DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are persuasive only in part.
First, the previous claim objection is overcome by applicant’s amendments, but a new (similar) claim objection is made to address further grammatical consistency issues (e.g., related to the “reference signal received power (RSRP)” phrase). The examiner apologizes for the delayed indication of this (new) claim objection.
Second, applicant’s claim amendments overcome the duplicate claim warning, but raise other issues (e.g., related to specification antecedent basis and claim indefiniteness), as detailed below.
Third, while applicant’s claim amendments overcome many of the issues previously raised under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the rejections for which issues are accordingly withdrawn by the examiners, they raise new issues e.g., under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), description requirement, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as detailed below.
Fourth, while applicant indicates that claims 4 and 7 have been canceled to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), only claim 7 has apparently been canceled. The amendments to claim 4, however, overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), which is withdrawn.
Fifth, regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner agrees with applicant that the previously applied art does not reveal or render obvious the new limitations in the independent claims indicating that “when the altitude information is above the threshold, the measurement report process is performed based on a first measurement configuration, and when the altitude information is below the threshold, the measurement report process is performed based on a second measurement configuration that is different from the first measurement configuration”. However, the examiner applies new prior art, i.e., David et al. (2011/0034179), to show that the “below the threshold” portion of this limitation would have been obvious, with the “above the threshold” portion of this limitation being shown already by Teague (‘516) and/or Kim et al. (‘768), previously applied. Accordingly applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in this respect, with David et al. (‘179) teaching e.g., at paragraph [0132] in the context of a communication system using both cellular and Wi-Fi communication, that:
[0132] In many cases, if the terminal is connected to the Wi-Fi rather than cellular network, the cost of transmitting a measurement report is likely to be lower than the equivalent cost for cellular data so the threshold might be adjusted to enable greater reporting rates than over cellular, for example by lowering the threshold to -90 dBm. FIG. 7 illustrates an exemplary processing flow by which the client can determine whether to generate a report for one or more Wi-Fi APs if contemporaneous cellular measurements are available.
While the examiner believes that applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the newly applied prior art, he believes a portion of applicant’s arguments still warrants response. In particular, applicant argues:
If the Office were to incorrectly interpret some network functions associated with WiFi as being functionally equivalent to performing a measurement report process according to a second different configuration, Teague still does not teach this feature with respect to the independent claims as presently amended because the threshold for determining which process to use would be network availability, not altitude. The observation that generally these things may correlate is irrelevant to the present analysis because there are myriad exceptions to this condition.
For example if the UAV of Teague were to be flying at an altitude of merely loft, but a mile away from the base station in a desert with no short-wave signal sources/repeaters nearby, the UAV would be well under the alleged "threshold" height of Wifi signals and/or the 400ft FAA flight cutoff, but the UAV would still be connected to an LTE network because WiFi is not available and therefore the measurement report process would be performed according to Teague's "first" configuration, the LTE configuration, despite the UAV being below the threshold. If that same UAV were to then return to the vicinity of the base station without changing altitude, it would connect to WiFi and begin reporting under the alleged "second" configuration, the WiFi configuration. Therefore, Teague cannot be understood to teach a condition of the measurement report process being different depending on the altitude.
First, the now claimed “different” measurement configurations are apparently indefinite from the teachings of the specification, which does not define, with the required reasonable certainty, what the metes and bounds of any or all “measurement configuration[s]” as are covered by the claim might possibly be, with the specification apparently neither mentioning nor clarifying the now claimed “measurement configuration[s]”, as far as the examiner can tell.
Next applicant argues that, “the threshold for determining which process to use [in Teague (‘516)] would be network availability”. However, Teague (‘516) apparently expressly indicates at paragraph [0038] that, “[0038] In some embodiments, the communication resource(s) 130 may be configured to switch between a cellular connection and a Wi-Fi connection depending on the position and altitude of the UAV 100.” Teague (‘516) teaches using position and altitude, e.g., obviously including altitude as the threshold, not “network availability”, a concept which Teague (‘516) does not apparently mention.
Finally, applicant’s logical premise regarding the “myriad exceptions” (that is, “The observation that generally these things may correlate is irrelevant to the present analysis because there are myriad exceptions to this condition.”) is believed to be immaterial to the questions of anticipation or obviousness and the claim language itself. The only “correlation” that is required by the claim language is a temporal correlation (“when the altitude information”), not even “based on” the altitude information or “in response to” the altitude information. The claimed temporal correlation might obviously even occur by chance, by the wording of the claim. Applicant focuses on a situation (when the UAV is a mile away from the base station in a desert) where a Wi-Fi connection is not available, while possibly ignoring the described and obvious situation in Teague (‘516) where the Wi-Fi communication is available. Yet Teague (‘516) is apparently describing in paragraph [0038] a situation where a WI-FI connection is available (“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.”), and one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously follow/implement the teachings of Teague (‘516) when the UAV moved back closer to the ground station (e.g., when it is no longer at its flight altitude of e.g., 400 feet or less where the Wi-Fi communication is/would be difficult). Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in this respect.
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are only persuasive in part.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “user interface” (of a terminal device that includes circuitry configured to acquire altitude information of a flight device) as now recited in claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement sheets which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments section, or remarks, section of the amendment paper. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). A replacement sheet must include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified.
Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and within the top margin.
Annotated Drawing Sheets
A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheet(s) must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings.
Timing of Corrections
Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
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) and MPEP § 608.01(o)1. Correction of the following is required: antecedent basis for the new independent claim terminology, “the measurement report process is performed based on a first measurement configuration, and when the altitude information is below the threshold, the measurement report process is performed based on a second measurement configuration that is different from the first measurement configuration”, and for the new terminology in claim 11 relating to the “portable chassis” and the “user interface”, should be provided in the specification, without adding new matter.
Claim (Specification) Objections
Claims 1, 11, 12, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, line 10, in claim 11, line 12, in claim 12, line 10, and in claim 16, line 8, it appears “reference signal received power (RSRP)” (without an indefinite article) should apparently read, “a reference signal received power (RSRP)” (with an indefinite article), for consistency within the claim structure. Appropriate correction, or reasoned traversal, is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1 to 6, 8 to 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 11, 12, and 16, applicant has apparently not previously described, in sufficient details, by what algorithm(s)2, or by what steps or procedure3, he performed the measurement report process “based on a first measurement configuration” when the altitude information was above the threshold, and “based on a second measurement configuration” when the altitude information was below the threshold. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope4 of the now claimed invention, but has only (if anything) now described a desired result.
For example, no “measurement configuration[s]” are apparently mentioned or described in the specification, let alone a “first measurement configuration” that the measurement report process is performed based on when the altitude information is above the threshold and a “second measurement configuration” that the measurement report process is performed based on when the altitude information is below the threshold. In this respect, paragraphs [0388] and [0411] of the published specification indicate:
[0388] For example, the drone 2 may select a measurement report process to be performed on the basis of the altitude information. Specifically, the drone 2 may select the first measurement report process in a case in which an altitude of the drone 2 is less than the switching threshold, and may select the second measurement report process in a case in which the altitude of the drone 2 is equal to or greater than the switching threshold. Thus, the drone 2 obeys, for example, a rule or the like in which the measurement process and/or the report process is restricted in accordance with the altitude. Further, the drone 2 can select a more detailed measurement report process at a low altitude at which a collision risk is considered to be relatively high, and can also select a measurement report process in power consumption is low at a high altitude at which the collision risk is considered to be relatively low.
[0411] . . . For example, in a case in which the drone 2 is flying at a low altitude and performs wireless communication using radio waves oriented downward from the base station device 1, the drone 2 performs the periodic report. In a case in which the drone 2 is flying at a high altitude and performs wireless communication using a beam formed individually from the base station device 1, the drone 2 performs the aperiodic report. Further, for example, in a case in which the drone 2 is stopping on the ground and performs wireless communication using radio waves oriented downward from the base station device 1, the drone 2 performs the aperiodic report. In a case in which the drone 2 is flying at a high altitude and performs wireless communication using a beam formed individually from the base station device 1, the drone 2 performs the periodic report. The base station device 1 can receive the report of the measurement information using an optimum method in accordance with a state or a situation of the drone 2 when the drone 2 selects the periodic report or the aperiodic report.
However, these passages do not describe, in sufficient detail, the algorithm(s) by which the measurement report process was performed, in the manner claimed, based on the full scope of any or all first and/or second “measurement configuration[s]”, whatever those claimed configurations might possibly encompass, cover, or entail. For examples only, if a first measurement configuration was a radar altitude from a radar altimeter and a second measurement was GPS altitude (i.e., the height relative to an ellipsoidal Earth model) from a GPS receiver, then where is it described that the measurement report process is based on the radar altitude when the altitude is above the threshold and based on the GPS altitude when the altitude is below the threshold? Of, if the first measurement configuration somehow uses RSRP or RSSI or RSRQ and the second measurement configuration somehow uses SNR or SINR, then where is it described that the measurement report process is based on RSRP/RSSI/RSRQ when the altitude is above the threshold and based on SNR/SINR when the altitude is below the threshold? Many more examples could be given. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the now claimed invention based on any or all first/second “measurement configuration[s]”, but has only (if anything) now described a desired result.
Claims 1 to 6, 8 to 16, 18, and 19 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 1, line 15, in claim 11, line 17, in claim 12, line 16, and in claim 16, line 13, “based on a first measurement configuration” is indefinite and not reasonably certain5 from the teachings of the specification which neither mentions any “measurement configuration” nor clarifies the metes and bounds of what the claimed “measurement configuration” might (possibly) comprise (e.g., what is the measurement configuration a “configuration” of, particularly, and measurement of what, particularly?6) or how the measurement report process might be performed “based on” such a measurement configuration.
Similarly, in claim 1, line 17, in claim 11, line 19, in claim 12, line 18, and in claim 16, line 15, “based on a second measurement configuration” is indefinite and not reasonably certain from the teachings of the specification which neither mentions any “measurement configuration” nor clarifies the metes and bounds of what the claimed “measurement configuration” might (possibly) comprise (e.g., what is the measurement configuration a “configuration” of, particularly?) or how the measurement report process might be performed “based on” such a measurement configuration.
In these respects, the specification indicates at published paragraph [0388] that:
[0388] For example, the drone 2 may select a measurement report process to be performed on the basis of the altitude information. Specifically, the drone 2 may select the first measurement report process in a case in which an altitude of the drone 2 is less than the switching threshold, and may select the second measurement report process in a case in which the altitude of the drone 2 is equal to or greater than the switching threshold. Thus, the drone 2 obeys, for example, a rule or the like in which the measurement process and/or the report process is restricted in accordance with the altitude. Further, the drone 2 can select a more detailed measurement report process at a low altitude at which a collision risk is considered to be relatively high, and can also select a measurement report process in power consumption is low at a high altitude at which the collision risk is considered to be relatively low.
Additionally, paragraph [0411] indicates this, in part:
[0411] . . . For example, in a case in which the drone 2 is flying at a low altitude and performs wireless communication using radio waves oriented downward from the base station device 1, the drone 2 performs the periodic report. In a case in which the drone 2 is flying at a high altitude and performs wireless communication using a beam formed individually from the base station device 1, the drone 2 performs the aperiodic report. Further, for example, in a case in which the drone 2 is stopping on the ground and performs wireless communication using radio waves oriented downward from the base station device 1, the drone 2 performs the aperiodic report. In a case in which the drone 2 is flying at a high altitude and performs wireless communication using a beam formed individually from the base station device 1, the drone 2 performs the periodic report. The base station device 1 can receive the report of the measurement information using an optimum method in accordance with a state or a situation of the drone 2 when the drone 2 selects the periodic report or the aperiodic report.
However, these passages do not clarify, with reasonable certainty, the metes and bounds of what “measurement configuration[s]” would or might possibly be, nor do they clarify, with reasonable certainty, and particularly how the measurement report process is performed “based on” the claimed “first measurement configuration” and the claimed “second measurement configuration”.
In claim 3, line 2, “the altitude information includes state information of the flight device” is indefinite from the teachings of the specification (which does not clarify or even apparently describe that “altitude information” somehow “includes state information”).
In claim 4, lines 4ff, “based on a first condition in the first measurement condition” is indefinite from the teachings of the specification which neither describes nor clarifies any “condition” in any “measurement configuration”, and does not define, with reasonable certainty, what that condition might possibly be so as to not be facially subjective (MPEP 2173.05(b), IV.).
In claim 4, lines 6ff, “based on a second condition in the second measurement condition” is indefinite from the teachings of the specification which neither describes nor clarifies any “condition” in any “measurement configuration”, and does not define, with reasonable certainty, what that condition might possibly be so as to not be facially subjective (MPEP 2173.05(b), IV.).
In claim 8, lines 3ff, “an information regarding a flight” is vague and indefinite (e.g., which information particularly, which flight particularly, etc., so that the metes and bounds of the information and flight is defined with reasonable certainty?)
In claim 11, line 2, “a portable chassis” is indefinite from the teachings of the specification that apparently neither mentions nor clarifies such a limitation.
In claim 11, line 3, “a user interface” is indefinite from the teachings of the specification that apparently neither mentions nor clarifies such a limitation.
In claim 12, lines 15ff, “the measurement report process is performed . . .” (to the end of the claim) is indefinite in the claim context of a base station that does not (according to the teachings of the specification) apparently perform any measurement report process. Limitations that purport to extend beyond the claim scope are apparently indefinite under MPEP 2173.02, I. (“For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate.”) since it would apparently be reasonable e.g., alternatively to limit the claim to the claim scope of a base station device, and/or to read all of the claim limitations into the claim. In this respect, to the extent that all of the limitations in claim 12 are read into the claim, then it is unclear why the claim preamble would say, “A base station device” in line 1 of claim 12, and what the scope (metes and bounds) of a base station device would be, in the claim context, e.g., when applicant is apparently not claiming functions of the base station but the manner in which the terminal device operates.
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 6, 8 to 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teague7 (2018/0019516, claiming benefit to provisional application No. 62/362844, filed on Jul. 15, 2016, copy provided previously) in view of Kim et al.8 (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[9] 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 base station device [e.g., 200] 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 measurement report processes based on the first and second measurement configurations, 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) 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 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 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., 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], and
when the altitude information is above 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], the measurement report process is performed [e.g., as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] based on a first measurement configuration [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], and when the altitude information is below the threshold, the measurement report process is performed based on a second measurement configuration [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)] that is different from the first measurement configuration [e.g., the Wi-Fi communication in Teague et al. (‘516) and David et al. (‘179) is different from the cellular communication in Teague et al. (‘516) and 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 4, depending from claim 1, wherein the measurement report process is performed based on a first condition in the first measurement configuration [e.g., based on cellular communication (as a condition) in Teague (‘516) and Kim et al. (‘768), with the process including measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, etc.) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application], and
the measurement report process [e.g., during Wi-Fi communication as taught by David et al. (‘179) at paragraphs [0132] etc., at lower altitudes as taught by Teague (‘516)] is performed based on a second condition that is different from the first condition, in the second measurement configuration [e.g., based on Wi-Fi communication (as a condition) in Teague (‘516) and David et al. (‘179), as described above];
per claim 5, depending from claim 1, wherein the measurement report process further includes reporting channel state information to the base station device [e.g., measured signal qualities (RSRP, RSRQ, SINR, SNR, BER, FER, etc.) reported in Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application, e.g., to the eNB];
per claim 6, depending from claim 1, wherein the measurement report process is configured to report 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 portable chassis [e.g., in Teague (‘516), 105, 110, etc.];
a user interface [e.g., in Teague (‘516), the communication resource(s) 130 that are capable of device-to-device communication with wireless communication devices carried by a user (e.g., a smartphone)]; and
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 portable chassis 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 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., 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 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 above 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], the measurement report process is performed [e.g., as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] based on a first measurement configuration [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], and when the altitude information is below the threshold, the measurement report process is performed based on a second measurement configuration [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)] that is different from the first measurement configuration [e.g., the Wi-Fi communication in Teague et al. (‘516) and David et al. (‘179) is different from the cellular communication in Teague et al. (‘516) and David et al. (‘179)];
per claim 12, 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], 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 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 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 above 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], the measurement report process is performed [e.g., as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] based on a first measurement configuration [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], and when the altitude information is below the threshold, the measurement report process is performed based on a second measurement configuration [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)] that is different from the first measurement configuration [e.g., the Wi-Fi communication in Teague et al. (‘516) and David et al. (‘179) is different from the cellular communication in Teague et al. (‘516) and David et al. (‘179)];
per claim 13, depending from claim 12, wherein the circuitry generates setting information regarding the measurement report process [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 the measurement report process to be performed [e.g., UE-initiated or network-initiated HO, in FIGS. 8/2 and 9/3 of 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., 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
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], and
when the altitude information is above 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], the measurement report process is performed [e.g., as taught by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application] based on a first measurement configuration [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], and when the altitude information is below the threshold, the measurement report process is performed based on a second measurement configuration [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)] that is different from the first measurement configuration [e.g., the Wi-Fi communication in Teague et al. (‘516) and David et al. (‘179) is different from the cellular communication in Teague et al. (‘516) and 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 6, 8 to 16, 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 reports which are shown by Kim et al. (‘768) and its ‘169 provisional application and ii) the measurement reports (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. (‘310) 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
4
1, 4, 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
--
--
--
--
19
12, 7
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 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.”
2 See the 2019 35 U.S.C. 112 Compliance Federal Register Notice (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, Monday, January 7, 2019, pages 57 to 63). See also http://ptoweb.uspto.gov/patents/exTrain/documents/2019-112-guidance-initiative.pptx . Quoting the FR Notice at pages 61 and 62, "The Federal Circuit emphasized that ‘‘[t]he written description requirement is not met if the specification merely describes a ‘desired result.’ ’’ Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682 (quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349). . . . When examining computer-implemented, software-related claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm(s) that achieve the claimed function in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as 'a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.' Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may 'express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.' Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340 (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could theoretically write a program to achieve the claimed function, rather the specification itself must explain how the claimed function is achieved to demonstrate that the applicant had possession of it. See, e.g., Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682–83. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm(s) in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention that achieves the claimed result, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description must be made. See MPEP § 2161.01, subsection I."
3 See http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fnctnllnggcmptr.pptx at page 29.
4 See MPEP 2161.01, I. and LizardTech Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005) cited therein ("Whether the flaw in the specification is regarded as a failure to demonstrate that the applicant possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the claim] or a failure to enable the full breadth of that claim, the specification provides inadequate support for the claim under [§ 112(a)]").
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 The only specification paragraphs where the stem “measur$” and the word “configuration” apparently appear together are published paragraphs [0157] and [0177] referring to a “configuration” of the base station or terminal device including a “channel measuring unit” 1059 or 2059.
7 Now U.S. Patent 10,511,091.
8 Now U.S. Patent 11,129,067.
9 References regarding Teague (‘516) are to the ‘516 publication e.g., unless specified as being from the provisional application.
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