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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-28 have been examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
An initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 submitted 08/11/2023 is attached to the instant office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group 1, claim(s) 1-24, drawn to an aircraft selecting a base station based on received information.
Group 2, claim(s) 25-28, drawn to computing a timing advance based on different parameters.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups 1 and 2 lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of “establishing a connection with a base station’, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of US 2017/0366250 A1 to Ovens et al. As illustrated in [0051], 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.
During a telephone conversation with Maurice Williams on Feb. 18, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 1, claims 1-24. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 25-30 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7, 15, 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7, 15, 23 recites “the preference comprises a threshold range for the aircraft…”. It is vague and unclear if “the preference” is referring to “coverage preferences of the plurality of BSs” or “a respective coverage preference of the selected BS”, or if it is referring to a completely different preference, since “the preference” cannot be assumed to be the same thing as “coverage preference”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9, 12-14, 17, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2017/0366250 A1 to Ovens et al. (hereinafter “Ovens”)
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)
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 in view of US 2019/0353800 A1 to Nirula et al. (hereinafter “Nirula”)
Regarding Claim 2, Ovens teaches The method of claim 1, wherein receiving further comprising:
Ovens does not explicitly teach receiving the GNSS information of the plurality of BSs or a preference of the plurality of BSs via system information.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Nirula discloses in [0028] and [0044], UE 100 may receive reference time such as GNSS time from SIBs transmitted by base stations coupled to antennas 240.
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 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) 3, 11, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ovens in view of US 2018/0049245 A1 to Islam et al. (hereinafter “Islam”)
Regarding Claim 3, Ovens teaches The method of claim 1, wherein receiving further comprising:
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], t 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.
Claim 11 is rejected for having the same limitations as claim 3, except the claim is in apparatus format.
Claim 19 is rejected for having the same limitations as claim 3, 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 in view of US 2021/0350713 A1 to Van Meeteren et al. (hereinafter “Meeteren”)
Regarding Claim 7, Ovens teaches The method of claim 1, wherein:
Ovens does not explicitly teach the preference 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 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.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENKEY VAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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.
/JENKEY VAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477