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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to independent claim 12, Applicant argues the newly amended features are not recited within the prior art of record. Applicant argues Lee (US 20200301421) makes no reference to a personal use mode in which a vehicle is not trackable and not controllable by an external system associated with a golf course, a golf mode in which the personal vehicle is at least one of trackable or controllable by the external system, or transitioning between modes based on a geofenced area. Applicant argues Pippin (US 20020082122) and Tsujino (US 20250285541), as well as the other cited references, fail to remedy this deficiency. Therefore, Applicant concludes independent claim 12 is patentable over the cited references.
However, Lee teaches selecting between autonomous modes of at least golf course grass travel, golf course path travel, and manual travel, where the driving mode is selected at least in part based on positions of the golf cart and user terminal, and based on whether the cart enters the golf course or not, the driving mode selector selects a driving mode to restrict driving the cart to the paths of the golf course or to allow traveling over grass. This includes trigger events of boarding and arriving at a golf course, which transitions the cart from a current mode to a next mode, including entering areas which are defined by virtual geographic boundaries which are geofences. Notably, the claim does not appear to recite that the trigger event is crossing the geofence, but merely that the trigger event in some way comprises detecting that the personal vehicle has entered a geofenced area associated with the golf course at some point in some way related to determining a trigger, and as such an equally broad application of prior art is appropriate. Pippin teaches selecting an asset tracking mode of a golf course asset which continually reports position of the asset to a golf course base station. When not in a tracked mode, the golf course base station does not track or control the asset. Tsujino then teaches changing display screens depending on whether the vehicle is driving in a manual mode or an autonomous mode. By the combination of these references, one of ordinary skill would have arrived at selecting between different modes including an asset tracking mode which aligns with at least one of the autonomous golf course modes when the geofence is crossed, and a manual mode in which tracking and control are not performed by the golf course server and the cart operates for personal use, while the display is updated based upon these mode transitions. This is precisely what is required by the claim.
As such, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues independent claim 16 recites similar features to independent claim 12 and therefore is patentable for the same reasons.
This argument is unpersuasive for the reasons as given above.
Applicant argues the dependent claims are patentable by virtue of their dependency.
However, this argument is unpersuasive as independent claims 12 and 16 have been fully rejected and for the reasons as given above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8, and 11 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Independent claim 1 recites that the vehicle transitions between modes based upon an override condition of sequentially travelling between multiple golf holes. No single prior art reference has been found to anticipate these limitations, nor any combination of prior art references to render these limitations obvious, when viewed in the context of the remaining limitations to which the claim depends. As such, independent claim 1 is found to be allowable.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8, and 11 depend upon claim 1 and therefore are found to be allowable by virtue of their dependency as well as the limitations recited within them.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20200301421) in view of Tsujino (US 20250285541) and Pippin et al. (US 20020082122).
In regards to claim 12, Lee teaches a vehicle system comprising: (Fig 1.)
at least one processing circuit having at least one processor and at least one memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: ([0025] control module performs operations, which necessarily acts as or contains processor and memory to store operations performed by the module.)
wherein the first vehicle mode is a personal use mode ([0029], [0031] driving mode may be selected by golf cart based on positions of golf cart and user terminal and received information. Based on whether the cart enters the golf course or not, the driving mode selector selects a driving mode to restrict driving the cart to the paths of the golf course or to allow traveling over grass. [0037] when the user boards the cart, the cart may transition to a manual driving mode. Any of these may be a personal use mode.)
detect a trigger event associated with a golf course, wherein detecting the trigger event comprises detecting that the personal vehicle has entered a geofenced area associated with the golf course; ([0029], [0031] driving mode may be selected by golf cart based on positions of golf cart and user terminal and received information. Based on whether the cart enters the golf course or not, the driving mode selector selects a driving mode to restrict driving the cart to the paths of the golf course or to allow traveling over grass. [0037] when the user boards the cart, the cart may transition to a manual driving mode. This includes trigger events of boarding and arriving at a golf course, which transitions the cart from a current mode to a next mode, including entering areas which are defined by virtual geographic boundaries which are geofences.)
cause the personal vehicle to transition from the first vehicle mode to a second vehicle mode associated with the golf course based on detecting the trigger event, the personal vehicle having a first set of functionalities while in the first vehicle mode and a second set of functionalities while in the second vehicle mode, the second set of functionalities being different than the first set of functionalities and corresponding to at least one rule associated with the golf course, wherein the second vehicle mode is a golf mode; ([0026], [0029], [0031] golf cart may be transitioned between manual driving mode and autonomous driving modes, where the autonomous driving modes include cart road driving mode and cart road and golf course entry driving mode. Based on whether the cart enters the golf course or not, the driving mode selector selects an autonomous driving mode to restrict driving the cart to the paths of the golf course or to allow traveling over grass. [0037] when the user boards the cart, the cart may transition to a manual driving mode. This transitions the cart from one mode to another mode associated with the golf course based on detecting the trigger event. Any of the manual mode, the cart road driving mode, and the cart road and golf course entry driving mode may be the first mode or the second mode. [0025], [0026] when in the manual driving mode, the vehicle is driven manually by a user, which has a first set of functionality allowing only manual driving and disallowing all autonomous driving. [0030], [0031] in the cart road driving mode the cart is autonomously controlled and allowed to only travel on cart roads, not on grass, and in the cart road and golf course entry mode, the cart is autonomously controlled and allowed to travel on cart roads and on golf course grass. These have different sets of functionality both allowing autonomous travel and where travel is disallowed on golf course grass or allowed respectively. This corresponds to rules of the golf course.) and
Lee does not teach:
a vehicle display device configured to be installed on a personal vehicle of a user, the vehicle display device including:
display a first user interface associated with a first vehicle mode while the personal vehicle is in the first vehicle mode, wherein the first vehicle mode is a personal use mode in which the personal vehicle is not trackable and not controllable by an external system associated with a golf course;
wherein the second vehicle mode is a golf mode in which the personal vehicle is at least one of trackable or controllable by the external system associated with the golf course;
display a second user interface associated with the second vehicle mode while the personal vehicle is in the second vehicle mode.
However, Tsujino teaches changing display screens depending on whether the vehicle is driving in a manual mode or an autonomous mode ([0058]).
Further, Pippin teaches selecting an asset tracking mode of a golf course asset which continually reports position of the asset to a golf course base station ([0046], [0059]). Position is operational information. When not in a tracked mode, the golf course base station does not track or control the asset.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle system of Lee, by incorporating the teachings of Tsujino and Pippin, such that, when the vehicle is in a manual mode, a display of the vehicle is in a corresponding mode, and when the vehicle is in an autonomous mode, the display changes to be in a corresponding mode, and includes at least modes in which asset tracking of the cart is performed, which continually reports the position of the cart to a base station associated with the golf course at least when in the automatic mode, and at least when in the manual mode, tracking is not performed and the cart is not controlled by the golf course.
The motivation to adjust the display based on control mode of the vehicle is that, as acknowledged by Tsujino, this allows for improving occupant understanding ([0107], [0108]). The motivation to operate an asset tracking mode is that, as acknowledged by Pippin, this allows for providing more relevant information while golfing and for a golfer’s evaluation ([0008]).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Tsujino and Pippin, in further view of Ming et al. (US 20190138003).
In regards to claim 14, Lee, as modified by Tsujino and Pippin, teaches the vehicle system of Claim 12.
Lee, as modified by Tsujino and Pippin, does not teach: wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to, in response to detecting the trigger event, display a prompt to the user of the personal vehicle, the prompt requesting the user to confirm that the user wishes to transition from the first vehicle mode to the second vehicle mode.
However, Ming teaches displaying a confirmation prompt to a user of a vehicle when transitioning between vehicle modes upon detecting a transition triggering condition ([0100]-[0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle system of Lee, as already modified by Tsujino and Pippin, by incorporating the teachings of Ming, such that a display device of the cart of Lee displays a prompt requesting confirmation of a transition between driving modes when a trigger condition is determined, and when confirmed, the cart transitions between driving modes.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Ming, this allows for better accounting for situations experienced by the vehicle ([0003]).
In regards to claim 15, Ming teaches displaying a confirmation prompt to a user of a vehicle when transitioning between vehicle modes upon detecting a transition triggering condition, which may be confirmed by the user ([0100]-[0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle system of Lee, as already modified by Tsujino, Pippin, and Ming, by further incorporating the teachings of Ming, such that the cart transitions between modes when the confirmation prompt is confirmed by the user.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Ming in regards to claim 14.
Claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Pippin and Nanda et al. (US 12170931).
In regards to claim 16, Lee teaches a vehicle system comprising: (Fig 1.)
at least one processing circuit having at least one processor and at least one memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: ([0025] control module performs operations, which necessarily acts as or contains processor and memory to store operations performed by the module.)
detect a trigger event associated with a golf course while a vehicle of a user is in a personal use mode, wherein detecting the first trigger event comprises detecting that the vehicle has entered a geofenced area associated with the golf course; ([0029], [0031] driving mode may be selected by golf cart based on positions of golf cart and user terminal and received information. Based on whether the cart enters the golf course or not, the driving mode selector selects a driving mode to restrict driving the cart to the paths of the golf course or to allow traveling over grass. [0037] when the user boards the cart, the cart may transition to a manual driving mode. This includes trigger events of boarding and arriving at a golf course, which transitions the cart from a current mode to a next mode, including entering areas which are defined by virtual geographic boundaries which are geofences.)
transition the vehicle from the personal use mode to a golf mode associated with the golf course based on detecting the trigger event, ([0026], [0029], [0031] golf cart may be transitioned between manual driving mode and autonomous driving modes, where the autonomous driving modes include cart road driving mode and cart road and golf course entry driving mode. Based on whether the cart enters the golf course or not, the driving mode selector selects an autonomous driving mode to restrict driving the cart to the paths of the golf course or to allow traveling over grass. [0037] when the user boards the cart, the cart may transition to a manual driving mode. This transitions the cart from one mode to another mode associated with the golf course based on detecting the trigger event. Any of the manual mode, the cart road driving mode, and the cart road and golf course entry driving mode may be the first mode or the second mode.)
detect a second trigger event; ([0029], [0031] driving mode may be selected by golf cart based on positions of golf cart and user terminal and received information. Based on whether the cart enters the golf course or not, the driving mode selector selects a driving mode to restrict driving the cart to the paths of the golf course or to allow traveling over grass. [0037] when the user boards the cart, the cart may transition to a manual driving mode. This includes trigger events of boarding and arriving at a golf course, which transitions the cart from a current mode to a next mode, any of which may be a second trigger event.) and
transition the vehicle from the golf mode to the personal use mode based on detecting the second trigger event, ([0026], [0029], [0031] golf cart may be transitioned between manual driving mode and autonomous driving modes, where the autonomous driving modes include cart road driving mode and cart road and golf course entry driving mode. Based on whether the cart enters the golf course or not, the driving mode selector selects an autonomous driving mode to restrict driving the cart to the paths of the golf course or to allow traveling over grass. [0037] when the user boards the cart, the cart may transition to a manual driving mode. This transitions the cart from one mode to another mode, which may be a personal use mode, associated with the golf course based on detecting the trigger event.)
wherein the at least one processing circuit includes at least one of (a) a first processing circuit configured to be located on the vehicle or (b) a second processing circuit configured to be located remote from the vehicle. ([0025] control module performs operations and is stored in cart and server which is remote from cart.)
Lee does not teach:
wherein the vehicle is not trackable and not controllable by the golf course in the personal use mode;
wherein the vehicle is at least one of trackable or controllable by an external system associated with the golf course in the golf mode;
detect a second trigger event comprising detecting that the vehicle has exited the geofenced area associated with the golf course;
wherein tracking the vehicle by the external system associated with the golf course is disabled upon transitioning to the personal use mode;
However, Pippin teaches selecting an asset tracking mode of a golf course asset which continually reports position of the asset to a golf course base station ([0046], [0059]). Position is operational information. When not in a tracked mode, the golf course base station does not track or control the asset.
Further, Nanda teaches checking a threshold time after a vehicle enters or exits a geofence to distinguish that the vehicle has arrived or exited the geofence (Col 10 lines 59-67, Col 11 lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle system of Lee, by incorporating the teachings of Pippin and Nanda, such that when the vehicle transitions modes, this includes at least modes in which asset tracking of the cart is performed, which continually reports the position of the cart to a base station associated with the golf course at least when in the automatic mode, and at least when in the manual mode, tracking is not performed and the cart is not controlled by the golf course, and the cart may further include a mode transition trigger of leaving the geofence boundaries of the golf course, where the cart cannot be tracked by the golf course and instead operates in a personal use mode either automatically or manually.
The motivation to operate an asset tracking mode is that, as acknowledged by Pippin, this allows for providing more relevant information while golfing and for a golfer’s evaluation ([0008]). The motivation to determine leaving a geofence is that, as acknowledged by Nanda, this allows for improved tracking of vehicles (Col 1 lines 18-35).
In regards to claim 17, Lee, as modified by Pippin and Nanda, teaches the vehicle system of claim 16, wherein the vehicle has a first set of functionalities while in the personal use mode and a second set of functionalities while in the golf mode, the second set of functionalities being different than the first set of functionalities and corresponding to at least one geofence-based rule associated with at least a portion of the golf course. ([0025], [0026] when in the manual driving mode, the vehicle is driven manually by a user, which has a first set of functionality allowing only manual driving and disallowing all autonomous driving. [0030], [0031] in the cart road driving mode the cart is autonomously controlled and allowed to only travel on cart roads, not on grass, and in the cart road and golf course entry mode, the cart is autonomously controlled and allowed to travel on cart roads and on golf course grass. These have different sets of functionality both allowing autonomous travel and where travel is disallowed on golf course grass or allowed respectively. This corresponds to rules of the golf course. [0048] information is received upon the cart entering a set range within the golf course, which provides limiting conditions and routing information.)
In regards to claim 19, Nanda teaches checking a threshold time after a vehicle enters or exits a geofence to determine that the vehicle has arrived or exited the geofence (Col 10 lines 59-67, Col 11 lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle system of Lee, as already modified by Pippin and Nanda, by further incorporating the teachings of Nanda, such that when the cart is determined to have entered the golf course, the time the cart remains within the course is checked against a threshold time to determine that the cart has arrived.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Nanda, this allows for improved tracking of vehicles (Col 1 lines 18-35).
In regards to claim 20, Lee, as modified by Pippin and Nanda, teaches the vehicle system of Claim 16.
Lee also teaches the golf cart may be transitioned between manual driving mode and autonomous driving modes, where the autonomous driving modes include cart road driving mode and cart road and golf course entry driving mode ([0026], [0029], [0031]). When the cart is not driven through a golf course, it does not operate in either the cart road driving mode or the cart road and golf course entry driving mode, and instead must operate in some other mode.
Nanda teaches checking a threshold time after a vehicle enters or exits a geofence to determine that the vehicle has arrived or exited the geofence (Col 10 lines 59-67, Col 11 lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the vehicle system of Lee, as already modified by Pippin and Nanda, by further incorporating the teachings of Nanda, such that when the cart is determined to have entered the golf course, the time the cart remains within the course is checked against at least a first threshold time to determine that the cart has arrived, and when the cart is determined to have exited the golf course, the time the cart remains outside the course is checked against at least a second threshold time, which may be the same or different than the first threshold, to determine that the cart has departed, which is then used in the triggering conditions of Lee to select a driving mode.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Nanda in regards to claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Norman et al. (US 20190102823) teaches determining a golf course established by a geofence which a golf cart may enter or exit.
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 MATTHIAS S WEISFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-7258. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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 Burgess can be reached at Ramya.Burgess@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights