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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/26/2026 has been entered.
Priority
This application is continuation-in-part of prior Application No. 16/869,431, filed on 11/20/2019, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Therefore, the parent application does not satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for the invention claimed in the present application and the present application is not entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date Application No. 16/869,431.
This application also claims priority to U.S. provisional application no. 63/107,799, filed on 10/30/2020, which provides support for the claimed invention in the present application. Therefore, the effective date of the invention is 10/30/2020.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 16 have been considered but are
moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 16, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WINKLE et al. (US 2019/0302798) in views of McGUIRE et al. (US 2016/0349059), and DAVE et al. (US 2017/0314940), ROSS et al. (US 9,432,929), and TEAGUE (US 2018/0017973).
Regarding claim 1, Winkle disclose a method of determining a route for a
Drone (p. [0023]; the UTV may be an unmanned aerial vehicle UAV (i.e., drone)), the method comprising:
by a hardware processor of a dynamic routing system configured with specific computer-executable instructions,
determining a first location of the drone (p. [0033], lines 1-8; i.e., starting location of the UTV);
determining a second location corresponding to a target location of the drone (p. [0032]; i.e., intended destination);
identifying a set of eligible routes between the first location and the second location (p. [0033], lines 12-end; the computing device is configured to calculate multiple possible mission routes for the UTV (i.e., drone) from the starting location to the intended destination), wherein each traversable route of the one or more traversable routes comprises one or more route portions (p. [0035], lines 1-8); wherein each route portion of the one or more route portions is not traversable by foot or by a car (p. [0023], 1-3; p. [0033], lines 12-16 when the UTV is an unmanned aerial vehicle UAV (i.e., drone), the route is traversed by air); and
selecting a first route from the set of eligible routes (p. [0033], lines 12-18; the computing device select a mission route that provide an optimal delivery time and/or conditions).
But, Win does not particularly disclose wherein the first location of the drone is based on one or more radio frequency signals received from networking hardware of a communication network in communication with the drone.
However, McGuire teaches determining a first location of a device based on one or more radio frequency signals received from networking hardware of a communication network in communication with the device (p. [0047]; the user can initiate a route request from a user’s mobile device, the route request includes a starting location and an ending location, in an embodiment, the a mobile application can determine a user’s location automatically based on location sensing mechanism such as a GPS signal received from the user’s mobile device, such GPS signal can be a satellite based signal, a cellular signal from base station (i.e., radio frequency signals), a Wi-Fi signal, or any form of location-sensing signal). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Winkle with the teachings of McGuire, since such a modification would allow to the determine the device location automatically based on any location-sensing signal and provide the current location of the device as the starting location for determining a route.
The combination of Winkle and McGuire does not particularly disclose accessing signal strength data associated with one or more communication networks along each of the set of eligible routes, the signal strength data corresponding to wireless signal strength between a communication network of the one or more communication networks and one or more wireless devices communicating with the communication network; and
selecting a first route from the set of eligible routes based at least in part on the signal strength data associated with the one or more communication networks along each of the set of eligible routes.
However, Dave teaches accessing signal strength data associated with one or more communication networks along each of the set of eligible routes, the signal strength data corresponding to wireless signal strength between a communication network of the one or more communication networks and one or more wireless devices communicating with the communication network (abstract; p. [0027]; the mobile device obtain wireless network signal strength map data and considers wireless network signal strengths along the suggested routes); and
selecting a first route from the set of eligible routes based at least in part on the signal strength data associated with the one or more communication networks along each of the set of eligible routes (abstract; p. [0005], lines 5-24; the navigation system employs an algorithm that selects a route among multiple different routes based on wireless network signal strengths along those routes, consequently, the system can select a longer route having better signal strength). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Bender and McGuire with the teachings of Dave, in order to automatically select a high-quality route for travel that will provide a strong wireless signal during the trip.
Further, the combination of Winkle, McGuire, and Dave does not particularly disclose accessing additional communication data comprising at least one of available bandwidth data, quality of service data, or connection stability, the available bandwidth data corresponding to available bandwidth of a connection on the communication network, the quality of service data corresponding to quality of the connection on the communication network, and the communication stability data corresponding to stability of the connection on the communication network; wherein selecting the first route is based at least in part the signal strength and the additional communication data.
However, Ross teaches accessing additional communication data comprising at least one of available bandwidth data, quality of service data, or connection stability, the available bandwidth data corresponding to available bandwidth of a connection on the communication network, the quality of service data corresponding to quality of the connection on the communication network, and the communication stability data corresponding to stability of the connection on the communication network (col. 12, lines 20-35; col. 12, lines 54-col. 13, lines 1-14; the route optimization engine can identify a plurality of route options, the route options can be forwarded to a communication prediction module in order to look up communication requirement data and provide communications data for each of the routes, the communications data can includes cost data indicating predicted costs of communicating over connected networks along each of the route options); wherein selecting the first route is based at least in part the signal strength and the additional communication data (col. 13, lines 2-14; the route optimization engine can utilize the communication data and the mapping resource to select the optimal route; the system calculate the optimal routes based on both communication quality and communication costs – col. 6, lines 45-54; the communications prediction module can perform can perform an optimization technique to address connection and transmission costs, signal strength and/or quality – col. 15, lines 16-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Winkle, McGuire, and Dave with the teachings of Ross, since such a modification would allow the system to utilize additional communication data to analyze the available routes and select an optimal route based on a plurality of communication factors.
The combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, and Ross does not particularly disclose wherein selecting the first route is further based on determining that one or more communication networks along the first route are able to provide at least a minimal quality of service for a task being performed by the drone.
However, Teague teaches wherein selecting the first route is further based on determining that one or more communication networks along the first route are able to provide at least a minimal quality of service for a task being performed by the drone (p. [0039], [0045]; a processor performing navigational planning optimization considers the radio link quality data in order to ensure at least a minimum level of WWAN communications enroute to the destination, in determining a set route that includes at least a minimum level of WWAN communication a processor may determine at first quality of communications route, which is longer and less direct that the shortest route, but frequently provides at least some (including lowest level) connectivity (i.e., radio link quality levels 1 and 2)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, and Ross with the teachings of Teague, since such a modification would optimize WWAN communications during the route by selecting a route that ensures a minimum level of quality during the route, for the drone to experience improved communications while enroute to the destination.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague disclose the method of claim 1, Dave discloses wherein the signal strength data corresponds to historical signal strength data obtained from the one or more wireless devices (p. [0032], [0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Bender and McGuire with the teachings of Dave, since wireless devices can collect signal strength information based on their historical experiences in order to generate a more accurate signal strength map.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague disclose the method of claim 1, Dave discloses wherein the first route is selected from the set of eligible routes using a path selection algorithm that selects a path in a graph representative of the set of eligible routes (p. [0005], lines 11-end; p. [0029]; when selecting from multiple routes, the vehicular navigation system may employ an algorithm that gives some weight to wireless network signal strengths along those routes… the vehicular navigation system can then suggest the selected route to the system’s user or presented the selected route to the system’s user within a select of multiple different suggested routes; the navigation system may present the routes on a graphical map shown on a graphical display – p. [0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Winkle and McGuire with the teachings of Dave, in order to automatically select a high-quality route for travel that will provide a strong wireless signal during the trip.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Winkle, McGruire, Dave, Ross, and Teague disclose the method of claim 1, Dave discloses further comprising: obtaining updated signal strength data associated with at least one communication network along at least one route from the set of eligible routes; and selecting a second route from the set of eligible routes based at least in part on the updated signal strength data (p. [0031]; the mobile device can request and receive fresh wireless network signal strength map data from the sever over time, the mobile device can transmit each refreshed (i.e., updated) of the wireless signal strength map data to the vehicular navigation system and in response, the navigation system can recompute scores for the available routes and alert the user that a more preferable route than the currently traveled route may be available). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Winkle and McGuire with the teachings of Dave, since such a modification would allow to periodically or constantly during the trip to receive updated signal strength information and determine a more preferable route than the currently traveled route based on the updated signal strength information.
Regarding claim 16, Winkle disclose a dynamic routing system configured to select a
route for a drone that maintains a threshold signal strength for a connection between the drone and a communication network, the dynamic routing system comprising:
a hardware processor in communication with the electronic storage system, the hardware processor configured to execute specific computer-executable instructions to at least:
determining a first location of the drone (p. [0033], lines 1-8; i.e., starting location of the UTV, the UTV may be an unmanned aerial vehicle UAV - p. [0023]);
determine a second location corresponding to a target location of the drone (p. [0032]; i.e., intended destination);
identify a set of eligible routes between the first location and the second location (p. [0033], lines 12-end; the computing device is configured to calculate multiple possible mission routes for the UTV (i.e., drone) from the starting location to the intended destination), wherein each traversable route of the one or more traversable routes comprises one or more route portions (p. [0035], lines 1-8); wherein each route portion of the one or more route portions is not traversable by foot or by a car (p. [0023], 1-3; p. [0033], lines 12-16 when the UTV is an unmanned aerial vehicle UAV (i.e., drone), the route is traversed by air); and
select a route from the set of eligible routes (p. [0033], lines 12-18; the computing device select a mission route that provide an optimal delivery time and/or conditions).
But, Win does not particularly disclose wherein the first location of the drone is based on one or more radio frequency signals received from networking hardware of a communication network in communication with the drone.
However, McGuire teaches determining a first location of a device based on one or more radio frequency signals received from networking hardware of a communication network in communication with the device (p. [0047]; the user can initiate a route request from a user’s mobile device, the route request includes a starting location and an ending location, in an embodiment, the a mobile application can determine a user’s location automatically based on location sensing mechanism such as a GPS signal received from the user’s mobile device, such GPS signal can be a satellite based signal, a cellular signal from base station (i.e., radio frequency signals), a Wi-Fi signal, or any form of location-sensing signal). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Winkle with the teachings of McGuire, since such a modification would allow to the determine the device location automatically based on any location-sensing signal and provide the current location of the device as the starting location for determining a route.
The combination of Winkle and McGuire does not particularly disclose an electronic storage system configured to store signal strength data and navigation data between locations;
the processor configured to access signal strength data associated with one or more communication networks along each of the set of eligible routes, the signal strength data corresponding to wireless signal strength between a communication network of the one or more communication networks and one or more wireless devices communicating with the communication network; and
select a route from the set of eligible routes based at least in part on the signal strength data associated with the one or more communication networks along each of the set of eligible routes.
However, Dave teaches an electronic storage system configured to store signal strength data and navigation data between locations (p. [0027], [0032], [0034]; server stores signal strength map data);
the processor configured to access signal strength data associated with one or more communication networks along each of the set of eligible routes, the signal strength data corresponding to wireless signal strength between a communication network of the one or more communication networks and one or more wireless devices communicating with the communication network (abstract; p. [0027]; the mobile device obtain wireless network signal strength map data and considers wireless network signal strengths along the suggested routes); and
select a first route from the set of eligible routes based at least in part on the signal strength data associated with the one or more communication networks along each of the set of eligible routes (abstract; p. [0005], lines 5-24; the navigation system employs an algorithm that selects a route among multiple different routes based on wireless network signal strengths along those routes, consequently, the system can select a longer route having better signal strength). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Bender and McGuire with the teachings of Dave, in order to automatically select a high-quality route for travel that will provide a strong wireless signal during the trip.
Further, the combination of Winkle, McGuire, and Dave does not particularly disclose accessing additional communication data comprising at least one of available bandwidth data, quality of service data, or connection stability, the available bandwidth data corresponding to available bandwidth of a connection on the communication network, the quality of service data corresponding to quality of the connection on the communication network, and the communication stability data corresponding to stability of the connection on the communication network; wherein selecting the first route is based at least in part the signal strength and the additional communication data.
However, Ross teaches accessing additional communication data comprising at least one of available bandwidth data, quality of service data, or connection stability, the available bandwidth data corresponding to available bandwidth of a connection on the communication network, the quality of service data corresponding to quality of the connection on the communication network, and the communication stability data corresponding to stability of the connection on the communication network (col. 12, lines 20-35; col. 12, lines 54-col. 13, lines 1-14; the route optimization engine can identify a plurality of route options, the route options can be forwarded to a communication prediction module in order to look up communication requirement data and provide communications data for each of the routes, the communications data can includes cost data indicating predicted costs of communicating over connected networks along each of the route options); wherein selecting the first route is based at least in part the signal strength and the additional communication data (col. 13, lines 2-14; the route optimization engine can utilize the communication data and the mapping resource to select the optimal route; the system calculate the optimal routes based on both communication quality and communication costs – col. 6, lines 45-54; the communications prediction module can perform can perform an optimization technique to address connection and transmission costs, signal strength and/or quality – col. 15, lines 16-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Winkle, McGuire, and Dave with the teachings of Ross, since such a modification would allow the system to utilize additional communication data to analyze the available routes and select an optimal route based on a plurality of communication factors.
The combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, and Ross does not particularly disclose wherein selecting the first route is further based on determining that one or more communication networks along the first route are able to provide at least a minimal quality of service for a task being performed by the drone.
However, Teague teaches wherein selecting the first route is further based on determining that one or more communication networks along the first route are able to provide at least a minimal quality of service for a task being performed by the drone (p. [0039], [0045]; a processor performing navigational planning optimization considers the radio link quality data in order to ensure at least a minimum level of WWAN communications enroute to the destination, in determining a set route that includes at least a minimum level of WWAN communication a processor may determine at first quality of communications route, which is longer and less direct that the shortest route, but frequently provides at least some (including lowest level) connectivity (i.e., radio link quality levels 1 and 2)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, and Ross with the teachings of Teague, since such a modification would optimize WWAN communications during the route by selecting a route that ensures a minimum level of quality during the route, for the drone to experience improved communications while enroute to the destination.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Bender, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague disclose the method of claim 1, Ross discloses wherein the additional communication data comprises the available bandwidth data, the quality of service data, and the connection stability data (col. 12, lines 54-67; col. 14, lines 32-67).
7. Claims 2 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BENDER et al. in views of McGUIRE et al., DAVE et al., SONG J, ROSS et al., TEAGUE, and KADAVIL et al. (US 2021/0312818).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague disclose the method of claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein the first location is a current location of the drone.
However, Kadavil teaches wherein the first location is a current location of the drone (p. [0038]; UAV (i.e., drone) can transmit a request for a flight plan (i.e., route) including a start location which is usually the current location obtained via the GPS receiver). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Bender, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague with the teachings of Kadavil, in order to determine a route to guide the drone from its current location to the destination.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague disclose the dynamic routing system of claim 16, but does not particularly disclose wherein the hardware processor determines the first location of the drone based on location data obtained from a satellite.
However, Kadavil teaches wherein the hardware processor determines the first location of the drone based on location data obtained from a satellite (p. [0038]; UAV (i.e., drone) can transmit a request for a flight plan (i.e., route) including a start location which is usually the current location obtained via the GPS receiver). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Bender, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague with the teachings of Kadavil, since determining location data from a satellite is well-known and provides accurate location information.
8. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WINKLE et al. in views of McGUIRE et al., DAVE et al., ROSS et al., TEAGUE, and CAJIAS et al. (US 2020/0370908).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague disclose the method of claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein the second location is determined from itinerary data provided by the drone.
However, Cajias teaches wherein the second location is determined from itinerary data provided by a device (p. [0084]; The mobile apparatus 20 may determine a current location of the mobile apparatus (e.g., via the location sensor(s) 29) and determine a predicted destination of the route (based on past trips, information/data stored in a digital calendar (i.e., itinerary data) corresponding to a user of the mobile apparatus 20, based on planned trips, and/or the like). The mobile apparatus 20 may then automatically initiate the generation of a route request.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague with the teachings of Cajias, since such a modification would allow to determine a predicted destination of the route based on stored calendar data or planned trips to automatically initiate the generation of a route request.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, Teague, and Song disclose the method of claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein the second location is predicted based at least in part on a travel trajectory of the drone or historical travel data for the drone.
However, Cajias teaches wherein the second location is predicted based at least in part on a travel trajectory of a device or historical travel data for the device (p. [0084]; The mobile apparatus 20 may determine a current location of the mobile apparatus (e.g., via the location sensor(s) 29) and determine a predicted destination of the route (based on past trips (i.e., historical travel data), information/data stored in a digital calendar corresponding to a user of the mobile apparatus 20, based on planned trips, and/or the like). The mobile apparatus 20 may then automatically initiate the generation of a route request.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague with the teachings of Cajias, since such a modification would allow to determine a predicted destination of the route based on information about past trips to automatically initiate the generation of a route request.
9. Claims 3, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WINKLE et al. in views of McGUIRE et al., DAVE et al., ROSS et al., TEAGUE, and BALL et al. (US 2015/0351073).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague disclose the method of claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein the dynamic routing system is included in a satellite configured to communicate with the drone.
However, Ball teaches wherein the dynamic routing system is included in a satellite configured to communicate with a wireless device (p. [0088]; A navigation system provides directions or route information, which may be displayed to a user. In some embodiments, the navigation feature of the client device provides real-time route and direction information based upon location information and route information received from a map service and/or other location system, such as a Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) system). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague with the teachings of Ball, since such a modification would allow the wireless device to receive route information remotely from a satellite system based on accurate location information from determine from a global positioning satellite system.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague disclose the method of claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein an identity of the first route is transmitted by a satellite to the drone.
However, Ball teaches wherein an identity of the first route is transmitted by a satellite to a wireless device (p. [0088]; A navigation system provides directions or route information, which may be displayed to a user. In some embodiments, the navigation feature of the client device provides real-time route and direction information based upon location information and route information received from a map service and/or other location system, such as a Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) system). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague with the teachings of Ball, since such a modification would allow the wireless device to receive route information remotely from a satellite system based on accurate location information from determine from a global positioning satellite system.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague disclose the dynamic routing system of claim 16, but does not particularly disclose wherein the dynamic routing system is a Satellite that is part of a satellite network.
However, Ball teaches wherein the dynamic routing system is a Satellite that is part of a satellite network (p. [0088]; A navigation system provides directions or route information, which may be displayed to a user. In some embodiments, the navigation feature of the client device provides real-time route and direction information based upon location information and route information received from a map service and/or other location system, such as a Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) system). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague with the teachings of Ball, since such a modification would allow the wireless device to receive route information remotely from a satellite system based on accurate location information from determine from a global positioning satellite system.
10. Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WINKLE et al. in views of McGUIRE et al., DAVE et al., ROSS et al., TEAGUE, and LEADER et al. (US 2013/0345961).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague disclose the method of claim 1, but does not particularly disclose further comprising providing an identity of the first route to the drone.
However, Leader teaches providing an identity of the first route to a device (abstract; p. [071]; Leader teaches selecting a particular route and providing route information that identifies the particular selected route). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague with the teachings of Leader, since such a modification would provide a clear indication of the selected route to the device.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague disclose the dynamic routing system of claim 16, but does not particularly disclose wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute specific computer-executable instructions to at least cause an identity of the route to be transmitted to the drone.
However, Leader teaches processor is further configured to execute specific computer-executable instructions to at least cause an identity of the route to be transmitted to a device (abstract; p. [071]; Leader teaches selecting a particular route and providing route information that identifies the particular selected route). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague with the teachings of Leader, since such a modification would provide a clear indication of the selected route to the device.
11. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkle et al. in views of McGUIRE et al., DAVE et al., ROSS et al., TEAGUE, and HOLLEIS et al. (WO 2013/023955).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague disclose the method of claim 1, but does not particularly disclose further comprising generating a graph data structure, wherein each vertex within the graph data structure corresponds to a base station and wherein each edge between vertexes is weighted with one or more weights determined based at least in part on signal strength data and the additional communication data for one or more available communication networks accessible from base stations corresponding to vertexes connected by the edge.
However, Holleis teaches generating a graph data structure, wherein each vertex within the graph data structure corresponds to a base station and wherein each edge between vertexes is weighted with one or more weights determined based at least in part on signal strength data and the additional communication data for one or more available communication networks accessible from base stations corresponding to vertexes connected by the edge (page 6, lines 20-end; page 8, lines 9-page 9, lines 1-12; based on neighbor tables a graph is created, in the network nodes (i.e., base station) are graph vertices and the edges in the graphs represent possible communication channels…additional information such as signal strength is represented as attributes or as weights for the graph edges). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague with the teachings of Holleis, in order to visualize the wireless signal strength in a given area relative to the network nodes.
12. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WINKLE et al. in views of McGUIRE et al., DAVE et al., ROSS et al., TEAGUE, HOLLEIS et al., and MANNEPALLI et al. (US 9,212,920).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, Teague, and Holleis disclose the method of claim 10, but does not particularly disclose wherein selecting the first route comprises solving a shortest path algorithm based on the one or more weights applied to each edge of the graph data structure.
However, Manepalli teaches wherein selecting the first route comprises solving a shortest path algorithm based on the one or more weights applied to each edge of the graph data structure (col. 2, lines 33-44; col. 5, lines 63-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, Teague, and Holleis with the teachings Manepalli, since it is a well-known algorithm to obtain a proposed route from a plurality of potential routes.
13. Claim 12-13, and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WINKLE et al. in views of McGUIRE et al., DAVE et al., ROSS et al., TEAGUE,and HASSAN et al. (US 2021/0029612).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague disclose the method of claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein selecting the first route further comprises selecting a communication network accessible along the first route, and wherein the communication network is selected from communication networks supported by the drone
However, Hassan teaches wherein selecting the first route further comprises selecting a communication network accessible along the first route, and wherein the communication network is selected from communication networks supported by a wireless device (p. [0035], [0037]; while the device is traveling the selected route, the device may connect to one or more networks, the one or more networks may be specified by the suggested route). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague with the teachings of Hassan, since such a modification would allow the wireless device to connect to a wireless network while traveling the selected route.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague disclose the method of claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein selecting the first route further comprises selecting a communication network for each route portion of the first route, wherein the communication network for each route portion is selected from communication networks supported by the drone.
However, Hassan teaches wherein selecting the first route further comprises selecting a communication network for each route portion of the first route, wherein the communication network for each route portion is selected from communication networks supported by a wireless device (p. [0035], [0037]; While the device is traveling the selected route, the device may connect to one or more networks. The one or more networks may be specified by the suggested route or discovered while traveling the suggested route. For example, the device may connect to a first network (e.g., a cellular network) for a first portion of the route and to a second network (e.g., a WiFi network) for a second portion of the route). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Bender, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague with the teachings of Hassan, since such a modification would allow the wireless device to connect to different available wireless networks while traveling the selected route.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague disclose the dynamic routing system of claim 16, but does not particularly disclose wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute specific computer-executable instructions to at least select a communication network supported by the drone along one or more route portions of the route based at least in part on signal strength data and the additional communication data.
However, Hassan teaches wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute specific computer-executable instructions to at least select a communication network supported by a wireless device along one or more route portions of the route based at least in part on signal strength data and the additional communication data (p. [0022], [0034], [0035], [0037]; while the device is traveling the selected route, the device may connect to one or more networks, the one or more networks may be specified by the suggested route). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague with the teachings of Hassan, since such a modification would allow the wireless device to connect to a wireless network while traveling the selected route.
14. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WINKLE et al. in views of McGUIRE et al, DAVE et al., ROSS et al., TEAGUE, and WINKLE et al. (US 2019/0043251, hereinafter Winkle-251).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague disclose the dynamic routing system of claim 16, but does not particularly disclose wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute specific computer-executable instructions to at least:
obtain updated signal strength data associated with at least one communication network along at least one route from the set of eligible routes; and
selecting another route from the set of eligible routes based at least in part on the updated signal strength data.
However, Winkle-251 teaches wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute specific computer-executable instructions to at least:
obtain updated signal strength data associated with at least one communication network along at least one route from the set of eligible routes (Fig. 4, step 407; p. [0043]); and
selecting another route from the set of eligible routes based at least in part on the updated signal strength data (p. [0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague with the teachings of Winkle-251, since such a modification would provide an updated route based on the update wireless communication signal strength data that would avoid low signal strength zones.
15. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WINKLE et al. in views of McGUIRE et al, DAVE et al., ROSS et al., TEAGUE, and SIMON et al. (US 2019/0012636).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague disclose the method of claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein selecting the first route from the set of eligible routes is further based on one or more of: a prohibition for traversing private property by the drone or a requirement that the drone be at a certain height above a building.
However, Simon teaches wherein selecting the first route from the set of eligible routes is further based on one or more of: a prohibition for traversing private property by the drone or a requirement that the drone be at a certain height above a building (p. [0033], lines 20-end; the UAV may plan a route known obstacles, also local regulations may preclude transit of the UAV over private property, which may be considered a restricted area, the UAV may select a route that avoids restricted areas). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Winkle, McGuire, Dave, Ross, and Teague with the teachings of Simon, since such a modification would allow to identify a restricted area (i.e., private property) and select a route that avoids the restricted areas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISOL FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-7840. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Jinsong Hu can be reached at 571-272-3965. 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.
/MARISOL FIGUEROA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights