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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 10/19/2023 has been acknowledged
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-173808, filed on 10/28/2022.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 have been amended.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 09/12/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20200379118-A1 to Reid et al. (“Reid”) in view of US-20180017973-A1 (“Teague”) and US-20130042280-A1 (“Chen”).
Regarding claim 1, Reid teaches a server comprising (Reid [0060] “server system”):
at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out (Reid [0060] “server system can include at least one processor”):
an acquiring process of acquiring, from a communication terminal configured to communicate with low earth orbit satellite equipment (Reid Fig. 2), information which indicates a communication condition in the communication terminal regarding communication with the low earth orbit satellite equipment (Reid Fig. 2 ref 210 & 220 and [0048] – [0049]);
and a controlling process of referring to a radio wave map of a region including a location of the communication terminal (Reid [0116] “ionospheric mappings”) and the information (Reid [0077] - [0079], [0100], & [0101]), to control an air vehicle (Reid [0039] “Client devices can include … (UAVs) … to receive and/or utilize the atmospheric models, precision orbit data, and/or clock data.” and/or ref 110).
Reid does not teach an air vehicle that is configured to measure an attenuation of a radio wave between the air vehicle and the communication terminal, wherein the air vehicle is further configured to communicate with the communication terminal, and the at least one processor further acquires, in the acquiring process, the attenuation measured by the air vehicle, and in a case where the attenuation is greater than a predetermined value, controls the air vehicle in the controlling process so that the air vehicle communicates with the communication terminal. However, Teague teaches an air vehicle that is configured to measure an attenuation of a radio wave between the air vehicle and the communication terminal (Teague [0007] “a measure of radio link quality of communications with the drone dropping below a radio link quality threshold”), wherein the air vehicle is further configured to communicate with the communication terminal (Teague Fig. 4 & [0019]), and the at least one processor further acquires, in the acquiring process, the attenuation measured by the air vehicle (Teague [0007] “a measure of radio link quality of communications with the drone dropping below a radio link quality threshold”), and in a case where the attenuation is greater than a predetermined value (Teague [0087] – [0088]), controls the air vehicle in the controlling process so that the air vehicle communicates with the communication terminal (Teague [0032] – [0034], [0056], and [0087] – [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the server of Reid to incorporate the teachings of Teague such that the air vehicle being controlled is configured to measure an attenuation of a radio wave between the air vehicle and the communication terminal, wherein the air vehicle is further configured to communicate with the communication terminal, and the at least one processor further acquires, in the acquiring process, the attenuation measured by the air vehicle, and in a case where the attenuation is greater than a predetermined value, controls the air vehicle in the controlling process so that the air vehicle communicates with the communication terminal. Doing so would ensure that network strength, availability, and reliability is present for all locations of drone operations (Teague [0002]).
Reid as modified by Teague does not teach that in a case where the attenuation is greater than a predetermined value, performs control so that communication destination of the communication terminal is changed from the low earth orbit satellite equipment to the air vehicle. However, Chen teaches that in a case where the attenuation is greater than a predetermined value, performs control so that communication destination of the communication terminal is changed from the low earth orbit satellite equipment to the air vehicle (Chen Abstract and [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Chen to Reid as modified by Teague such that in a case where the attenuation is greater than a predetermined value, performs control so that communication destination of the communication terminal is changed from the low earth orbit satellite equipment to the air vehicle. Doing so would ensure that connection is present when there is an interruption (Chen [0001]).
Regarding claim 2, Reid as modified by Teague and Chen teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Teague further discloses that in a case where, at the location of the communication terminal, an intensity of a radio wave indicated by the information is smaller than a predetermined value based on an intensity of a radio wave indicated by the radio wave map (Teague [0027] and [0124] “The radio link quality trigger event may occur in response to a) a measure of radio link quality of communications with the drone dropping below a radio link quality threshold; b) the radio link quality of communications being below the radio link quality threshold longer than a predetermined period; c) a radio link quality deterioration rate exceeding a deterioration rate threshold; and/or d) the radio link quality deterioration rate exceeding a deterioration rate threshold longer than a predetermined period.”), the at least one processor controls the air vehicle in the controlling process so that the air vehicle measures the attenuation at the location of the communication terminal (Teague [0007], [0032] - [0034] and Fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Teague to Reid as modified by Teague and Chen such that in a case where, at the location of the communication terminal, an intensity of a radio wave indicated by the information is smaller than a predetermined value based on an intensity of a radio wave indicated by the radio wave map, the at least one processor controls the air vehicle in the controlling process so that the air vehicle measures the attenuation at the location of the communication terminal. Doing so would ensure that network strength, availability, and reliability is present for all locations of drone operations (Teague [0002]).
Regarding claim 4, Reid as modified by Teague and Chen teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Reid further discloses that the at least one processor further controls, in the controlling process, an emission direction of a radio wave emitted by the low earth orbit satellite equipment (Reid 13A - 13B and [0230], [0267] – [0272] “directional beamwidth”, “beam steering direction”), and controls the low earth orbit satellite equipment in the controlling process so that the low earth orbit satellite equipment changes the emission direction of the radio wave (Reid Fig. 13A – 13B and [0230], [0267] – [0272] “directional beamwidth”, “beam steering direction”).
Reid does not teach comparing the attenuation to a predetermined value and making case actions where the attenuation is greater than the predetermined value. However, Teague further discloses comparing the attenuation to a predetermined value and making case actions where the attenuation is greater than the predetermined value (Teague [0087] – [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Teague to Reid as modified by Teague and Chen such that the processor compares the attenuation to a predetermined value and makes case actions where the attenuation is greater than the predetermined value. Doing so would ensure that network strength, availability, and reliability is present for all locations of drone operations (Teague [0002]).
Regarding claim 5, Reid as modified by Teague and Chen teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2. Reid further discloses that the at least one processor further controls, in the controlling process, an intensity of a radio wave emitted by the low earth orbit satellite equipment (Reid [0193] “satellite 110 can narrowing the beamwidth and/or increasing the signal power to aid in increasing the received signal strength of navigation signal”), and controls the low earth orbit satellite equipment in the controlling process so that the low earth orbit satellite equipment increases the intensity of the radio wave to be emitted (Reid [0193] “satellite 110 can narrowing the beamwidth and/or increasing the signal power to aid in increasing the received signal strength of navigation signal” and [0192], [0272]).
Reid does not teach that the at least one processor further acquires, in the acquiring process, the attenuation measured by the air vehicle and comparing the attenuation to a predetermined value and making case actions where the attenuation is greater than the predetermined value. However, Teague further discloses that the at least one processor further acquires, in the acquiring process, the attenuation measured by the air vehicle (Teague [0007] “a measure of radio link quality of communications with the drone dropping below a radio link quality threshold”), and comparing the attenuation to a predetermined value and making case actions where the attenuation is greater than the predetermined value (Teague [0087] – [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Teague to Reid as modified by Teague and Chen such that the at least one processor further acquires, in the acquiring process, the attenuation measured by the air vehicle and compares the attenuation to a predetermined value and makes case actions where the attenuation is greater than the predetermined value. Doing so would ensure that network strength, availability, and reliability is present for all locations of drone operations (Teague [0002]).
Regarding claim 6, Reid as modified by Teague and Chen teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Reid further discloses that the at least one processor further acquires meteorological data at the location of the communication terminal, in the acquiring process (Reid [0041] “data can be transferred between the ground stations 200 and/or 201 and the satellites…” and [0078]), and further refers to the meteorological data to control the air vehicle, in the controlling process (Reid [0078] “The resource allocation module 325 operates to control the various operations of the satellite 110 based on reception of command data from a ground station … atmospheric data, weather data including a current weather state,…”).
Regarding claim 7, Reid as modified by Teague and Chen teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Reid further discloses that the at least one processor further acquires orbit information which indicates a predetermined orbit followed by the low earth orbit satellite equipment, in the acquiring process (Reid [0041] “data can be transferred between the ground stations 200 and/or 201 and the satellites…” and [0078]), and further refers to the orbit information to control the air vehicle, in the controlling process (Reid [0039] “Client devices can include … (UAVs) … to receive and/or utilize the atmospheric models, precision orbit data, and/or clock data.”).
With respect to claim 8-9, 11-14, all limitations have been examined with respect to the server in claims 1-2, 4-7. The server disclosed in claims 1-2,4-7 can clearly perform the control method of claims 8-9, 11-14. Therefore claims 8-9, 11-14 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to claim 15-16, 18-20, all limitations have been examined with respect to the server in claims 1-2, 4-7. The server disclosed in claims 1-2,4-7 can clearly perform the computer-readable non-transitory recording medium of claims 15-16, 18-20. Therefore claims 15-16, 18-20 are rejected under the same rationale. The computer-readable non-transitory medium is also disclosed in Reid (Reid [0287]).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 09/12/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim rejections of Claim 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot. Additionally, applicant does not explain why the office’s current mapping fails to disclose the limitations originally presented, but instead merely states what the prior art suggests and recites that “the art fails to disclose…”. Therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain. Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666