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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9, 12-14, 17, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ovens et al, hereinafter Ovens (US 20170366250 A1) in view of Islam et al, hereinafter Islam (US 2018/0049245).
Regarding Claim 1, 9, 17, Ovens teaches a method of wireless communications by an aircraft user equipment (UE) in a network, ([0019], discloses cellular communication between an aircraft and an infrastructure of ground communication nodes) comprising:
An aircraft user equipment (UE), comprising: a memory comprising instructions; a transceiver; and one or more processors operatively coupled with the memory and the transceiver, the one or more processors configured to execute instructions in the memory to: (Figure 4 and [0038], discloses aircraft computing device including processor, memory, and network interfaces)
A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored therein that, when executed by one or more processors of an aircraft user equipment (UE), cause the one or more processors to: (Figure 4 and [0038], discloses aircraft computing device including processor, memory, and network interfaces)
receiving at the aircraft UE in an airspace, at least one of global navigation satellite (GNSS) information of the aircraft UE, ([0049], discloses determining (412) a position of the aircraft during a given period of time can include receiving aircraft position signals (i.e. claimed receiving) from an aircraft navigation system (i.e. GNSS information of the aircraft UE), such as the navigation sensors 106 depicted in FIG. 1)
flight level (FL) information of the aircraft UE, ([0049], discloses determining (412) a position of the aircraft during the given period of time. Aircraft position can be defined in terms of a lateral and vertical position (i.e. flight level) of an aircraft, such as depicted by lateral flight path 208 of FIG. 2)
a projected trajectory of the aircraft UE, ([0049], discloses determining (412) a position of the aircraft during a given period of time can include determining aircraft position by accessing a predetermined flight plan (i.e. projected trajectory) for the aircraft, such as might be available from flight plan data stored in flight plan database 112 depicted in FIG. 1.)
GNSS information of a plurality of base station (BSs) in a heterogeneous network (HetNet) or coverage preferences of the plurality of BSs; ([0050], discloses database of known ground communication nodes, such as cell towers and ground stations can be accessed at (416) in order to identify data associated with the ground communication nodes, including but not limited to a location (i.e. GNSS information of a plurality of BSs) of each ground communication node. [0030], discloses ground station database can include a communication protocol type (i.e. Hetnet) associated with each ground communication node (e.g., specific frequency bands, CDMA specifications, etc.) (i.e. coverage preferences))
selecting a first BS of the plurality of BSs or a second BS of the plurality of BSs based on the GNSS information of the aircraft UE, the FL information of the aircraft UE, the projected trajectory of the aircraft UE, respective GNSS information the selected BS, or a respective coverage preferences of the selected BS. ([0051], discloses After determining one or more factors at (412), (414), (416) and (418), the determined factors can be used at least in part for the selection of one or more ground communication nodes at (420))
establishing a wireless connection with the selected BS. ([0051], teaches an aircraft continues travel along its intended flight path, new ground communication nodes will be selected and communication paths for transmitting and receiving cellular signals can be established with the new ground communication nodes).
Ovens does not explicitly teach receiving the GNSS information of the plurality of BSs or a preference of the plurality of BSs via a MSG-B of a 2-step random access channel (RACH) procedure or a MSG-2 of a 4-step RACH procedure.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Islam discloses in [0208], at block 1915 the base station 105 may determine or identify a selected UL beam, for example a preferred UL beam, for communications from the UE to the base station based at least in part on the measured quality of a RACH message. The base station may also transmit one or more subsequent messages to the UE conveying an indication of the preferred UL beam, for example in a RACH msg2.
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 teachings of Ovens to include the above limitations as suggested by Islam, for improving communications when correspondence does not hold between DL and UL channels as indicated in [0096] of Islam.
Regarding Claim 4, Ovens teaches The method of claim 1, wherein receiving further comprising: obtaining the GNSS information of the plurality of BSs or a preference of the plurality of BSs from a database associating one or more identifiers of the plurality of BSs and at least one of the respective GNSS information of the selected BS, or the respective preference of the selected BS. ([0050], discloses database of known ground communication nodes, such as cell towers and ground stations can be accessed at (416) in order to identify data associated with the ground communication nodes, including but not limited to a location (i.e. GNSS information of a plurality of BSs) of each ground communication node. [0030], discloses ground station database can include a communication protocol type associated with each ground communication node (e.g., specific frequency bands, CDMA specifications, etc.) (i.e. coverage preferences))
Regarding Claim 5, Ovens teaches The method of claim 1, wherein: the FL information is obtained from an altimeter of the aircraft UE. ([0049], discloses determining (412) a position of the aircraft during a given period of time can include receiving aircraft position signals (i.e. claimed receiving) from an aircraft navigation system (i.e. GNSS information of the aircraft UE), such as the navigation sensors 106 depicted in FIG. 1) [0026], further discloses The one or more navigation sensors 106 can include components such as but not limited to accelerometers, gyroscopes, Global Positioning System (GPS) devices or other motion sensing or location sensing devices configured to determine positional information for an aircraft. Examiner notes that an altimeter is a well-known location measuring instrument for measuring altitude)
Regarding Claim 6, Ovens teaches The method of claim 1, wherein: the GNSS information of the plurality of BSs comprises geographic coordinates of the plurality of BSs or altitudes of the plurality of BSs. ([0030], discloses In general, the data provided within ground station database 116 can include a location of each ground communication node. [0028], further discloses storing latitude, longitude, altitude/elevation information)
Claims 12-14 are rejected for having the same limitations as claims 4-6, except the claims are in apparatus format.
Claims 20-22 are rejected for having the same limitations as claims 4-6, except the claims are in computer readable medium format.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 10, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ovens et al, hereinafter Ovens (US 20170366250 A1) in view of Islam et al, hereinafter Islam (US 2018/0049245) and further in view of Nirula et al., hereinafter Nirula (US 20190353800).
Regarding Claim 2, Ovens in view of Islam teaches The method of claim 1, wherein receiving further comprising:
Ovens in view of Islam does not explicitly teach receiving the GNSS information of the plurality of BSs or the coverage preferences of the plurality of BSs comprising receiving via system information.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Nirula discloses in [0028-0029] and [0044], UE 100 may receive reference time such as GNSS time from SIBs transmitted by base stations coupled to antennas 240. Note, receive on or more signals transmitted over one or more types of wireless communication networks addresses “coverage preferences”.
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 teachings of Ovens in view of Islam to include the above limitations as suggested by Nirula, in order to facilitate accuracy and decrease error in terrestrial positioning systems as indicate d in [0019] of Nirula.
Claim 10 is rejected for having the same limitations as claim 2, except the claim is in apparatus format.
Claim 18 is rejected for having the same limitations as claim 2, except the claim is computer readable medium format.
Claim(s) 7-8, 15, 16, 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ovens et al, hereinafter Ovens (US 20170366250 A1) in view of Islam et al, hereinafter Islam (US 2018/0049245) and further in view of Van Meeteren et al., hereinafter Meeteren (US 20210350713)
Regarding Claim 7, Ovens teaches The method of claim 1, wherein:
Ovens does not explicitly teach the coverage preference of the selected BS comprises a threshold range for the aircraft UE to establish the wireless connection with the selected BS.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Meeteren discloses in [0065], an autonomous vehicle ay store (e.g., in the memory device) an indication of a location of the base station (e.g., coordinates), for example, and may compare the current location of the autonomous vehicle (e.g., calculated at 418) to the location of the selected base station to derive a distance between the autonomous vehicle and the base station. According to some embodiments, the autonomous vehicle (e.g., the electronic processing device thereof) may compare the calculated/derived distance or range to any stored wireless communication threshold parameters to determine whether the current location of the autonomous vehicle places the autonomous vehicle within an operational communication range of the selected base station. 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 teachings of Ovens to include the above limitations as suggested by Meeteren, to allow for navigation to a position within range of a base station to transmit captured data as indicated in [0019] of Meeteren.
Regarding Claim 8, Ovens teaches The method of claim 1, wherein: Ovens does not explicitly teach the coverage preferences include at least one of GNSS coordinates or flight levels covered by at least one BS of the plurality of BSs.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Meeteren discloses in [0065], an autonomous vehicle ay store (e.g., in the memory device) an indication of a location of the base station (e.g., coordinates), for example, and may compare the current location of the autonomous vehicle (e.g., calculated at 418) to the location of the base station to derive a distance between the autonomous vehicle and the base station. According to some embodiments, the autonomous vehicle (e.g., the electronic processing device thereof) may compare the calculated/derived distance or range to any stored wireless communication threshold parameters to determine whether the current location of the autonomous vehicle places the autonomous vehicle within an operational communication range of the base station.
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 teachings of Ovens to include the above limitations as suggested by Meeteren, to allow for navigation to a position within range of a base station to transmit captured data as indicated in [0019] of Meeteren.
Claims 15-16 are rejected for having the same limitations as claims 7-8, except the claims are in apparatus format.
Claims 23-24 are rejected for having the same limitations as claims 7-8, except the claims are in computer readable medium format.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to restriction, Applicant election of Group 1 without traverse is noted. 35 USC 112(b) rejection is withdrawn in light of Applicants amendment to claims 7, 15 and 23. Applicant traverse the following rejection: Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 12-14, 17 and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2017/0366250 (hereinafter "Ovens").
Claims 2, 10 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ovens in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0353800 (hereinafter "Nirula").
Claims 3, 11 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ovens in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0049245 (hereinafter "Islam").
Claims 7-8, 15-16 and 23-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ovens in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0350713 (hereinafter "Meeteren"). Applicant amended claims 1, 9 and 17 to include feature of claims 3, 11 and 19 respectively. As a result, Claim(s) 1, 9 and 17are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ovens et al, hereinafter Ovens (US 20170366250 A1) in view of Islam et al, hereinafter Islam (US 2018/0049245) on the basis of the Amendment. Applicant further argues, “Islam paragraph [0208] fails to disclose the claimed limitation for at least the following reasons. At block 1915 the base station 105 may determine or identify a selected UL beam, for example a preferred UL beam, for communications from the UE to the base station based at least in part on the measured quality of a RACH message. The base station may also transmit one or more subsequent messages to the UE conveying an indication of the preferred UL beam, for example in a RACH msg2. The one or more subsequent messages to the UE may include an identification or index of the preferred UL beam, for example an OCC index. The operations of block 1915 may be performed according to the methods described with reference to FIGS. 1 through 5. In certain examples, aspects of the operations of block 1915 may be performed by a UL beam component as described with reference to FIGS. 12 through 15. In contrast, claim 1 recites "wherein receiving comprises receiving the GNSS information of the plurality of BSs via a MSG-B of a 2-step random access channel (RACH) procedure or a MSG-2 of a 4-step RACH procedure." Therefore, the Office has failed to show ‘wherein receiving comprises receiving the GNSS information of the plurality of BSs via a MSG-B of a 2-step random access channel (RACH) procedure or a MSG-2 of a 4-step RACH procedure’."
Examiner respectfully disagrees as Owens reference in paragraph 0020 clearly discuss about an aircraft navigation system which is being equated GNSS information of the aircraft UE. Furthermore, Owen in paragraph 0050 equates GNSS information of a plurality of base station (BSs) in a heterogeneous network (HetNet) or coverage preferences of the plurality of BSs by database of known ground communication nodes, such as cell towers and ground stations can be accessed at (416) in order to identify data associated with the ground communication nodes, including but not limited to a location (i.e. GNSS information of a plurality of BSs) of each ground communication node. [0030], discloses ground station database can include a communication protocol type (i.e. Hetnet) associated with each ground communication node (e.g., specific frequency bands, CDMA specifications, etc.) (i.e. coverage preferences)). Islam discloses in [0208], at block 1915 the base station 105 may determine or identify a selected UL beam, for example a preferred UL beam, for communications from the UE to the base station based at least in part on the measured quality of a RACH message. The base station may also transmit one or more subsequent messages to the UE conveying an indication of the preferred UL beam in a RACH msg2. Thus, Islam teaches that RACH messages can convey network information, such as preferred beam indices, and suggests flexibility in message content. Ovens teaches BS selection based on GNSS and coverage preference data, relevant to aircraft UEs operating in HetNets. A person skilled in the art would find it obvious to combine these teachings to deliver BS GNSS information via RACH messages for improved communication. The applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rationale for combining Ovens and Islam, nor do they show that the claimed method is non-obvious in light of the cited art. Therefore, the updated rejection above in view of the amendments under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 makes aforementioned claims unpatentable.
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 CHIRAG G SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-3144. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3:30 M-F.
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.
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.
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights