DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 21-30 and 39-48 have been examined in this application. Claims 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 39, 44, 47, and 48 are amended. Claims 22, 23, 26, 29, 30, 40, 41, 43, 45, and 46 are as previously presented. Claims 1-20 and 31-38 are cancelled.
This is a final office action in response to the arguments and amendments filed 10/21/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’ arguments, filed 10/21/2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim objections (presented on p. 11 under the heading “Claim Objections”), the amendments are acceptable. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112 (presented on p. 11 under the heading “Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)”), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 103 (presented on p. 11-12 under the heading “Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on HAYES, RAVENSCROFT, and RILEY”), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the additional prior art of Publication US2009/0274097A1 (Budinger et al.) and NPL Publication “High-Altitude Platforms for Wireless Communications” (Tozer et al.), as well as the previously relied upon prior art of Patent U.S. 8,688,101 B1 (Hayes et al.), US2009/0210109A1 (Ravenscroft), US2012/0196644A1 (Scherzer et al.), and US2015/0120094A1 (Kimchi et al.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-23, 26, 39, 40, 41, 43, 47, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent U.S. 8,688,101 B1 (Hayes et al.) in view of Publication US2009/0210109A1 (Ravenscroft), further in view of Publication US2009/0274097A1 (Budinger et al.).
Regarding Claim 21, Hayes et al. discloses a method (see 7:60-8:16 functions performed by processing circuitry of network controller and 10:11-29 aircraft) comprising:
calculating a flight path (see 11:4-5 determination of combined flight and communication plan),
wherein the flight path includes changing from a first altitude to a second altitude (see 4:57-64, altitude change), and
wherein calculating the flight path comprises:
determining that the flight path requires a change from a first network that provides coverage a first altitude (see 10:64-11:4, network controller managing communication plan, required for access point communication, at particular locations along the future points in route, 6:50-55 future positions in 3D) to a second network that provides coverage at the second altitude based on a change in altitude (see 6:50-55, 11:4-8, based on a received flight plan, and see 4:57-64 handover between cells necessitated on the basis of altitude change), and
generating instructions to switch from the first network to the second network (see 11:8-17, communication plan identifying access points for handover as aircraft moves to new cell) based on a capability of the second network of providing network coverage at the second altitude (see 4:50-64 based on cells which are coverage areas of access points (capability to provide coverage) and defined by altitude),
wherein the first network or the second network is a wireless network (see 3:63-4:20, access points of wireless networks), and
providing flight path instructions to the aircraft (see 11:5-10, network controller 240 estimates the plan and provides list for aircraft 110 to use);
wherein the instructions include the flight path and the instructions to switch from the first network to the second network (see 11:5-12, network controller 240 estimates the plan and provides list for aircraft 110 to use for handovers);
receiving network connectivity information for the first network during traversal by the UAV of the flight path, the network connectivity information including a signal strength of the first network associated with the aircraft (see 5:23-26, aircraft evaluating signal strengths of connected networks (i.e. including first));
providing, to the aircraft, information associated with the second network (see 11:5-11 communication plan including identifier of each access point (i.e. including second network) provided to aircraft); and
causing the aircraft to connect to the second network based on the information associated with the second network (see 11:8-12, performing the handovers based on the communication plan).
Hayes et al. does not explicitly recite:
receiving a request for a flight path for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) between an origination location and a destination location;
calculating the flight path based on aviation information identifying air traffic issues associated with a geographical region, wherein the aviation information includes air traffic information, obstacle information identifying obstacles associated with the geographical region, and regulatory information identifying no-fly information associated with the geographical region,
wherein the aviation information identifies one or more altitude requirements,
providing flight path instructions to the UAV,
wherein the flight path instructions include the flight path,
and does not explicitly recite the aircraft being a UAV.
However, Ravenscroft teaches a method (see Figure 3) to generate a flight path (see [0024]) comprising:
receiving a request for a flight path for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) between an origination location and a destination location (see Figure 3, [0054] block 302 setting starting point and destination [0024] for UAVs);
calculating the flight path (see Figure 3, [0077] blocks 324, 326, adding segments to build path) based on aviation information (see Figure 3, [0073], block 306 based on obstacle in route) identifying air traffic issues (see [0040] obstacle including traffic conditions) associated with a geographical region (see [0040] associated with ground-based features, i.e. geographic region), wherein the aviation information includes air traffic information (see [0040] obstacle including traffic conditions), obstacle information identifying obstacles associated with the geographical region (see [0040] e.g. towers, buildings), and regulatory information identifying no-fly information associated with the geographical region (see [0040] obstacle being an off-limits area, e.g. based on regulations),
wherein the aviation information identifies one or more altitude requirements (see [0055, 0072] 4D trajectory constrained by obstacles, i.e. the obstacle information identifying altitude requirements of the flight path), and
providing flight path instructions to the UAV (see Figure 1, [0030-0031] flight plan solution loaded into UAV),
wherein the flight path instructions include the flight path (see [0079] solution being combination of flight segments),
and the aircraft being a UAV (see [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the obtaining of a flight path and development and use of a communication plan as disclosed in Hayes et al. to additionally generate a flight path and altitude restrictions and provide the flight path to a UAV for execution, as taught by Ravenscroft, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the method to include unmanned aircraft, and to consider additional factors and improve safety by specifying emergency landing points while ensuring compliance with regulations (see Ravenscroft, [0039]).
Hayes et al. does not explicitly recite:
wherein the other of the first network or the second network is a satellite network;
However, Budinger et al. teaches a technique to manage communications with an aircraft (see [0019] “data communication with the aircraft), which is based on a change in altitude (see [0019], “if a particular flight altitude is exceeded”)
wherein the other of the first network or the second network is a satellite network (see [0019] for altitude exceeded, terrestrial/mobile telephone radio turned off, and satellite systems are then suitable for establishing a communication link with the receiver on board the aircraft).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the other of the first or second network of Hayes et al. to include a satellite network as taught by Budinger et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving reliability of communications by providing additional suitable networks (see Budinger et al. [0019]).
Regarding Claim 22, Hayes et al. discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising:
sending to the UAV an identification of the first network (see 11:8-11, providing list of access point identifiers to aircraft (UAV as modified by Ravenscroft, per the rejection of Claim 21)).
Regarding Claim 23, Hayes et al. discloses the method of claim 21,
wherein receiving the network connectivity information for the first network during the traversal by the UAV of the flight path includes receiving the network connectivity information from the UAV (see 5:23-26, aircraft evaluating signal strengths of connected networks, i.e. receiving from aircraft components, UAV as modified by Ravenscroft, per the rejection of Claim 21).
Regarding Claim 26, Hayes et al. discloses the method of claim 22, further comprising:
determining the first network based on network requirements for the flight path (see 10:66 – 11:12, determining communication plan (including first access point / network) based on flight plan (path of positions which require network connection or handover)).
Regarding Claims 39-41, 43, 47, and 48: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claims 21-23 and 26. Claims 39-41, and 43 pertain to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claims 21-23, and 26, respectively. Claims 47 and 48 pertain to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions corresponding to the method of Claims 21 and 22, respectively. Claims 39-41, 43, 47, and 48 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claims 21-23, and 26, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 24, 25, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent U.S. 8,688,101 B1 (Hayes et al.) in view of Publication US2009/0210109A1 (Ravenscroft), further in view of Publication US2009/0274097A1 (Budinger et al.), further in view of NPL Publication “High-Altitude Platforms for Wireless Communications” (Tozer et al.).
Regarding Claim 24, Hayes et al. does not explicitly recite the method of The method of claim 21,
wherein the first network is a UAV-generated cellular network.
However, Tozer et al. teaches that a cellular network can be:
a UAV-generated (see p. 128, Section 2, aerial platform, unmanned) cellular network (see p. 133, used to deploy e.g. 3G mobile cellular service).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cellular networks of Hayes et al. to include a UAV generated network as taught by Tozer et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving communication reliability by having additional networks the aircraft can connect to, and improving capacity (see Tozer et al. p. 127).
Regarding Claim 25, Hayes et al. does not explicitly recite the method of 21,
wherein the second network is a UAV-generated cellular network.
However, Tozer et al. teaches that a cellular network can be:
a UAV-generated (see p. 128, Section 2, aerial platform, unmanned) cellular network (see p. 133, used to deploy e.g. 3G mobile cellular service).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cellular networks of Hayes et al. to include a UAV generated network as taught by Tozer et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving communication reliability by having additional networks the aircraft can connect to, and improving capacity (see Tozer et al. p. 127).
Regarding Claims 42: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 24. Claims 42 pertains to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claim 24. Claim42 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 24, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 27-29 and 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent U.S. 8,688,101 B1 (Hayes et al.) in view of Publication US2009/0210109A1 (Ravenscroft), further in view of Publication US2009/0274097A1 (Budinger et al.), further in view of Publication US2012/0196644A1 (Scherzer et al.).
Regarding Claim 27, Hayes et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 26, wherein the network requirements for the flight path include at least one of reliability, cost, security, bandwidth or the aviation information.
However, Scherzer et al. teaches a method to select a network for connection (see Figure 4, establishing connection with selected network),
wherein the network requirements for the flight path include at least one of reliability (see Figure 4, [0094] network requirements for evaluation include signal strength variance, dropped connections rate, packet error rate, etc. (indicators of reliable communication), based on historical or real-time performance), cost, security, bandwidth (see [0094] available bandwidth) or the aviation information.
Examiner's note: since the claim uses the phrase "at least one," only one of the recited alternatives is necessary in the prior art to read on this claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the determination of networks in the communication plan of Hayes et al. to further consider multiple networks and select via metrics and scoring, as taught by Scherzer et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the system to consider additional networks and provide optimized connections and improved service (see Scherzer et al., [0003, 0011]).
Regarding Claim 28, Hayes et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 27, further comprising:
selecting the second network based on scoring available networks.
However, Scherzer et al. teaches the method as above, comprising:
selecting the second network based on scoring available networks (see Figure 4, [0094] blocks 416, 418, scoring based on historical or real time parameters, and 422 network with the highest quality score is selected).
The motivation combine Hayes et al. and Scherzer et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 27.
Regarding Claim 29, Hayes et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 28, wherein scoring the available networks includes assigning weights to information associated with the available networks and calculating scores for the available networks based on the weights.
However, Scherzer et al. teaches the method as above,
wherein scoring the available networks includes assigning weights to information associated with the available networks (see [0094] weighting and combining measured real-time performance parameters) and calculating scores for the available networks based on the weights (see [0094] to determine the real-time performance score which contributes to the quality score).
The motivation combine Hayes et al. and Scherzer et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 27.
Regarding Claims 44-46: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claims 27-29, respectively. Claims 44-46 pertain to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claims 27-29, respectively. Claims 44-46 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claims 27-29, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent U.S. 8,688,101 B1 (Hayes et al.) in view of Publication US2009/0210109A1 (Ravenscroft), further in view of Publication US2009/0274097A1 (Budinger et al.), further in view of Published Application US2015/0120094A1 (Kimchi et al.).
Regarding Claim 30, Hayes et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 21, further comprising:
receiving a notification over the second network that the UAV has arrived at the destination location.
However, Kimchi et al. teaches a method in use of a aircraft (see [0020]), including:
receiving a notification over the second network that the UAV has arrived at the destination location (see [0136-0137] notification provided when UAV arrives at delivery location. Examiner’s note: Kimchi et al. modifying Hayes et al. in that a notification is sent when the UAV reaches the location. Hayes et al. uses a wireless network for communication; therefore, whichever wireless network is used at the final destination would be the second network.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Hayes et al. to include a destination notification, as taught by Kimchi et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of ensuring any cargo carried by a UAV has reached its destination (see Kimchi et al. [0137]).
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NPL Publication “Payload technologies and applications for uninhabited air vehicles (UAVs)” teaches subject matter including “A UAV can carry payloads which allow it to function as anything from an RF or microwave relay to a cellular telephone node to a network router or full telecommunications switch” (p. 281).
Conclusion
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 Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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 Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights