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 .
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 01/06/2026.
In view of applicant’s amendment and arguments regarding rejection of claim(s) 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in the previous Office Action, the rejection(s) is/are hereby withdrawn.
The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejections necessitated by the applicant’s amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, 11 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: each claim recites “configured to receive a response message from to the second wireless communication node”. It appears that “to” needs to be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210256855 (Hong) evidenced by US 20220015159 (Li).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Hong teaches “A wireless communication method comprising:
transmitting, by a first wireless communication node, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) related information of a UAV to a second wireless communication node, wherein the UAV related information comprises at least one of UAV Flight Path Information (FIG 1 and par. 0146 – 0150: after the source base station (“a first wireless communication node”) obtains the flight path information on the UAV (step 110), the flight path information on the UAV is sent, by the source base station, to the target base station (“a second wireless communication node”)) during cell handover, at step 120) or UAV Height Information (Since the claim is written in the alternative form (“at least one of A or B”), it is sufficient to meet at least one of the limitations “A” or “B” in the claim to meet the limitations of the whole claim. In this case the limitation “A” is met.),
wherein the first wireless communication node and the second wireless communication node are gNodeBs, and the UAV related information is transmitted to the second wireless communication node via an Xn interface (while teaching transmission of “the UAV related information” “to the second wireless communication node” (see explanation above), Hong does not explicitly teach the rest of this limitation. In paragraph 0155, Hong teaches that the source base station is connected with the target base station through X2 interface. Hong does not specify what type of base stations are used in the system. In the previous Office Action, with respect to rejection of claim 6, the examiner took an Official Notice that 5G base stations, or “gNodeBs”, as well as the interface between them as “Xn” interface were well known in the art at the effective filing date of the application. Since the applicant failed to properly traverse the Official Notice, this common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is now taken to be admitted prior art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize, in the system of Hong, well known in the art 5G base stations, also known as “gNodeBs”, together with the interface between them as “Xn” interface as the source and target base stations shown in Hong’s FIG 2 and described throughout the disclosure. Doing so would have allowed to expand Hong’s teaching toward the newest types of base stations.),
wherein the UAV related information is transmitted to the second wireless communication node (please see explanation above)…”
Hong does not teach that the transmission of UAV related information is “via a NG-RAN Configuration Update message or a Retrieve UE Context Request message, wherein the first wireless communication node is configured to receive a response message from to the second wireless communication node via a NG-RAN Configuration Acknowledge message or a Retrieve UE Context Response message.”
However, transmission of configuration information between different base stations using NG-RAN messages is well known in the art. For example, Li in paragraphs 0070 and 0202 teaches usage of “a NG-RAN Configuration Update message” to transmit various information between two base stations through an Xn interface. Paragraph 0203 teaches transmission of a NG-RAN configuration update acknowledge message (“a NG-RAN Configuration Acknowledge message”) to confirm receipt of the original “NG-RAN Configuration Update message.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize well known in the art (and evidenced by Li) “a NG-RAN Configuration Update message” and “a NG-RAN Configuration Acknowledge message” to transmit information carrying “UAV related information”, and the associated response, between Hong’s source and target base stations simply as design choice with predictable results the results being utilization of already existing message format rather than specifically designing a new message format just for the “UAV related information” since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
With respect to usage of “a Retrieve UE Context Request message” and “a Retrieve UE Context Response message”, these limitations are recited on alternative basis with “a NG-RAN Configuration Update message” and “a NG-RAN Configuration Acknowledge message”, respectively. Since each of these limitations is written in the alternative form (“A or B”), it is sufficient to meet at least one of “A” or “B” in each of these limitations. In this case the limitations “A” (“a NG-RAN Configuration Update message” and “a NG-RAN Configuration Acknowledge message”) are met.
Regarding claims 2 – 5, “wherein the UAV Flight Path Information comprises at least one of way point location or time stamp information” (as in claim 2), “wherein the way point location comprises location coordinates of the UAV” (as in claim 3), “wherein the time stamp information comprises absolute time points” (as in claim 4) and “wherein the UAV Height Information comprises information about a height of the UAV above a sea level” (as in claim 5), these claims merely claim specific information to be transmitted and thus represent nonfunctional printed matter which does not have to be given any patentable weight.
“[T]he nature of the information being manipulated does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable computer-implemented product or process.” Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1889 (BPAI 2008) (precedential)
The court stated that, although limitations reciting printed matter cannot be ignored, “[w]here the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Although the printed matter must be considered, in that situation it may not be entitled to patentable weight.” In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Material is printed matter if it is “claimed for what it communicates.” In re Distefano, 808 F.3d 845, 850 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The limitations of claims 2 – 5 (the content of the information signals) merely characterizes the specific content of the transmitted information signals. Thus, the claimed limitations are directed to printed matter. See id. at 848 (A claim limitation is directed to printed matter “if it claims the content of information.”).
If a claim in a patent application claims printed matter, “one must then determine if the matter is functionally or structurally related to the associated physical substrate, and only if the answer is ‘no’ is the printed matter owed no patentable weight.” Distefano, 808 F.3d at 851. In the claims 2 – 5, the claimed content of the transmitted information signals is not specifically related to the structure of the transmitted information signals, or explicitly used in the claims such as by the wireless telecommunication system to perform any function. Rather, the content of the information signals is not functionally distinct from any other information that is transmitted or received. Accordingly, the limitations of claims 2 – 5 constitute nonfunctional descriptive material and printed matter not functionally related to the associated substrate, which are not entitled to patentable weight. The content of the information signals in the present claims is analogous to the data in Curry, where the type of data was found to be nonfunctional descriptive material in that it “does not functionally change either the data storage system or communication system used in the method of [the] claim.” Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d at 1274.
Because the content of the information signals specified by the limitations of claims 2 – 5 constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material, the particular type of transmitted information recited in claims 2 – 5 is not entitled to patentable weight.
Alternative rejection of claims 2 – 5 when all limitations are given patentable weight
Claims 2 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210256855 (Hong) evidenced by US 20220015159 (Li) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20160117932 (Park).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Hong does not teach “wherein the UAV Flight Path Information comprises at least one of way point location or time stamp information” (as in claim 2) and “wherein the way point location comprises location coordinates of the UAV” (as in claim 3).
Park teaches in paragraph 0038 that the flight path information may include one or more waypoints expressed in absolute terms (e.g., as GPS coordinates).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to include, in the flight path information of Hong, waypoints expressed in absolute terms (e.g., as GPS coordinates), as disclosed by Park. Doing so would have provided specific way of expressing flight path information.
With respect to recited in the claim 2 “time stamp information”, this limitation is recited on alternative basis with “way point location”. Since the claim is written in the alternative form (“at least one of A or B”), it is sufficient to meet at least one of the limitations “A” or “B” in the claim to meet the limitations of the whole claim. In this case the limitation “A” is met.
Regarding claim 4, “wherein the time stamp information comprises absolute time points”, this limitation depends from the limitation “wherein the UAV Flight Path Information comprises at least one of … or time stamp information” (or limitation “B”) of claim 2 which was recited on alternative basis. Since the parent claim 2 is written in the alternative form (“at least one of A or B”), it is sufficient to meet at least one of the limitations “A” or “B” in the parent claim and its dependencies, if any, in the current claim to meet the limitations of the current claim. In this case the limitation “A” (“wherein the UAV Flight Path Information comprises at least one of way point location”) in the parent claim was met which does not have any dependencies in the current claim.
Regarding claim 5, “wherein the UAV Height Information comprises information about a height of the UAV above a sea level”, this limitation depends from the limitation “wherein the UAV related information comprises at least one of … or UAV Height Information” (or limitation “B”) of claim 1 which was recited on alternative basis. Since the parent claim 1 is written in the alternative form (“at least one of A or B”), it is sufficient to meet at least one of the limitations “A” or “B” in the parent claim and its dependencies, if any, in the current claim to meet the limitations of the current claim. In this case the limitation “A” (“wherein the UAV related information comprises at least one of UAV Flight Path Information”) in the parent claim was met which does not have any dependencies in the current claim.
Claims 9 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210256855 (Hong) evidenced by US 20220015159 (Li) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20190059027 (Yang).
Regarding claim 9, Hong teaches “wherein the first wireless communication node is a…” “…central unit (this embodiment is shown in FIG 2B and described in paragraphs 0156 – 0157; the “central unit” shown as MME)…” “…and the second wireless communication node is a…” “…distributed unit (in FIG 2B shown as target base station)…” “…and the UAV related information is transmitted to the second wireless communication node via an…” “…interface (paragraph 0156: the MME sends the flight path information to the target base station (“the second wireless communication node”) through the second S1 interface, so that the target base station can provide network service to the UAV based on the flight path information on the UAV. The S1 interface is the communication interface between the base station and the MME.).”
Hong appears to teach a distributed system comprising a plurality of components connected through an interface, however, Hong does not teach a configuration in which the central unit is “gNB-CU”, that the distributed unit is “gNB-DU” and that the interface between them is “F1” interface.
Yang in FIG 1A and paragraphs 0019 – 0021 teaches structure of a Next Generation Node-B (gNB). The gNB 105 may include multiple components and may comprise a gNB central unit (gNB-CU) 106 and a gNB distributed unit (gNB-DU) 109. The gNB-CU 106 may include a control unit user-plane (CU-UP) entity 108 and a control unit control-plane (CU-CP) 107. The gNB-CU 106 and the gNB-DU 109 may communicate over an F1 interface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Yang structure of a Next Generation Node-B comprising multiple components, in a distributed system of Hong. Doing so would have allowed to expand the teaching of Hong toward the news types of base stations.
When the system of Yang is used to transmit flight path information in the system of Hong, this transmission would take place from the gNB-CU to the gNB-DU “via an F1 interface”, as the claim requires.
Regarding claim 10, Hong in combination with Yang teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the UAV related information is transmitted to the second wireless communication node (Hong, paragraph 0156: the MME sends the flight path information to the target base station (“the second wireless communication node”) through the second S1 interface, so that the target base station can provide network service to the UAV based on the flight path information on the UAV. This is done as part of the handover request. When combined with the teaching of Yang, the target base station (“the second wireless communication node”) would be implemented as gNB-DU) via a gNB-CU Configuration Update message, or a UE Context Setup Request message (Yang, FIG 9 and paragraph 0124: at operation #3 of 900, as part of the handover process, the CU-CP 930 (which is part of gNB-CU, as shown in FIG 1A) may send an F1-AP CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST message to T-DU 920 (which is a target gNB-DU).), or a UE Context Modification Request message;
wherein the first wireless communication node is configured to receive a response message from to the second wireless communication node via a gNB-CU Configuration Update Acknowledge message, or a UE Context Setup Response message (Yang, paragraph 0125: At operation #4 of 900, the T-DU 920 (which is a target gNB-DU) may send the F1-AP CONTEXT SETUP RESPONSE message to the T-CU-CP 925 (which is part of gNB-CU).), or a UE Context Modification Response message.”
Claims 11 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210021334 (Tang) evidenced by US 20220015159 (Li).
Regarding claim 11, Tang teaches “A wireless communication method comprising:
receiving, by a second wireless communication node, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) related information of a UAV from a first wireless communication node, wherein the UAV related information comprises at least one of UAV Flight Path Information (FIG 5 and paragraphs 0136 – 0138: step 510, a source network device (“a first wireless communication node”) sends a handover request to a target network device (“a second wireless communication node”), where the handover request may directly carry flight path information) or UAV Height Information (Since the claim is written in the alternative form (“at least one of A or B”), it is sufficient to meet at least one of the limitations “A” or “B” in the claim to meet the limitations of the whole claim. In this case the limitation “A” is met.); and
transmitting, by the second wireless communication node, a response message in response to the UAV related information to the first wireless communication node (step 520: The target network device (“the second wireless communication node”) sends a handover acknowledgment to the source network device (“the first wireless communication node”)),
wherein the first wireless communication node and the second wireless communication node are gNodeBs, and the UAV related information is transmitted to the second wireless communication node via an Xn interface (while teaching transmission of “the UAV related information” “to the second wireless communication node” (see explanation above), Tang does not explicitly teach the rest of this limitation. Tang does not specify what type of base stations are used as network devices (see par. 0089) in the system. In the previous Office Action, with respect to rejection of claim 16, the examiner took an Official Notice that 5G base stations, or “gNodeBs”, as well as the interface between them as “Xn” interface were well known in the art at the effective filing date of the application. Since the applicant failed to properly traverse the Official Notice, this common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is now taken to be admitted prior art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize, in the system of Tang, well known in the art 5G base stations, also known as “gNodeBs”, together with the interface between them as “Xn” interface as the source and target base stations shown in Tang’s FIG 5 and described throughout the disclosure. Doing so would have allowed to expand Tang’s teaching toward the newest types of base stations.),
wherein the UAV related information is transmitted to the second wireless communication node (please see explanation above)…”
Tang does not teach that the transmission of UAV related information is “via a NG-RAN Configuration Update message or a Retrieve UE Context Request message, wherein the first wireless communication node is configured to receive a response message from to the second wireless communication node via a NG-RAN Configuration Acknowledge message or a Retrieve UE Context Response message.”
However, these limitations are rejected in view of information well known in the art evidenced by Li as explained in the rejection of similar limitations in claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 12 – 15, these claims are rejected because of the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claims 2 – 5, respectively, in Section 7 above as directed to nonfunctional printed matter which does not have to be given any patentable weight.
Alternative rejection of claims 12 – 15 when all limitations are given patentable weight
Claims 12 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210021334 (Tang) evidenced by US 20220015159 (Li) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 20160117932 (Park).
Regarding claims 12 – 15, these claims are rejected in view of Park because of the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claims 2 – 5, respectively, in Section 8, because respective claims have similar limitations.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210021334 (Tang) evidenced by US 20220015159 (Li) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 20190059027 (Yang).
Regarding claim 19, Tang does not teach “wherein the first wireless communication node is a gNodeB central unit, gNB-CU, and the second wireless communication node is a gNodeB distributed unit, gNB-DU, and the UAV related information is received via an F1 interface;
wherein the UAV related information is received via a gNB-CU Configuration Update message, or a UE Context Setup Request message, or a UE Context Modification Request message;
wherein the response message is transmitted via a gNB-CU Configuration Update Acknowledge message, or a UE Context Setup Response message, or a UE Context Modification Response message.”
Tang does not specify what type of network devices are used in the system.
On the other side, Yang in FIG 1A and paragraphs 0019 – 0021 teaches structure of a Next Generation Node-B (gNB). The gNB 105 may include multiple components and may comprise a gNB central unit (gNB-CU) 106 and a gNB distributed unit (gNB-DU) 109. The gNB-CU 106 may include a control unit user-plane (CU-UP) entity 108 and a control unit control-plane (CU-CP) 107. The gNB-CU 106 and the gNB-DU 109 may communicate over an F1 interface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Yang structure of a Next Generation Node-B comprising multiple components, in the system of Tang, as each of the source network device and target network device in Tang’s FIG 5 so that there would be a gNB-CU connected to multiple gNB-DUs acting as Tang’s source network device and target network device. Doing so would have allowed to expand the teaching of Tang toward the newest types of base stations.
When the system of Yang is used to transmit and receive flight path information in the system of Tang, this transmission would take place, at least partially, from the gNB-CU to the target gNB-DU “via an F1 interface”, as the claim requires.
Further, when the system of Yang is used to transmit and receive flight path information in the system of Tang as part of the handover request, the following limitation would also be met: “wherein the UAV related information is received (Tang, FIG 5 and paragraphs 0136 – 0138: step 510, a source network device sends a handover request to a target network device, where the handover request may directly carry flight path information) via a gNB-CU Configuration Update message, or a UE Context Setup Request message (Yang, FIG 9 and paragraph 0124: at operation #3 of 900, as part of the handover process, the CU-CP 930 (which is part of gNB-CU, as shown in FIG 1A) may send an F1-AP CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST message to T-DU 920 (which is a target gNB-DU).), or a UE Context Modification Request message;
wherein the response message is transmitted via a gNB-CU Configuration Update Acknowledge message, or a UE Context Setup Response message (Yang, paragraph 0125: At operation #4 of 900, the T-DU 920 (which is a target gNB-DU) may send the F1-AP CONTEXT SETUP RESPONSE message to the T-CU-CP 925 (which is part of gNB-CU).), or a UE Context Modification Response message.”
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 GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights