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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action has been changed in response to the amendment filed on 5/29/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 7 and 8 have been amended. Claims 31-41 have been newly added. Claim 6 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-10 and 31-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Rosa et al. (US-2019/0379445 hereinafter, De Rosa) in view of Watts et al. (WO2024/173340 hereinafter, Watts).
Regarding claim 1, De Rosa discloses an apparatus configured for wireless communication (Abstract), comprising:
one or more antennas; (Fig. 1 [110] and Pages 4-5 [0039] “ In FIG. 1, the radio transceivers of the UAV 105 include an antenna 110, which may be omnidirectional or directional”) and
a processing system (Fig. 9 [905]) that includes processor circuitry (Fig. 9 [945]) and memory circuitry (Fig. 9 [950]) that stores code for the processor circuitry (Page 21 [0165] “The processor(s) 905 includes one or more processing units 945 configured via instructions 955 stored in a local memory 950 (e.g., a cache) of the processor(s) 905. In an aspect, the instructions 955 may include instructions that when executed, perform at least some instructions of FIGS. 4 and 5 and/or to implement the one or more of the units 600, 700, and 800 of FIGS. 6, 7, and 8.”), the processing system configured to cause the apparatus to:
transmit flight path information regarding a flight path of the apparatus; (Fig. 4 [415] and Pages 13-14 [0109])
receive a first modification to the flight path (Fig. 4 [440]), wherein the first modification is associated with a radio condition (Page 15 [0118] “ the UAV 105 transmits measurement reports to a serving base station of the UAV 105 during flight over the flight route. Such measurement reports may be transmitted periodically or aperiodically. For example, with reference to FIG. 1, the UAV 105 may select a different base station for different portions of the flight route (e.g., based on respective signal strength of different base stations)” and Fig. 4 [435]) and wherein the radio condition is associated with the flight path; (Page 15 [0118-0119] “the measurement reports and/or information derived from the measurement reports (e.g., by the serving base station that receives the measurement reports) may be transmitted by the serving base station to the core network 135 and/or aerial traffic management system 130. The measurement reports and/or information derived therefrom may be analyzed and utilized to update the geographic information, adjust the existing flight route of the UAV 105 and/or existing flight routes of other UAVs as appropriate based on the updated geographic information, and generate new flight routes based on the updated geographic information” and “at least a portion of the flight route provided to the UAV 105 at block 420 is adjusted”) and
trigger movement of the apparatus in association with the modification to the flight path information. (Fig. 4 [445] and Page 15 [0120])
De Rosa teaches that the apparatus can periodically or aperiodically transmit measurement reports (Fig. 4 [435]) and receive adjusted flight route information based on the measurement report (Fig. 4 [440]), but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting transmit a negotiation message indicating a change associated with the first modification, wherein the negotiation message includes a modification of a waypoint or time that was modified by the first modification; receive a second modification to the flight path information after transmitting the negotiation message and to trigger movement of the apparatus in association with the second modification of the flight path information.
In an analogous art, Watts teaches a negotiation for providing a network indicated fallback waypoint/flight path to a WTRU/UAV (Abstract) that includes an apparatus (Fig. 3 [WTRU]) that transmits flight path information regarding a flight pat of the apparatus; (Page 18 [0079] “If requesting to report WTRU flight path information, the WTRU may include flightPathlnfoReport in the UElnformationResponseMessage including available waypoints (e.g., all available waypoints up to the configured maximum)”)
transmit a negotiation message indicating a change associated with the flight plan (Fig. 3 [WTRUAssistance Information] and Page 21 [0095] “A WTRU may transmit a flight path update indication (e.g., an indication that the current flight path has changed from the most recent flight path report) and/or an updated flight path report (e.g., a full flight path report including waypoints and timestamps or a delta/partial flight path report)”), wherein the negotiation message includes a modification of a waypoint or time that was modified by the first modification; (Page 21 [0095] “WTRU may transmit a flight path update indication (e.g., an indication that the current flight path has changed from the most recent flight path report) and/or an updated flight path report”)
receive a second modification to the flight path information after transmitting the negotiation message; (Page 16 [0073] “or reception of a message initiating collision avoidance (e.g., from a CN)” i.e. CN – Core Network) and
trigger movement of the apparatus in association with the second modification of the flight path information. (Page 17 [0076] “ If the WTRU receives one or more fallback waypoint(s) and/or flight path(s), the WTRU may update a currently maintained flight path (e.g., the initial flight path) and may transmit an acknowledgement (ACK) to the network that the updated flight path has been applied”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of De Rosa after modifying it to incorporate the ability to negotiate modifications of waypoints or time associated with a flight path of Watts since it enables the WTRU to be able to communicate to the network when it has a better idea of a condition of a flight path than the network. (Watts Page 19 [0087])
Regarding claim 2, De Rosa in view of Watts teaches wherein the flight path information indicates a first point of the flight path and a second waypoint of the flight path (De Rosa Pages 2-3 [0024] “the flight route may be defined using a set of points” and Page 15 [0118] “initiates flight from the starting point to the destination point”), and wherein the modification to the flight path information indicates at least one of:
a modification to one or more of the first waypoint or the second waypoint (De Rosa Page 15 [0119] “In some cases, the detected event may be associated with an air corridor currently being navigated by the UAV 105. In some cases, the UAV 105 may be within an air corridor associated with the detected event, in which case the UAV 105 may need to maneuver out of the air corridor and into an air corridor identified in the adjusted flight route. In other cases, the adjustment may be for an air corridor not yet reached by the UAV 105.”), or
an additional waypoint for the flight path. (Watts Pages 21-22 [0096-0097])
Regarding claim 3, De Rosa in view of Watts teaches wherein the modification to the flight path information indicates a change to an altitude of operation of the apparatus. (De Rosa Fig. 2 [150C to 150B] and Page 11 [0092] note: changing flight corridors involves changing altitudes)
Regarding claim 4, De Rosa in view of Watts teaches wherein the processing system, to cause the apparatus to trigger movement in association with the modification to the flight path information, are configured to cause the apparatus to provide the modification to the flight path information to an uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV) motion tracker. (De Rosa Page 19 [0149] “In some cases, the mobility controller 610 may receive commands from the user device 115, base stations 120A-C, aerial traffic management system 130, and/or core network 135, to, for example, configure a flight route (e.g., program a flight route), adjust a programmed flight route, deploy the UAV 105, land the UAV 105, navigate the UAV 105, and/or other commands that facilitate navigating the UAV 105 and utilizing the UAV 105 to perform an action”)
Regarding claim 5, De Rosa in view of Watts teaches wherein the radio condition is a cellular coverage level of the flight path. (De Rosa Page 5 [0040] and Page 15 [0118])
Regarding claim 7, De Rosa in view of Watts teaches wherein the change associated with the first modification is associated with at least one of a battery of the apparatus or a remaining flight time of the apparatus. (De Rosa Page 18 [0140] “An alternative flight route may be selected from among candidate flight routes based on the flight plan (e.g., mission) of the UAV 105 and characteristics (e.g., battery life, desired arrival time, etc.) for example.”)
Regarding claim 8, De Rosa in view of Watts teaches wherein the processing system is configured to cause the apparatus to:
transmit information indicating a requested radio condition (De RosaPages 13-14 [0109] “At block 415, the UAV 105 transmits a flight plan to the aerial traffic management system 130.” and “the UAV 105 may indicate frequency, bandwidth, bit rate, communication protocol, and/or other communication-related characteristics requested by the UAV 105 from the cellular network”),
wherein the requested radio condition includes at least one of a quality-of-service parameter or a cell parameter, (De Rosa Page 3 [0029] “The flight routes can be coordinated to reduce the possibility of collisions (e.g., between different UEs or between a UE and an obstacle), maintain wireless connection of the UEs to a network during flight of the UEs, and/or meet quality of service (QoS) parameters for various applications (e.g., ground-based and/or aerial-based missions)”) and
wherein the processing system, to cause the apparatus to receive the modification to the flight path information, is configured to cause the apparatus to receive the modification in accordance with the requested radio condition. (De Rosa Page 15 [0119-0120])
Regarding claim 9, De Rosa in view of Watts teaches wherein the quality-of-service parameter indicates at least one of a throughput, a block error rate, or a latency. (De Rosa Page 3 [0026] “a UAV may be migrated to a communication channel (e.g., also referred to as a radio channel) of a different frequency band, lower bit rate (e.g., video compression for video streaming applications), different type/category associated with a communication technology (e.g., 4G), and/or different communication technology (e.g., Universal Mobile Telecommunications Service (UMTS))” and [0029] “meet quality of service (QoS) parameters for various applications”)
Regarding claim 10, De Rosa in view of Watts teaches wherein the cell parameter indicates at least one of a frequency range, a subcarrier spacing, or a power headroom. (De Rosa Page 3 [0026])
Regarding claim 31, the limitations of claim 31 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 32, De Rosa in view of Watts teaches wherein the processing system is configured to cause the apparatus to report the flight path information based on a deviation from the flight path defined by a series of waypoints (Watts Page 17 [0075] “report the waypoint and delta information from an initial flight path report” and “report waypoint(s)”) and wherein the apparatus deviates from the flight path by at least a threshold distance. (Watts Pages 21-22 [0097] “an actual position of the WTRU has deviated from the planned position (e.g., a previously provided flight path location) at a given time by more than a threshold (e.g., first distance threshold); an actual position of the WTRU has deviated from the closest position of the flight path by more than a threshold (e.g, second distance threshold)”)
Regarding claim 33, the limitations of claim 33 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 32.
Regarding claims 34-41, the limitations of claims 34-41 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 2-5 and 7-10, respectively.
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 MATTHEW C SAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 EST.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/Matthew C Sams/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights