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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are persuasive only in part.
First, the claim amendments overcome the objection to the drawings, which is withdrawn.
Second, the claim amendments overcome the objection to the specification, but precipitate a new objection to the specification that neither refers to nor clarifies any “housing”. See again the MPEP 608.01(o), cited in footnote 2 below. While the examiner admits, as argued in applicant’s his Remarks dated 6 April 2026, that “[t]here is simply no statutory [e.g., in 35 U.S.C.] requirement for the exact text of every word in the claims to be present in the specification”, this does not settle the matter1, since applicant must still comply with the Patent Rules (e.g., 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1)) and the requirements of the MPEP. In, this case, it is not clear in claim 11 whether the “housing” might be the housing of the terminal device (as the structure of claim 11 might imply) of the housing of the flight device or possibly the drone (as FIGS. 16, 17, and 19 to 21 might imply), and so a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is also being made.
Third, applicant’s claim amendments overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), description requirement, which is withdrawn.
Fourth, upon reconsideration and in view of applicant’s arguments, the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
However, the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained. In this respect, regarding claim 3, applicant argues:
Now addressing the rejections of the dependent claims. The Action rejects Claim 3 for reciting that the altitude information "includes state information." Applicant respectfully submits that para [0271] of the Specification supports this recitation by describing that state information may include binary flight information such as "grounded vs flying" which can be known directly from nothing other than the altitude measurement such that the altitude information "includes" state information.
This argument is not persuasive, since altitude information of the flight device alone (as acquired in claim 1) includes no information on whether the flight device/drone is grounded or flying (e.g., a drone at 5,280 feet might be grounded on Mt. Washington, and a flight device/drone might be flying at sea level in Death Valley).
Regarding claim 11, the examiner modifies the rejection in accordance with the claim amendments. In this respect, applicant again argues that that a portable terminal would have a portable chassis (although the portable chassis is no longer claimed), and references arguments (regarding the specification objections) that paragraph [0017] of the specification that the base station device “may have a housing” (although claim 11 is to a terminal device). The examiner finds none of these arguments convincing, as not being commensurate with the claim language.
Next, regarding claim 12, applicant argues:
The action rejects Claim 12 for the recitation of all the text from "the measurement report process is performed..." to the end of the claim, because allegedly it "is indefinite in the claim context of a base station that does not (according to the teaching of the specification) apparently perform any measurement report process." Applicant respectfully disagrees for the same reasons discussed above with regard to Claim 1's recitation of similar features and because there is no requirement for the positive recitation of an instrument which generates a value when a claim is directed towards the ultimate use of that value. For example, a claim directed towards a decoding apparatus need not also positively recite an encoding apparatus merely because it claims the use of an encoded signal. This situation is analogous.
Applicant’s argument, in view of the claim amendment, is convincing. Accordingly, this portion of the rejection has been withdrawn
Fourth, regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant argues:
However, no combination of Teague, Kim, Song, and David teaches or suggests at least, the feature wherein the measurement information is configured to be reported to the base station device in each of the first measurement report process and the second measurement report process.
More particularly, Applicant has amended the claims to clarify that the drone continues to report measurement information to the base station in both of the first and second measurement report processes and therefore the measurement information is reported to the same base station regardless of altitude. In contrast, Teague teaches a flight device which communicates with a cellular base station at high altitudes; however, the device switches to communicating with different Wi-Fi enabled devices at lower altitudes. David teaches merely that measurement reports might be more frequent when Wi-Fi is available because Wi-Fi communications might be cheaper than cellular communication. Therefore, the combination of Teague and David teaches, at best, a device which communicates with a first cellular base station at a high altitude, at some lower reporting rate, and then at a lower altitude communicates with a completely different device over a Wi-Fi protocol, at a higher reporting rate. Accordingly, the combination of Teague and David fails to teach the claimed feature wherein the measurement information is configured to be reported to the base station device in each of the first measurement report process and the second measurement report process.
The examiner disagrees with applicant’s initial conclusion, and shows below how the combination of Teague, Kim, Song, and David teaches that the measurement information is configured to be reported to the base station device (e.g., the ground station 170 at paragraph [0038] in Teague (‘516)) in each of the first measurement report process and the second measurement report process.
As to the particular arguments, these are apparently not commensurate with the scope of the open-ended claim language, which does not preclude communicating “with a completely different device over a Wi-Fi protocol”. As to the “same base station” argument, the examiner responds in two parts: i) the claim recites “a base station” which apparently does not limit the claim to a single base station, but (as a general rule) allows for “one or more base stations”[2]; and ii) Teague (‘516) communicates at paragraph [0038] with a single ground station 170 by cellular and/or by Wi-Fi, e.g., when the UAV is at flight altitude (400 feet) or closer to the ground, respectively, with cellular measurement report process being taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and more frequent Wi-Fi measurement report process being taught by David et al. (‘179). Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in this respect.
Lastly, the examiner can only hold objections or formal matters in abeyance. See MPEP 804, I., B., 1. (“As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only compliance with objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.”) See also 37 CFR 1.111(b) (“If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.”) Accordingly, the rejection is repeated, in slightly modified form, to promote compact prosecution.
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are only persuasive in part.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1)3 and MPEP § 608.01(o)4. Correction of the following is required: antecedent basis for the “housing” of claim 11 should be provided in the specification, so that the meaning of the term in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description (e.g., might this be a housing of the terminal device, where the terminal device might be a drone with a flight control unit or a mobile station, a housing of the flight device, or some other housing?) Here, the examiner notes that the only “housing” that appears in the drawings is apparently a housing of the drone 2 (e.g., a housing of the flight device?), yet claim 11 apparently does not claim any drone.
Claim (Specification) Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 11, line 2, “A” should not be capitalized, for grammatical correctness. 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 3, 11, 16, and 18 are 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.
In claim 3, line 2, "the altitude information includes state information of the flight device" is indefinite and not reasonably certain5 from the teachings of the specification (which does not clarify or even apparently describe that "altitude information" somehow "includes state information", or what that might possibly mean).
In claim 11, lines 2 and 4, “housing” and “circuitry disposed within the housing” is indefinite from the teachings of the specification (e.g., a housing of what, particularly?), with the specification referring neither to any housing, or indicating that any circuitry is disposed within the housing. For example, it is unclear whether the claimed “housing” might be the housing of the terminal device (as the structure of claim 11 might imply) of the housing of the flight device or possibly the drone (as FIGS. 16, 17, and 19 to 21 might imply) within which circuitry might (?) be disposed.
In claim 16, lines 12ff, the phrase “a first measurement report process performed as a measurement report . . . the measurement report” is indefinite and unclear in the claim context, since “a measurement report process” on a reference signal has already been recited in line 3 of the claim, and so it is unclear i) how the measurement report process in line 12 could possibly be “a first measurement report process”, and ii) it is unclear how the “first measurement report process” in lines 12ff and the “second measurement report process” in line 15 might relate to the “measurement report process” in line 3 (e.g., are they the same, permissively different, necessarily different, does one encompass another, etc.?)
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
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 to 3, 5, 6, 8 to 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teague6 (2018/0019516, claiming benefit to provisional application No. 62/362844, filed on Jul. 15, 2016, copy provided previously) in view of Kim et al.7 (2019/0306768, claiming benefit to provisional application No. 62/359169, filed on Jul. 6, 2016, copy provided previously), Song et al. (2017/0048925), and David et al. (2011/0034179).
Teague (‘516) reveals:
per claim 1, a processing device, comprising:
circuitry [e.g., FIGS. 1 and 2; and the obvious circuitry in the UE (Drone)/eNBs, etc. in the ‘844 provisional application] configured to:
acquire an altitude information of a flight device [e.g., the position of the UAV 100, e.g., comprising a three dimensional coordinate (including latitude, longitude, and altitude) and an orientation; e.g., claim 12[8] and paragraphs [0033], [0045], etc.; and claim 16 and paragraphs [0020], [0032], etc. in the ‘844 provisional application; as well as the signal measurements used for handovers (e.g., claims 10 and 23; and claim 12 in the ‘844 provisional application), which signal measurements the examiner interprets to be information regarding a flight, that is, flight-related information, since they are “information measured, detected, searched, estimated, or recognized when the drone 2 is flying” (applicant’s published paragraph [0333])];
control a measurement report process [e.g., paragraph [0038], [0049], [0054], [0055], [0064], etc.; and paragraphs [0025], [0036], [0042], [0043], etc. in the ‘844 provisional application] on a reference signal [e.g., the broadcast pilot, preamble, etc., as a received detectable signal that is measured by the UAV 100; e.g., paragraph [0049], [0055], etc.; and paragraphs [0036], [0042], etc. in the ‘844 provisional application] transmitted from a[9] base station device [e.g., 170, 200, etc.] on a basis of the altitude information [e.g., the signal measurements reported to the cellular [LTE] network of the ground station 200, at paragraph [0049]; and at paragraph [0036] of the ‘844 provisional application; and also, for example, the “periodic[]” signal measurements conducted by the UAV when the UAV ascends to a “flight altitude” of about 400 feet or less from the ground station and therefore switches/is switched to communicating by a cellular [e.g., LTE] connection to the ground station 170 (rather than by a Wi-Fi connection) depending on the “position and altitude” of the UAV 100, and therefore periodically conducts the cellular [LTE] signal measurements; e.g., paragraphs [0038], [0049], etc.; and paragraphs [0025], [0036], etc. in the ‘844 provisional application]; and
report measurement information to the base station device based on a comparison result of the altitude information of the flight device and a threshold [e.g., the periodically conducted [LTE] signal measurements that are reported to the network and occur when/after the UAV ascends to its “flight altitude” of 400 feet or less designated for UAV traffic and is switched to cellular [LTE] communication depending on the “position and altitude” of the UAV, with the obvious altitude at/above which the communication resource(s) 130 of the UAV is configured to switch to [LTE] cellular communication being a threshold that the UAV altitude is compared to, with the periodically conducted [LTE] signal measurements obviously not being conducted when the Wi-Fi connection is established, as being unnecessary for the Wi-Fi connection, and obviously being conducted only when the cellular connection is established depending on the altitude of the UAV; e.g., paragraph [0038]; and paragraph [0025] in the ‘844 provisional application], wherein. . . .
While the UAV 100 of Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application switches to use of for example a [3G or 4G] LTE (long term evolution) cellular mobile telephony network for UAV communication and control when the UAV flies at a flight altitude (paragraph [0038]) designated for UAV traffic that is beyond Wi-Fi or Bluetooth altitude/range, and while the UAV 100 conducts signal measurements (on broadcast pilot signals, preambles, etc. transmitted by base stations) and reports those signal measurements to the (e.g., LTE) network of the ground station 200 periodically, and performs handovers to neighboring ground stations based on the signal measurements when the cellular mobile telephony network is being used, it may be alleged that Teague (‘516) is silent as to the claimed “measurement report” vis-à-vis a “reference signal” limitations, and the first and second measurement report processes, although the examiner understands that handovers in standardized (at the time the application was filed) LTE cellular networks were conventionally accomplished (at the time the application was filed) using “measurement reports” that reported e.g., reference symbols received power (RSRP) or reference symbols received quality (RSRQ) 10, e.g., signal strength/quality, of a received reference signal, as indicated in the 2009 IEEE Dimou et al. literature, cited previously as general background knowledge, and that such conventional handovers in cellular LTE networks would have been both well-known and obvious to (and obviously used by) one of ordinary skill in this art, with even Teague (‘516) mentioning “measurement reports” at paragraph [0066]..
Teague (‘516) and its provisional application are also apparently silent as to the threshold altitude (flight altitude) being based on instructions from the base station.
However, in the context/field of the handover of drones in a wireless communication system, Kim et al. (‘768) reveals this e.g., in FIGS. 8 to 10, and in FIGS. 2 to 4 respectively at pages 100 to 102 of the ‘169 provisional application[11], and in their corresponding textual descriptions, methods and devices for supporting efficient handover in cellular-based drone communications.
In this respect, the examiner herein below (and on the next page(s)) reproduces portions of FIGS. 2 and 3 from the ‘169 provisional application to which benefit is claimed in Kim et al. (‘768), for showing e.g., the drone handover procedures, with measurement reports including measured signal qualities and/or trajectory information (as GPS coordinates, obviously including altitude):
FIG. 2 portion:
PNG
media_image1.png
814
1279
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 3 portion:
PNG
media_image2.png
885
1381
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Moreover, in the context/field of improved methods for determining when to compose measurement reports for networks including both cellular and WiFi signal transmission and reception, David et al. (‘179) teaches (e.g., in conjunction with FIGS. 3 and 7, e.g., at paragraphs [0028], [0029], [0103], [0124], [0128], [0132], etc.) that measurement reports may be composed (and transmitted) not only when cellular communication is occurring but also when Wi-Fi communication is occurring (e.g., paragraph [0132] and FIG. 7), in order to allow greater reporting rates (to a server) when communicating over Wi-Fi than over cellular, in order to allow (more) valuable information to be reported, in order to minimize the signaling required from subscriber terminals and also reduce the infrastructure capacity required to deal with reports while at the same time achieving fast acquisition of the radio network information (e.g., paragraph [0106]), etc.
Additionally, in the context/field of an improved apparatus and method for managing the network of a drone, Song et al. (‘925) teaches at paragraph [0050] that the flight path and the flight altitude of a drone may be received from a base station (130) over the wireless communication network, e.g., so that the flight path and the flight altitude of the drone may be changed as desired/needed.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Teague (‘516) dynamic beam steering systems and methods for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) so that the handover procedure based on the signal measurements would have been implemented by a processor according to the handover (HO) procedures, as taught at (both) FIGS. 8/2 and 9/3 in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application, by/with the UAV/UE(s) 100 in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application, whereby e.g., RSRP/RSRQ as signal measurements of a measurement report would have been determined by the UAV/UE on a reference signal (reference symbols) transmitted from each (e.g., nearby/neighboring) eNB/base station, as taught by Kim (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application, and that the reporting/transmitting of the measurement report (as a “Handover Request” in FIGS. 8/2 of Kim (‘768), including the candidate set of eNBs, measured signal qualities, and trajectory information) n a measurement report process that reported the measured signal quality and trajectory information, etc. would have been controlled in accordance with and based on both i) the flight altitude of the UAV being an altitude (as a threshold) at/above which the communication resource(s) 130 of the UAV in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application was configured to switch to a cellular [LTE] connection that required the periodic measurement reports, as taught by Teague (‘516) and its ’844 provisional application, and ii) the measured signal quality (e.g., for example, the signal strength difference value PeNBk – PeNB1 being greater than or equal to a threshold Threshold1 as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application) and the trajectory information, so that that measured signal quality and determined trajectory information would have been transmitted/reported, by the UAV/UE, to the source eNB/base/ground station, in or as the controlled process of reporting/transmitting the measurement report with its (e.g., trajectory) data, as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application, in order to provide efficient handover in cellular-based [e.g., LTE] UAV communications, with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Teague (‘516) dynamic beam steering systems and methods for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) so that measurement reports would have been composed and transmitted, as measurement report processes, not only when cellular communication was occurring but also when Wi-Fi communication is occurring, as taught e.g., at paragraphs [0132], etc. and FIG. 7 by David et al. (‘179), in order to allow greater reporting rates (to the ground station 170, 200, 402, etc. implemented as eNodeB at paragraphs [0037], etc. or as a server, in Teague (‘516)) when communicating over Wi-Fi than over cellular in view of the reduced cost for reporting, as taught by David et al. (‘179), and/or in order to allow (more) valuable information to be reported, and/or in order to minimize the signaling required from subscriber terminals and also reduce the infrastructure capacity required to deal with reports while at the same time achieving fast acquisition of the radio network information (e.g., paragraph [0106]), etc., as taught by David et al. (‘179), with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Teague (‘516) dynamic beam steering systems and methods for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) so that the flight altitude (below which a Wi-Fi connection to the drone would have been utilized and at/above which cellular (e.g., LTE) communication would have been utilized) upon which the “threshold” was based would have been received from the base station (e.g., together with the flight path) as an “instruction”, as taught by Song et al. (‘925), in order that the flight path and/or flight altitude could be changed as desired/needed, as taught by Song et al. (‘925), with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or modified Teague (‘516) dynamic beam steering systems and methods for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) would have rendered obvious:
per claim 1, a processing device, comprising:
circuitry [e.g., obviously implemented e.g., as shown in FIG. 1 and 2 of Teague (‘516), and in its ‘844 provisional application, and for controlling the (acquisition and) transmission of data in the handover request/measurement reports, as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application, e.g., based on the position and altitude information and signal measurements in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application, and particularly using the reference signals (RS), the measured signal quality (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) and the trajectory information (coordinates) as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] configured to:
acquire an altitude information of a flight device [e.g., the position and altitude information and signal measurements in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application and the trajectory information in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application, for the measurement reports of FIGS. 8/2 and 9/3 as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application, for effecting handover; with e.g., the position of the UAV 100 in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application being a set of three dimensional coordinates and an orientation, including a latitude, a longitude, an altitude, and an orientation (i.e., pitch, roll, and yaw measures); e.g., claim 12 and paragraphs [0033], [0045], etc.; and claim 16 and paragraphs [0020], [0032], etc. in the ‘844 provisional application; and the trajectory information as coordinates (obviously latitude, longitude, altitude, as was conventional for GPS coordinates) through which the UE/drone travelled, in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application];
control a measurement report [e.g., the conducting/reporting of signal measurements in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application; and in particular, to send the IDs of the candidate set of eNBs, the measured signal quality, the trajectory information, etc. as measured, detected, estimated, or recognized when the UAV drone was/is flying, to the source eNB, as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] on a reference signal [e.g., the broadcast pilots, preambles, etc. transmitted by the ground stations (200) at paragraph [0049] in Teague (‘516), and at paragraph [0036] of the ‘844 provisional application, which the UAV reports signal measurements for; and the reference signal (“RS”) in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application, on which signal qualities are measured; e.g., page 99] transmitted from a base station device [e.g., 200 in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application; or eNB in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] on a basis of the altitude information [e.g., in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application, the signal measurements reported to the cellular [LTE] network of the ground station 200, at paragraph [0049]; and at paragraph [0036] of the ‘844 provisional application; and also, for example, the “periodic[]” signal measurements conducted by the UAV when the UAV ascends to a “flight altitude” of about 400 feet or less from the ground station and therefore switches/is switched to communicating by a cellular [e.g., LTE] connection to the ground station 170 (rather than by a Wi-Fi connection) depending on the “position and altitude” of the UAV 100, and therefore periodically conducts the cellular [LTE] signal measurements; e.g., paragraphs [0038], [0049], etc.; and paragraphs [0025], [0036], etc. in the ‘844 provisional application; and the trajectory information as coordinates (obviously latitude, longitude, altitude, as was conventional for GPS coordinates) through which the UE/drone travelled, in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application]; and
report measurement information to the base station device based on a comparison result of the altitude information of the flight device and a threshold [e.g., in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application, the periodically conducted [LTE] signal measurements that are reported to the network and occur when/after the UAV ascends to its “flight altitude” of 400 feet or less designated for UAV traffic and is switched to cellular [LTE] communication depending on the “position and altitude” of the UAV, with the obvious altitude at/above which the communication resource(s) 130 of the UAV is configured to switch to [LTE] cellular communication being a threshold that the UAV altitude is compared to, with the periodically conducted [LTE] signal measurements obviously not being conducted when the Wi-Fi connection is established, as being unnecessary for the Wi-Fi connection, and obviously being conducted only when the cellular connection is established depending on the altitude of the UAV; e.g., paragraph [0038]; and paragraph [0025] in the ‘844 provisional application; and in particular, measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], wherein
the measurement information includes information for radio resource management [e.g., measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], which includes at least one of reference signal received power (RSRP) [e.g., measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), reference signal received quality (RSRQ) [e.g., measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], a signal to noise power ratio (SNR) [e.g., measured signal qualities (SINR, SNR) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], and/or a signal to interference and noise power ratio (SINR) [e.g., measured signal qualities (SINR, SNR) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application],
the threshold is set [e.g., based on the flight altitude, as taught at paragraph [0038] in Teague (‘516) and paragraph [0025] of the ‘844 provisional application] based on an instruction [e.g., the flight path and flight altitude from the base station 130, as taught by Song et al. (‘925) at paragraph [0050]] from the base station device [e.g., from 200 in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application; or eNB in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application],
when the altitude information is equal to or greater than the threshold [e.g., when the threshold is obviously the flight altitude where (at/below which) Wi-Fi or Bluetooth can be effectively used, in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application, and (e.g., LTE) cellular communication is used at the flight altitude above the threshold, as at paragraph [0038] in Teague (‘516) and paragraph [0025] of the ‘844 provisional application], a first measurement report process is performed [e.g., for conducting the periodically conducted [LTE] signal measurements at higher altitudes in Teague et al. (‘516) that are reported based on cellular signals to the ground station, which are obviously not performed when the Wi-Fi connection is established at lower altitudes; and in particular, the process of reporting measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) based on cellular-based drone communication as taught in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] as the measurement report [e.g., as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], and when the altitude information is below the threshold, a second measurement report process is performed [e.g., the process of performing W-Fi communication at lower altitudes in Teague et al. (‘516); and in particular, the process of (i.e., with and based on the performed Wi-Fi communication in Teague et al. (‘516)), transmitting measurement reports at greater reporting rates e.g., as taught at paragraphs [0132], etc. in David et al. (‘179)] as the measurement report,
the second measurement report process is different from the first measurement report process [e.g., for example, because the Wi-Fi communication in Teague et al. (‘516) and David et al. (‘179) which it is performed on is different from the cellular communication in Teague et al. (‘516) and David et al. (‘179), because it is performed at a different time and using a different process/technique, etc.], and
the measurement information is configured to be reported to the base station [e.g., to the ground station (170, 200) in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application, with the ground station obviously including Wi-Fi and cellular capabilities, as indicated at paragraph [0038] in Teague (‘516), “Therefore, communications with the ground station 170 may be established using cellular telephone networks while the UAV 100 is at flight altitude. Communications with the ground station 170 may transition to a short-range communication link (e.g., Wi-Fi or Bluetooth) when the UAV 100 moves closer to the ground station 170”] device in each of the first measurement report process [e.g., in the process of reporting measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) based on cellular-based drone communication as taught in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] and the second measurement report process [e.g., in the transmitting of the Wi-Fi measurement reports at greater reporting rates e.g., as taught at paragraphs [0132], etc. in David et al. (‘179)];
per claim 2, depending from claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to acquire positional information of the flight device [e.g., the position and altitude information and signal measurements in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application and the trajectory information in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application];
per claim 3, depending from claim 1, wherein the altitude information includes state information of the flight device [e.g., the position and altitude information and signal measurements in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application and the trajectory information in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application];
per claim 5, depending from claim 1, wherein each of the first measurement report process and the second measurement report process further include reporting channel state information to the base station device [e.g., measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, SINR, SNR, BER, FER, etc.) reported (for cellular communication) in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application, e.g., to the eNB; and in paragraph [0023] of David et al. (‘179), where “the report includes at least one measurement of at least one radio network parameter from a first wireless network transmitter and at least one measurement of at least one radio network parameter from a second wireless network transmitter”, with either the first or second wireless network being Wi-Fi];
per claim 6, depending from claim 1, wherein the measurement report is configured to be reported using a predetermined uplink channel [e.g., the obvious or implicit communications channel between the UE/drone and the eNB in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application];
per claim 8, depending from claim 1, wherein the circuitry performs a measurement report process selected from a plurality of measurement report processes [e.g., processes based on RSRP, RSRQ, SINR, SNR, BER, FER, etc. as taught in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] that are selection candidates, on a basis of an information regarding a flight [e.g., on the basis of the trajectory information, etc. in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application];
per claim 9, depending from claim 1, wherein the circuitry acquires the altitude information from the flight device [e.g., from the UAV in in Teague (‘516) based e.g., on position/orientation and signal measurements; or from the drone in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application for determining its trajectory information/coordinates that the UE/drone has traveled];
per claim 10, depending from claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to acquire a relative position from a site including a predetermined reference point [e.g., the position and altitude information and signal measurements in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application and the trajectory information in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application];
per claim 11, a terminal device, comprising:
A housing [e.g., in Teague (‘516), the body 900 (i.e., fuselage, frame, etc.) in FIG. 9, and also shown/described (in FIG. 1), at 105, 110, 120, etc.; and e.g., in FIG. 7 of its ‘169 provisional application];
circuitry [e.g., obviously implemented e.g., in the control unit 110 and as shown in FIG. 1 and 2 of Teague (‘516), and in its ‘844 provisional application, and for controlling the (acquisition and) transmission of data in the handover request/measurement reports, as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application, e.g., based on the position and altitude information and signal measurements in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application, and particularly using the reference signals (RS), the measured signal quality (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) and the trajectory information (coordinates) as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] disposed within the housing [e.g., as shown in FIG. 9 of Teague (‘516) and in FIG. 7 of its ‘169 provisional application] and configured to:
acquire an altitude information of a flight device [e.g., the position and altitude information and signal measurements in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application and the trajectory information in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application, for the measurement reports of FIGS. 8/2 and 9/3 as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application, for effecting handover; with e.g., the position of the UAV 100 in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application being a set of three dimensional coordinates and an orientation, including a latitude, a longitude, an altitude, and an orientation (i.e., pitch, roll, and yaw measures); e.g., claim 12 and paragraphs [0033], [0045], etc.; and claim 16 and paragraphs [0020], [0032], etc. in the ‘844 provisional application; and the trajectory information as coordinates (obviously latitude, longitude, altitude, as was conventional for GPS coordinates) through which the UE/drone travelled, in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application];
control a measurement report [e.g., the conducting/reporting of signal measurements in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application; and in particular, to send the IDs of the candidate set of eNBs, the measured signal quality, the trajectory information, etc. as measured, detected, estimated, or recognized when the UAV drone was/is flying, to the source eNB, as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] on a reference signal [e.g., the broadcast pilots, preambles, etc. transmitted by the ground stations (200) at paragraph [0049] in Teague (‘516), and at paragraph [0036] of the ‘844 provisional application, which the UAV reports signal measurements for; and the reference signal (“RS”) in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application, on which signal qualities are measured; e.g., page 99] transmitted from a base station device [e.g., 170, 200, etc. in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application; or eNB in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], on a basis of the altitude information [e.g., in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application, the signal measurements reported to the cellular [LTE] network of the ground station 200, at paragraph [0049]; and at paragraph [0036] of the ‘844 provisional application; and also, for example, the “periodic[]” signal measurements conducted by the UAV when the UAV ascends to a “flight altitude” of about 400 feet or less from the ground station and therefore switches/is switched to communicating by a cellular [e.g., LTE] connection to the ground station 170 (rather than by a Wi-Fi connection) depending on the “position and altitude” of the UAV 100, and therefore periodically conducts the cellular [LTE] signal measurements; e.g., paragraphs [0038], [0049], etc.; and paragraphs [0025], [0036], etc. in the ‘844 provisional application; and the trajectory information as coordinates (obviously latitude, longitude, altitude, as was conventional for GPS coordinates) through which the UE/drone travelled, in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application]; and
report measurement information to the base station device based on a comparison result of the altitude information and a threshold [e.g., in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application, the periodically conducted [LTE] signal measurements that are reported to the network and occur when/after the UAV ascends to its “flight altitude” of 400 feet or less designated for UAV traffic and is switched to cellular [LTE] communication depending on the “position and altitude” of the UAV, with the obvious altitude at/above which the communication resource(s) 130 of the UAV is configured to switch to [LTE] cellular communication being a threshold that the UAV altitude is compared to, with the periodically conducted [LTE] signal measurements obviously not being conducted when the Wi-Fi connection is established, as being unnecessary for the Wi-Fi connection, and obviously being conducted only when the cellular connection is established depending on the altitude of the UAV; e.g., paragraph [0038]; and paragraph [0025] in the ‘844 provisional application; and in particular, measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], wherein
the measurement information includes information for radio resource management [e.g., measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], which includes at least one of reference signal received power (RSRP) [e.g., measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), reference signal received quality (RSRQ) [e.g., measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], a signal to noise power ratio (SNR) [e.g., measured signal qualities (SINR, SNR) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], and/or a signal to interference and noise power ratio (SINR) [e.g., measured signal qualities (SINR, SNR) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application],
the threshold is set [e.g., based on the flight altitude, as taught at paragraph [0038] in Teague (‘516) and paragraph [0025] of the ‘844 provisional application] based on an instruction [e.g., the flight path and flight altitude from the base station 130, as taught by Song et al. (‘925) at paragraph [0050]] from the base station device [e.g., from 200 in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application; or eNB in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], and
when the altitude information is equal to or greater than the threshold [e.g., when the threshold is obviously the flight altitude where (at/below which) Wi-Fi or Bluetooth can be effectively used, in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application, and (e.g., LTE) cellular communication is used at the flight altitude above the threshold, as at paragraph [0038] in Teague (‘516) and paragraph [0025] of the ‘844 provisional application], a first measurement report process is performed [e.g., for conducting the periodically conducted [LTE] signal measurements at higher altitudes in Teague et al. (‘516) that are reported based on cellular signals to the ground station, which are obviously not performed when the Wi-Fi connection is established at lower altitudes; and in particular, the process of reporting measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) based on cellular-based drone communication as taught in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] as the measurement report [e.g., as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], and when the altitude information is below the threshold, a second measurement report process is performed [e.g., the process of performing W-Fi communication at lower altitudes in Teague et al. (‘516); and in particular, the process of (i.e., with and based on the performed Wi-Fi communication in Teague et al. (‘516)), transmitting measurement reports at greater reporting rates e.g., as taught at paragraphs [0132], etc. in David et al. (‘179)] as the measurement report,
the second measurement report process is different from the first measurement report process [e.g., for example, because the Wi-Fi communication in Teague et al. (‘516) and David et al. (‘179) which it is performed on is different from the cellular communication in Teague et al. (‘516) and David et al. (‘179), because it is performed at a different time and using a different process/technique, etc.], and
the measurement information is configured to be reported to the base station [e.g., to the ground station (170, 200) in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application, with the ground station obviously including Wi-Fi and cellular capabilities, as indicated at paragraph [0038] in Teague (‘516), “Therefore, communications with the ground station 170 may be established using cellular telephone networks while the UAV 100 is at flight altitude. Communications with the ground station 170 may transition to a short-range communication link (e.g., Wi-Fi or Bluetooth) when the UAV 100 moves closer to the ground station 170”] device in each of the first measurement report process [e.g., in the process of reporting measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) based on cellular-based drone communication as taught in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] and the second measurement report process [e.g., in the transmitting of the Wi-Fi measurement reports at greater reporting rates e.g., as taught at paragraphs [0132], etc. in David et al. (‘179)];
per claim 12, a base station device [e.g., 170, 200, etc. in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application; or eNB in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], comprising:
circuitry [e.g., obviously implemented e.g., as shown in FIG. 1 and 2 of Teague (‘516), and in its ‘844 provisional application, and for controlling the (acquisition and) transmission of data in the handover request/measurement reports, as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application, e.g., based on the position and altitude information and signal measurements in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application, and particularly using the reference signals (RS), the measured signal quality (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) and the trajectory information (coordinates) as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] configured to:
transmit a reference signal [e.g., the broadcast pilots, preambles, etc. transmitted by the ground stations (200) at paragraph [0049] in Teague (‘516), and at paragraph [0036] of the ‘844 provisional application, which the UAV reports signal measurements for; and the reference signal (“RS”) in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application, on which signal qualities are measured; e.g., page 99]; and
acquire an altitude information of a terminal device [e.g., the position and altitude information and signal measurements in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application and the trajectory information in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application, for the measurement reports of FIGS. 8/2 and 9/3 as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application, for effecting handover; with e.g., the position of the UAV 100 in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application being a set of three dimensional coordinates and an orientation, including a latitude, a longitude, an altitude, and an orientation (i.e., pitch, roll, and yaw measures); e.g., claim 12 and paragraphs [0033], [0045], etc.; and claim 16 and paragraphs [0020], [0032], etc. in the ‘844 provisional application; and the trajectory information as coordinates (obviously latitude, longitude, altitude, as was conventional for GPS coordinates) through which the UE/drone travelled, in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] and receive measurement information [e.g., measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] reported from the terminal device that performs a measurement report [e.g., the conducting/reporting of signal measurements in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application; and in particular, to send the IDs of the candidate set of eNBs, the measured signal quality, the trajectory information, etc. as measured, detected, estimated, or recognized when the UAV drone was/is flying, to the source eNB, as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] on the reference signal [e.g., the broadcast pilots, preambles, etc. transmitted by the ground stations (200) at paragraph [0049] in Teague (‘516), and at paragraph [0036] of the ‘844 provisional application, which the UAV reports signal measurements for; and the reference signal (“RS”) in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application, on which signal qualities are measured; e.g., page 99] on a basis of the altitude information [e.g., in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application, the signal measurements reported to the cellular [LTE] network of the ground station 200, at paragraph [0049]; and at paragraph [0036] of the ‘844 provisional application; and also, for example, the “periodic[]” signal measurements conducted by the UAV when the UAV ascends to a “flight altitude” of about 400 feet or less from the ground station and therefore switches/is switched to communicating by a cellular [e.g., LTE] connection to the ground station 170 (rather than by a Wi-Fi connection) depending on the “position and altitude” of the UAV 100, and therefore periodically conducts the cellular [LTE] signal measurements; e.g., paragraphs [0038], [0049], etc.; and paragraphs [0025], [0036], etc. in the ‘844 provisional application; and the trajectory information as coordinates (obviously latitude, longitude, altitude, as was conventional for GPS coordinates) through which the UE/drone travelled, in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], the measurement information being reported to the base station device [e.g., 200 in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application; or eNB in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] based on a comparison result of an altitude information of the terminal device and a threshold [e.g., in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application, the periodically conducted [LTE] signal measurements that are reported to the network and occur when/after the UAV ascends to its “flight altitude” of 400 feet or less designated for UAV traffic and is switched to cellular [LTE] communication depending on the “position and altitude” of the UAV, with the obvious altitude at/above which the communication resource(s) 130 of the UAV is configured to switch to [LTE] cellular communication being a threshold that the UAV altitude is compared to, with the periodically conducted [LTE] signal measurements obviously not being conducted when the Wi-Fi connection is established, as being unnecessary for the Wi-Fi connection, and obviously being conducted only when the cellular connection is established depending on the altitude of the UAV; e.g., paragraph [0038]; and paragraph [0025] in the ‘844 provisional application; and in particular, measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], wherein
the measurement information includes information for radio resource management [e.g., measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], which includes at least one of reference signal received power (RSRP) [e.g., measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), reference signal received quality (RSRQ) [e.g., measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], a signal to noise power ratio (SNR) [e.g., measured signal qualities (SINR, SNR) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], and/or a signal to interference and noise power ratio (SINR) [e.g., measured signal qualities (SINR, SNR) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application],
the threshold is set by the circuitry [e.g., based on the flight altitude, as taught at paragraph [0038] in Teague (‘516) and paragraph [0025] of the ‘844 provisional application; and/or based on the flight path and flight altitude (from the base station 130) as taught by Song et al. (‘925) at paragraph [0050]], and
when the altitude information is equal to or greater than the threshold [e.g., when the threshold is obviously the flight altitude where (at/below which) Wi-Fi or Bluetooth can be effectively used, in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application, and (e.g., LTE) cellular communication is used at the flight altitude above the threshold, as at paragraph [0038] in Teague (‘516) and paragraph [0025] of the ‘844 provisional application], a first measurement report process is performed [e.g., for conducting the periodically conducted [LTE] signal measurements at higher altitudes in Teague et al. (‘516) that are reported based on cellular signals to the ground station, which are obviously not performed when the Wi-Fi connection is established at lower altitudes; and in particular, the process of reporting measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) based on cellular-based drone communication as taught in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] as the measurement report [e.g., as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], and when the altitude information is below the threshold, a second measurement report process is performed as the measurement report process is performed [e.g., the process of performing W-Fi communication at lower altitudes in Teague et al. (‘516); and in particular, the process of (i.e., with and based on the performed Wi-Fi communication in Teague et al. (‘516)), transmitting measurement reports at greater reporting rates e.g., as taught at paragraphs [0132], etc. in David et al. (‘179)] based on a second measurement configuration;
the second measurement report process is different from the first measurement report process [e.g., for example, because the Wi-Fi communication in Teague et al. (‘516) and David et al. (‘179) which it is performed on is different from the cellular communication in Teague et al. (‘516) and David et al. (‘179), because it is performed at a different time and using a different process/technique, etc.], and
the measurement information is configured to be reported to the base station [e.g., to the ground station (170, 200) in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application, with the ground station obviously including Wi-Fi and cellular capabilities, as indicated at paragraph [0038] in Teague (‘516), “Therefore, communications with the ground station 170 may be established using cellular telephone networks while the UAV 100 is at flight altitude. Communications with the ground station 170 may transition to a short-range communication link (e.g., Wi-Fi or Bluetooth) when the UAV 100 moves closer to the ground station 170”] device in each of the first measurement report process [e.g., in the process of reporting measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) based on cellular-based drone communication as taught in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] and the second measurement report process [e.g., in the transmitting of the Wi-Fi measurement reports at greater reporting rates e.g., as taught at paragraphs [0132], etc. in David et al. (‘179)];
per claim 13, depending from claim 12, wherein the circuitry generates setting information regarding the measurement report [e.g., in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application, the obvious altitude above which (e.g., LTE) cellular communication is performed] on a basis of the altitude information e.g., the flight path and flight altitude received from the base station 130, as taught by Song et al. (‘925) at paragraph [0050]; and the corresponding the flight altitude, as taught at paragraph [0038] in Teague (‘516) and paragraph [0025] of the ‘844 provisional application] received from the terminal device, and notifies the terminal device of the setting information [e.g., in order to switch between cellular and Wi-Fi communication based on altitude as desired by Teague (‘516) at paragraph [0038]; and paragraph [0025] in the ‘844 provisional application; and, for example, by means of the measurement control at “1.” In FIGS. 9/3 of Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application; see also “2.” in the text description of Method 2 at page 100 of the ‘169 provisional application];
per claim 14, depending from claim 13, wherein the setting information is related to a trigger for reporting the measurement information [e.g., to obtain the candidate set when PeNBk – PeNB1 ≥ Threshold1, in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application];
per claim 15, depending from claim 13, wherein the circuitry selects which of the first measurement report process and the second measurement report process is be performed [e.g., when, in Teague (‘516) the ground station communication with the UAV transitions e.g., between Wi-Fi and cellular, and the measurement report process accordingly transitions (obviously by means of circuitry at the ground station, as desired by Teague (‘516) at paragraph [0038]) from between the Wi-Fi measurement reports in David et al. (‘179) and the cellular measurement reports in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application];
per claim 16, a method, comprising:
acquiring an altitude information of a flight device [e.g., the position and altitude information and signal measurements in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application and the trajectory information in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application, for the measurement reports of FIGS. 8/2 and 9/3 as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application, for effecting handover; with e.g., the position of the UAV 100 in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application being a set of three dimensional coordinates and an orientation, including a latitude, a longitude, an altitude, and an orientation (i.e., pitch, roll, and yaw measures); e.g., claim 12 and paragraphs [0033], [0045], etc.; and claim 16 and paragraphs [0020], [0032], etc. in the ‘844 provisional application; and the trajectory information as coordinates (obviously latitude, longitude, altitude, as was conventional for GPS coordinates) through which the UE/drone travelled, in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application];
controlling a measurement report process [e.g., the conducting/reporting of signal measurements in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application; and in particular, to send the IDs of the candidate set of eNBs, the measured signal quality, the trajectory information, etc. as measured, detected, estimated, or recognized when the UAV drone was/is flying, to the source eNB, as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] on a reference signal [e.g., the broadcast pilots, preambles, etc. transmitted by the ground stations (200) at paragraph [0049] in Teague (‘516), and at paragraph [0036] of the ‘844 provisional application, which the UAV reports signal measurements for; and the reference signal (“RS”) in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application, on which signal qualities are measured; e.g., page 99] transmitted from a base station device [e.g., 170, 200, etc. in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application; or eNB in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] on a basis of the altitude information [e.g., in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application, the signal measurements reported to the cellular [LTE] network of the ground station 200, at paragraph [0049]; and at paragraph [0036] of the ‘844 provisional application; and also, for example, the “periodic[]” signal measurements conducted by the UAV when the UAV ascends to a “flight altitude” of about 400 feet or less from the ground station and therefore switches/is switched to communicating by a cellular [e.g., LTE] connection to the ground station 170 (rather than by a Wi-Fi connection) depending on the “position and altitude” of the UAV 100, and therefore periodically conducts the cellular [LTE] signal measurements; e.g., paragraphs [0038], [0049], etc.; and paragraphs [0025], [0036], etc. in the ‘844 provisional application; and the trajectory information as coordinates (obviously latitude, longitude, altitude, as was conventional for GPS coordinates) through which the UE/drone travelled, in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application]; and
reporting measurement information to the base station device based on a comparison result of the altitude information and a threshold [e.g., in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application, the periodically conducted [LTE] signal measurements that are reported to the network and occur when/after the UAV ascends to its “flight altitude” of 400 feet or less designated for UAV traffic and is switched to cellular [LTE] communication depending on the “position and altitude” of the UAV, with the obvious altitude at/above which the communication resource(s) 130 of the UAV is configured to switch to [LTE] cellular communication being a threshold that the UAV altitude is compared to, with the periodically conducted [LTE] signal measurements obviously not being conducted when the Wi-Fi connection is established, as being unnecessary for the Wi-Fi connection, and obviously being conducted only when the cellular connection is established depending on the altitude of the UAV; e.g., paragraph [0038]; and paragraph [0025] in the ‘844 provisional application; and in particular, measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], wherein
the measurement information includes information for radio resource management [e.g., measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], which includes at least one of reference signal received power (RSRP) [e.g., measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), reference signal received quality (RSRQ) [e.g., measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], a signal to noise power ratio (SNR) [e.g., measured signal qualities (SINR, SNR) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], and/or a signal to interference and noise power ratio (SINR) [e.g., measured signal qualities (SINR, SNR) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application],
the threshold is set [e.g., based on the flight altitude, as taught at paragraph [0038] in Teague (‘516) and paragraph [0025] of the ‘844 provisional application] based on an instruction [e.g., the flight path and flight altitude from the base station 130, as taught by Song et al. (‘925) at paragraph [0050]] from the base station device [e.g., from 200 in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application; or eNB in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application],
when the altitude information is equal to or greater than the threshold [e.g., when the threshold is obviously the flight altitude where (at/below which) Wi-Fi or Bluetooth can be effectively used, in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application, and (e.g., LTE) cellular communication is used at the flight altitude above the threshold, as at paragraph [0038] in Teague (‘516) and paragraph [0025] of the ‘844 provisional application], a first measurement report process is performed [e.g., for conducting the periodically conducted [LTE] signal measurements at higher altitudes in Teague et al. (‘516) that are reported based on cellular signals to the ground station, which are obviously not performed when the Wi-Fi connection is established at lower altitudes; and in particular, the process of reporting measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) based on cellular-based drone communication as taught in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] as the measurement report [e.g., as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], and when the altitude information is below the threshold, a second measurement report process is performed [e.g., the process of performing W-Fi communication at lower altitudes in Teague et al. (‘516); and in particular, the process of (i.e., with and based on the performed Wi-Fi communication in Teague et al. (‘516)), transmitting measurement reports at greater reporting rates e.g., as taught at paragraphs [0132], etc. in David et al. (‘179)] as the measurement report,
the second measurement report process is different from the first measurement report process [e.g., for example, because the Wi-Fi communication in Teague et al. (‘516) and David et al. (‘179) which it is performed on is different from the cellular communication in Teague et al. (‘516) and David et al. (‘179), because it is performed at a different time and using a different process/technique, etc.], and
the measurement information is configured to be reported to the base station [e.g., to the ground station (170, 200) in Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application, with the ground station obviously including Wi-Fi and cellular capabilities, as indicated at paragraph [0038] in Teague (‘516), “Therefore, communications with the ground station 170 may be established using cellular telephone networks while the UAV 100 is at flight altitude. Communications with the ground station 170 may transition to a short-range communication link (e.g., Wi-Fi or Bluetooth) when the UAV 100 moves closer to the ground station 170”] device in each of the first measurement report process [e.g., in the process of reporting measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) based on cellular-based drone communication as taught in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] and the second measurement report process [e.g., in the transmitting of the Wi-Fi measurement reports at greater reporting rates e.g., as taught at paragraphs [0132], etc. in David et al. (‘179)];
per claim 19, depending from claim 12, wherein the reference signal is a cell-specific reference signal [e.g., the reference signal in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application is “the reference signal from each eNB”, with each eNB corresponding to a cell of cellular communications and the reference signal is thus cell specific];
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teague (2018/0019516, claiming benefit to provisional application No. 62/362844, filed on Jul. 15, 2016, copy provided previously) in view of Kim et al. (2019/0306768, claiming benefit to provisional application No. 62/359169, filed on Jul. 6, 2016, copy provided previously), Song et al. (2017/0048925), and David et al. (2011/0034179) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Levien et al.12 (2014/0172194)
Teague (‘516) as implemented or modified in view of Kim et al. (‘768), Song et al. (‘925), and David et al. (‘179) has been described above.
The implemented or modified Teague (‘516) dynamic beam steering systems and methods for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) may not reveal that the use of the highest and lowest altitude.
However, in the context/field of a base station controlling multiple unoccupied flying vehicles (UFV or UAV), Levien et al. (‘194) teaches at paragraph [0085] thereof and also at paragraphs [0075], [0087], etc. of Levien et al (2014/0172193) which is incorporated by reference (by serial number 13/730202) into Levien et al. (194) at paragraphs [0001], [0014], etc. that each of two or more UFVs or UAVs may provide to a base station indicators of its own flight attributes and capabilities including, “a maximum speed or a permissible altitude for the first UAV” and “a minimum altitude permissible”, whereby the base station may transmit (at 804 in FIGS. 8A, 8C, etc. of both/either Levien et al. (‘194) and/or Levien et al. (‘193)) the indicator(s) to another UFV or UAV for use e.g., in adjusting its own flight path in order to avoid a potential overlap/collision (paragraph [0104] in Levien et al. (‘194) and paragraph [0094] in Levien et al. (‘193)) with the path(s) of the UFVs or UAVs
It would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to implement or further modify the Teague (‘516) dynamic beam steering systems and methods for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) so that multiple UAVs were served by each base station, as suggested by Teague (‘516) and its ‘844 provisional application, and so that, in order to assist in control of the respective UAVs, each UAV would have additionally provided, for acquisition by the base station, indicators of its own flight attributes and capabilities including, “a maximum speed or a permissible altitude for the first UAV”, “a minimum altitude permissible”, etc., as taught by Levien et al. (‘194)13, obviously including highest and lowest permissible altitudes for describing the UAV’s flight “capability”, as taught by Levien et al. (‘194), so that the base station could transmit the indicator(s) to a second/other UAV(s), as taught by Levien et al. (‘194), for use e.g., in adjusting its own flight path to avoid a potential overlap/collision, with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or further modified Teague (‘516) dynamic beam steering systems and methods for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) would have rendered obvious:
per claim 18, depending from claim 11, wherein the circuitry is further configured to acquire a highest altitude [e.g., in Levien et al. (193), incorporated by reference in Levien et al. (‘194), the “permissible altitude for the first UAV” as taught at paragraph [0075] which would have obviously or implicitly included (when interpreted by one or ordinary skill in the art[14]) an upper limit, so that the permissible altitude would describe the (e.g., upper) “flight capability” of the UFV] and a lowest altitude [e.g., in Levien et al. (193), incorporated by reference in Levien et al. (‘194), the “minimum altitude permissible” at paragraph [0087]] that the terminal device is configured to fly;
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 to 3, 5, 6, 8 to 16, 18, and 19 , as understood, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 to 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,667,381 to Shimezawa et al. (reference patent) in view of Kim et al. (2019/0306768, claiming benefit to provisional application No. 62/359169, filed on Jul. 6, 2016, copy provided previously) and David et al. (2011/0034179). The claims in the instant application claim the same limitations or obvious variants thereof of the claims in the reference patent with only slight differences in wording, with the exception of i) the particular information for radio resource management (e.g., RSRP, RSSI, RSRQ, SNR, SINR) and the cell-specific reference signal related to the cellular measurement report process which are shown by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application, and ii) the measurement report process (when below the altitude threshold) for W-Fi as taught by David et al. (‘179) (as set forth in detail above in the section of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103) which it would have been obvious to use in the Shimezawa et al. (‘381) reference patent, in order to effect efficient cellular handovers based on known measurement reports on reference signals as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application and to enable the greater reporting rates of measurement reports during Wi-Fi communication as taught by David et al. (‘179) for effective Wi-Fi communication, with a reasonable expectation of success, and e.g., as a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, and with the limitations in the instant claims corresponding to the limitations of the claims in the reference patent as in the following claim correspondence table:
Claims in instant application 18/305285 to Shimezawa et al.
Corresponding claims in U.S. Patent 11,667,381 to Shimezawa et al. (reference patent)
1
1, 7
2
1, 2, 7
3
1, 3, 7
--
--
5
1, 5, 7
6
1, 6, 7
--
--
8
1, 7, 8
9
1, 7, 9
10
1, 7, 10
11
11, 7
12
12, 7
13
12, 7, 13
14
12, 7, 13, 14
15
12, 7, 13, 15
16
16, 7
--
--
18
11, 7
19
12, 7
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David A Testardi whose telephone number is (571)270-3528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, 8:30am - 5:30pm E.T., and Friday, 8:30 am - 12:30 pm E.T.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/DAVID A TESTARDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
1 See also the flow chart in MPEP 2111.01, V, where support for a claim term may be provided either by “the same term” or “a clearly equivalent term”, in the specification.
2 It has been established that “[a]s a general rule, the words ‘a’ or ‘an’ in a patent claim carry the meaning of ‘one or more.’” TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Commc’ns Corp., 516 F.3d 1290, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2008). It has also been held that “[t]he exceptions to this rule are extremely limited: a patentee must evince a clear intent to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one.’” Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
3 Quoting the rule section, “(d)(1) The claim or claims must conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description. (See § 1.58(a).)”
4 Quoting the MPEP, “New claims, including claims first presented after the application filing date where no claims were submitted on filing, and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification. See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i) and § 1302.01 and § 2103. Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner’s amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced.”
5 See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014) which held, "A patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." See also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed.Cir.2014)(“[A] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” i.e., “ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.”) and Ex Parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015-006416 (PTAB, Aug. 25, 2017, Precedential) (“Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim, then, the Office establishes a prima facie case of indefiniteness with a rejection explaining how the metes and bounds of a pending claim are not clear because the claim contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.”)
6 Now U.S. Patent 10,511,091.
7 Now U.S. Patent 11,129,067.
8 References regarding Teague (‘516) are to the ‘516 publication e.g., unless specified as being from the provisional application.
9 It has been established that “[a]s a general rule, the words ‘a’ or ‘an’ in a patent claim carry the meaning of ‘one or more.’” TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Commc’ns Corp., 516 F.3d 1290, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2008). It has also been held that “[t]he exceptions to this rule are extremely limited: a patentee must evince a clear intent to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one.’” Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
10 For example only, a conventional 3GPP LTE handover procedure is described with respect to FIG. 1 in Dimou et al., “Handover within 3GPP LTE: Design Principles and Performance”, 2009 IEEE 70th Vehicular Technology Conference Fall, Date of Conference: 20-23 Sept. 2009, 5 pages, cited previously, with the handover being effective, for example, e.g., at vehicle speeds of 250 km/h.
11 With the examiner merely noting that the written description at pages 97 to 102 of the ‘169 provisional application apparently supports at least claims 1, 7, 15, and/or 16 of the ‘768 publication under of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), although this is apparently not required (by the current state of the law) vis-à-vis AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d). See e.g., MPEP 2154.01(b). See e.g., footnote 2 at 1381 in Dynamic Drinkware, LLC, v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3D 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also the last paragraph at page 2 of the USPTO’s April 5, 2018 Dynamic Drinkware-Amgen II memorandum at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/dynamic_memo_05apr2018.pdf .
12 Now U.S. Patent 9,540,102. This Levien application claims domestic priority through application 13/730202, with that ‘202 application being incorporated by reference into Levien et al. (‘194) e.g., at published paragraphs [0001], [0014], etc., and with that ‘202 application publishing as United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0172193 A1, also cited (previously) by the examiner.
13 Including, through its incorporation by reference e.g., at paragraphs [0001], [0014], etc. of Levien et al. (‘194), Levien et al. (‘193).
14 For example, see published paragraph [0034] in applicant’s specification that equates the understanding of “an altitude at which the drone 2 can fly” (e.g., a permissible altitude for the drone 2) with “a highest altitude and a lowest altitude”.
Prosecution Insights