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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 7/24/2026 has been considered.
Response to Amendment
This office action has been changed in response to the amendment filed on 7/17/2026.
Claims 1-18 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Karatekeli does not disclose that the fleet parameters or mission parameters indicate that a movable object is in service for a delivery task” (Pages 12-13), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Karatekeli discloses that a “drone may be configured” for “delivery”. (Page 3 [0023]) Karatekeli discloses that drone parameters include “drone usage windows, such as dates/times a given drone is available for a mission”. (Pages 5-6 [0040]) Since Karatekeli explicitly states the drone usage windows are for “a given drone”, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that when a drone is being utilized, the schedule would not show that it was “available for a mission”. Accordingly, the Examiner is not convinced by the Applicant’s argument at this time.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means”, “unit” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitations recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: “base station operating status storage unit”, “data processing unit” in claim 1, “equipment information storage unit”, “positioning information storage unit”, “operation plan storage unit”, “communication unit” in claim 11, “base station operating status storage unit”, “data processing unit”, “equipment information storage unit”, “positional information storage unit”, “operational plan storage unit” and “communication unit” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1, 2, 9-12 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karatekeli et al. (US-2019/0332974 hereinafter, Karatekeli) in view of Khan (US-2022/0150722).
Regarding claim 1, Karatekeli teaches a communication management system (Fig. 1), comprising:
a data processing unit (Fig. 1 [130]) selecting a movable object (Fig. 1 [121]) to be dispatched to a predetermined area (Fig. 2 [200] i.e. mission parameters, see Page 4 [0029] “Non-limiting examples of such mission parameters 116 include a mission identifier, an intended date/time for the mission, a location for the mission, an intended use (e.g., aerial photography, tour guiding, emergency, communications linkage, transport, or otherwise)”), based on positional information of the movable object (Page 2 [0013-0014] “a home base identification”), operation plan information of the movable object (Page 2 [0011] “mission parameter including information provided by a user element, for a proposed mission, including at least one of an identifier, a date, a time, a location and an intended use”) and equipment information of a function equipped on the movable object; (Page 7 [0049] “Payload parameters 128 may preclude use of a drone 121 when a given user interface device 112 and/or owner interface device 122 is otherwise incompatible or not configured for use with a given payload, for a given mission.” and Page 11 [0081] “a determination is made as to whether an acceptable drone and payload combination are available for the mission”)
wherein the movable object is managed by a distribution-delivery operator, (Fig. 1 [130] and Page 5 [0036] “Such rentals may be facilitated by a fleet management system 130”) and
wherein the operation plan information indicates that the movable object is in service for a delivery task; (Page 3 [0023] and Pages 5-6 [0040]) and
an operation system requesting the distribution-delivery operator to dispatch the selected movable object to the predetermined area based on a selection result by the data processing unit. (Page 11 [0087])
Karatekeli differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting a base station operating status storage unit holding operation information of a base station operated by a communication carrier providing a mobile communication service and equipment information of a base station function equipped on a movable object.
In an analogous art, Khan teaches a method and system to dynamically manage capacity in a wireless network by utilizing unmanned vehicles equipped with small cell capabilities (Abstract) that includes a base station operating status storage unit holding operation information of a base station operated by a communication carrier providing a mobile communication service (Fig. 4 and Page 4 [0038-0039]) and
a data processing unit (Page 4 [0038]) selecting a movable object to be dispatched to a predetermined area based on equipment information of a base station function equipped on a movable object. (Page 1 [0007] “cell capabilities” and Page 4 [0042])
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Karatekeli after modifying it to incorporate the ability to store information about base stations for a mobile network and to have base station functionality as a payload of Khan since it enables supplementing cellular capacity for an overloaded base station which increases access to the cellular network in highly populated areas and increases customer satisfaction by avoiding an overloaded (inaccessible) base station.
Regarding claim 2, Karatekeli in view of Khan teaches wherein the base station operating status storage unit holds operation information of a permanently or semi-permanently installed base station operated by the communication carrier (Khan Fig. 4 [410] and Page 4 [0039]) and operation information of a mobile base station configured by equipping the base station function on the movable object managed by the distribution-delivery operator. (Khan Page 8 [Claim 4] and Page 3 [0033] “one or more unmanned vehicles including cell capabilities (e.g., unmanned vehicles 114/116/118) may be dispatched from unmanned vehicle garage 112 to the base station to increase the capacity of the base station”)
Regarding claim 9, Karatekeli in view of Khan teaches wherein the communication carrier pays a price to the distribution-delivery operator according to a dispatch record of the movable object by the distribution-delivery operator that responds to a dispatch request of the selected movable object to the predetermined area. (Karatekeli Page 8 [0058] and Page 11 [0088] “It is to be appreciated that the use of a drone in accordance with a mission may incur fees and/or costs bore by one or more parties, such as a user seeking to use another's drone having to pay a license or use fee, a drone owner having to pay airspace or other fees, and a system element having to pay approval, certification or other fees. Such fees may be borne by any party, as desired for any given embodiment of the present disclosure.”)
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of claim 10 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Karatekeli teaches an operation management system (Fig. 1) comprising:
an equipment information storage unit (Fig. 1 [130]) holding equipment information of a function (Fig. 3 [138]) equipped on the movable object (Page 7 [0049] “Payload parameters 128 may preclude use of a drone 121 when a given user interface device 112 and/or owner interface device 122 is otherwise incompatible or not configured for use with a given payload, for a given mission.” and Page 11 [0081] “a determination is made as to whether an acceptable drone and payload combination are available for the mission”) and being managed by a distribution-delivery operator (Fig. 1 [130]),
wherein the equipment information is information of the payload function equipped on the movable object; (Page 7 [0049] “Payload parameters 128 may preclude use of a drone 121 when a given user interface device 112 and/or owner interface device 122 is otherwise incompatible or not configured for use with a given payload, for a given mission.” and Page 11 [0081] “a determination is made as to whether an acceptable drone and payload combination are available for the mission”)
a positional information storage unit holding positional information of the movable object equipped with the payload function; (Pages 3-4 [0028-0029] “a home location for a drone”, Fig. 1 [136] and Page 8 [0059] “a location or home base for the drones”)
an operation plan storage unit storing an operation plan information of the movable object equipped with the payload function (Page 8 [0061] “Fleet parameters 136 may be determined in view of a given set of requested mission parameters 116.”), and
wherein the operation plan information indicates that the movable object is in service for a delivery task; (Page 3 [0023] and Pages 5-6 [0040]) and
a communication unit giving an instruction to move a requested movable object to a predetermined area in response to a request. (Page 11 [0082-0083] “at least one owner of a drone having the desired operational and payload capabilities for the given mission is notified of the opportunity to rent, release or otherwise provide (hereafter, collectively “release”) their drone for use for the mission” & “Such notification may occur using any desired technology including, but not limited to, instant messaging, application notification, email, voice, or otherwise” & [0087] “when acceptable mission parameters are approved by at least one owner, the process continues with performing the mission using the released drone(s)”)
Karatekeli differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting the equipment information is information of a base station function equipped on the movable object as the payload for providing the mobile communication service by the communication carrier.
In an analogous art, Khan teaches a method and system to dynamically manage capacity in a wireless network by utilizing unmanned vehicles equipped with small cell capabilities (Abstract) that includes a base station operating status storage unit holding operation information of a base station operated by a communication carrier providing a mobile communication service (Fig. 4 and Page 4 [0038-0039]) and
equipment information (Page 4 [0038]) is information of a base station function equipped on the movable object as the payload for providing/supplementing a mobile communication service by a communication carrier. (Page 1 [0007] “cell capabilities” and Page 4 [0042])
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Karatekeli after modifying it to incorporate the ability to store information about base stations for a mobile network and the payloads of movable objects that have base station functionality of Khan since it enables supplementing cellular capacity for an overloaded base station which increases access to the cellular network in highly populated areas and increases customer satisfaction by avoiding an overloaded (inaccessible) base station.
Regarding claim 12, Karatekeli in view of Khan teaches wherein the operation management system communicates with the movable object managed by the distribution-delivery operator (Karatekeli Page 12 [0096] “Tracking of drones may occur real-time, time-delayed, not at all, or otherwise using any system component or combination of components”),
wherein the operation management system collects positioning information of the movable object and updates positional information held by the positional information storage unit (Karatekeli Page 12 [0096] “Tracking of drones may occur real-time, time-delayed, not at all, or otherwise using any system component or combination of components”), and
wherein the operation management system collects an operational plan of the movable object and updates an operation plan held by the operation plan storage unit. (Karatekeli Page 11 [0088] “the mission as performed, aborted or otherwise is logged. Such logging may be provided for purposes of accounting, regulatory, or otherwise”)
Regarding claim 15, Karatekeli teaches an integration system comprising:
a communication management system (Fig. 1); and
an operation management system (Fig. 1), wherein
the communication management system comprises:
a data processing unit (Fig. 1 [130]) selecting a movable object (Fig. 1 [121]) to be dispatched to a predetermined area (Fig. 2 [200] i.e. mission parameters, see Page 4 [0029] “Non-limiting examples of such mission parameters 116 include a mission identifier, an intended date/time for the mission, a location for the mission, an intended use (e.g., aerial photography, tour guiding, emergency, communications linkage, transport, or otherwise)”), based on positional information of the movable object (Page 2 [0013-0014] “a home base identification”), operation plan information of the movable object (Page 2 [0011] “mission parameter including information provided by a user element, for a proposed mission, including at least one of an identifier, a date, a time, a location and an intended use”) and equipment information of a function equipped on the movable object; (Page 7 [0049] “Payload parameters 128 may preclude use of a drone 121 when a given user interface device 112 and/or owner interface device 122 is otherwise incompatible or not configured for use with a given payload, for a given mission.” and Page 11 [0081] “a determination is made as to whether an acceptable drone and payload combination are available for the mission”)
wherein the movable object is managed by a distribution-delivery operator (Fig. 1 [130] and Page 5 [0036] “Such rentals may be facilitated by a fleet management system 130”), and
wherein the operation plan information indicates that the movable object is in service for a delivery task; (Page 3 [0023] and Pages 5-6 [0040]) and
an operation system requesting the distribution-delivery operator to dispatch the selected movable object to the predetermined area based on a selection result by the data processing unit (Page 11 [0087]), and
wherein the operation management system (Fig. 1) comprises:
an equipment information storage unit (Fig. 1 [130]) holding equipment information of a function (Fig. 3 [138]) equipped on the movable object (Page 7 [0049] “Payload parameters 128 may preclude use of a drone 121 when a given user interface device 112 and/or owner interface device 122 is otherwise incompatible or not configured for use with a given payload, for a given mission.” and Page 11 [0081] “a determination is made as to whether an acceptable drone and payload combination are available for the mission”) and being managed by the distribution-delivery operator (Fig. 1 [130]),
wherein the equipment information is information of the payload function equipped on the movable object; (Page 7 [0049] “Payload parameters 128 may preclude use of a drone 121 when a given user interface device 112 and/or owner interface device 122 is otherwise incompatible or not configured for use with a given payload, for a given mission.” and Page 11 [0081] “a determination is made as to whether an acceptable drone and payload combination are available for the mission”)
a positional information storage unit holding positional information of the movable object equipped with the payload function; (Pages 3-4 [0028-0029] “a home location for a drone”, Fig. 1 [136] and Page 8 [0059] “a location or home base for the drones”)
an operation plan storage unit storing the operation plan information of the movable object equipped with the payload function; (Page 8 [0061] “Fleet parameters 136 may be determined in view of a given set of requested mission parameters 116.”) and
a communication unit giving an instruction to move a requested movable object to a predetermined area in response to a request. (Page 11 [0082-0083] “at least one owner of a drone having the desired operational and payload capabilities for the given mission is notified of the opportunity to rent, release or otherwise provide (hereafter, collectively “release”) their drone for use for the mission” & “Such notification may occur using any desired technology including, but not limited to, instant messaging, application notification, email, voice, or otherwise” & [0087] “when acceptable mission parameters are approved by at least one owner, the process continues with performing the mission using the released drone(s)”)
Karatekeli differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting a base station operating status storage unit holding operation information of a base station operated by a communication carrier providing a mobile communication service and equipment information of a base station function equipped on a movable object and the equipment information is information of a base station function equipped on the movable object as the payload for providing a mobile communication service by a communication carrier.
In an analogous art, Khan teaches a method and system to dynamically manage capacity in a wireless network by utilizing unmanned vehicles equipped with small cell capabilities (Abstract) that includes a base station operating status storage unit holding operation information of a base station operated by a communication carrier providing a mobile communication service (Fig. 4 and Page 4 [0038-0039]) and
a data processing unit (Page 4 [0038]) selecting a movable object to be dispatched to a predetermined area based on equipment information of a base station function equipped on a movable object (Page 1 [0007] “cell capabilities” and Page 4 [0042]) and
equipment information (Page 4 [0038]) is information of a base station function equipped on the movable object as the payload for providing/supplementing a mobile communication service by a communication carrier. (Page 1 [0007] “cell capabilities” and Page 4 [0042])
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Karatekeli after modifying it to incorporate the ability to store information about base stations for a mobile network and to have base station functionality as a payload of Khan since it enables supplementing cellular capacity for an overloaded base station which increases access to the cellular network in highly populated areas and increases customer satisfaction by avoiding an overloaded (inaccessible) base station.
Regarding claim 16, Karatekeli in view of Khan teaches wherein the operation management system communicates with a movable object managed by the distribution-delivery operator (Karatekeli Page 12 [0096] “Tracking of drones may occur real-time, time-delayed, not at all, or otherwise using any system component or combination of components”),
wherein the operation management system collects positioning information of the movable object and updates positional information held by the positional information storage unit (Karatekeli Page 12 [0096] “Tracking of drones may occur real-time, time-delayed, not at all, or otherwise using any system component or combination of components”), and
wherein the operation management system collects an operational plan of the movable object and updates an operation plan held by the operation plan storage unit. (Karatekeli Page 11 [0088] “the mission as performed, aborted or otherwise is logged. Such logging may be provided for purposes of accounting, regulatory, or otherwise”)
Regarding claim 17, Karatekeli in view of Khan teaches wherein the base station operating status storage unit holds operation information of a permanently or semi-permanently installed base station operated by the communication carrier (Khan Fig. 4 [410] and Page 4 [0039]) and operation information of a mobile base station configured by equipping the base station function on the movable object managed by the distribution-delivery operator. (Khan Page 8 [Claim 4] and Page 3 [0033] “one or more unmanned vehicles including cell capabilities (e.g., unmanned vehicles 114/116/118) may be dispatched from unmanned vehicle garage 112 to the base station to increase the capacity of the base station”)
Regarding claim 18, Karatekeli in view of Khan teaches wherein the base station operating status storage unit holds operation information of a permanently or semi-permanently installed base station operated by the communication carrier (Khan Fig. 4 [410] and Page 4 [0039]) and operation information of a mobile base station configured by equipping the base station function on the movable object managed by the distribution-delivery operator. (Khan Page 8 [Claim 4] and Page 3 [0033] “one or more unmanned vehicles including cell capabilities (e.g., unmanned vehicles 114/116/118) may be dispatched from unmanned vehicle garage 112 to the base station to increase the capacity of the base station”)
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karatekeli in view of Khan as applied to claims 11 and 12 above, and further in view of Lau (US-2015/0312774).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Karatekeli in view of Khan teaches the limitations of claims 11 and 12 above include wherein the operation management system communicates with a movable object managed by the distribution-delivery (Karatekeli Page 12 [0096]), but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting wherein the operation management system collects a wireless environment measured by the movable object.
In an analogous art, Lau teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle that determines indoor wireless coverage (Abstract) that includes collecting signals in a wireless environment as a UAV moves. (Page 5 [0046])
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Karatekeli in view of Khan after modifying it to incorporate the ability to measure the wireless environment as the drone moves of Lau since it enables network designers to determine whether the entire service area has sufficient wireless coverage. (Lau Page 1 [0003-0004])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The Examiner was unable to find each of limitations in claim 1+3 or 1+2+4. It is noted that guidance from MPEP 2111.01 II which states that the plain meaning of “at least one of x, y, and z” requires “at least one of x, at least one of y and at least one of z” dictates the requirements of claims 3 and 4.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW C SAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 EST.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/Matthew C Sams/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights