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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 17/915,941 filed on 09/29/2022.
• Claims 1, 3-13, 15-24, 26 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made Non-FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 03/13/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/29/2022 and 10/12/2022 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The complete step-by-step analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 is provided below:
STEP One: Do Claim 1 Fall Within One of The Statutory Categories?
Yes, claim 1 is directed towards a method (process).
STEP Two A , Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, claim 1 recites estimating a movement of the wireless device based on inputting the range information and the direction information from the single network node to an interactive multiple modeling (IMM) filter, wherein the IMM filter comprises a three-dimensional (3D) constant velocity model, a 3D constant acceleration model, and a 3D constant position model. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and mathematical relation but for the recitation of “use in a network node”. That is, other than reciting “use in a network node” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed using the mathematical relation of interactive multiple modeling filter in a pen and paper. For example, but for the “use in a network node” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and performing a mathematical calculation to predict whether the wireless device comprises an aerial vehicle or a ground- based user equipment based on the estimated movement. The mere nominal recitation of use in a network node does not take the claim limitations out of the mathematical relation grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical relation.
STEP Two A , Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites obtaining range information for a wireless device in communication with the network node and obtaining direction information for the wireless device wherein the range information is obtained based on radio signals transmitted between the network node and the wireless device. The obtaining steps from the wireless device is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering aerial vehicle movement data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “wireless device” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose aerial vehicle control environment. The wireless device is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the evaluating step. The method for use in a network node is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the evaluation steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The network node is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
STEP Two B: Does the Claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claims 3-12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 3-12 are not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 5, 9, 10, 11 recite how to determine the wireless device comprises an aerial vehicle based on the estimated movement, and that the wireless device is in or near a restricted airspace. These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim 5 encompass a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Thus, the claims 5 recites a mental process. Claims 9, 10, 11 are not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12 recite the additional element of send information to network node and obtain information for the wireless device which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 12-13, 15, 18-20, 24, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanes (US 20180152909 A1) in view of Blair (US5325098A), further in view of Damnjanovic (US20180233055A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 13 and 26:
Hanes teaches:
A method for use in a network node, the method comprising: obtaining range information for a wireless device in communication with the network node, wherein the range information is obtained based on radio signals transmitted between the network node and the wireless device, and wherein the range information represents a distance between the network node and the wireless device;(Hanes, para[34], “A wireless signal may then be received at the device ”, para[38], “a wireless network access device, such as wireless network access point 410, may transmit a first wireless UAV-locating signal,”, and para[26], “ track airborne UAVs within its wireless range”, and para[44], “determined, based on receiving multiple returned wireless signals, each indicative of a location of a different airborne UAV”, para [42], “A wireless network access point transmitting an RF pulse toward a potential target at 2 km” ) Examiner note: Once an UAV location has been determined, it would have been straightforward to calculate the distance between the UAV and the network node, since distance is a direct function of their know positions.
obtaining direction information for the wireless device, wherein the direction information is obtained based on radio signals transmitted between the network node and the wireless device; (Hanes, para[40], “In cases in which directional antenna(s) 415 include a phased array antenna or other controllable antenna , wireless network access point 410 may transmit a scanning signal across azimuth and elevation angles of a hemisphere centered at the wireless device”, para [42], “ wireless network device may therefore perform about nine full scans per second (75,000 angles per second/8,100 angles), which would be an adequate refresh frequency and angular resolution for surveying and tracking airborne UAV”)
estimating the movement of the wireless device based on…the range information and the direction information from the single network node (Hanes, para[26], “UAV locating process 248 may be operable to coordinate the detection and/or tracking of one or more UAVs via a wireless communication signal, such as a Wi-Fi signal, from one or more wireless network access points…track multiple UAV movements”)
Hanes does not explicitly teach, but Blair teaches:
estimating a movement of the wireless device based on inputting the range information and the direction information to an interactive multiple modeling (IMM) filter, ( Blair, Col 10, lines 29-37, “To demonstrate the maneuvering target tracking performance of the IMBM filtering system versus the IMM filtering system, simulation results will be presented for a radar tracking system. Measurements are zero-mean Gaussian with standard deviations of 8 meters in range and 0.002 radians in bearings and elevations. The radar measures the target position with period of 0.25 seconds. Targets performing multiple "g" maneuvers are expected”) Examiner note: Blair teaches estimating a movement of target performing high “g” maneuvers based on the inputting the range information and the direction information to an interactive multiple modeling (IMM) filter.
an interactive multiple modeling (IMM) filter, wherein the IMM filter comprises a three-dimensional (3D) constant velocity model, a 3D constant acceleration model, and a 3D constant position model;( Blair, Col 4,lines 19-25 “when implementing the IMM filter system for the maneuvering target problem, all model hypotheses filters must handle state estimation in terms of position and velocity (i.e., the Xk terms). This includes those filters that model constant acceleration as well as those that model constant velocity and/or constant position.”)
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 precise UAV tracking in 3-d space method from Hanes to include these above teachings from Blair in order to estimate a movement of the wireless device based on inputting the range information, and the direction information from the single network node to, and an interactive multiple modeling (IMM) filter, wherein the IMM filter comprises a three- dimensional (3D) constant velocity model, a 3D constant acceleration model, and a 3D constant position model. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improves on the computational efficiency of an IMM filter system heretofore used in the tracking of a maneuvering target” (Blair, Summary of the invention).
Hanes does not explicitly teach, but Damnjanovic teaches:
and determining whether the wireless device comprises an aerial vehicle or a ground- based user equipment based on the estimated movement. (Damnjanovic, abstract, “ the optional current height level may enable the wireless network to differentiate among drone UEs operating at different heights and/or from other UEs that are operating on the ground”)
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 precise UAV tracking in 3-d space method from Hanes to include these above teachings from Damnjanovic in order to include determining whether the wireless device comprises an aerial vehicle or a ground- based user equipment based on the estimated movement. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “differentiating between drones and ground devices and/or between drones operating at different heights” (Damnjanovic, Description)
Regarding Claims 3 and 15:
Hanes in view of Blair, Damnjanovic as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 13. Hanes teaches:
The method of claim1, further comprising signaling the estimated movement of the wireless device to another network node. (Hanes, para[27], “UAV locating process 248 may send data indicative of a received UAV locating signal to another device (e.g., in the fog, cloud, a server, etc.), for the actual location determination of a UAV, or use peer-to-peer networking with nearby devices 200”)
Regarding Claims 6 and 18:
Hanes in view of Blair, Damnjanovic as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 13. Hanes teaches:
The method of claim1, wherein obtaining the range information for the wireless device comprises calculating a transmission round trip time (RTT) between the network node and the wireless device. (Hanes, para[42], “A wireless network access point transmitting an RF pulse toward a potential target at 2 km within that angle would need to wait for a round-trip time of approximately 13 microseconds”, para[43],” A wireless signal may then be received at the device , which , in some embodiments , may be one or more portions of the first transmitted signal returned / reflected back by an airborne UAV within range of the wireless network access device”)
Regarding Claims 7 and 19:
Hanes in view of Blair, Damnjanovic as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 13. Hanes teaches:
The method of claim1, wherein obtaining the direction information for the wireless device comprises determining elevation and azimuth information for the wireless device.(Hanes, para[42], “ for the maximum allowable power in the Industrial , Scientific , and Medical ( ISM ) band with a directional antenna …Assuming 2 degree separation for both azimuth and elevation , there are 180 azimuths with 45 elevation angles”)
Regarding Claims 8 and 20:
Hanes in view of Blair, Damnjanovic as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 13. Hanes teaches:
The method of claim1, wherein obtaining the direction information for the wireless device comprises determining one of an angle of arrival or an angle to transmission for a wireless transmission between the network node and the wireless device.(Hanes, para[40], “wireless network access point 410 may transmit a scanning signal across azimuth and elevation angles of a hemisphere centered at the wireless device”, para[42], “Assuming 2 degree separation for both azimuth and elevation , there are 180 azimuths with 45 elevation angles”)
Regarding Claims 12 and 24:
Hanes in view of Blair, Damnjanovic as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 13. Hanes teaches:
The method of claim1, wherein the network node comprises a base station.( Hanes , para[19], “the wireless network access point may be a device sometimes referred to a base station”)
Claim(s) 4, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanes (US 20180152909 A1) in view of in view of Blair (US5325098A), further in view of Damnjanovic (US20180233055A1) and Anderson (US 20200122830 A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 16:
Hanes in view of Blair, Damnjanovic as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 13. Hanes does not explicitly teach, but Anderson teaches:
The method of claim1, further comprising disconnecting the wireless device from the network node. (Anderson, para[189], “UAV nodes that are disconnected from the 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 precise uav tracking in 3-d space method from Hanes in view of Blair, Damnjanovic to include these above teachings from Anderson in order to disconnect the wireless device from the network node. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “avoid collisions with other aircraft or objects” (Anderson, Description)
Claim(s) 5, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanes (US 20180152909 A1) in view of Blair (US5325098A), further in view of Damnjanovic (US20180233055A1) and Anderson (US 20200122830 A1), Petruzzelli (US10310498B2).
Regarding Claims 5 and 17:
Hanes in view of Blair, Damnjanovic, Anderson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4. Hanes teaches:
The method of claim 4, further comprising determining, based on the estimated position of the wireless device, (Hanes, para[26], “detection and/or tracking of one or more UAVs via a wireless communication signal… be able to track multiple UAV movements”)
Hanes in view of Blair, Damnjanovic does not explicitly teach, but Anderson teaches:
and wherein disconnecting the wireless device from the network node is performed…(Anderson, para[189], “UAV nodes that are disconnected from the 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 precise uav tracking in 3-d space method from Hanes in view of Blair, Damnjanovic to include these above teachings from Anderson in order to disconnect the wireless device from the network node. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “avoid collisions with other aircraft or objects” (Anderson, Description)
Hanes in view of Blair, Damnjanovic, Anderson, does not explicitly teach, but Petruzzelli teaches:
that the wireless device is in or near a restricted airspace, (Petruzzelli, Col.11, lines 54-55, “the management system may determine whether the UAV is within restricted airspace”)
…in response to determining the wireless device is in or near the restricted airspace. (Petruzzelli , Col.11, lines 54-55, “the management system may determine whether the UAV is within restricted airspace”)
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 precise uav tracking in 3-d space method from Hanes in view of Blair, Damnjanovic , Anderson to include these above teachings from Petruzzelli in order to determine the wireless device is in or near the restricted airspace. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid inappropriately operated in restricted area.
Claim(s) 9, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanes (US 20180152909 A1) in view of Blair (US5325098A), Damnjanovic (US20180233055A1), in further view of Jung (US 20180069606 A1).
Regarding Claims 9 and 21:
Hanes in view of Blair, Damnjanovic as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 13. Hanes in view of Blair, Damnjanovic does not explicitly teach, but Jung teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the direction information for the wireless device comprises determining codebook based beamforming information for the wireless device. (Jung, para[190], “include at least one of an index of a precoding codebook used in a digital end, a beamforming)
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 precise uav tracking in 3-d space method from Hanes in view of Blair, Damnjanovic to include these above teachings from Jung in order to include wherein obtaining the direction information for the wireless device comprises determining codebook based beamforming information for the wireless device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have “an effect of acquiring a high output amount and a low delay service” (Jung, Description)
Claim(s) 10, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanes (US 20180152909 A1) in view of Blair (US5325098A), Damnjanovic (US20180233055A1), in further view of Bakr (US10348394B1).
Regarding Claims 10 and 22:
Hanes in view of Blair, Damnjanovic as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 13. Hanes in view of Blair, Damnjanovic does not explicitly teach, but Bakr teaches:
The method of claim1, wherein obtaining the direction information for the wireless device comprises determining reciprocity assisted beamforming information for the wireless device. (Bakr, Col.61, lines 63-64 “channel reciprocity, which is critical for beamforming”)
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 precise uav tracking in 3-d space method from Hanes in view of Blair, Damnjanovic to include these above teachings from Bakr in order to include wherein obtaining the direction information for the wireless device comprises determining reciprocity assisted beamforming information for the wireless device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as “the latency can be made smaller” (Bakr, Description)
Claim(s) 11, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanes (US 20180152909 A1) in view of Blair (US5325098A), Damnjanovic (US20180233055A1), in further view of Di (US 20190094887 A1).
Regarding Claims 11 and 23:
Hanes in view of Blair, Damnjanovic as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 13. Hanes in view of Blair, Damnjanovic does not explicitly teach, but Di teaches:
The method of claim1, wherein estimating the movement of the wireless device is further based on a difference between an estimated altitude of the wireless device and an obtained ground altitude.(, Fig.3 and para [55],” The altitudes 308 and 310 are with respect to an object 312 below the controller 300 . … the object 312 can be an outdoor element ( e . g . , a portion of ground , earth , rock , or the like ; a topographical phenomenon , such as a hill or bluff ; a building or other structure ; or the like ) …The altitude 308 reflects a distance between the controller 300 and the object 312 , such as along a Y - axis within a three - dimensional space . The altitude 310 reflects a distance between the UAV 302 and the object 312”)
PNG
media_image1.png
648
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 precise uav tracking in 3-d space method from Hanes in view of Wang and Anand, Damnjanovic to include these above teachings from Di in order to include wherein estimating the movement of the wireless device is further based on a difference between an estimated altitude of the wireless device and an obtained ground altitude. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as “improve the accuracy” (Di, Description)
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
101 rejections. Applicant argues the claim 1 is directed to a technological improvement for a single network node to determine whether a wireless device is an aerial vehicle, and is not abstract idea.
In response to A. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites estimating a movement of the wireless device based on the range information, the direction information, and an interactive multiple modeling (IMM) filter, wherein the IMM filter comprises a three-dimensional (3D) constant velocity model, a 3D constant acceleration model, and a 3D constant position model. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and mathematical relation but for the recitation of “use in a network node”. That is, other than reciting “use in a network node” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed using mathematical relation of interactive multiple modeling filter. For example, but for the “use in a network node” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and performing a mathematical calculation to predict whether the wireless device comprises an aerial vehicle or a ground- based user equipment based on the estimated movement. The mere nominal recitation of use in a network node does not take the claim limitations out of the mathematical relation grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical relation. The claim recites obtaining range information for a wireless device in communication with the network node and obtaining direction information for the wireless device wherein the range information is obtained based on radio signals transmitted between the network node and the wireless device. The obtaining steps from the wireless device is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering aerial vehicle movement data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “wireless device” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose aerial vehicle control environment. The wireless device is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the evaluating step. The method for use in a network node is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the evaluation steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The network node is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
103 rejections. Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 (See applicant’s response, page 8-11, “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103”) 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights