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 .
Claims 16-35 have been examined.
P = paragraph e.g. P[0001] = paragraph[0001]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objection to Claim 16, the Applicant argues “Regarding the objection to Claim 16, as indicated above, this claim is amended to address the typographical error identified by the Examiner”.
However, the limitation containing the improper grammar “at least one processor is configured to” remains unchanged in amended Claim 16, therefore, the amendment has not addressed the objection to Claim 16, and the objection is again applied in the present application, and the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant argues
“Specifically, the Examiner asserts:
Claims 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) "receive, from a base station, via the transceiver, a first message including configuration information associated with an availability of updated flight path information, determine that a flight path is updated or a new flight path is detected, and initiate a procedure for reporting the updated flight path information based on the determination," which falls into the grouping of mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processor used to perform the abstract idea is a conventional and generic computing device which does no more than provide a technological environment for the execution of the abstract idea itself. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional sensor components of a transmitter and receivers which are recited at a high level of generality for the insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering (See MPEP 2016.05(a), TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747, therefore, the additional limitations "from a base station, via the transceiver" are directed to a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. (Office Action, pages 2-6.)”.
The Examiner clarifies for the record that what the Applicant states after the colon of the “the Examiner asserts:” is not a quote of pages 2-6 of the Office Action, or a quote of any portion of the Office Action, but is instead entirely a collection of the Applicant’s own words. The Examiner also clarifies for the record that this collection of the Applicant’s own words mischaracterizes the actual rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as written in the Office Action, as can be seen by simply reading what was actually written in the previous Office Action.
The Applicant argues
“The Examiner's analysis is deficient for relying on the undefined standard of "without significantly more." Neither the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines nor the MPEP provides guidance regarding how to define "significantly more" and the Examiner has failed to meet the Examiner's initial burden of presenting a primafacie case of unpatentability. See MPEP 2106.111 ("The examiner bears the initial burden ... of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.") For at least this reason, the §101 rejection must be withdrawn.
This is not a situation where general-purpose computer components are added post-hoc to a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation. Rather, the claims are directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem of user terminal in the wireless telecommunication network.
For at least the above reasons, amended Claims 16, 21, 26, and 31 as a whole amount to significantly more than an abstract idea and is directed to patent eligible subject matter under § 101”.
The arguments are not persuasive. The argument “Neither the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines nor the MPEP provides guidance regarding how to define "significantly more"” is false, as can be seen by simply reading at least section 2106 of the MPEP, and step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test.
Furthermore, the arguments “The Examiner's analysis is deficient for relying on the undefined standard of "without significantly more." Neither the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines nor the MPEP provides guidance regarding how to define "significantly more" and the Examiner has failed to meet the Examiner's initial burden of presenting a primafacie case of unpatentability. See MPEP 2106.111 ("The examiner bears the initial burden ... of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.")” are presented entirely with no supporting evidence whatsoever, and are instead baseless conclusory statements.
The determination of “significantly more” with respect to the claims is proper as seen in the MPEP, and the rejection included step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test, therefore, the Applicant is incorrect that “The Examiner's analysis is deficient for relying on the undefined standard of "without significantly more."”, and the Applicant is also incorrect that “Neither the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines nor the MPEP provides guidance regarding how to define "significantly more"”. The Applicant’s position ignores the rejection as written, is not supported by any evidence, and is not supported by the MPEP, and the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument “This is not a situation where general-purpose computer components are added post-hoc to a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation. Rather, the claims are directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem of user terminal in the wireless telecommunication network”, this argument is not persuasive. Also, the Applicant provides no evidence showing how the rejection is improper, and merely stating “the claims are directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem of user terminal in the wireless telecommunication network” does nothing to show how the detailed analysis of the rejection indicating the abstract idea and how the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application is improper. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Therefore, paragraph [0286] of Hong at best describes that the base station configures whether reporting of second indication information, which indicates that the UAV stores flight path information, is allowed. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that the content disclosed in Hong is different from the amended independent Claims 16 and 26, which are directed to information that indicates that changed flight path information is available when the flight path is updated.
Rather, Hong relates an operation performed after transmitting what corresponds to the "indicator" in the present disclosure, e.g., an embodiment of a terminal reporting flight path information to a base station”.
The arguments are not persuasive. Regarding amended Claim 16, the limitation “for reporting an indicator to indicate the availability of the flight path information in case that the terminal has updated or new flight path information available”, the use of “for” and “to indicate” both indicate an intended use, therefore, all that is required by the prior art is an initiation of a “procedure”, which is clearly taught by Hong et al., such as the procedure that includes reporting the changed flight path information of P[0286] of Hong et al. Furthermore, the “indicator” encompasses the changed flight path information, as clearly receiving changed flight path information will “indicate the availability” of the changed flight path information. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive. See the new grounds of rejection.
The Applicant further argues
“Regarding the rejection of independent Claims 21 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong, these are also amended to include similar recitations to those of amended independent Claim 16 and 26. Therefore, for similar reasoning as set forth above, it is respectfully submitted that amended independent Claims 21 and 31 are also patentably distinct over Hong, and that the rejection should be withdrawn. Without conceding the patentability per se of the dependent claims, these claims are believed to be patentable over the cited prior art for at least the reasons given above with regard to their respective independent claims”.
The arguments are not persuasive for the reasons given above with respect to Claim 1 and for the reasons given in the new grounds of rejection. See the new grounds of rejection.
All arguments are not persuasive. All claims are rejected. No new prior art is introduced. See the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 recites “at least one processor is configured to”. This is improper grammar. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Note: The grammar of Claim 16 may be corrected by deleting “is” from the above citation, so that the claim reads as “at least one processor to”. Alternatively, another possible correction is adding “that” before “is”, so that the claim reads as “at least one processor that is configured to”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See below.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 16 is directed to a terminal (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 16 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 16 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 16 recites:
A terminal in a wireless communication system, the terminal comprising:
a transceiver; and
at least one processor is configured to:
receive, from a base station, via the transceiver, a first message including configuration information associated with an availability of flight path information, and
initiate a procedure for reporting an indicator to indicate the availability of the flight path information in case that the terminal has updated or new flight path information available.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, regarding the “receive” step, a user may mentally receive a first message including configuration information associated with an availability of flight path information. Furthermore, regarding the “initiate a procedure for reporting an indicator to indicate the availability of the flight path information in case that the terminal has updated or new flight path information available” step, a user may mentally initiate a procedure for reporting an indicator to indicate the availability of the flight path information in case that the terminal has updated or new flight path information available. The Examiner notes that the limitation “for” is directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claim, and the “initiate” step encompasses simply a decision, and no “reporting” step is required. Also, the limitation “to indicate” is also directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claim. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A terminal in a wireless communication system, the terminal comprising:
a transceiver; and
at least one processor is configured to:
receive, from a base station, via the transceiver, a first message including configuration information associated with an availability of flight path information, and
initiate a procedure for reporting an indicator to indicate the availability of the flight path information in case that the terminal has updated or new flight path information available.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation “A terminal”, the “terminal” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitation “in a wireless communication system”, the “wireless communication system” is recited at a high level of generality and merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Regarding the additional limitation “a transceiver”, the “transceiver” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitation “at least one processor is configured to”, the “at least one processor” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitation “from a base station, via the transceiver”, this limitation is directed to transmitting data, where the courts have determined that transmission of data does not show an improvement in computer-functionality, see MPEP 2016.05(a), TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747, therefore, the additional limitations “from a base station, via the transceiver” are directed to a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 16 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation “A terminal” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, the additional limitation “in a wireless communication system” merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, the additional limitation “a transceiver” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, the additional limitation “at least one processor” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and the additional limitation “from a base station, via the transceiver” is directed to transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 17-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 17-20 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 17-20 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claim(s) 16-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
See below regarding the dependent claims.
As per Claim 17, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 16. A user may mentally identify whether a flight path update condition is satisfied. Furthermore, the “transmit” step is directed to transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 18, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 16. A user may mentally identify that information on a distance threshold is included in the first message, determine that a distance between previously reported location information and new location information is more than a distance threshold value based on the information on the distance threshold, and determine that a flight path update condition is satisfied in case that the distance between the previously reported location information and the new location information is more than the distance threshold value. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 19, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 16. A user may mentally identify that information on a time threshold is included in the first message, determine whether a time difference between previously reported time information and new time information is more than a time threshold value based on the information on the time threshold, and determine that a flight path update condition is satisfied in case that the time difference between the previously reported time information and the new time information is more than the time threshold value. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 20, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 16. The two “transmit, to the base station, via the transceiver” steps are directed to transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 21 is directed to a base station (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 21 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 21 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 21 recites:
A base station in a wireless communication system, the base station comprising:
a transceiver; and
at least one processor is configured to:
transmit, to a terminal, via the transceiver, a first message including configuration information associated with an availability of flight path information, and
receive, from the terminal, via the transceiver, a second message including the availability of the flight path information for indicating that a flight path is updated in case that a flight path update condition is satisfied,
wherein a procedure for reporting an indicator to indicate the availability of the flight path information, in case that the terminal has updated or new flight path information available, is initiated.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, regarding the “receive” step, a user may mentally receive a second message including the availability of the flight path information for indicating that a flight path is updated in case that a flight path update condition is satisfied. Furthermore, regarding the “wherein a procedure for reporting an indicator to indicate the availability of the flight path information, in case that the terminal has updated or new flight path information available, is initiated” step, a user may mentally initiate a procedure for reporting an indicator to indicate the availability of the flight path information, in case that the terminal has updated or new flight path information available. The Examiner notes that the limitation “for” is directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claim, and the “initiate” step encompasses simply a decision, and no “reporting” step is required. Also, the limitation “to indicate” is also directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claim. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A base station in a wireless communication system, the base station comprising:
a transceiver; and
at least one processor is configured to:
transmit, to a terminal, via the transceiver, a first message including configuration information associated with an availability of flight path information, and
receive, from the terminal, via the transceiver, a second message including the availability of the flight path information for indicating that a flight path is updated in case that a flight path update condition is satisfied,
wherein a procedure for reporting an indicator to indicate the availability of the flight path information, in case that the terminal has updated or new flight path information available, is initiated.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of a “base station” comprising “a transceiver” and “at least one processor”, the “transceiver” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitation of the “at least one processor” that is configured to perform the claimed steps, the “at least one processor” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitations “transmit, to a terminal, via the transceiver, a first message”, these limitations are directed to transmitting data, where the courts have determined that transmission of data does not show an improvement in computer-functionality, see MPEP 2016.05(a), TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747, therefore, the additional limitations “transmit, to a terminal, via the transceiver, a first message” are directed to a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitations “from the terminal, via the transceiver”, these limitations are directed to transmitting data, therefore, the additional limitations “from the terminal, via the transceiver” are directed to a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, independent claim 21 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation “a transceiver” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, the additional limitation “at least one processor” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, the additional limitations “transmit, to a terminal, via the transceiver, a first message” are directed to transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and the additional limitations “from the terminal, via the transceiver” are directed to transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 22-25 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 22-25 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 22-25 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claim(s) 21-25 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
See below regarding the dependent claims.
As per Claim 22, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 21. The claim is directed to describing contents of a message and conditions under which a condition is satisfied, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The Examiner notes that a user may mentally determine if the flight path update condition is satisfied.
As per Claim 23, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 21. The claim is directed to describing contents of a message and conditions under which a condition is satisfied, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The Examiner notes that a user may mentally determine if the flight path update condition is satisfied.
As per Claim 24, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 21. The two “receive, from the terminal, via the transceiver” steps are directed to transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 25, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 21. The claim is directed to transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 26 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 26 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 26 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 26 recites:
A method performed by a terminal in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station, a first message including configuration information associated with an availability of flight path information; and
initiating a procedure for reporting an indicator to indicate the availability of the flight path information in case that the terminal has updated or new flight path information available.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, regarding the “receiving” step, a user may mentally receive a first message including configuration information associated with an availability of flight path information. Furthermore, regarding the “initiating a procedure for reporting an indicator to indicate the availability of the flight path information in case that the terminal has updated or new flight path information available” step, a user may mentally initiate a procedure for reporting an indicator to indicate the availability of the flight path information in case that the terminal has updated or new flight path information available. The Examiner notes that the limitation “for” indicates an intended use that does not further limit the claim, and the “initiating” step encompasses simply a decision, and no “reporting” step is required. Also, the limitation “to indicate” is also directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claim. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method performed by a terminal in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station, a first message including configuration information associated with an availability of flight path information; and
initiating a procedure for reporting an indicator to indicate the availability of the flight path information in case that the terminal has updated or new flight path information available.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation “performed by a terminal in a wireless communication system”, the “terminal” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitations “from a base station”, these limitations are directed to transmitting data, where the courts have determined that transmission of data does not show an improvement in computer-functionality, see MPEP 2016.05(a), TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747, therefore, the additional limitations “from a base station” are directed to a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, independent claim 26 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “terminal” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, and the additional limitations “from a base station”, these limitations are directed to transmitting data, where the courts have determined that transmission of data does not show an improvement in computer-functionality, see MPEP 2016.05(a), TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747, therefore, the additional limitations “from a base station” are directed to transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 27-30 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 27-30 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 27-30 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claim(s) 26-30 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
See below regarding the dependent claims.
As per Claim 27, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 26. A user may mentally identify whether a flight path update condition is satisfied. Furthermore, the “transmitting” step is directed to transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 28, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 26. A user may mentally identify that information on a distance threshold is included in the first message, determine whether a distance between previously reported location information and new location information is more than a distance threshold value based on the information on the distance threshold, and determine that a flight path update condition is satisfied in case that the distance between the previously reported location information and the new location information is more than the distance threshold value. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 29, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 26. A user may mentally identify that information on a time threshold is included in the first message, determine whether a time difference between previously reported time information and new time information is more than a time threshold value based on the information on the time threshold, and determine that a flight path update condition is satisfied in case that the time difference between the previously reported time information and the new time information is more than the time threshold value. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 30, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 26. The two “transmitting, to the base station” steps are directed to transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 31 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 31 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 31 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 31 recites:
A method performed by a base station in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
transmitting, to a terminal, a first message including configuration information associated with an availability of flight path information; and
receiving, from the terminal, a second message including the availability of the flight path information for indicating that a flight path is updated in case that a flight path update condition is satisfied,
wherein the flight path being updated or a new flight path being detected is determined by the terminal and a procedure for reporting an indicator to indicate the availability of the flight path information, in case that the terminal has updated or new flight path information available, is initiated.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, regarding the “receiving” step, a user may mentally receive a second message including the availability of the flight path information for indicating that a flight path is updated in case that a flight path update condition is satisfied. Furthermore, regarding the “wherein the flight path being updated or a new flight path being detected is determined by the terminal and a procedure for reporting an indicator to indicate the availability of the flight path information, in case that the terminal has updated or new flight path information available, is initiated” step, a user may mentally determine the flight path being updated or a new flight path being detected, and may mentally initiate a procedure for reporting an indicator to indicate the availability of the flight path information in case that the terminal has updated or new flight path information available. The Examiner notes that the limitation “for” indicates an intended use that does not further limit the claim, and the “initiated” step encompasses simply a decision, and no “reporting” step is required. Also, the limitation “to indicate” is also directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claim. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method performed by a base station in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
transmitting, to a terminal, a first message including configuration information associated with an availability of flight path information; and
receiving, from the terminal, a second message including the availability of the flight path information for indicating that a flight path is updated in case that a flight path update condition is satisfied,
wherein the flight path being updated or a new flight path being detected is determined by the terminal and a procedure for reporting an indicator to indicate the availability of the flight path information, in case that the terminal has updated or new flight path information available, is initiated.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation “performed by a base station in a wireless communication system”, the “base station” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitations “transmitting, to a terminal, a first message”, these limitations are directed to transmitting data, where the courts have determined that transmission of data does not show an improvement in computer-functionality, see MPEP 2016.05(a), TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747, therefore, the additional limitations “transmitting, to a terminal, a first message” are directed to a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitations “from the terminal”, these limitations are directed to transmitting data, therefore, the additional limitations “from the terminal” are directed to a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, independent claim 31 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “base station” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, the additional limitations “transmitting, to a terminal, a first message” are directed to transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and the additional limitations “from the terminal” are directed to transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 32-35 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 32-35 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 32-35 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claim(s) 31-35 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
See below regarding the dependent claims.
As per Claim 32, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 31. The claim is directed to describing contents of a message and conditions under which a condition is satisfied, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The Examiner notes that a user may mentally determine if the flight path update condition is satisfied.
As per Claim 33, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 31. The claim is directed to describing contents of a message and conditions under which a condition is satisfied, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The Examiner notes that a user may mentally determine if the flight path update condition is satisfied.
As per Claim 34, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 31. The two “receiving, from the terminal” steps are directed to transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 35, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 31. The claim is directed to transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong et al. (CN115004853A).
Regarding Claim 16, Hong et al. teaches the claimed terminal in a wireless communication system, the terminal comprising:
a transceiver (“…a wireless transmitting/receiving component 2724…”, see P[0521]); and
at least one processor (“…a processing component 2722…”, see P[0521]) is configured to:
receive, from a base station, via the transceiver, a first message including configuration information associated with an availability of (“…when the base station determines that the drone has the ability to report the flightpath information based on the capability information, the base station can send configuration information to the drone”, see P[0248] and “The flight path information may be the flight path information of the UAV in a fixed mode or the flight path information of the UAV in a dynamic mode…”, see P[0367])
initiate a procedure for reporting an indicator to indicate the availability of the flight path information in case that the terminal has updated or new flight path information available (“…based on the configuration information, the changed flight path information is reported to the base station”, see P[0286]).
Examiner’s Note:
Regarding Claim 17, the limitation “transmit, to the base station, via the transceiver, a second message including the indicator to indicate the availability of the ” is a limitation that is contingent on the condition “in case that the flight path update condition is satisfied” and is then not a limitation that is required by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 17, Hong et al. teaches the claimed terminal of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
identify whether a flight path update condition is satisfied (“…based on the configuration information, the changed flight path information is reported to the base station”, see P[0286]), and
transmit, to the base station, via the transceiver, a second message including the indicator to indicate the availability of the (“…based on the configuration information, the changed flight path information is reported to the base station”, see P[0286]).
Regarding Claim 20, Hong et al. teaches the claimed terminal of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
transmit, to the base station, via the transceiver, a third message including the indicator to indicate (“…based on the configuration information, the changed flight path information is reported to the base station”, see P[0286]), and transmit, to the base station, via the transceiver, a fourth message for reporting a capability supported by the terminal, the fourth message including information indicating whether the terminal supports reporting of flight path information (“…the UAV may report capability information to the base station after completing the target operation, where the capability information is used to indicate whether the UAV has the capability to report the flight path information”, see P[0227]).
Regarding Claim 21, Hong et al. teaches the claimed base station in a wireless communication system, the base station comprising:
a transceiver (“…a wireless transmitting/receiving component 2724…”, see P[0521]); and
at least one processor (“…a processing component 2722…”, see P[0521])
transmit, to a terminal, via the transceiver, a first message including configuration information associated with an availability of (“…when the base station determines that the drone has the ability to report the flightpath information based on the capability information, the base station can send configuration information to the drone”, see P[0248] and “The flight path information may be the flight path information of the UAV in a fixed mode or the flight path information of the UAV in a dynamic mode…”, see P[0367]), and
receive, from the terminal, via the transceiver, a second message including the availability of the (“…based on the configuration information, the changed flight path information is reported to the base station”, see P[0286]),
wherein an indicator to indicate the availability of the flight path information, in case that the terminal has updated or new flight path information available, initiated (“…based on the configuration information, the changed flight path information is reported to the base station”, see P[0286]).
Regarding Claim 24, Hong et al. teaches the claimed base station of claim 21, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive, from the terminal, via the transceiver, a third message including the indicator to indicate (“…based on the configuration information, the changed flight path information is reported to the base station”, see P[0286]), and receive, from the terminal, via the transceiver, a fourth message for reporting a capability supported by the terminal, the fourth message including information indicating whether the terminal supports reporting of flight path information (“…the UAV may report capability information to the base station after completing the target operation, where the capability information is used to indicate whether the UAV has the capability to report the flight path information”, see P[0227]).
Regarding Claim 26, Hong et al. teaches the claimed method performed by a terminal in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station, a first message including configuration information associated with an availability of (“…when the base station determines that the drone has the ability to report the flightpath information based on the capability information, the base station can send configuration information to the drone”, see P[0248] and “The flight path information may be the flight path information of the UAV in a fixed mode or the flight path information of the UAV in a dynamic mode…”, see P[0367]);
initiating a procedure for reporting an indicator to indicate the availability of the flight path information in case that the terminal has updated or new flight path information available (“…based on the configuration information, the changed flight path information is reported to the base station”, see P[0286]).
Examiner’s Note: Regarding Claim 27, the limitation “transmitting, to the base station, a second message including the indicator to indicate the availability of the ” is a limitation that is contingent on the condition “in case that the flight path update condition is satisfied” and is then not a limitation that is required by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 27, Hong et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 26, wherein initiating the procedure further comprises:
identifying whether a flight path update condition is satisfied (“…based on the configuration information, the changed flight path information is reported to the base station”, see P[0286]); and
transmitting, to the base station, a second message including the indicator to indicate the availability of the (“…based on the configuration information, the changed flight path information is reported to the base station”, see P[0286]).
Regarding Claim 30, Hong et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 26, wherein initiating the procedure further comprises:
transmitting, to the base station, a third message including (“…based on the configuration information, the changed flight path information is reported to the base station”, see P[0286]); and
transmitting, to the base station, a fourth message for reporting a capability supported by the terminal, the fourth message including information indicating whether the terminal supports reporting of flight path information (“…the UAV may report capability information to the base station after completing the target operation, where the capability information is used to indicate whether the UAV has the capability to report the flight path information”, see P[0227]).
Examiner’s Note:
Regarding Claim 31, the limitation “wherein the flight path being updated or a new flight path being detected is determined by the terminal and a procedure for reporting an indicator to indicate the availability of the flight path information” is a limitation that is contingent on the condition “in case that a flight path update condition is satisfied” and is then not a limitation that is required by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 31, Hong et al. teaches the claimed method performed by a base station in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
transmitting, to a terminal, a first message including configuration information associated with an availability of (“…when the base station determines that the drone has the ability to report the flightpath information based on the capability information, the base station can send configuration information to the drone”, see P[0248] and “The flight path information may be the flight path information of the UAV in a fixed mode or the flight path information of the UAV in a dynamic mode…”, see P[0367]); and
receiving, from the terminal, a second message including the availability of the (“…based on the configuration information, the changed flight path information is reported to the base station”, see P[0286]),
wherein the flight path being updated or a new flight path being detected is determined by the terminal and a procedure for reporting an indicator to indicate the availability of the flight path information, in case that the terminal has updated or new flight path information available, (“…based on the configuration information, the changed flight path information is reported to the base station”, see P[0286]).
Regarding Claim 34, Hong et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 31, further comprising:
receiving, from the terminal, a third message including the indicator to indicate (“…based on the configuration information, the changed flight path information is reported to the base station”, see P[0286]); and
receiving, from the terminal, a fourth message for reporting a capability supported by the terminal, the fourth message including information indicating whether the terminal supports reporting of flight path information (“…the UAV may report capability information to the base station after completing the target operation, where the capability information is used to indicate whether the UAV has the capability to report the flight path information”, see P[0227]).
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 18, 19, 22, 23, 28, 29, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (CN115004853A) in view of Saha et al. (2022/0404484).
Examiner’s Note:
Regarding Claim 18, the limitation “determine that a flight path update condition is satisfied” is a limitation that is contingent on the condition “in case that the distance between the previously reported location information and the new location information is more than the distance threshold value” and is then not a limitation that is required by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 18, Hong et al. teaches the claimed terminal of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
identify that information on a distance threshold is included in the first message, determine that a distance between
determine that a flight path update condition is satisfied in case that the distance between the previously reported location information and the new location information is more than the distance threshold value.
However, Saha et al. (2022/0404484) teaches requesting user equipment to provide differential reporting, where a network entity may produce a request that provides one or more parameters defining an event to trigger flight path reporting, where a trigger event may be a “spatial threshold or the temporal difference exceeding a time threshold” (Saha et al.; see P[0111]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hong et al. with the teachings of Saha et al., and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify that information on a distance threshold is included in the first message, determine that a distance between previously reported location information and new location information is more than a distance threshold value based on the information on the distance threshold, and determine that a flight path update condition is satisfied in case that the distance between the previously reported location information and the new location information is more than the distance threshold value, as rendered obvious by Saha et al., in order to provide for “obtaining flight path information” (Saha et al.; see P[0003]).
Examiner’s Note:
Regarding Claim 19, the limitation “determine that a flight path update condition is satisfied” is a limitation that is contingent on the condition “in in case that the time difference between the previously reported time information and the new time information is more than the time threshold value” and is then not a limitation that is required by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 19, Hong et al. does not expressly recite the claimed terminal of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
identify that information on a time threshold is included in the first message,
determine whether a time difference between
determine that a flight path update condition is satisfied in case that the time difference between the previously reported time information and the new time information is more than the time threshold value.
However, Saha et al. (2022/0404484) teaches requesting user equipment to provide differential reporting, where a network entity may produce a request that provides one or more parameters defining an event to trigger flight path reporting, where a trigger event may be a “spatial threshold or the temporal difference exceeding a time threshold” (Saha et al.; see P[0111]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hong et al. with the teachings of Saha et al., and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify that information on a time threshold is included in the first message, determine whether a time difference between previously reported time information and new time information is more than a time threshold value based on the information on the time threshold, and determine that a flight path update condition is satisfied in case that the time difference between the previously reported time information and the new time information is more than the time threshold value, as rendered obvious by Saha et al., in order to provide for “obtaining flight path information” (Saha et al.; see P[0003]).
Examiner’s Note:
Regarding Claim 22, the limitation “wherein the flight path update condition is satisfied” is a limitation that is contingent on the condition “in case that a distance between ” and is then not a limitation that is required by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 22, Hong et al. does not expressly recite the claimed base station of claim 21, wherein information on a distance threshold is further included in the first message, and wherein the flight path update condition is satisfied in case that a distance between .
However, Saha et al. (2022/0404484) teaches requesting user equipment to provide differential reporting, where a network entity may produce a request that provides one or more parameters defining an event to trigger flight path reporting, where a trigger event may be a “spatial threshold or the temporal difference exceeding a time threshold” (Saha et al.; see P[0111]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hong et al. with the teachings of Saha et al., and wherein information on a distance threshold is further included in the first message, and wherein the flight path update condition is satisfied in case that a distance between previously reported location information and new location information is more than a distance threshold value based on the information on the distance threshold, as rendered obvious by Saha et al., in order to provide for “obtaining flight path information” (Saha et al.; see P[0003]).
Examiner’s Note:
Regarding Claim 23, the limitation “wherein the flight path update condition is satisfied” is a limitation that is contingent on the condition “in case that a time difference between ” and is then not a limitation that is required by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 23, Hong et al. does not expressly recite the claimed base station of claim 21, wherein information on a time threshold is included in the first message, and wherein the flight path update condition is satisfied in case that a time difference between .
However, Saha et al. (2022/0404484) teaches requesting user equipment to provide differential reporting, where a network entity may produce a request that provides one or more parameters defining an event to trigger flight path reporting, where a trigger event may be a “spatial threshold or the temporal difference exceeding a time threshold” (Saha et al.; see P[0111]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hong et al. with the teachings of Saha et al., and wherein information on a time threshold is included in the first message, and wherein the flight path update condition is satisfied in case that a time difference between previously reported time information and new time information is more than a time threshold value based on the information on the time threshold, as rendered obvious by Saha et al., in order to provide for “obtaining flight path information” (Saha et al.; see P[0003]).
Examiner’s Note:
Regarding Claim 28, the limitation “determining that a flight path update condition is satisfied” is a limitation that is contingent on the condition “in case that the distance between the previously reported location information and the new location information is more than the distance threshold value” and is then not a limitation that is required by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 28, Hong et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 26, further comprising:
identifying that information on a distance threshold is included in the first message;
determining whether a distance between
determining that a flight path update condition is satisfied in case that the distance between the previously reported location information and the new location information is more than the distance threshold value.
However, Saha et al. (2022/0404484) teaches requesting user equipment to provide differential reporting, where a network entity may produce a request that provides one or more parameters defining an event to trigger flight path reporting, where a trigger event may be a “spatial threshold or the temporal difference exceeding a time threshold” (Saha et al.; see P[0111]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hong et al. with the teachings of Saha et al., and further comprising identifying that information on a distance threshold is included in the first message, determining whether a distance between previously reported location information and new location information is more than a distance threshold value based on the information on the distance threshold, and determining that a flight path update condition is satisfied in case that the distance between the previously reported location information and the new location information is more than the distance threshold value, as rendered obvious by Saha et al., in order to provide for “obtaining flight path information” (Saha et al.; see P[0003]).
Examiner’s Note:
Regarding Claim 29, the limitation “determining that a flight path update condition is satisfied” is a limitation that is contingent on the condition “in case that the time difference between the previously reported time information and the new time information is more than the time threshold value” and is then not a limitation that is required by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 29, Hong et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 26, further comprising:
identifying that information on a time threshold is included in the first message;
determining whether a time difference between
determining that a flight path update condition is satisfied in case that the time difference between the previously reported time information and the new time information is more than the time threshold value.
However, Saha et al. (2022/0404484) teaches requesting user equipment to provide differential reporting, where a network entity may produce a request that provides one or more parameters defining an event to trigger flight path reporting, where a trigger event may be a “spatial threshold or the temporal difference exceeding a time threshold” (Saha et al.; see P[0111]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hong et al. with the teachings of Saha et al., and identifying that information on a time threshold is included in the first message, determining whether a time difference between previously reported time information and new time information is more than a time threshold value based on the information on the time threshold, and determining that a flight path update condition is satisfied in case that the time difference between the previously reported time information and the new time information is more than the time threshold value, as rendered obvious by Saha et al., in order to provide for “obtaining flight path information” (Saha et al.; see P[0003]).
Examiner’s Note:
Regarding Claim 32, the limitation “wherein the flight path update condition is satisfied” is a limitation that is contingent on the condition “in case that a distance between ” and is then not a limitation that is required by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 32, Hong et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 31, wherein information on a distance threshold is further included in the first message, and wherein the flight path update condition is satisfied in case that a distance between .
However, Saha et al. (2022/0404484) teaches requesting user equipment to provide differential reporting, where a network entity may produce a request that provides one or more parameters defining an event to trigger flight path reporting, where a trigger event may be a “spatial threshold or the temporal difference exceeding a time threshold” (Saha et al.; see P[0111]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hong et al. with the teachings of Saha et al., and wherein information on a distance threshold is further included in the first message, and wherein the flight path update condition is satisfied in case that a distance between previously reported location information and new location information is more than a distance threshold value based on the information on the distance threshold, as rendered obvious by Saha et al., in order to provide for “obtaining flight path information” (Saha et al.; see P[0003]).
Regarding Claim 33, Hong et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 31, wherein information on a time threshold is included in the first message, and wherein the flight path update condition is satisfied in case that a time difference between .
However, Saha et al. (2022/0404484) teaches requesting user equipment to provide differential reporting, where a network entity may produce a request that provides one or more parameters defining an event to trigger flight path reporting, where a trigger event may be a “spatial threshold or the temporal difference exceeding a time threshold” (Saha et al.; see P[0111]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hong et al. with the teachings of Saha et al., and wherein information on a time threshold is included in the first message, and wherein the flight path update condition is satisfied in case that a time difference between previously reported time information and new time information is more than a time threshold value based on the information on the time threshold, as rendered obvious by Saha et al., in order to provide for “obtaining flight path information” (Saha et al.; see P[0003]).
Claims 25 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (CN115004853A) in view of Phuyal et al. (2022/0386208).
Regarding Claim 25, Hong et al. does not expressly recite the claimed base station of claim 21, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transmit, to a target base station, flight path information based on handover preparation.
However, Phuyal et al. (2022/0386208) teaches a base station communicating flight path information to another base station as part of a handover preparation (Phuyal et al.; see P[0052]), where handover conditions and the flight path are associated with a UAV (Phuyal et al.; see P[0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hong et al. with the teachings of Phuyal et al., and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transmit, to a target base station, flight path information based on handover preparation, as rendered obvious by Phuyal et al., in order to provide for “communicating, based on a handover condition, flight path information associated with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and performing a communication handover of the UAV” between a first base station and a second base station (Phuyal et al.; see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 35, Hong et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 31, further comprising transmitting, to a target base station, flight path information based on handover preparation.
However, Phuyal et al. (2022/0386208) teaches a base station communicating flight path information to another base station as part of a handover preparation (Phuyal et al.; see P[0052]), where handover conditions and the flight path are associated with a UAV (Phuyal et al.; see P[0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hong et al. with the teachings of Phuyal et al., and further comprising transmitting, to a target base station, flight path information based on handover preparation, as rendered obvious by Phuyal et al., in order to provide for “communicating, based on a handover condition, flight path information associated with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and performing a communication handover of the UAV” between a first base station and a second base station (Phuyal et al.; see Abstract).
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 ISAAC G SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8AM-5PM.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/ISAAC G SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662