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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 13 February 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 27 recites the limitation “of claim 1” in line 1. For consistency and clarification with the independent claim being claim 21, it is recommended to change “of claim 1” in line 1 to “of claim 21”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 38-39 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 38 recites the limitation " wherein the processor being configured to determine that the second WTRU is within the first proximity” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 39 is also rejected since it is dependent upon rejected claim 38 as set forth above.
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:
a processor, the processor configured 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:
a processor, wherein the processor is configured to (¶42; see figure 3):
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 wherein the processor being configured to determine a second WTRU that is within the proximity to the portion of the flight route and that can be used to measure the QoS metric comprises the processor being configured to:
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 “wherein the…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 1. 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 processor is further 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 wherein the processor is further 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 the processor being configured to determine the prediction of the quality of the communication link by using the first QoS metric further comprises the processor 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 “wherein the…QoS measurement”.
However, Neubauer teaches wherein the processor being configured to determine that the second WTRU is within the proximity to the flight route comprises the processor being configured to:
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pateromichelakis et al., US 2023/0284078 A1 – Managing the QoS of an End-to-End Application Session
Arksey et al., US 2022/0399936 A1 – Systems and Methods for Drone Swarm Wireless Communication
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