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 .
Status of Claims
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 16-35 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. No action by Applicant is required at this time
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 31, 2025 and April 22, 2026 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0033, “andscanning” should read “and scanning”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-18, 21, 28, and 33-34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recommended to keep language uniform instead of using “the self-propelled construction machine” and “the construction machine” interchangeably.
In claim 16, line 7, the acronym DGNSS is not defined.
In claim 16, lines 12-13, “a position of a construction machine reference point on the construction machine are determined” should read “a position of a construction machine reference point on the construction machine is determined”.
In claim 16, lines 16-17, "each of the data sub-sets" should read "each of the plurality of data sub-sets".
In claim 17, line 2, "each machine-readable data set" should read "each of the one or more machine-readable data sets".
In claim 18, line 2, the acronym QR is not defined.
In claim 21, line 3, and claim 22, lines 2-3, "at least one of the machine-readable data sets" should read "at least one of the one or more machine-readable data sets".
In claim 26, line 3, the acronym QR is not defined.
In claim 28, line 6, the acronym DGNSS is not defined.
In claim 28, line 13, “a position of a construction machine reference point on the construction machine are determined” should read “a position of a construction machine reference point on the construction machine is determined”.
In claim 28, line 20, "the machine-readable data sets" should read "the one or more machine-readable data sets".
In claim 33, line 2, “locating one or more of the reference station setup points” should read “locating one or more the plurality of reference station setup points”.
In claim 34, line 2, “locating one or more of the reference station setup points” should read “locating one or more the plurality of reference station setup points”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“…computing and evaluation unit…” in claim 16, 19-20, 22, and 28.
The computing and evaluation unit is interpreted as a general processor, digital signal processor, microprocessor, application-specific integrated circuit, field-programmable gate array, or other integrated circuits or hardware components as disclosed in paragraph 0018, as equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Certain claim limitation interpretations are noted.
The limitation “self-propelled construction machine is interpreted as any machine that has a working device arranged on a machine frame where the working device can erect a structure or alter a site as disclosed in paragraph 0002. It is additionally noted that this definition is contrary to the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art, which would be a machine that can propel itself.
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 16-35 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.
In claim 16, lines 18-19, and claim 28, line 17, the limitation “…a plurality of reference station setup points…” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how there are multiple reference station setup points when there is only one reference station. Because “a plurality of reference station setup points” is referring to multiple reference stations and there is only one claimed reference station, the limitation is considered indefinite and is rejected as such. For the purposes of examination, “a plurality of reference station setup points” is interpreted to mean a reference station setup point.
In claim 19, lines 2-5, the limitation "data sub-set" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is referring to a single sub-set within the plurality of data sub-sets previously recited in claim 16, line 17, or a new sub-set separate from the plurality of data sub-sets.
In claim 24, line 2, the limitation "the self-propelled construction machine…further comprising" in combination with "a mobile terminal" renders the claim indefinite as the mobile terminal is interpreted to be mobile from the self-propelled construction machine making it unclear how the self-propelled construction machine can comprise the mobile terminal.
Claims 15-27 and 29-35 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as they do not clear the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
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.
Claims 16-20, 22, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishibeppu (US 2024/0126293) in view of McManus (US 2011/0305260) and Hua (US 2013/0073196).
Regarding claim 16, Nishibeppu discloses a self-propelled construction machine, comprising:
a machine frame (Nishibeppu, Fig. 2 regarding a working vehicle, which includes a frame);
a plurality of wheels or tracks supporting the machine frame from a ground surface (Nishibeppu, Fig. 2 regarding wheels);
a working tool supported from the machine frame and configured to work the ground surface or erect structures on the ground surface (Nishibeppu, Fig. 2 regarding a work machine & [0037] regarding the work machine being a cultivator, sowing machine, a mower, a plow, a fertilizer, etc.); and
a DGNSS rover unit associated with the self-propelled construction machine, the DGNSS rover unit being configured to receive satellite signals of a global navigation satellite system and correction signals of a reference station to be set up in a vicinity of the construction machine, the DGNSS rover unit including a computing and evaluation unit configured such that on a basis of the satellite signals and the correction signals, construction machine position data describing a position of a construction machine reference point on the construction machine are determined in a coordinate system independent of the construction machine (Nishibeppu, [0028] regarding a positioning device that calculates the current position (latitude and longitude) of the work vehicle by using GNSS signals received by one receiver and DGPS method, Fig. 1 regarding the position device including a positioning processing unit, & [0045] regarding the positioning processing unit positioning the work vehicle using the DGPS method (i.e., receiving correction signals from ground stations to correct the GNSS signal received));
wherein the computing and evaluation unit includes a reference station position data memory (Nishibeppu, [0040] regarding the positioning device including a storage unit).
Nishibeppu does not explicitly disclose wherein the computing and evaluation unit includes a reference station position data memory configured to store a reference station position data set including a plurality of data sub-sets of reference station position data, wherein each of the data sub-sets describes a location of one of a plurality of reference station setup points in a vicinity of a path along which the construction machine moves; and
wherein the computing and evaluation unit is configured such that one or more machine-readable data sets are generated corresponding to the reference station position data set.
McManus teaches storing one or more reference positions as coordinate sets in the memory ([0024} & [0058]).
Nishibeppu and McManus are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of work vehicle locating. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu to incorporate storing the location of the reference stations, as taught by McManus, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of knowing where the reference stations are for correcting the GPS signal.
Hua teaches generating a machine readable code that indicates information for a point of interest (i.e., reference station) and the information that is indicated being the location of the point of interest ([0020] & [0026]).
Nishibeppu and Hua are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GPS positioning. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, as modified, to incorporate generating machine readable code indicating the position of the reference station, as taught by Hua, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to access where the reference stations are located.
Nishibeppu, as modified, teaches wherein the computing and evaluation unit includes a reference station position data memory configured to store a reference station position data set including a plurality of data sub-sets of reference station position data, wherein each of the data sub-sets describes a location of one of a plurality of reference station setup points in a vicinity of a path along which the construction machine moves (Storing the position of the reference station, as taught by McManus, in the storage unit); and
wherein the computing and evaluation unit is configured such that one or more machine-readable data sets are generated corresponding to the reference station position data set (Generating machine readable code that indicates the location of the reference station, as taught by Hua).
Regarding claim 17, Nishibeppu in view of McManus and Hua teaches the self-propelled construction machine as claimed in claim 16, wherein:
the DGNSS rover unit further includes a display (Nishibeppu, [0061] regarding an operation display unit being a user interface including a display unit).
Hua further teaches wherein:
each machine-readable data set includes at least one machine-readable code (Hua, [0020] regarding generating a machine readable code); and a display configured such that the at least one machine-readable code is shown on the display (Hua, [0020] regarding providing the machine readable code to the user for capture).
Nishibeppu and Hua are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GPS positioning. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, as modified, to incorporate displaying the machine readable code, as taught by Hua, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of enabling the user to determine the location of the reference station.
Regarding claim 18, Nishibeppu in view of McManus and Hua teaches the self-propelled construction machine as claimed in claim 17. Hua further teaches wherein:
the machine-readable code is a QR code (Hua, [0020] regarding the machine readable code being a Quick Response code).
Nishibeppu and Hua are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GPS positioning. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, as modified, to display the machine readable code as a QR code, as taught by Hua, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of enabling the user to determine the location of the reference station.
Regarding claim 19, Nishibeppu in view of McManus and Hua teaches the self-propelled construction machine as claimed in claim 17 wherein:
the computing and evaluation unit is configured such that for each data sub-set at least one of the machine-readable codes containing the reference station position data of the respective reference station setup point corresponding to the data sub-set is generated and stored in the reference station position data memory (McManus, [0058] regarding storing the new reference position in the memory) (Hua, [0020] regarding generating a machine readable code that indicates the information for the point of interest (i.e., reference station) & [0026] regarding the information indicated being the location of the point of interest).
Regarding claim 20, Nishibeppu in view of McManus and Hua teaches the self-propelled construction machine as claimed in claim 19. Hua further teaches wherein:
the computing and evaluation unit is configured such that the machine-readable codes of all the data sub-sets of reference station position data are shown on the display (Hua, [0020] regarding providing the machine readable code to the user for capture. As there is only one reference station, all of the codes will be shown.).
Nishibeppu and Hua are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GPS positioning. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, as modified, to display the machine readable code to the user, as taught by Hua, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of enabling the user to determine the location of the reference station.
Regarding claim 22, Nishibeppu in view of McManus and Hua teaches the self-propelled construction machine as claimed in claim 16. Hua further teaches wherein:
the computing and evaluation unit is configured such that at least one of the machine-readable data sets includes a URL of a website (Hua, [0020] regarding the machine readable code being a Quick Response code & [0025] regarding the QR code encoding a website).
Nishibeppu and Hua are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GPS positioning. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, as modified, to encode a website to the QR code, as taught by Hua, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of enabling the user to determine the location of the reference station.
Regarding claim 24, Nishibeppu in view of McManus and Hua teaches the self-propelled construction machine as claimed in claim 16. Hua further teaches a mobile terminal on which an online map service is available (Hua, [0015] regarding a mobile device & [0026] regarding a map displayed on the mobile device).
Nishibeppu and Hua are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GPS positioning. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, as modified, to use a mobile device to display the map, as taught by Hua, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of enabling the user to determine the location of the reference station.
Regarding claim 25, Nishibeppu in view of McManus and Hua teaches the self-propelled construction machine as claimed in claim 24. Hua further teaches wherein:
the mobile terminal is a smartphone (Hua, [0015] regarding the mobile device being a smart phone).
Nishibeppu and Hua are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GPS positioning. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, as modified, to use a smart phone as the mobile device, as taught by Hua, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of enabling the user to determine the location of the reference station using their phone.
Regarding claim 26, Nishibeppu in view of McManus and Hua teaches the self-propelled construction machine as claimed in claim 24. Hua further teaches wherein:
the mobile terminal is configured such that the online map service is activated by scanning a QR code (Hua, [0021] regarding capturing the machine readable code using the mobile device, [0020] regarding the machine readable code being a Quick Response code, & [0025] regarding the QR code encoding a website. The map service would be activated when the website link is linked to the map service.).
Nishibeppu and Hua are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GPS positioning. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, as modified, to activate the map when the QR code is scanned, as taught by Hua, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of making it easier for the user to locate the reference station.
Regarding claim 27, Nishibeppu in view of McManus and Hua teaches the self-propelled construction machine as claimed in claim 26. Hua further teaches wherein:
the mobile terminal is configured such that the online map service includes a navigation function (Hua, [0026] regarding navigating through an area using the mobile device).
Nishibeppu and Hua are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GPS positioning. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, as modified, to include a navigation function in the map, as taught by Hua, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of making it easier for the user to locate the reference station.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishibeppu in view of McManus and Hua as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of SpeedPro (What is Near Field Communication (NFC) and How Does It Impact You?).
Regarding claim 21, Nishibeppu in view of McManus and Hua teaches the self-propelled construction machine as claimed in claim 16. Hua further teaches providing the machine readable code to the user for capture and that the machine readable code is a Quick Response (QR) code ([0020]).
Nishibeppu and Hua are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GPS positioning. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, as modified, to display the machine readable code to the user as a QR code, as taught by Hua, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of enabling the user to determine the location of the reference station.
SpeedPro teaches that both QR codes and NFC tags allow users to obtain information with the scan of a mobile device and that the information that can be transmitted can include longitude and latitude (pgs. 2-3).
Nishibeppu and SpeedPro are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of information distribution. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, as modified, to include using NFC tags to distribute information, as taught by SpeedPro, instead of QR Code because doing so would yield the predictable result of using one known method of gathering information for another.
Nishibeppu, as modified, teaches wherein:
the DGNSS rover unit further includes a transmitting unit configured such that at least one of the machine-readable data sets is transmitted to a mobile terminal by the transmitting unit (Using the NFC tag, as taught by SpeedPro, instead of QR Code, as taught by Hua, to send the machine readable code).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishibeppu in view of McManus and Hua as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Wang (US 9,988,787).
Regarding claim 23, Nishibeppu in view of McManus and Hua teaches the self-propelled construction machine as claimed in claim 16, but does not explicitly teach wherein:
the reference station position data memory includes an interface configured to import the reference station position data from an external data source.
Wang teaches wherein:
the reference station position data memory includes an interface configured to import the reference station position data from an external data source (Wang, Col. 20, lines 37-43 regarding receiving longitude, latitude, and altitude (LLA) coordinates of a GNSS base station via an RF, cellular, microwave, satellite, Bluetooth, and/or other type of wireless signal. If it is receiving the data, it must have an interface for receiving the data through that method.).
Nishibeppu and Wang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GPS positioning. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, as modified, to include receiving LLA coordinates of a GNSS base station vis a wireless signal, as taught by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of locating the reference station.
Claims 28-30 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishibeppu in view of Wang, McManus, and Hua.
Regarding claim 28, Nishibeppu discloses a method of locating a reference station setup point of a reference station to be set up in a vicinity of a self-propelled construction machine, the self-propelled construction machine including a machine frame, a plurality of wheels or tracks supporting the machine frame from a ground surface, a working tool supported from the machine frame and configured to work the ground surface or erect structures on the ground surface, and a DGNSS rover unit associated with the self-propelled construction machine, the DGNSS rover unit being configured to receive satellite signals of a global navigation satellite system and correction signals of a reference station to be set up in a vicinity of the construction machine, the DGNSS rover unit including a computing and evaluation unit configured such that on a basis of the satellite signals and the correction signals, construction machine position data describing a position of a construction machine reference point on the construction machine are determined in a coordinate system independent of the construction machine (Nishibeppu, Fig. 2 regarding a working vehicle, which includes a frame, wheels, and a working machine, [0037] regarding the work machine being a cultivator, sowing machine, a mower, a plow, a fertilizer, etc., [0028] regarding a positioning device that calculates the current position (latitude and longitude) of the work vehicle by using GNSS signals received by one receiver and DGPS method, Fig. 1 regarding the position device including a positioning processing unit, & [0045] regarding the positioning processing unit positioning the work vehicle using the DGPS method (i.e., receiving correction signals from ground stations to correct the GNSS signal received))), and
a reference station position data memory (Nishibeppu, [0040] regarding the positioning device including a storage unit).
Nishibeppu does not explicitly disclose the method comprising:
importing a reference station position data set from an external data source into a reference station position data memory, wherein the reference station position data set describes locations of a plurality of reference station setup points in a vicinity of a path along which the self-propelled construction machine is to move; and
creating one or more machine-readable data sets corresponding to the reference station position data set.
Wang teaches receiving longitude, latitude, and altitude (LLA) coordinates of a GNSS base station via an RF, cellular, microwave, satellite, Bluetooth, and/or other type of wireless signal (Col. 20, lines 37-43).
Nishibeppu and Wang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GPS positioning. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, to include receiving LLA coordinates of a GNSS base station vis a wireless signal, as taught by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of locating the reference station.
Hua teaches generating a machine readable code that indicates information for a point of interest (i.e., reference station) and the information that is indicated being the location of the point of interest ([0020] & [0026]).
Nishibeppu and Hua are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GPS positioning. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, as modified, to incorporate generating machine readable code indicating the position of the reference station, as taught by Hua, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to access where the reference stations are located.
McManus teaches storing one or more reference positions as coordinate sets in the memory ([0024} & [0058]).
Nishibeppu and McManus are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of work vehicle locating. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, as modified, to incorporate storing the location of the reference stations, as taught by McManus, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of knowing where the reference stations are for correcting the GPS signal.
Nishibeppu, as modified, teaches the method comprising:
importing a reference station position data set from an external data source into a reference station position data memory, wherein the reference station position data set describes locations of a plurality of reference station setup points in a vicinity of a path along which the self-propelled construction machine is to move; and
creating one or more machine-readable data sets corresponding to the reference station position data set.
Regarding claim 29, Nishibeppu in view of Wang, Hua, and McManus teaches the method as claimed in claim 28, wherein:
the method further includes:
displaying…on a display of the DGNSS rover unit (Nishibeppu, [0061] regarding an operation display unit being a user interface including a display unit).
Hua further teaches wherein:
the one or more machine-readable data sets are one or more machine-readable codes (Hua, [0020] regarding generating a machine readable code);
the method further includes:
displaying the one or more machine-readable codes on a display (Hua, [0020] regarding providing the machine readable code to the user for capture); and
scanning the one or more machine-readable codes with a mobile terminal (Hua, [0021] regarding capturing the machine readable code using a mobile device).
Nishibeppu and Hua are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GPS positioning. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, as modified, to incorporate displaying the machine readable code and scanning the code with a mobile device, as taught by Hua, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of enabling the user to determine the location of the reference station.
Regarding claim 30, Nishibeppu in view of Wang, Hua, and McManus teaches the method as claimed in claim 29. Hua further teaches wherein:
the mobile terminal is a smartphone (Hua, [0015] regarding the mobile device being a smart phone).
Nishibeppu and Hua are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GPS positioning. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, as modified, to use a smart phone as the mobile device, as taught by Hua, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of enabling the user to determine the location of the reference station using their phone.
Regarding claim 33, Nishibeppu in view of Wang, Hua, and McManus teaches the method as claimed in claim 28. Hua further teaches locating one or more of the reference station setup points on a worksite using an online map service on a mobile terminal (Hua, [0021] regarding capturing the machine readable code using the mobile device and accessing a network to utilize the information & [0026] regarding a map displayed on the mobile device).
Nishibeppu and Hua are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GPS positioning. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, as modified, to use a mobile device to display a map, as taught by Hua, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of enabling the user to determine the location of the reference station.
Regarding claim 34, Nishibeppu in view of Wang, Hua, and McManus teaches the method as claimed in claim 28. Hua further teaches locating one or more of the reference station setup points on a worksite using a navigation function of an online map service on a mobile terminal (Hua, [0021] regarding capturing the machine readable code using the mobile device and accessing a network to utilize the information & [0026] regarding navigating through an area using the mobile device).
Nishibeppu and Hua are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GPS positioning. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, as modified, to use navigate to the reference station using the map on a mobile device, as taught by Hua, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of enabling the user to determine the location of the reference station.
Regarding claim 35, Nishibeppu in view of Wang, Hua, and McManus teaches the method as claimed in claim 28. Hua further teaches wherein:
the one or more machine-readable data sets are one or more machine-readable codes including a URL of a website (Hua, [0020] regarding the machine readable code being a Quick Response code & [0025] regarding the QR code encoding a website).
Nishibeppu and Hua are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GPS positioning. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, as modified, to encode a website to the QR code, as taught by Hua, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of enabling the user to determine the location of the reference station.
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishibeppu in view of Wang, McManus, and Hua as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of SpeedPro.
Regarding claim 31, Nishibeppu in view of Wang, Hua, and McManus teaches the method as claimed in claim 28. Hua further teaches providing the machine readable code to the user for capture and that the machine readable code is a Quick Response (QR) code ([0020]).
Nishibeppu and Hua are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GPS positioning. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, as modified, to display the machine readable code to the user as a QR code, as taught by Hua, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of enabling the user to determine the location of the reference station.
SpeedPro teaches that both QR codes and NFC tags allow users to obtain information with the scan of a mobile device and that the information that can be transmitted can include longitude and latitude (pgs. 2-3).
Nishibeppu and SpeedPro are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of information distribution. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, as modified, to include using NFC tags to distribute information, as taught by SpeedPro, instead of QR Code because doing so would yield the predictable result of using one known method of gathering information for another.
Nishibeppu, as modified, teaches transmitting the one or more machine-readable data sets to a mobile terminal (Using the NFC tag, as taught by SpeedPro, instead of QR Code, as taught by Hua, to send the machine readable code).
Regarding claim 32, Nishibeppu in view of Wang, Hua, and McManus teaches the method as claimed in claim 28. Hua further teaches providing the machine readable code to the user for capture and that the machine readable code is a Quick Response (QR) code ([0020]).
Nishibeppu and Hua are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GPS positioning. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, as modified, to display the machine readable code to the user as a QR code, as taught by Hua, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of enabling the user to determine the location of the reference station.
SpeedPro teaches that both QR codes and NFC tags allow users to obtain information with the scan of a mobile device and that the information that can be transmitted can include longitude and latitude (pgs. 2-3).
Nishibeppu and SpeedPro are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of information distribution. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishibeppu, as modified, to include using NFC tags to distribute information, as taught by SpeedPro, instead of QR Code because doing so would yield the predictable result of using one known method of gathering information for another.
Nishibeppu, as modified, teaches transmitting the one or more machine-readable data sets to a mobile terminal using a transmitter based on RFID technology (Using the NFC tag, as taught by SpeedPro, instead of QR Code, as taught by Hua, to send the machine readable code).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
