. Thus, the RTK system has a stationary reference point and collar reference point and can actively track the distance of the rover from the base station with a high degree of accuracy.”; col. 4 lines 31-39, “The processor unit may be configured to transition from the tracking mode to the containment mode if the subject returns to the containment zone after leaving the containment zone without causing the correction unit to issue a stimulus to the subject when the perimeter of the containment zone is crossed by the subject returning to the containment zone. The subject may be one of an animal, a human, or an object and the device may be in the form of a collar.”).
Stoffregen and Solinsky are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of RTK rover tracking systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stoffregen with the teachings of Solinsky through the simple substitution of Stoffregen’s agricultural machine rover with an animal-mounted rover.
Regarding claim 4, Stoffregen in view of Solinsky teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising, at a rover:
determining, via a GPS unit on the rover, a location of the rover (Stoffregen; see paras. 7 and 9 for evidence that the rover comprises a GPS receiver; para. 15, “Each of the rover units usually determines its position by receiving GNSS position data and then preferably each of the rover units uses the correction data received from the base station to correct the [usually less accurate] position data received from the GNSS.”),
receiving, via a wireless communication interface of the rover, the observation data from the RTK base station, and correcting the location of the rover using the observation data to obtain a corrected location of the rover (Stoffregen; para. 33, “When the optimized position of the base station has been determined as described herein, the correction data transmitted from the base station to the one or more rover units allows the rover units to determine their respective positions with an accuracy within the RTK-typical range, in particular of about +/−2 to 3 cm.”; see para. 6 for evidence of Stoffregen’s agricultural machine/rover comprising a receiver which is a wireless communication interface receiving observation data from a base station), but Stoffregen fails to teach
an animal tracking device, and correcting the location of the animal tracking device using the observation data to obtain a corrected location of the animal tracking device (see col. 2 lines 49-56).
Stoffregen and Solinsky are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of RTK rover tracking systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stoffregen with the teachings of Solinsky through the simple substitution of Stoffregen’s agricultural machine rover with an animal-mounted rover.
Regarding claim 5, Stoffregen in view of Solinsky teaches the method of claim 4, but Stoffregen fails to teach further comprising
transmitting corrected location data from the animal tracking device to a server, the corrected location data identifying the corrected location.
However, Solinsky teaches
transmitting corrected location data from the animal tracking device to a server, the corrected location data identifying the corrected location (col. 6 lines 54-63, “Stimulus collar 30 will issue a static correction only for a predetermined maximum time while the pet is in out of bounds zone 16. Once this predetermined time has elapsed, the collar 30 will transition into a tracking mode and issue an alert to a cloud server and subsequently update the pet owner's smart device advising that the pet has escaped containment area 10. As long as the pet is in out of bounds zone 16, collar 30 will issue continual updates to the cloud server and subsequently update the pet owner's smart device with location information.”).
Stoffregen and Solinsky are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of RTK rover tracking systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stoffregen with the teachings of Solinsky with the motivation of making a rover’s position and positional history accessible through a server.
Regarding claim 11, Stoffregen teaches a rover tracking system comprising:
a rover including a GPS interface and a wireless communication interface (see para. 6 for evidence of Stoffregen’s agricultural machine/rover comprising a receiver which is a wireless communication interface receiving observation data from a base station; see para. 9 for evidence that the rover comprises a GPS receiver), and
an RTK base station, the RTK base station comprising a processor (see para. 11) and a memory (see paras. 67-69) storing instructions which, when executed, cause the RTK base station to perform:
in a base station initialization process, entering an initialization mode and receiving trusted observation data from one or more other RTK base stations operating in a base station mode, utilizing the trusted observation data as observation data of the RTK base station as the RTK base station resolves its precise location (see para. 28; the NTRIP server is implicitly hosted on a base station and in transmitting position correction data is operating in a base station mode; see para. 31 for evidence that the correction data provides an optimized base station position solution and is construed by Examiner as trusted observation data),
transitioning from the initialization mode to a base station mode at the RTK base station, and after transitioning to the base station mode, transmitting observation data for receipt by the rover (see para. 29), but fails to teach
an animal tracking device including a GPS interface and a wireless communication interface.
However, Solinsky teaches
an animal tracking device including a GNSS interface and a wireless communication interface (see col. 2 lines 49-56; Fig. 3, communication unit 56 and GNSS module 86), where Stoffregen teaches the use of GPS.
Stoffregen and Solinsky are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of RTK rover tracking systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stoffregen with the teachings of Solinsky through the simple substitution of Stoffregen’s agricultural machine rover with an animal-mounted rover.
Regarding claim 12, Stoffregen in view of Solinsky teaches the animal tracking system of claim 11, but fails to teach
wherein the RTK base station is positioned proximate to a tracking area associated with the rover (Fig. 23, base station 80 is positioned proximate to a tracking area associated with the agricultural machine/rover 40), but fails to teach
an animal tracking device (see col. 2 lines 49-56; also see col. 2 lines 57-62 for evidence of the RTK base station being positioned proximate to a containment area of the collar; see Fig. 1 for establishment of safe and warning zones 12 and 14 of a collar).
Stoffregen and Solinsky are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of RTK rover tracking systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stoffregen with the teachings of Solinsky through the simple substitution of Stoffregen’s agricultural machine rover with an animal-mounted rover.
Regarding claim 14, Stoffregen in view of Solinsky teaches the animal tracking system of claim 11, further comprising
the one or more other RTK base stations (Stoffregen; see para. 28; the NTRIP server is implicitly hosted on a base station and in transmitting position correction data is operating in a base station mode).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoffregen in view of Tsumura (US 20220018968 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Stoffregen teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the one or more other RTK base stations are identified based at least in part on proximity to the RTK base station.
However, Tsumura teaches
wherein the one or more other RTK base stations are identified based at least in part on proximity to the RTK base station (see paras. 105-107 and Fig. 3).
Stoffregen and Tsumura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of RTK global positioning systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stoffregen with the teachings of Tsumura with the motivation of being able to assess proximity and thus potential communication quality.
Regarding claim 7, Stoffregen teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the one or more other RTK base stations include one or more trusted RTK base stations emitting the trusted observation data.
However, Tsumura teaches
wherein the one or more other RTK base stations include one or more trusted RTK base stations emitting the trusted observation data (para. 53, “The mobile phone base station 12 [without an RTK reference station] receives RTK correction data from the selected mobile phone base station 13 [with an RTK reference station] and broadcasts the RTK correction data to a cell 18 managed by the mobile phone base station 12 [without an RTK reference station].”; para. 81, “When the RTK reference station can be accessed via an IP network, etc., the base station database 16 may be configured to include IP address information of the RTK reference station. The mobile phone base station 12 [without an RTK reference station] may store a copy of the information in the base station database 16 in a memory or the like thereof.“; Fig. 4, base station database 16 contains IDs and location of several base stations).
Stoffregen and Tsumura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of RTK global positioning systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stoffregen with the teachings of Tsumura with the motivation of preventing communication with untrusted base stations.
Regarding claim 8, Stoffregen in view of Tsumura teaches the method of claim 7, but Stoffregen fails to teach wherein the one or more other RTK base stations is considered to be among the one or more trusted RTK base stations based on at least one of
(1) accessing a list of trusted RTK base stations maintained at a server, or
(2) analyzing available observation data from among the one or more other RTK base stations at the RTK base station operating in the initialization mode.
However, Tsumura teaches wherein the one or more other RTK base stations is considered to be among the one or more trusted RTK base stations based on at least one of
(1) accessing a list of trusted RTK base stations maintained at a server (see paras. 54 and 81 and Fig. 4), or
(2) analyzing available observation data from among the one or more other RTK base stations at the RTK base station operating in the initialization mode.
Stoffregen and Tsumura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of global positioning systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stoffregen with the teachings of Tsumura with the motivation of preventing communication with untrusted base stations.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoffregen in view of Solinsky and further in view of Tsumura.
Regarding claim 15, Stoffregen in view of Solinsky teaches the animal tracking system of claim 11, further comprising
a server system (Stoffregen; see para. 28), but fails to teach
the server system maintaining a list of the one or more other RTK base stations as trusted base stations.
However, Tsumura teaches
the server system maintaining a list of the one or more other RTK base stations as trusted base stations (see para. 81 and Fig. 4).
Stoffregen, Solinsky, and Tsumura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of global positioning systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stoffregen in view of Solinsky with the teachings of Tsumura with the motivation of preventing communication with untrusted base stations.
Regarding claim 16, Stoffregen in view of Solinsky and further in view of Tsumura teaches the animal tracking system of claim 15, but Stoffregen fails to teach
wherein the RTK base station is programmed to access the list of the one or more other RTK base stations during the base station initialization process.
However, Tsumura teaches
wherein the RTK base station is programmed to access the list of the one or more other RTK base stations during the base station initialization process (see paras. 55 and 81 for evidence that accessing the base station database is necessary for positioning/initialization).
Stoffregen, Solinsky, and Tsumura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of global positioning systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stoffregen in view of Solinsky with the teachings of Tsumura with the motivation of preventing communication with untrusted base stations.
Claims 13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoffregen in view of Solinsky and further in view of Stapelfeld et al. (US 20190174721 A1), hereinafter Stapelfeld.
Regarding claim 13, Stoffregen in view of Solinsky teaches the animal tracking system of claim 11,
wherein the rover includes a processor (Stoffregen; see para. 11) and a memory storing instructions (Stoffregen; see paras. 67-69) which, when executed, cause the rover to
obtain the observation data via the wireless communication interface, the observation data being useable to correct location data obtained at the rover via the GPS interface (Stoffregen; see paras. 6 and 33), but Stoffregen fails to teach
an animal tracking device, and instructions which, when executed, cause
the animal tracking device to identify the RTK base station.
However, Stapelfeld teaches
an animal behavior monitoring device, and instructions which, when executed, cause the animal tracking device to identify the base station (see paras. 16-18 for association of base stations and collar modules with unique IDs included in communications; see para. 104 for association of collar modules with base stations; see para. 65 for communication between base stations and collar modules), where Stoffregen teaches an RTK base station (Stoffregen; see para. 5), where
Solinsky teaches
an animal tracking device (see col. 2 lines 49-56).
Stoffregen, Solinsky, and Stapelfeld are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stoffregen with the teachings of Solinsky with the motivation of being able to track the movement of a subject and with the teachings of Stapelfeld with the motivation of having a UE being able to assess the identity of a base station, where the agricultural machine rover of Stoffregen and the collars of Solinsky and Stapelfeld are analogous features in their role as UEs communicating with base stations.
Regarding claim 17, Stoffregen teaches a rover tracking system comprising:
a rover including a processor, a memory (see para. 9; a GNSS receiver implicitly requires a processor and memory to function), a GPS interface (see paras. 3, 9 and 29; the rover implicitly requires a GPS interface to determine its own position that can be corrected) and a wireless communication interface (see Fig. 20a), and
an RTK base station, the RTK base station comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions (see paras. 11 and 69) which, when executed, cause the RTK base station to perform:
in a base station initialization process: entering an initialization mode and receiving trusted observation data from one or more other RTK base stations operating in a base station mode, and utilizing the trusted observation data as observation data of the RTK base station as it resolves its precise location (see para. 28 and the rejection of claim 1),
transitioning from the initialization mode to a base station mode at the RTK base station, and transmitting the observation data for receipt by the rover, wherein the memory of the rover stores instructions which, when executed, cause the rover to obtain the observation data via the wireless communication interface, the observation data being useable to correct location data obtained at the animal tracking device via the GPS interface and obtain a location having improved accuracy relative to a position determined solely via positioning data obtained at the rover via the GPS interface (see paras. 15 and 29), but fails to teach
an animal tracking system comprising an animal tracking device and instructions which, when executed,
cause the animal tracking device to identify the RTK base station.
However, Stapelfeld teaches
an animal behavior monitoring system comprising an animal behavior monitoring device and instructions which, when executed, cause the animal behavior monitoring device to identify the RTK base station (see paras. 16-18 for association of base stations and collar modules with unique IDs included in communications; see para. 104 for association of collar modules with base stations; see para. 65 for communication between base stations and collar modules), where
Solinsky teaches
an animal monitoring system (see col. 2 lines 49-56).
Stoffregen, Solinsky, and Stapelfeld are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stoffregen with the teachings of Solinsky with the motivation of being able to track the movement of a subject and with the teachings of Stapelfeld with the motivation of having a UE being able to assess the identity of a base station, where the agricultural machine rover of Stoffregen and the collars of Solinsky and Stapelfeld are analogous features in their role as UEs communicating with base stations.
Regarding claim 18, Stoffregen in view of Solinsky and further in view of Stapelfeld teaches the animal tracking system of claim 17, but Stoffregen fails to teach further comprising
a server communicatively connected to the animal monitoring device and the RTK base station.
However, Solinsky teaches further comprising
a server communicatively connected to the animal monitoring device and the RTK base station (col. 6 line 54-63, “Stimulus collar 30 will issue a static correction only for a predetermined maximum time while the pet is in out of bounds zone 16. Once this predetermined time has elapsed, the collar 30 will transition into a tracking mode and issue an alert to a cloud server and subsequently update the pet owner's smart device advising that the pet has escaped containment area 10. As long as the pet is in out of bounds zone 16, collar 30 will issue continual updates to the cloud server and subsequently update the pet owner's smart device with location information.”; see col. 2 lines 30-34 for evidence that the collar is part of an RTK system with a base station).
Stoffregen, Solinsky, and Stapelfeld are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stoffregen in view of Stapelfeld with the teachings of Solinsky with the motivation of being able to remotely access animal positions, where the agricultural machine rover of Stoffregen and the collars of Solinsky and Stapelfeld are analogous features in their role as UEs communicating with base stations.
Regarding claim 19, Stoffregen in view of Solinsky and further in view of Stapelfeld teaches the animal tracking system of claim 18, but Stoffregen fails to teach further comprising
a mobile device communicatively connected to the animal tracking device and the server, the mobile device having a boundary management application installed thereon.
However, Solinsky teaches
a mobile device communicatively connected to the animal tracking device and the server, the mobile device having a boundary management application installed thereon (see col. 6 line 54 – col. 7 line 2).
Stoffregen, Solinsky, and Stapelfeld are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stoffregen in view of Stapelfeld with the teachings of Solinsky with the motivation of being able to remotely access animal positions.
Regarding claim 20, Stoffregen in view of Solinsky and further in view of Stapelfeld teaches the animal tracking system of claim 18, but Stoffregen fails to teach
wherein the server stores a list of the one or more other RTK base stations operating in a base station mode as trusted base stations.
However, Stapelfeld teaches
wherein the server stores a list of the one or more other RTK base stations operating in a base station mode as trusted base stations (Fig. 4, database of known RTK base stations; see para. 54 for evidence that the database provided at a data center and is internet-accessible and therefore stored on a server).
Stoffregen, Solinsky, and Stapelfeld are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stoffregen in view of Solinsky with the teachings of Stapelfeld with the motivation of being able to remotely access a database of trusted base stations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K HODAC whose telephone number is (571) 270-0123. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6.
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, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/ERIC K HODAC/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights