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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 18 May 2026, in view of the amendments with respect to claim 27 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the claim has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 18 May 2026, in view of the amendments with respect to claims 38-39 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 18 May 2026 regarding the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 36-37, the applicant argued, “…it [Weisbrod] does not describe the platform sending a message that ‘indicates a request’ for that UAV to perform the measurement…” on pages 8-9.
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument.
In ¶¶16, 69, and 72-73; see figure 1B Weisbrod clearly teaches the send a second message to a second WTRU, wherein the second WTRU is within a first proximity of a first portion of the flight route, and wherein the second message indicates a request for the second WTRU to measure a first quality of service (QoS) metric (¶¶16, 69, and 72-73; see figure 1B: send request to UAV X (another device) for real-time actual RF information (QoS, signal strength, etc.) on the flight path); send a third message to a third WTRU, wherein the third WTRU is within a second proximity of a second portion of the flight route, and wherein the third message indicates a request for the third WTRU to measure a second QoS metric (¶¶16, 69, and 72-73; see figure 1B: send request to UAV(s) X (another device) for real-time actual RF information (QoS, signal strength, etc.) on the flight path). Weisbrod ¶73 explicitly states “UAV 210 can provide the actual RF information based on receiving a request from another device, such as UAV platform 215”. Therefore, UAV platform 215 sends a request to UAV X/210 to measure actual RF information at a particular location in the 3D environment/during execution of a route.
Regarding claims 21-35 and 38-40, the applicant argued, “…Weisbrod is silent regarding its UAV Platform sending a message that ‘indicates a request’ for a WTRU to perform a measurement. The examiner relies on Neubauer to supply this missing element…Neubauer does not teach or suggest a central node sending a message indicating a request for another WTRU to perform a measurement…” on pages 9-10.
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument.
The examiner does not rely “on Neubauer to supply this missing element”.
In ¶¶16, 69, and 72-73; see figure 1B Weisbrod clearly teaches send a second message to the second WTRU if the second WTRU is within the proximity to the portion of the flight route, wherein the second message indicates a request for the second WTRU to measure the QoS metric (¶¶16, 69, and 72-73; see figure 1B: send request to UAV X (another device) for real-time actual RF information (QoS, signal strength, etc.) on the flight path). Weisbrod ¶73 explicitly states “UAV 210 can provide the actual RF information based on receiving a request from another device, such as UAV platform 215”. Therefore, UAV platform 215 sends a request to UAV X/210 to measure actual RF information at a particular location in the 3D environment/during execution of a route.
In ¶¶20, 43, 76, 79, 97-98, 106, 111, 113, 115, and 174 Neubauer clearly teaches determine a second WTRU that is within a proximity to a portion of the flight route and that can be used to measure a quality of service (QoS) metric (¶¶20, 43, 76, 79, 97-98, 106, 111, 113, 115, and 174: determine another UAV that is along the flight path or trajectory of the UAV that can measure channel quality/anomaly on the flight path).
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.
Claim(s) 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weisbrod et al. US 2019/0277635 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Weisbrod”). Note: Weisbrod was cited by the applicant in the IDS received 13 February 2024.
As to claim 36, Weisbrod teaches a first network node, the first network node (¶42; see figures 1-3: UAV platform) comprising one or more processors, memory, and at least one transceiver, which configure the first network node to (¶42; see figure 3):
receive a first message from a second network node, wherein the second network node is associated with an aviation system, and wherein the first message indicates an identity of a first wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), indicates a flight route associated with the first WTRU, and indicates a request for a prediction of a quality of a communication link associated with the flight route (¶19; see figure 1C: receive, from user device associated with UAV Y network, route plan parameters for UAV Y including UAV Y parameter and desired route parameters);
send a second message to a second WTRU, wherein the second WTRU is within a first proximity of a first portion of the flight route, and wherein the second message indicates a request for the second WTRU to measure a first quality of service (QoS) metric (¶¶16, 69, and 72-73; see figure 1B: send request to UAV X (another device) for real-time actual RF information (QoS, signal strength, etc.) on the flight path);
send a third message to a third WTRU, wherein the third WTRU is within a second proximity of a second portion of the flight route, and wherein the third message indicates a request for the third WTRU to measure a second QoS metric (¶¶16, 69, and 72-73; see figure 1B: send request to UAV(s) X (another device) for real-time actual RF information (QoS, signal strength, etc.) on the flight path);
receive a fourth message from the second WTRU, wherein the fourth message indicates the first QoS metric (¶¶16-17 and 72-73; see figures 1B and 5A: receive, from UAV X, the real-time actual RF information (QoS, signal strength, etc.) on the flight path);
receive a fifth message from the third WTRU, wherein the fifth message indicates the second QoS metric (¶¶16-17 and 72-73; see figures 1B and 5A: receive, from UAV X, the real-time actual RF information (QoS, signal strength, etc.) on the flight path);
generate a report that indicates the prediction of the quality of the communication link associated with the flight route using the first QoS metric and the second QoS metric (¶¶17, 77, and 79; see figures 1B and 5A-5B: determine predicted RF information (SINR, QoS, signal strength, etc.) using the received actual RF information); and
send a sixth message to the second network node, wherein the sixth message indicates the report (¶¶21-22; see figure 1C: provide RF prediction information for UAV Y route to user device).
As to claim 37, Weisbrod teaches the first network node of claim 36, wherein the prediction of the quality of the communication link associated with the flight route indicates an expected reliability of the communication link for the portion of the flight route (¶¶9, 17, 77, and 79; see figures 1B and 5A-5B: predicted quality predicts reliability along the flight path).
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.
Claim(s) 21-35 and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisbrod et al. US 2019/0277635 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Weisbrod”) in view of Neubauer et al. US 2020/0394927 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Neubauer”). Note: Weisbrod and Neubauer were cited by the applicant in the IDS received 13 February 2024.
As to claim 21, Weisbrod teaches a first network node, the first network node (¶42; see figures 1-3: UAV platform) comprising one or more processors, memory, and at least one transceiver (¶42; see figure 3), which configure the first network node to:
receive a first message from a second network node, wherein the second network node is associated with a second network, and wherein the first message indicates an identity associated with a first wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), indicates a flight route associated with the first WTRU, and indicates a request for a prediction of a quality of a communication link associated with the flight route (¶19; see figure 1C: receive, from user device associated with UAV Y network, route plan parameters for UAV Y including UAV Y parameter and desired route parameters);
send a second message to the second WTRU if the second WTRU is within the proximity to the portion of the flight route, wherein the second message indicates a request for the second WTRU to measure the QoS metric (¶¶16, 69, and 72-73; see figure 1B: send request to UAV X (another device) for real-time actual RF information (QoS, signal strength, etc.) on the flight path);
receive a third message from the second WTRU, wherein the third message indicates the QoS metric (¶¶16-17 and 72-73; see figures 1B and 5A: receive, from UAV X, the real-time actual RF information (QoS, signal strength, etc.) on the flight path);
determine the prediction of the quality of the communication link using the QoS metric (¶¶17, 77, and 79; see figures 1B and 5A-5B: determine predicted RF information (SINR, QoS, signal strength, etc.) using the received actual RF information); and
send a fourth message to the second network node, wherein the fourth message indicates the prediction of the quality of the communication link (¶¶21-22; see figure 1C: provide RF prediction information for UAV Y route to user device).
Although Weisbrod teaches “A first…flight route; send a second…the communication link,” Weisbrod does not explicitly disclose “determine a second WTRU that is within a proximity to a portion of the flight route and that can be used to measure a quality of service (QoS) metric”.
However, Neubauer teaches determine a second WTRU that is within a proximity to a portion of the flight route and that can be used to measure a quality of service (QoS) metric (¶¶20, 43, 76, 79, 97-98, 106, 111, 113, 115, and 174: determine another UAV that is along the flight path or trajectory of the UAV that can measure channel quality/anomaly on the flight path).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Weisbrod by including “determine a second WTRU that is within a proximity to a portion of the flight route and that can be used to measure a quality of service (QoS) metric” as taught by Neubauer because it provides Weisbrod’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of determining ideal devices for splitting operations (Neubauer, ¶¶20, 43, 76, 79, 97-98, 106, 111, 113, 115, and 174).
As to claim 22, Weisbrod in view of Neubauer teaches the first network node of claim 21. Weisbrod further teaches wherein prediction of the quality of the communication link associated with the flight route indicates an expected reliability of the communication link for the portion of the flight route (¶¶9, 17, 77, and 79; see figures 1B and 5A-5B: predicted quality predicts reliability along the flight path).
As to claim 23, Weisbrod in view of Neubauer teaches the first network node of claim 21.
Neubauer further teaches determine a location associated with the second WTRU;
determine that the location is within at least one of a distance or altitude of the portion of the flight route; and
determine that the second WTRU is capable of performing a QoS measurement (¶¶20, 43, 76, 79, 97-98, 106, 111, 113, 115, and 174: determine location of other UAV to have a coordinate along the flight path having the capability of performing quality measurements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Weisbrod in view of Neubauer by including “determine a…QoS measurement” as further taught by Neubauer for the same rationale as set forth in claim 21 (Neubauer, ¶¶20, 43, 76, 79, 97-98, 106, 111, 113, 115, and 174).
As to claim 24, Weisbrod in view of Neubauer teaches the first network node of claim 23. Weisbrod further teaches wherein the location associated with the second WTRU is at least one of a current location of the WTRU, a future location of the WTRU, a predicted location of the WTRU, a past location of the WTRU, or a real-time location of the WTRU (¶¶16-17, 69, and 72-73; see figures 1B and 5A: location of UAV X for measurement may be past, future, actual/real-time, etc.).
As to claim 25, Weisbrod in view of Neubauer teaches the first network node of claim 21.
Neubauer further teaches wherein the proximity to the portion of the flight route is at least one of a distance from a point along the flight route, a distance range associated with a point along the flight route, an altitude associated with the flight route, an altitude range associated with the flight route, or an area associated with the flight route (¶¶20, 43, 76, 79, 97-98, 106, 111, 113, 115, and 174: altitude, area, three coordinates, two coordinates, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Weisbrod in view of Neubauer by including “wherein the…flight route” as further taught by Neubauer for the same rationale as set forth in claim 21 (Neubauer, ¶¶20, 43, 76, 79, 97-98, 106, 111, 113, 115, and 174).
As to claim 26, Weisbrod in view of Neubauer teaches the first network node of claim 21. Weisbrod further teaches wherein the QoS metric is at least one of a bandwidth, a delay, a data loss, a packet loss, a jitter, or a signal strength (¶¶14, 16, and 19: signal strength).
As to claim 27, Weisbrod in view of Neubauer teaches the first network node of claim 21. Weisbrod further teaches wherein the QoS metric is a first QoS metric, wherein the portion of the flight route is a first portion, wherein the proximity to the first portion of the flight route is a first proximity, and wherein the first network node is configured to:
send a fifth message to the third WTRU, wherein the fifth message indicates a request for the third WTRU to measure a second QoS metric (¶¶16, 69, and 72-73; see figure 1B: send request to UAV(s) X (another device) for real-time actual RF information (QoS, signal strength, etc.) on the flight path).
Neubauer further teaches determine a third WTRU that is within a second proximity to a second portion of the flight route (¶¶20, 43, 76, 79, 97-98, 106, 111, 113, 115, and 174: determine another UAV(s) that is along the flight path or trajectory of the UAV that can measure channel quality/anomaly on the flight path).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Weisbrod in view of Neubauer by including “determine a third WTRU that is within a second proximity to a second portion of the flight route” as further taught by Neubauer for the same rationale as set forth in claim 21 (Neubauer, ¶¶20, 43, 76, 79, 97-98, 106, 111, 113, 115, and 174).
As to claim 28, Weisbrod in view of Neubauer teaches the first network node of claim 27. Weisbrod further teaches configured to receive a sixth message from the third WTRU, wherein the sixth message indicates the second QoS metric (¶¶16-17 and 72-73; see figures 1B and 5A: receive, from UAV(s) X, the real-time actual RF information (QoS, signal strength, etc.) on the flight path).
As to claim 29, Weisbrod in view of Neubauer teaches the first network node of claim 27. Weisbrod further teaches wherein being configured to determine the prediction of the quality of the communication link by using the first QoS metric includes being configured to determine the prediction of the quality of the communication link by using the first QoS metric and the second QoS metric (¶¶17, 77, and 79; see figures 1B and 5A-5B: determine predicted RF information (SINR, QoS, signal strength, etc.) using the received actual RF information).
As to claim 30, Weisbrod in view of Neubauer teaches the first network node of claim 21. Weisbrod further teaches wherein the second network node is associated with an aviation system (¶19; see figure 1C: receive, from user device associated with UAV Y network).
As to claim 31, claim 31 is rejected the same way as claim 21.
As to claim 32, claim 32 is rejected the same way as claim 22.
As to claim 33, claim 33 is rejected the same way as claim 23.
As to claim 34, claim 34 is rejected the same way as claim 24.
As to claim 35, claim 35 is rejected the same way as claim 25.
As to claim 38, Weisbrod teaches the first network node of claim 36.
Although Weisbrod teaches “The first network node of claim 36,” Weisbrod does not explicitly disclose “determine a…QoS measurement”.
However, Neubauer teaches determine a location associated with the second WTRU;
determine that the location is within at least one of a distance or altitude of a portion of the flight route; and
determine that the second WTRU is capable of performing a QoS measurement (¶¶20, 43, 76, 79, 97-98, 106, 111, 113, 115, and 174: determine location of other UAV to have a coordinate along the flight path having the capability of performing quality measurements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Weisbrod by including “wherein the…QoS measurement” as taught by Neubauer because it provides Weisbrod’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of determining ideal devices for splitting operations (Neubauer, ¶¶20, 43, 76, 79, 97-98, 106, 111, 113, 115, and 174).
As to claim 39, Weisbrod in view of Neubauer teaches the first network node of claim 38. Weisbrod further teaches wherein the location associated with the second WTRU is at least one of a current location of the WTRU, a future location of the WTRU, a predicted location of the WTRU, a past location of the WTRU, or a real-time location of the WTRU (¶¶16-17, 69, and 72-73; see figures 1B and 5A: location of UAV X for measurement may be past, future, actual/real-time, etc.).
As to claim 40, Weisbrod teaches the first network node of claim 36.
Although Weisbrod teaches “The first network node of claim 36,” Weisbrod does not explicitly disclose “wherein the…QoS measurement”.
However, Neubauer teaches wherein the first proximity to the first portion of the flight route is at least one of a distance from a point along the flight route, a distance range associated with a point along the flight route, an altitude associated with the flight route, an altitude range associated with the flight route, or an area associated with the flight route (¶¶20, 43, 76, 79, 97-98, 106, 111, 113, 115, and 174: altitude, area, three coordinates, two coordinates, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Weisbrod by including “wherein the…flight route” as taught by Neubauer because it provides Weisbrod’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of determining ideal devices for splitting operations (Neubauer, ¶¶20, 43, 76, 79, 97-98, 106, 111, 113, 115, and 174).
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 JUSTIN T VAN ROIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/JUSTIN T VAN ROIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights