DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment filed 2/3/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 17, 18, and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-23 have been newly added.
Claims 12-16 remain withdrawn.
Claims 1-11, 19, and 21-23 remain pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Given the present amendments to claim 1, it is not clear how claim 9 further limits claim 1. Claim 1 now includes limitations to “obtaining updated communication quality” so the limitations of claim 9 appear non-limiting.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-7, 9-11, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnjanovic et al. (US20180233055A1) in view of Altman (US20210114616A1) and Katar et al. (US20170245190A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 19,
Damnjanovic discloses a communication method (Fig. 4) comprising obtaining downlink transmission data of an aerial vehicle (Fig. 2, UE drone 202) comprising a communication module (Fig. 2, radio module 230), based on which the aerial vehicle establishes at least two communication links with a terminal device (Fig. 2, network device 270), the at least two communication links including a first communication link not using a cellular network communication protocol and a second communication link adopting the cellular network communication protocol (paragraphs 34-36; multiple connections with different radio access technologies including cellular and non-cellular/WLAN connections), a power assembly (Fig. 2, power module 250) configured to drive the aerial vehicle to move; a memory (Fig. 2, memory 221) storing a computer program (paragraph 32, 50); and a controller (Fig. 2, processor 220) is configured to execute the computer program/method to obtain downlink transmission data of the aerial vehicle (Fig. 4, 410; paragraph 25; UE drone obtains timing difference measurements based on CRS/PRS signals, position/altitude, etc.) and send the downlink transmission data to the terminal device based on the first communication link (Fig. 4, 420; paragraph 25, 35, 43-44; UE drone sends measurements/position/altitude to the network device/server).
Damnjanovic further shows determining a target data receiving mode from a plurality of data receiving modes including a first data receiving mode for receiving uplink transmission data sent by the terminal device based on the first communication link (paragraphs 36; communication between radio module 230 and the network device 270 using short-range/WLAN/BT connection), the uplink transmission data including at least one of feedback data in response to the downlink transmission data or control data for controlling the aerial vehicle (paragraphs 36; communication between radio module 230 and the network device 270 using short-range/WLAN/BT connection when the UE is at low altitude/closer to the network) and a second data receiving mode for receiving the uplink transmission data based on the first communication link and the second communication link (paragraph 36; communication between radio module 230 and network 270 switches between WLAN and cellular connections based on flight altitude/etc.); and controlling the communication module to work in the target data receiving mode, to receive the uplink transmission data (paragraphs 36-45; support high-bandwidth uplink transmission requirements over one or more of multiple connections based on UE drone capabilities and UE/network trigger conditions).
While Damnjanovic disclose support for multiple connections (paragraph 35) and signaling indication to the network via multiple different protocol mechanisms (paragraphs 34, 38), Damnjanovic does not expressly disclose a receiving mode for receiving uplink data based on simultaneous use of the first and second links.
Further analogous prior art to Altman (Title: Wireless Multiple-Link Vehicular Communication) discloses a receiving mode for receiving uplink data based on both the first and second communication link (paragraphs 11, 27, 131, 151-152, 166; multiple communication links used together/simultaneously) of an aerial vehicle/drone (Fig. 4; paragraph 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Damnjanovic by providing a receiving mode for receiving uplink data based on both the first and second communication link, as shown by Altman, thereby enabling aggregated bandwidth for reliable mobile broadband connectivity and high bandwidth uplink transmissions.
The combination of Damnjanovic and Altman discloses switching from the first data receiving mode to the second receiving mode by enabling the second communication link in response to a communication quality of the first link at the receiving end of the aerial vehichle failing to satisfy a present communication quality (Damnjanovic: paragraph 4, 25, 36-41; QoS/radio conditions with respect to determined/measured distance/altitude/interference; Altman: paragraph 24, 43-53, 114; multi-link implementations of varying durations/configurations based on predefined QoS/QoE thresholds) but fails to expressly show obtaining updated communication quality of the first link and switching back from the second to the first receiving mode in response to the updated quality satisfying the preset condition.
Katar discloses analogous art (Title: Techniques for Handling Data Stall in WLAN) including switching back from a second to a first receiving mode in response to updated communication quality satisfying the preset condition (paragraph 42, 70; switching from Wi-Fi to cellular includes switching back to Wi-Fi from cellular in response to determining the link quality of Wi-Fi improves/satisfies metrics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Damnjanovic and Altman by switching back from the second to first receiving mode in response to the updated quality satisfying the preset condition, as shown by Katar, thereby enabling automatic switching for optimized performance and operational cost when dynamically switching between multiple connections.
Regarding claim 2,
The combination of Damnjanovic, Altman, and Katar discloses the downlink transmission data includes at least one of: data collected by the aerial vehicle (Fig. 4, 410; paragraph 25; UE drone obtains timing difference measurements based on CRS/PRS signals, position/altitude, etc.) or downlink transmission data of another aerial vehicle to be forwarded by the aerial vehicle (paragraph 19; communication relay function).
Regarding claim 3,
The combination of Damnjanovic, Altman, and Katar discloses the plurality of data receiving modes further includes a third data receiving mode for receiving the uplink transmission data based on the second communication link (Damnjanovic: paragraph 36; communication between radio module 230 and network using cellular connections based on flight altitude trigger of UE drone indication).
Regarding claim 4,
Damnjanovic discloses the drone UE indicator is supportive of uplink heavy traffic configuration while ground UEs having higher downlink demands (paragraphs 7, 38, 41) but fails to expressly disclose the aerial vehicle further includes a buffer configured to record sent downlink transmission data, where a data volume of the sent downlink transmission data recorded in the buffer when the communication module works in the third data receiving mode is larger than a data volume of the sent downlink transmission data recorded in the buffer when the communication module works in the first data receiving mode or the second data receiving mode.
Altman discloses the aerial vehicle further includes a buffer configured to record sent downlink transmission data (paragraph 34, 88, 101, 115-116; buffered A/V data in advance during cellular handoff), where a data volume of the sent downlink transmission data recorded in the buffer when the communication module works in the third data receiving mode is larger than a data volume of the sent downlink transmission data recorded in the buffer when the communication module works in the first data receiving mode or the second data receiving mode (paragraph 19, 40, 64, 163; bonding/multi-link agent functionality include buffering for high uplink demands).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Damnjanovic by a buffer configured to record sent downlink transmission data, where a data volume of the sent downlink transmission data recorded in the buffer when the communication module works in the third data receiving mode is larger than a data volume of the sent downlink transmission data recorded in the buffer when the communication module works in the first data receiving mode or the second data receiving mode, as shown by Altman, thereby enabling aggregated bandwidth for reliable mobile broadband connectivity and high bandwidth uplink transmissions as well as ensuring smooth playback of streaming media during cellular handoff events.
Regarding claim 5,
The combination of Damnjanovic, Altman, and Katar discloses the data volume of the sent downlink transmission data recorded in the buffer when the communication module works in the third data receiving mode is determined based on a delay duration (i.e. latency) of the second communication link (Altman: paragraph 87, 95; minimum uplink throughput based on a specific latency). See motivation above.
Regarding claim 6,
The combination of Damnjanovic, Altman, and Katar discloses an enabling duration of the second communication link is longer than an enabling duration of the first communication link in the second data receiving mode (Damnjanovic: paragraph 4, 25, 34-36, 41; cellular network control of drone UEs over greater distance/altitude and time than short-range network control; Altman: paragraph 24, 43-53; multi-link implementations of varying durations/configurations). See motivation above.
Regarding claim 7,
The combination of Damnjanovic, Altman, and Katar discloses in the second data receiving mode, the second communication link is kept enabled and the first communication link is enabled periodically (Damnjanovic: paragraph 4, 25, 34-36, 41; cellular network control of drone UEs at different distance/altitude/time compared to short-range network control; Altman: paragraph 24, 43-53; multi-link implementations of varying durations/configurations). See motivation above.
Regarding claim 9,
The combination of Damnjanovic, Altman, and Katar discloses obtaining a communication quality of the first communication link (Damnjanovic: paragraph 4, 36-40; QoS/radio conditions with respect to determined/measured distance/altitude/interference) and determining the target data receiving mode from the plurality of data receiving modes includes determining the target data receiving mode from the plurality of data receiving modes based on the communication quality of the first communication link (Damnjanovic: paragraph 4, 25, 34-36, 41; cellular network control of drone UEs at different distance/altitude/time compared to short-range network control; Altman: paragraph 24, 43-53; multi-link implementations of varying durations/configurations).
Regarding claim 10,
The combination of Damnjanovic, Altman, and Katar discloses obtaining the communication quality of the first communication link includes determining the communication quality of the first communication link based on the feedback data (i.e. measurements/QoS; paragraph 4, 25, 34-36, 41).
Regarding claim 11,
The combination of Damnjanovic, Altman, and Katar discloses the plurality of data receiving modes further includes a third data receiving mode for receiving the uplink transmission data based on the second communication link and determining the target data receiving mode from the plurality of data receiving modes includes, in response to the communication module working in the first data receiving mode and a communication quality of the first communication link not satisfying a preset communication quality condition, switching a working mode of the communication module from the first data receiving mode to the second data receiving mode or the third data receiving mode (Damnjanovic: paragraph 4, 25, 36-41; QoS/radio conditions with respect to determined/measured distance/altitude/interference; Altman: paragraph 24, 43-53; multi-link implementations of varying durations/configurations; See also Katar above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 21,
The combination of Damnjanovic, Altman, and Katar discloses the first data receiving mode corresponds to a first uplink data transmission mode and the second data receiving mode corresponds to a second uplink data transmission mode, and the first uplink data transmission mode has a higher priority than the second uplink data transmission mode (Altman: paragraphs 52, 53, 61, 133, 139, 244-246; relative priority of various receiving modes).
Claim 8 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnjanovic, Altman, and Katar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pateromichelakis et al. (US20230239724A1), hereafter Pateromichelakis.
Regarding claim 8,
The combination of Damnjanovic, Altman, and Katar does not expressly disclose receiving the control data of a data receiving mode selection instruction from the terminal device to the aerial vehicle, instructing the aerial vehicle to work in the target data receiving mode; and determining the target data receiving mode from the plurality of data receiving modes based on the data receiving mode selection instruction.
Pateromichelakis discloses analogous art (Title: managing a C2 communication mode for an unmanned aerial system; Fig. 1A-B) including receiving the control data of a data receiving mode selection instruction from the terminal device to the aerial vehicle, instructing the aerial vehicle to work in the target data receiving mode; and determining the target data receiving mode from the plurality of data receiving modes based on the data receiving mode selection instruction (Abstract; Fig. 7, steps 715-720; Fig. 8, steps 815-820; paragraph 5, 6, 93, 186, 190-194, 203, 218-242; switching instruction to change between operation modes having different C2 communication links).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Damnjanovic, Altman, and Katar by receiving the control data of a data receiving mode selection instruction from the terminal device to the aerial vehicle, instructing the aerial vehicle to work in the target data receiving mode; and determining the target data receiving mode from the plurality of data receiving modes based on the data receiving mode selection instruction, as shown by Pateromichelakis, thereby ensuring communication mode control and mobility over different types of networks.
Claim 22 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnjanovic, Altman, and Katar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US20220182866A1), hereafter Lee.
Regarding claim 22,
The combination of Damnjanovic, Altman, and Katar does not expressly show the updated communication quality satisfies the preset communication quality condition when a smoothed interference level value of the first communication link in a preset period is lower than a preset value.
Lee discloses analogous art (Title: Transmitting Information Related to Sidelink Channel in NR V2X) related to aerial vehicles (paragraph 222) including updated communication quality satisfies the preset communication quality condition when a smoothed interference level value of the first communication link in a preset period is lower than a preset value (paragraph 200; separate quality measurement/averaging of interference for CSI-RS with different ransmission power values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Damnjanovic, Altman, and Katar by showing updated communication quality satisfies the preset communication quality condition when a smoothed interference level value of the first communication link in a preset period is lower than a preset value, as shown by Lee, thereby leveraging dynamic channel state information to maintain communication quality across multiple communication links.
Claim 23 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnjanovic, Altman, and Katar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alfarhan et al. (US20210274555A1), hereafter Alfarhan.
Regarding claim 23,
The combination of Damnjanovic, Altman, and Katar does not expressly show a differentiated uplink and downlink communication strategy is employed in which a data volume of the downlink transmission data is greater than a data volume of the uplink transmission data, and sending the downlink transmission data to the terminal device based on the first communication link comprises sending the downlink transmission data via the first communication link and not via the second communication link.
Alfarhan discloses analogous art (Title: System Access in Unlicensed Spectrum) related to drones (paragraph 36, 38, 57) including a differentiated uplink and downlink communication strategy is employed in which a data volume of the downlink transmission data is greater than a data volume of the uplink transmission data, and sending the downlink transmission data to the terminal device based on the first communication link comprises sending the downlink transmission data via the first communication link and not via the second communication link (paragraph 163; preferred UL and DL beams based on amount of data to transmit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Damnjanovic, Altman, and Katar by providing a differentiated uplink and downlink communication strategy is employed in which a data volume of the downlink transmission data is greater than a data volume of the uplink transmission data, and sending the downlink transmission data to the terminal device based on the first communication link comprises sending the downlink transmission data via the first communication link and not via the second communication link, as shown by Alfarhan, thereby providing differentiated UL and DL allocation grants based on reference signal measurement, data amount, and beam preference for UL and DL communication.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claims, as amended have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on newly-cited Katar reference for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477