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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The publications submitted in the information disclosure statement (IDS) of 12/16/2024 are being considered by the examiner. Please note that the Chinese Office Action issued in Chinese Patent Application No. 10-2022-0186323 is not been considered because no English translation has been provided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 2, 3, 5-7, 12A-12C,13A-13C, 14A-14C, 16A-16C are of poor quality and portions are not legible. For example, in Figs. 2, 3, and 5-7 many of subscripts and/or superscripts are not legible, in Figs. 12A-12C, 13A-13C, and 14A-14C, the graphs for “Ours” (n=1, n=3, n=5) are not distinguishable from each other, and in Figs. 16A-16C, the position of “user” vs “not served users” are not distinguishable from each other. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In par. [0094], portions of Eq. 13 are not legible.
In par. [0098], portions of Eq. 14 are not legible.
In par. [0101], portions of Eq. 15 are not legible.
In par. [0106], portions of Eq. 17 are not legible.
In par. [0108], portions of Eq. 18 are not legible.
In par. [0112], portions of Eq. 19 are not legible.
In par. [0115], portions of Eq. 20 are not legible.
In par. [0129], portions of Eq. 21 are not legible.
In par. [0130], portions of Eq. 22 are not legible.
In par. [0159], portions of Eq. 35 are not legible.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such a claim limitation is “communication module” in claim 10. The recitation “module” is a generic placeholder for the function of “communication.”
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, after reviewing the specification and figures, the examiner was not able to identify the corresponding structure. Although par. [0149] describes the functions of communication module 210, neither the description nor the Figures (including Fig. 17) discloses the structure for communication module 210.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 10-18 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. As discussed above, the recited “communication module” falls under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the specification fails to disclose the structure of the “communication module” and thus fails to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing the instant application. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected under 35 USC 112(a). Claims 11-18 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 10.
Claim limitation “communication module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, as discussed above. Therefore, the claim 10 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 11-18 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 10.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S. Zeng, H. Zhang, B. Di and L. Song, "Trajectory Optimization and Resource Allocation for OFDMA UAV Relay Networks," in IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 6634-6647, Oct. 2021 (“Zeng”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0104382 to Besda Portas et al. (“Portas”).
Regarding claim 1:
A tree-search based trajectory planning and resource management method of an unmanned aerial vehicle base station performed by a trajectory planning and resource management apparatus (Zeng discloses a UAV that performs trajectory planning and resource management. Zeng at p. 6634 (“the UAV relay considered in this paper should take into account both the links from UEs to the UAV and the link from the UAV to the BS, which makes the resource allocation and trajectory optimization different.”), the method including:
decomposing an optimization problem of trajectory planning, user association (UA), resource allocation (RA), and power control (PC) related to the unmanned aerial vehicle base station into a time axis (Zeng discloses that its method “decompose[s] the problem into three subproblems, i.e., mode selection [(“user association”)] and subchannel allocation [(“resource allocation”)], trajectory optimization [(“trajectory planning”)], and power allocation [(“power control”)]….” Zeng at Abstract and page 6635, col. 1, 1st full paragraph.);
managing resources by jointly optimizing variables of the UA, RA, and PC for an arbitrary location of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station and computing a predetermined objective function value (Zeng discloses an algorithm (i.e., joint model algorithm (JMS-T-P)) computes the weighted sum rate of the UEs (see Eq. 35) (“predetermined objective function value”). Zeng at pages 6637-6638, Section III. Zeng also discloses that the joint model algorithm (JMS-T-P) is for solving (“optimizing”) the subproblems (e.g., Mode Selection and Subchannel Allocation; Trajectory Optimization; and Power Allocation). Zeng at pages 6638-6641, Section IV.A-D.); and
obtaining the trajectory planning by obtaining position variables based on the computed predetermined function value and a depth-first search (DFS) algorithm (Zeng discloses optimizing the location qU (“position”) based on mode selection (“user association”) and subchannel allocation (“resource allocation”), and power allocation (“power control”). Zeng at page 6641, Algorithms 2 and 3.)
However, although each step of the iterative approach used by Zeng in the JMS-T-P algorithm computations can be thought of as a depth-first search (DFS) with a level of 1, Zeng does not explicitly disclose a tree search-based trajectory planning and that the trajectory planning uses a DFS algorithm.
A tree-search based trajectory planning … method including: … obtaining the trajectory planning by … a depth-first search (DFS) algorithm (In a same field of endeavor, trajectory planning for UAVs (and thus analogous art), Portas discloses building a tree of piloting strategies based on optimization instructions and that a search of the tree can be based on a depth-first search. Portas at pars. [0066]-[0068] and [0078]. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate a DFS algorithm into the search strategy of Zeng in order to “output a unique set of piloting strategies that univocally generates a trajectory complying with the flight constraints and the optimization criteria and user preferences.” Portas at par. [0066]. Because both Zeng and Portas relate to trajectory planning for UAVs, there would have been a reasonable chance of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.G.).
Regarding 3: The method of claim 1,
wherein, in the decomposition of the optimization problem into the time axis, a trajectory planning problem and a resource optimization problem are separated using a predetermined objective function (Zeng discloses decomposing Eq. 35 (“decomposition of the optimization problem”) into a trajectory optimization problem, Eq. 37 (“trajectory planning problem”), and mode selection and a subchannel allocation problem, Eq. 36 (subchannel portion is “resource optimization problem”) based on the function wnRn (“predetermined objective function”). Zeng at pages 6637-6638, Section III.).
Regarding claim 4: The method of claim 1,
wherein, in the management of the resources, when position variables and power control variables are given, user association variables and frequency allocation variables are optimized (Zeng at pages 6637-6638, Section III, Eq. 36 (“user association variables and frequency allocation variables are optimized”).).
Regarding claim 6: The method of claim 4,
wherein, in the management of the resources, when the position variables, the user association variables, and the power control variables are given, the frequency allocation variables are optimized (In a furtherance of Eq. 36, Zeng discloses an MSMA algorithm (Algorithm 1) that optimizes the subchannel(s) (“frequency allocation variables”) based on a given UE-Communication mode (MC) pair (“user association”). Zeng at pages 6638-6639, Section IV.A.).
Regarding claim 8: The method of claim 4,
wherein, in the management of the resources, when the position variables, the user association variables, and the frequency allocation variables are given, the power control variables are optimized (Zeng at pages 6637-6638, Section III, Eq. 38 (“power control variables are optimized”).).
Regarding claim 10:
A tree-search based trajectory planning and resource management apparatus of an unmanned aerial vehicle base station, the apparatus including: a communication module; a memory storing one or more programs; and a processor executing the stored one or more programs, the processor being configured to: decompose an optimization problem of trajectory planning, user association (UA), resource allocation (RA), and power control (PC) related to an unmanned aerial vehicle base station into a time axis; manage resources by jointly optimizing variables of the UA, RA, and PC for an arbitrary location of the unmanned aerial vehicle base station and computing a predetermined objective function value; and obtain the trajectory planning by obtaining position variables based on the computed predetermined function value and a depth-first search (DFS) algorithm (Please see analysis in claim 1.).
Regarding claim 12: The apparatus of claim 10,
wherein the processor separates a trajectory planning problem and a resource optimization problem using a predetermined objective function (Please see analysis in claim 3.).
Regarding claim 13: The apparatus of claim 10,
wherein, when position variables and power control variables are given, the processor optimizes user association variables and frequency allocation variables (Please see analysis in claim 4.).
Regarding claim 15: The apparatus of claim 13,
wherein, when the position variables, the user association variables, and the power control variables are given, the processor optimizes the frequency allocation variable (Please see analysis in claim 6.).
Regarding claim 17: The apparatus of claim 13,
wherein, when the position variables, the user association variables, and the frequency allocation variables are given, the processor optimizes the power control variable (Please see analysis in claim 8.).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Portas, and further in view of Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN_107894712A to Wu et al. (“Wu”).
Regarding claim 5: The method of claim 4,
wherein, in the management of the resources, optimal user association variables and frequency allocation variables are selected using a generalized water-filling technique with quality-of-service (QoS) constraints that jointly optimizes the user association variables and the frequency allocation variable (Zeng discloses that to “guarantee the QoS, the received SINR of one link over each occupied subchannel cannot be lower than a predetermined threshold” (“QoS constraints”). Zeng at page 6636. As discussed above, Zeng in view of Portas discloses optimizing mode selection and subchannel allocation (“user association variables and the frequency allocation variable”). However, Zeng in view of Portas does not explicitly disclose using a water-filling technique in the optimization. In a same field of endeavor, unmanned machine track optimization (and thus analogous art), Wu discloses use of water-filling algorithm to optimize power distribution and maximize downlink throughput. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wu’s water-filling algorithm into the system of Zeng when optimizing mode selection and subchannel allocation in order to maximize downlink throughput (see Wu at pages 6 and 8) while maintaining the constraints of SINR to guaranteeing QoS. Because both Zeng in view of Portas and Wu relate to trajectory planning and resource allocation, there would have been a reasonable chance of success. See § MPEP 2143.I.G.).
Regarding claim 14: The apparatus of claim 10,
wherein the processor selects optimal user association variables and frequency allocation variables using a generalized water-filling technique with quality-of-service (QoS) constraints that jointly optimizes the user association variables and the frequency allocation variable (Please see analysis in claim 5.).
Claims 7, 9, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Portas, and further in view of Chen, Kanghua, et al. “URLLC-oriented joint power control and resource allocation in UAV-assisted networks.” IEEE Internet of Things Journal 8.12 (2021) (“Cheng”) (submitted by Applicant in the IDS of 12/16/2024).
Regarding claim 7: The method of claim 6,
wherein, in the management of the resources, after being converted into a Lagrangian dual problem, optimal Lagrangian coefficients is obtained using a gradient descent technique, and the frequency allocation variables are selected by combination of the obtained Lagrangian coefficient (Zeng in view of Portas does not explicitly disclose that optimization of subchannel allocation (“frequency allocation variables”) is based on Lagrangian coefficients. However, in a same field of endeavor, trajectory control of UAV (and thus analogous art), Cheng discloses applying Lagrange duality to determine bandwidth allocation B (“frequency control variables”) using Lagrangian coefficients using a gradient method. Cheng at Sec. III.B. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to use the Lagrange dual decomposition technique of Chen in order to “to obtain the optimal bandwidth allocation.” Cheng at Sec. I.B. Because Cheng and Zeng in view of Portas are directed to UAV trajectory optimization, there would have been a reasonable chance of success. See § MPEP § 2143.I.G.).
Regarding claim 9: The method of claim 8,
wherein, in the management of the resources, after being converted into a Lagrangian dual problem, a Lagrangian coefficient that satisfies a Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) condition is obtained, and power control variables having the highest predetermined objective function value among the Lagrangian coefficients satisfying the KKT condition is selected (Zeng in view of Portas does not explicitly disclose that optimization of power allocation (“power control variables”) are based on Lagrangian coefficients satisfying a KKT condition. However, in a same field of endeavor, trajectory control of UAV (and thus analogous art), Yan discloses applying Lagrange duality to determine transmit power variable P (“power control variables”) using Lagrangian coefficients that satisfy Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) conditions. Cheng at Sec. III.B. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to use the Lagrange duality of Yan that satisfies a KKT condition in order to “efficiently solve[]” the transmit power variable P. Cheng at page 10109, 2nd col. Because Cheng and Zeng in view of Portas are directed to UAV trajectory optimization, there would have been a reasonable chance of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.G.).
Regarding claim 16: The apparatus of claim 15,
wherein, after being converted into a Lagrangian dual problem, the processor obtains optimal Lagrangian coefficients using a gradient descent technique, and selects frequency allocation variables by combination of the obtained Lagrangian coefficient (Please see analysis in claim 7.).
Regarding claim 18: The apparatus of claim 17,
wherein, after being converted into a Lagrangian dual problem, the processor obtains a Lagrangian coefficient that satisfies a Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) condition, and selects power control variables having the highest predetermined objective function value among the Lagrangian coefficients satisfying the KKT condition (Please see analysis in claim 9.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, assuming the 112 rejection is overcome for claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zeng, Shuhao, Hongliang Zhang, and Lingyang Song. “Trajectory optimization and resource allocation for multi-user OFDMA UAV relay networks.” 2019 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM). IEEE, 2019. Zeng discloses proportional fairness, trajectory planning, user association, resource allocation, and power control in an OFDMA network with an unmanned aerial vehicle.
Samir, Moataz, et al. "UAV trajectory planning for data collection from time-constrained IoT devices." IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications 19.1 (2019): 34-46. Samir discloses user association and resource allocation in a network with an unmanned aerial vehicle.
Liu, Xiao, et al. "Trajectory design and power control for multi-UAV assisted wireless networks: A machine learning approach." IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 68.8 (2019): 7957-7969. Liu discloses trajectory planning and power control in a network with an unmanned aerial vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHASKAR KAKARLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8221. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights