Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to amendments
This Office Action is in response to the amended file, filed on 09/10/2025. Claims 1, 8, 15 are amended. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Independent claim 1 is directed toward a method, claim 8 is directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium, and claim 15 is directed toward an apparatus. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1, 8, 15 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 are directed to a statutory category of invention under step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts. In this case, the independent claims 1, 8, 15 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. The language of independent claim 1 is used for illustration:
A method for generating a plan for a vehicle, the method comprising: receiving information indicating a location of each of a plurality of communication nodes and the vehicle during a first time period and a second time period, the vehicle configured to send wireless signals to and receive wireless signals with the plurality of communication nodes; (Pre solution insufficient activity);
and developing a plan that defines a path of motion for the vehicle and a configuration for an antenna on the vehicle during the first time period and the second time period based on connectivity between the vehicle and the plurality of communication nodes; (A person could mentally observe and process data information);
and generating a plurality of travel waypoints for the vehicle to implement the plan. (Post solution insufficient activity);
As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims 8, 15 which are of a similar scope to claim 1, likewise recite at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d)
In this case, the mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. For example, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the additional elements of a non-transitory processor readable medium, one or more processing devices, and a data storage medium. These limitations amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer, add insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally link use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d). More specifically,
non-transitory processor readable medium… This limitation amounts to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use
one or more processing devices… This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer
data storage medium… This limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer
Therefore, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Because the additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, independent claims 1, 8, 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle controller to perform the evaluating… amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “one or more processing devices” “data storage medium” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “one or more processing devices” “data storage medium” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1, 8, 15 are patent ineligible. Therefore, claims 1-20 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hudson et al (U.S. Pub. NO. 2018/0220352).
With regard to claim 1, Hudson discloses A method for generating a plan for a vehicle, the method comprising: (discloses methods for planning vehicle motion and optimizing antenna configuration to maintain connectivity with communication nodes.) (Hudson, Abstract)
receiving information indicating a location of each of a plurality of communication nodes and the vehicle during a first time period and a second time period, the vehicle configured to send wireless signals to and receive wireless signals with the plurality of communication nodes; (Describes receiving location data for both communication nodes and the vehicle to facilitate connectivity. The intelligent communications management module is configured to manage multiple communications links, which may include (but are not limited to) tactical data links, satellite links, free space optical links and other data links. The method considers multiple factors when determining the Connectivity Metric, such as the mission environment (e.g. obstacles, terrain, and interference), installed communication links and antennas.) (Hudson, [060], [079])
developing a plan that defines a path of motion for the vehicle and a configuration for an antenna on the vehicle during the first time period and the second time period based on connectivity between the vehicle and the plurality of communication nodes; (Describes receiving location data for both communication nodes and the vehicle to facilitate connectivity and adjusting antenna configurations dynamically to maintain connectivity. A dynamic route planner configured to generate a route plan or a dynamic obstacle avoidance planner configured to generate a new heading plan in respect of said moving platform, a communications system said communications system comprising at least one platform application and being configured to effect wireless data communication between said platform and another node by means of one of a plurality of supported communications links in accordance with a communications plan, and apparatus substantially as described above, wherein said dynamic route planner or said dynamic obstacle avoidance planner is configured to use said connectivity map to generate a route plan. A node needs to consider the impact on its ability to communicate when planning its next move The above-mentioned connectivity map provides the dynamic planner (e.g. route, manoeuvre planner) with information to help the mobile node to intelligently move to a location while maintaining connectivity to a fixed and/or mobile node. The core function of generating a vehicle path and managing communication settings based on connectivity is broadly covered by the functional description and components of the system.) (Hudson, [034], [051], [053], [063])
and generating a plurality of travel waypoints for the vehicle to implement the plan. (Describes a dynamic planner is typically provided in respect of, for example, a UAV for planning its route/path, from a start point (typically, but not always) to a defined end point (and optionally including any defined waypoints therebetween), as well as planning its manoeuvre and/or trajectory) (Hudson, [069], FIG. 2)
With regard to claim 2, Hudson discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Hudson discloses wherein the antenna is a steerable antenna and the configuration for the antenna is a first direction during the first time period and a second direction during the second time period. (Discloses phased array antennas capable of dynamically steering beams in different directions over time) (Hudson, [060], [063])
With regard to claim 5, Hudson discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Hudson discloses wherein the steerable antenna is one of a physically steerable antenna or a phase-array antenna. (The reference discloses phased array antennas capable of dynamic beam steering) (Hudson, [060])
With regard to claim 6, Hudson discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Hudson discloses wherein the vehicles is an aircraft and the plan is a flight plan that defines a path of motion for the aircraft in flight. (The reference explicitly applies to vehicles, including aircraft and describes methods for maintaining connectivity during motion, inherently involving flight planning) (Hudson, [052])
With regard to claim 7, Hudson discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Hudson discloses wherein the plurality of communication nodes are aircraft (the reference discusses communication between vehicles which could include aircraft as communication nodes) (Hudson, [053])
With regard to claim 8, Hudson discloses A non-transitory processor readable medium comprising: instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processing devices, cause the one or more processing devices to: receive information indicating a location of each of a plurality of communication nodes and the vehicle during a first time period and a second time period, the vehicle configured to send wireless signals to and receive wireless signals with the plurality of communication nodes; (Describes receiving location data for both communication nodes and the vehicle to facilitate connectivity. The intelligent communications management module is configured to manage multiple communications links, which may include (but are not limited to) tactical data links, satellite links, free space optical links and other data links. The method considers multiple factors when determining the Connectivity Metric, such as the mission environment (e.g. obstacles, terrain, and interference), installed communication links and antennas.) (Hudson, [060], [079])
develop a plan that defines a path of motion for the vehicle and a configuration for an antenna on the vehicle during the first time period and the second time period based on connectivity between the vehicle and the plurality of communication nodes; Describes receiving location data for both communication nodes and the vehicle to facilitate connectivity and adjusting antenna configurations dynamically to maintain connectivity. A dynamic route planner configured to generate a route plan or a dynamic obstacle avoidance planner configured to generate a new heading plan in respect of said moving platform, a communications system said communications system comprising at least one platform application and being configured to effect wireless data communication between said platform and another node by means of one of a plurality of supported communications links in accordance with a communications plan, and apparatus substantially as described above, wherein said dynamic route planner or said dynamic obstacle avoidance planner is configured to use said connectivity map to generate a route plan. A node needs to consider the impact on its ability to communicate when planning its next move The above-mentioned connectivity map provides the dynamic planner (e.g. route, manoeuvre planner) with information to help the mobile node to intelligently move to a location while maintaining connectivity to a fixed and/or mobile node. The core function of generating a vehicle path and managing communication settings based on connectivity is broadly covered by the functional description and components of the system.) (Hudson, [034], [051], [053], [063])
and generate a plurality of travel waypoints for the vehicle to implement the plan. (Describes a dynamic planner is typically provided in respect of, for example, a UAV for planning its route/path, from a start point (typically, but not always) to a defined end point (and optionally including any defined waypoints therebetween), as well as planning its manoeuvre and/or trajectory) (Hudson, [069], FIG. 2)
With regard to claim 9, Hudson discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. Additionally, Hudson discloses wherein the antenna is a steerable antenna and the configuration for the antenna is a first direction during the first time period and a second direction during the second time period. (Discloses phased array antennas capable of dynamically steering beams in different directions over time) (Hudson, [060], [063])
With regard to claim 12, Hudson discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. Additionally, Hudson discloses wherein the steerable antenna is one of a physically steerable antenna or a phase-array antenna. (The reference discloses phased array antennas capable of dynamic beam steering) (Hudson, [060])
With regard to claim 13, Hudson discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. Additionally, Hudson discloses wherein the vehicle is an aircraft, and the plan is a flight plan that defines a path of motion for the aircraft in flight. (The reference explicitly applies to vehicles, including aircraft and describes methods for maintaining connectivity during motion, inherently involving flight planning) (Hudson, [052])
With regard to claim 14, Hudson discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Hudson discloses wherein the plurality of communication nodes are aircraft. (The reference discusses communication between vehicles which could include aircraft as communication nodes) (Hudson, [053])
With regard to claim 15, Hudson discloses A communication device for installing on a vehicle, the device comprising: one or more processing devices; and a data storage medium coupled to the one or more processing devices, the data storage medium having instructions stored thereon (Discloses onboard algorithms that dynamically adjust antenna configurations based on signal strength measurements, fig. 2 shows an intelligent management system which is an equivalent) (Hudson, [069])
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processing devices, cause the one or more processing devices to: receive information indicating a location of each of a plurality of communication nodes and the vehicle during a first time period and a second time period, the vehicle configured to send wireless signals to and receive wireless signals with the plurality of communication nodes; (Discloses a communication system installed in vehicles with processors that dynamically adjust antenna configurations based on connectivity requirements. The reference includes data storage media storing instructions for such operations) (Hudson, [063], [069])
develop a plan that defines a path of motion for the vehicle and a configuration for an antenna on the vehicle during the first time period and the second time period based on connectivity between the vehicle and the plurality of communication nodes; Describes receiving location data for both communication nodes and the vehicle to facilitate connectivity and adjusting antenna configurations dynamically to maintain connectivity. A dynamic route planner configured to generate a route plan or a dynamic obstacle avoidance planner configured to generate a new heading plan in respect of said moving platform, a communications system said communications system comprising at least one platform application and being configured to effect wireless data communication between said platform and another node by means of one of a plurality of supported communications links in accordance with a communications plan, and apparatus substantially as described above, wherein said dynamic route planner or said dynamic obstacle avoidance planner is configured to use said connectivity map to generate a route plan. A node needs to consider the impact on its ability to communicate when planning its next move The above-mentioned connectivity map provides the dynamic planner (e.g. route, manoeuvre planner) with information to help the mobile node to intelligently move to a location while maintaining connectivity to a fixed and/or mobile node. The core function of generating a vehicle path and managing communication settings based on connectivity is broadly covered by the functional description and components of the system.) (Hudson, [034], [051], [053], [063])
and generating a plurality of travel waypoints for the vehicle to implement the plan. (Describes a dynamic planner is typically provided in respect of, for example, a UAV for planning its route/path, from a start point (typically, but not always) to a defined end point (and optionally including any defined waypoints therebetween), as well as planning its manoeuvre and/or trajectory) (Hudson, [069], FIG. 2)
With regard to claim 16, Hudson discloses all of the limitations of claim 15. Additionally, Hudson discloses wherein the antenna is a steerable antenna and the configuration for the antenna is a first direction during the first time period and a second direction during the second time period. (Discloses phased array antennas capable of dynamically steering beams in different directions over time) (Hudson, [060], [063])
With regard to claim 19, Hudson discloses all of the limitations of claim 15. Additionally, Hudson discloses wherein the steerable antenna is one of a physically steerable antenna or a phase-array antenna. (The reference discloses phased array antennas capable of dynamic beam steering) (Hudson, [060])
With regard to claim 20, Hudson discloses all of the limitations of claim 15. Additionally, Hudson discloses wherein the vehicle is an aircraft, and the plan is a flight plan that defines a path of motion for the aircraft in flight. (The reference explicitly applies to vehicles, including aircraft and describes methods for maintaining connectivity during motion, inherently involving flight planning) (Hudson, [052])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-4, 10-11, 17-18 are rejected under35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Hudson, as applied to independent claim 1 above, in view Markus Valter et al. (U.S. Pub. NO. 2002/0107010).
With regards to claim 3, Hudson discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Markus Valter teaches wherein the plan optimizes data throughput between a first subset of the plurality of communication nodes and a second subset of the plurality of communication nodes during the first time period and the second time period, wherein the first subset and the second subset are communicatively coupled via communication links with the vehicle. (The reference teaches adaptive antenna systems that optimizes data throughput by dynamically adjusting radiation patterns to improve signal reception and transmission. The reference discusses managing multiple communication units simultaneously based on signal quality or interference level which is an equivalent) (Markus Valter, [009], [012])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified A method for generating a plan for a vehicle, the method comprising: receiving information indicating a location of each of a plurality of communication nodes and the vehicle during a first time period and a second time period, the vehicle configured to send wireless signals to and receive wireless signals with the plurality of communication nodes; developing a plan that defines a path of motion for the vehicle and a configuration for an antenna on the vehicle during the first time period and the second time period based on connectivity between the vehicle and the plurality of communication nodes; and generating a plurality of travel waypoints for the vehicle to implement the plan disclosed by Hudson to include the wherein the plan optimizes data throughput between a first subset of the plurality of communication nodes and a second subset of the plurality of communication nodes during the first time period and the second time period, wherein the first subset and the second subset are communicatively coupled via communication links with the vehicle of Markus Valter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to meet the clear and known industry need for improved network performance and reliability in vehicle-to-infrastructure communication. By integrating Markus Valter's adaptive antenna technology, which optimizes data throughput, into Hudson system for generating a vehicle's motion and antenna plan, a skilled artisan could enhance the overall system by addressing a fundamental challenge: ensuring consistent and high-quality data exchange while the vehicle is in motion. This combination would be a logical and predictable refinement, as both references address related problems concerning vehicle communication, and combining them offers a clear benefit of a more robust and efficient communication plan. The modification would allow the vehicle to not only follow a path and adjust its antenna but to do so in a manner that maximizes the data transfer rate with the most suitable communication nodes available at any given time, thereby creating a more valuable and commercially viable system as suggested by Markus Valter at [009], [012].
With regards to claim 4, Hudson discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Markus Valter teaches wherein the plan optimizes data throughput by prioritizing communication links between the vehicle and the first and second subsets that have higher throughput. (The reference teaches an adaptive communication unit that is prioritizing communication links based on signal strength or quality to optimize overall system performance which is an equivalent.) (Markus Valter, [009])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified A method for generating a plan for a vehicle, the method comprising: receiving information indicating a location of each of a plurality of communication nodes and the vehicle during a first time period and a second time period, the vehicle configured to send wireless signals to and receive wireless signals with the plurality of communication nodes; developing a plan that defines a path of motion for the vehicle and a configuration for an antenna on the vehicle during the first time period and the second time period based on connectivity between the vehicle and the plurality of communication nodes; and generating a plurality of travel waypoints for the vehicle to implement the plan disclosed by Hudson to include the wherein the plan optimizes data throughput by prioritizing communication links between the vehicle and the first and second subsets that have higher throughput of Markus Valter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to meet the clear industry need for more reliable and higher-performance vehicle communication systems. Hudson discloses a basic method for developing a vehicle path and antenna configuration based on connectivity, while Markus Valter teaches the more sophisticated optimization of data throughput by prioritizing higher-quality communication links. A skilled artisan would have recognized that integrating Markus Valter's prioritization technique into Hudson planning system would be a predictable and straightforward way to enhance the system's efficiency and reliability. The combination directly addresses the problem of inconsistent data exchange inherent to vehicle mobility by enabling the vehicle to dynamically prioritize and use the best available communication links, thereby creating a more robust and commercially viable system. This market-driven motivation for improving network performance provides a clear rationale for combining the two references, making the resulting invention obvious to one skilled in the art as suggested by Markus Valter at [009].
With regards to claim 10, Hudson discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. However, Markus Valter teaches wherein the plan optimizes data throughput between a first subset of the plurality of communication nodes and a second subset of the plurality of communication nodes during the first time period and the second time period, wherein the first subset and the second subset are communicatively coupled via communication links with the vehicle. The reference teaches adaptive antenna systems that optimizes data throughput by dynamically adjusting radiation patterns to improve signal reception and transmission. The reference discusses managing multiple communication units simultaneously based on signal quality or interference level which is an equivalent) (Markus Valter, [009], [012])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified A non-transitory processor readable medium comprising: instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processing devices, cause the one or more processing devices to: receive information indicating a location of each of a plurality of communication nodes and the vehicle during a first time period and a second time period, the vehicle configured to send wireless signals to and receive wireless signals with the plurality of communication nodes; develop a plan that defines a path of motion for the vehicle and a configuration for an antenna on the vehicle during the first time period and the second time period based on connectivity between the vehicle and the plurality of communication nodes; and generate a plurality of travel waypoints for the vehicle to implement the plan disclosed by Hudson to include the wherein the plan optimizes data throughput between a first subset of the plurality of communication nodes and a second subset of the plurality of communication nodes during the first time period and the second time period, wherein the first subset and the second subset are communicatively coupled via communication links with the vehicle of Markus Valter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to meet the clear and known industry need for improved network performance and reliability in vehicle-to-infrastructure communication. By integrating Markus Valter's adaptive antenna technology, which optimizes data throughput, into Hudson system for generating a vehicle's motion and antenna plan, a skilled artisan could enhance the overall system by addressing a fundamental challenge: ensuring consistent and high-quality data exchange while the vehicle is in motion. This combination would be a logical and predictable refinement, as both references address related problems concerning vehicle communication, and combining them offers a clear benefit of a more robust and efficient communication plan. The modification would allow the vehicle to not only follow a path and adjust its antenna but to do so in a manner that maximizes the data transfer rate with the most suitable communication nodes available at any given time, thereby creating a more valuable and commercially viable system as suggested by Markus Valter at [009], [012].
With regards to claim 11, Hudson discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. However, Markus Valter teaches wherein the plan optimizes data throughput by prioritizing communication links between the vehicle and the first and second subsets that have higher throughput. (The reference teaches an adaptive communication unit that is prioritizing communication links based on signal strength or quality to optimize overall system performance which is an equivalent.) (Markus Valter, [009])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified A non-transitory processor readable medium comprising: instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processing devices, cause the one or more processing devices to: receive information indicating a location of each of a plurality of communication nodes and the vehicle during a first time period and a second time period, the vehicle configured to send wireless signals to and receive wireless signals with the plurality of communication nodes; develop a plan that defines a path of motion for the vehicle and a configuration for an antenna on the vehicle during the first time period and the second time period based on connectivity between the vehicle and the plurality of communication nodes; and generate a plurality of travel waypoints for the vehicle to implement the plan disclosed by Hudson to include the wherein the plan optimizes data throughput by prioritizing communication links between the vehicle and the first and second subsets that have higher throughput of Markus Valter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to meet the clear industry need for more reliable and higher-performance vehicle communication systems. Hudson discloses a basic method for developing a vehicle path and antenna configuration based on connectivity, while Markus Valter teaches the more sophisticated optimization of data throughput by prioritizing higher-quality communication links. A skilled artisan would have recognized that integrating Markus Valter's prioritization technique into Hudson planning system would be a predictable and straightforward way to enhance the system's efficiency and reliability. The combination directly addresses the problem of inconsistent data exchange inherent to vehicle mobility by enabling the vehicle to dynamically prioritize and use the best available communication links, thereby creating a more robust and commercially viable system. This market-driven motivation for improving network performance provides a clear rationale for combining the two references, making the resulting invention obvious to one skilled in the art as suggested by Markus Valter at [009].
With regards to claim 17, Hudson discloses all of the limitations of claim 15. However, Markus Valter teaches wherein the plan optimizes data throughput between a first subset of the plurality of communication nodes and a second subset of the plurality of communication nodes during the first time period and the second time period, wherein the first subset and the second subset are communicatively coupled via communication links with the vehicle. The reference teaches adaptive antenna systems that optimizes data throughput by dynamically adjusting radiation patterns to improve signal reception and transmission. The reference discusses managing multiple communication units simultaneously based on signal quality or interference level which is an equivalent) (Markus Valter, [009], [012])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified A communication device for installing on a vehicle, the device comprising: one or more processing devices; and a data storage medium coupled to the one or more processing devices, the data storage medium having instructions stored thereon wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processing devices, cause the one or more processing devices to: receive information indicating a location of each of a plurality of communication nodes and the vehicle during a first time period and a second time period, the vehicle configured to send wireless signals to and receive wireless signals with the plurality of communication nodes; develop a plan that defines a path of motion for the vehicle and a configuration for an antenna on the vehicle during the first time period and the second time period based on connectivity between the vehicle and the plurality of communication nodes; and generating a plurality of travel waypoints for the vehicle to implement the plan disclosed by Hudson to include the wherein the plan optimizes data throughput between a first subset of the plurality of communication nodes and a second subset of the plurality of communication nodes during the first time period and the second time period, wherein the first subset and the second subset are communicatively coupled via communication links with the vehicle of Markus Valter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to meet the clear and known industry need for improved network performance and reliability in vehicle-to-infrastructure communication. By integrating Markus Valter's adaptive antenna technology, which optimizes data throughput, into Hudson system for generating a vehicle's motion and antenna plan, a skilled artisan could enhance the overall system by addressing a fundamental challenge: ensuring consistent and high-quality data exchange while the vehicle is in motion. This combination would be a logical and predictable refinement, as both references address related problems concerning vehicle communication, and combining them offers a clear benefit of a more robust and efficient communication plan. The modification would allow the vehicle to not only follow a path and adjust its antenna but to do so in a manner that maximizes the data transfer rate with the most suitable communication nodes available at any given time, thereby creating a more valuable and commercially viable system as suggested by Markus Valter at [009], [012].
With regards to claim 18, Hudson discloses all of the limitations of claim 15. However, Markus Valter teaches wherein the plan optimizes data throughput by prioritizing communication links between the vehicle and the first and second subsets that have higher throughput. (The reference teaches an adaptive communication unit that is prioritizing communication links based on signal strength or quality to optimize overall system performance which is an equivalent.) (Markus Valter, [009])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified A communication device for installing on a vehicle, the device comprising: one or more processing devices; and a data storage medium coupled to the one or more processing devices, the data storage medium having instructions stored thereon wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processing devices, cause the one or more processing devices to: receive information indicating a location of each of a plurality of communication nodes and the vehicle during a first time period and a second time period, the vehicle configured to send wireless signals to and receive wireless signals with the plurality of communication nodes; develop a plan that defines a path of motion for the vehicle and a configuration for an antenna on the vehicle during the first time period and the second time period based on connectivity between the vehicle and the plurality of communication nodes; and generating a plurality of travel waypoints for the vehicle to implement the plan disclosed by Hudson to include the wherein the plan optimizes data throughput by prioritizing communication links between the vehicle and the first and second subsets that have higher throughput of Markus Valter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to meet the clear industry need for more reliable and higher-performance vehicle communication systems. Hudson discloses a basic method for developing a vehicle path and antenna configuration based on connectivity, while Markus Valter teaches the more sophisticated optimization of data throughput by prioritizing higher-quality communication links. A skilled artisan would have recognized that integrating Markus Valter's prioritization technique into Hudson planning system would be a predictable and straightforward way to enhance the system's efficiency and reliability. The combination directly addresses the problem of inconsistent data exchange inherent to vehicle mobility by enabling the vehicle to dynamically prioritize and use the best available communication links, thereby creating a more robust and commercially viable system. This market-driven motivation for improving network performance provides a clear rationale for combining the two references, making the resulting invention obvious to one skilled in the art as suggested by Markus Valter at [009].
Response to amendments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, the examiner still maintains the same prior art Hudson & Markus Valter for claims 1-20.
Applicant's amendments do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections of claims 1-20
(A) Applicant argues… Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections. Amended claim 1 recites in pertinent part: "generating a plurality of travel waypoints for the vehicle to implement the plan". Applicant respectfully asserts that this is not a mental process. Generating waypoints is a process done by a navigation system, not a human. Thus, amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea and is proper patentable subject matter. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 101 rejection to claim 1. Claims 2-20 depend from claim 1 or contain limitations similar to claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 101 rejection to these claims for the reasons provided with respect to claim 1.
As to (A), Examiner respectfully disagrees, the examiner appreciates the applicant’s position that generating waypoints is not a process a human can perform mentally, but respectfully maintains that the claim is still directed to an abstract idea. The generation of waypoints is merely an end result of the abstract idea of planning a vehicle's motion and antenna configuration based on connectivity. Implementing this idea on a computer to produce the waypoints does not add an "inventive concept" because the process is conventional, routine, and well-understood. The claim simply describes applying the abstract process using generic computer components, as in Alice Corp., and does not recite a technical improvement to the underlying technology.
Applicant's amendments do not overcome the U.S.C. §102 rejections of claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-16, 19-20
(B) Applicant argues… Claims 1, 2, 5-9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hudson et al. (U.S. 2018/0220352 - referred to as "Buchanan" in the Office Action). Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections. Amended claim 1 recites in pertinent part: "developing a plan that defines a path of motion for the vehicle and a configuration for an antenna on the vehicle during the first time period and the second time period". Hudson does not teach or suggest such a plan. The Office Action asserts that Hudson describes "adjusting antenna configurations dynamically to maintain connectivity" in paragraphs [051], [053], and [063]. Claim 1, however, recites a plan that defines ... a configuration for an antenna. Thus, claim 1 recites developing a plan, prior to execution of the plan by the vehicle, that defines both a path for the vehicle and a configuration for an antenna. Dynamically adjusting an antenna, as described in Hudson, refers to actions that are taken during execution by a vehicle. Hudson does not disclose a plan that defines both the path and a configuration for an antenna. For these reasons, Applicant respectfully asserts that Hudson does not teach or suggest each and every limitation of independent claim 1. Claims 2, 5-9, and 12-14 depend from claim 1 or contain limitations similar to claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the §102(a)(1) rejection to these claims for the reasons provided with respect to claim 1.
As to (B), Examiner respectfully disagrees, the examiner appreciates the applicant’s position that Hudson describes dynamic antenna adjustments and not a pre-defined plan, however, the distinction is not sufficient to overcome the rejection. The dynamic adjustments described in Hudson are based on a "communications plan" [051] and a "route plan" [063] that are generated by the vehicle's planner, which inherently defines the vehicle's path and antenna configuration over a period of time. A plan that defines a path of motion and a configuration for an antenna can be a dynamic plan, where adjustments are made according to changing circumstances. The fact that the adjustments are dynamic does not negate the existence of an underlying plan that guides those dynamic adjustments. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Hudson's disclosure of a dynamic planner that uses a communications plan and route plan to effect wireless data communication directly anticipates the claimed "plan that defines a path of motion for the vehicle and a configuration for an antenna."
Applicant's amendments do not overcome the U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 3-4, 10-11, 17-18
(C) Applicant argues… Claims 3, 4, 10, 11 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson et al., as applied to claim 1, in view of Markus Valter et al. (US 2002/0107010). Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections. Markus Valter does not remedy the defects of Hudson with respect to the rejection of claim 1. Thus, Applicant respectfully asserts that Hudson in view of Markus Valter does not teach or suggest each and every limitation of independent claim 1. Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, and 15-20 depend from claim 1 or contain limitations similar to claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 103 rejection to these claims for the reasons provided with respect to claim 1.
As to (C), Examiner respectfully disagrees, the examiner appreciates the applicant’s position that Markus Valter does not cure the deficiencies of Hudson as they relate to independent claim 1, but maintains that Markus Valter provides the additional limitations required for dependent claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18, making them obvious in light of the combination. Dependent claims are generally presumed to be obvious if the independent claim from which they depend is obvious, but it is also possible for a dependent claim to be obvious even if the independent claim is found to be non-obvious. In this case, the combination of Hudson and Markus Valter provides a clear motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings. Hudson teaches the basic system for vehicle path and antenna planning, while Markus Valter teaches the specific, predictable optimization techniques involving data throughput and link prioritization. The Examiner has provided a clear rationale, rooted in the known need for better network performance, for why a skilled artisan would have combined these predictable elements. Therefore, even if the rejection of claim 1 based on Hudson alone is challenged, the combination of references renders the dependent claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The arguments for claims 3 and 4 apply equally to their mirror claims 10, 11, 17, and 18, which contain similar limitations but may be in a different statutory category or format, as is common practice in claim mirroring.
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 ALI BAKKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4321. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:00 am to 3:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Hitesh Patel can be reached on (571) 270-5442.
Info