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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 11/15/2023 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11/15/2023 are accepted.
Examiner’s Note Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 Compliance
Claims 8-13 recite “computer readable storage medium”. The Examiner views the definition of “computer readable storage media” and “mediums” found in paragraph [0099] of the Applicant’s filed specification to sufficiently support claims 8-13 to be within the statutory bounds set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101. Specifically, “A computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves…”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fanelli et al. (US-2019/0289613 hereinafter, Fanelli).
Regarding claim 1, Fanelli teaches a computer system (Fig. 3) for enhancing geospatial mobility management of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) (Abstract), comprising:
one or more processing devices; (Fig. 3 [320])
one or more memory devices communicatively and operably coupled to the one or more processing devices; (Fig. 3 [330])
a 5G network management tool at least partially resident within the one or more memory devices (Fig. 2 [260] and Page 5 [0046]), the 5G network management configured to:
generate a mapping between a UAV designator (Page 7 [0067] “a flight parameter can include one or more analysis parameters relating to a preference of an entity associated with the UAV” note: the flight plan is specific to a specific drone (or drones) and can qualify as a “designator”) and a plurality of geospatial region designators; (Page 7 [0066] “a flight plan can include airspace voxels to be traversed by the UAV (e.g., UAV 210), an order or sequence in which the airspace voxels are to be traversed”)
instantiate a network slice, wherein the network slice is associated with the UAV designator and the plurality of region designators; (Page 3 [0028] “one or more base stations and/or associated device(s) or system(s) can allocate one or more network slices and/or related network resources, as needed for UAV operations. In some implementations, the UAV management device can be configured to track and/or receive information regarding available network resources provided by one or more other network operators, and to utilize the information to provide recommendations regarding proposed flight plans, submit requests to such network operator(s) for network resource allocation purposes” i.e. location designations in flight plan, UAV designator because flight plan is specific to a UAV and those are being matched with network slices generated for their use in specific base stations)
generate a flight path for a UAV through a plurality of geospatial regions that is at partially determined subject to the network resources and the plurality of geospatial region designators; (Fig. 1D [142] and Pages 2-3 [0023] i.e. flight plan modified to meet network limitations and returned) and
execute a transit of the UAV through the flight path. (Page 3 [0024])
Regarding claims 8 and 14, the limitations of claims 8 and 14 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 1. See additionally [0051-0052], Claim 8 and Claim 15 in Fanelli for computer readable storage medium and method embodiments.
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 2-3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fanelli in view of Majjiga et al. (US-2024/0205810 hereinafter, Majjiga).
Regarding claim 2, Fanelli teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting receive a unique internation mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) for the UAV, wherein the IMSI is the UAV designator; and
assign a tracking area identification (TAI) to at least a portion of the flight path, wherein the TAI is the geospatial region designator, and a plurality of TAIs defines the plurality of geospatial region designators.
In an analogous art, Majjiga teaches a system and method for network slice and subscriber profile management for UAV flights through multiple cellular networks (Abstract) that includes a 5G network management tool (Fig. 5 [568]) that is configured to predict what network slice and eSIM profile are best for a UAV at a particular location along the flight path (Fig. 7 [700]) that includes:
receive a unique internation mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) for the UAV (Fig. 5 [550] and Page 7 [0065 & 0067] i.e. receiving eSIM profile(s) from the UAV, see Page 6 [0060]), wherein the IMSI is the UAV designator; (Page 6 [0060] “eSIM profile 425 may be associated with a subscriber ID, such as, for example, a Mobile Directory Number (MDN), an International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI)”) and
assign a tracking area identification (TAI) to at least a portion of the flight path (Fig. 10 [1020] TAI 1-11), wherein the TAI is the geospatial region designator (Fig. 9 [TAI X]), and a plurality of TAIs defines the plurality of geospatial region designators. (Fig. 9 [900])
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 Fanelli after modifying it to incorporate the ability to utilize IMSI(s) as UAV designators and assigning TAIs to portions of the flight path of Majjiga since it enables organizing the entire flight path with what cellular resources are required along the flight path, thereby preparing network resources to support the flight. (Majjiga Page 8 [0082])
Regarding claim 3, Fanelli in view of Majjiga teaches transit the UAV through the flight path without disruption. (Fanelli Page 1 [0007] “the success of a UAV's mission might depend on whether the UAV can remain connected to the network”)
Regarding claim 5, Fanelli in view of Majjiga teaches wherein the 5G network management tool is further configured to:
instantiate a first network slice and allocate the UAV to the first network slice; (Fanelli Fig. 1D [143]) and
instantiate a second network slice that is different from the first network slice, and reallocate the UAV to the second network slice. (Majjiga Page 4 [0037] “ instructing UAV 110 to select network slices and eSIM profiles during particular time slots of a flight path, and send the generated instructions to AF 250 to provide to UAV 110” and Fig. 11 [S-NSSAI-A4] is different and used after Fig. 11 [S-NSSAI-A3]).
Regarding claim 6, Fanelli in view of Majjiga teaches assign a tracking area identification (TAI) to each tracking area (TA) of a plurality of TAs (Majjiga Fig. 9 900] and Page 9 [0087]), thereby defining a list of TAIs (Majjiga Fig. 10 [1020]), wherein the TAI is the geospatial region designator (non-functional descriptive material1), and the list of TAIs defines the plurality of geospatial region designators. (Majjiga Fig. 9 [900] and Page 7 [0073])
Regarding claim 7, Fanelli in view of Majjiga teaches allocate the plurality of TAs to the UAV (Majjiga Fig. 7 [780] and Page 9 [0086] i.e. as part of the flight path and designators of when to change slices/eSIM profiles), wherein each TA of the plurality of TAs is allocated from the list of TAIs (Majjiga Fig. 9 [900] shows all TAIs in region, with Figs. 10 and 11 showing the selected TAIs), the list of TAIs includes authorized and restricted areas (non-functional descriptive material because this is simply a description of data but yet the claim does not make use of the data in any way for the details of “authorized and restricted areas” to matter, see footnote), and the plurality of TAs define the flight path. (Majjiga Fig. 9 [910] and Fig. 11 [1120])
Regarding claims 9, 10, 12 and 13, the limitations of claims 9, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 2-3 and 5-7.
Regarding claims 15, 16 and 18-20, the limitations of claims 15, 16 and 18-20 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 2-3 and 5-7.
Claims 4, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fanelli in view of Majjiga as applied to claims 1, 8 and 14 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (US-2024/0031235 hereinafter, Zhu).
Regarding claim 4, Fanelli in view of Majjiga teaches wherein the 5G network management tool is further configured to:
allocate the UAV to a first network slice; (Fanelli Fig. 1D [143] and Majjiga Fig. 11 [1140])
update a second network slice (Majjiga Fig. 11 [S-NSSAI-A4]) that is different from the first network slice (Majjiga Fig. 11 [S-NSSAI-A3]), and reallocated the UAV to the second network slice. (Majjiga Page 10 [0097] and Fig. 11 [S-NSSAI-A4] i.e. selected)
Fanelli in view of Majjiga teaches the ability to update any network slice (Page 10 [0093] “Slice updates field 1160 store information identifying whether any network slices were updated for the time slot. For example, AMF 220 may request that NSSF 262 enable a slice for UAV 110 for the time slot.”), but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting update the first network slice, and deploying the updated first network slice, wherein the UAV remains allocated to the first network slice.
In an analogous art, Zhu teaches an edge cloud platform for mission critical applications (Abstract) that includes the ability to leverage AI/ML predictions to update deployed network slice instance policies (Pages 4-5 [0047-0050]) for UEs accessing an application on the NSI. (Page 5 [0051])
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 Fanelli in view of Majjiga after modifying it to incorporate the ability to update NSI policies for deployed network slices of Zhu since it enables updating the policies of the NSIs based on real time traffic predictions, thereby maintaining the promised level of service. (Zhu Page 4 [0039])
Regarding claims 11 and 17, the limitations of claims 11 and 17 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-2022/0386147 to Majjiga et al. regarding network drive, location aware dynamic slice management to account for UAVs.
US-2024/0244507 to Nayak et al. which discloses dynamically adjusting the quota threshold for number of UEs per slice
US-2022/0394928 to Neubauer et al. which discloses an apparatus and method for guiding unmanned aerial vehicles while taking into account connectivity data
US-2022/0075375 to Michini et al. which discloses dynamically adjusting UAV flight based on radio signal quality
US-2020/0388169 to Barr et al. which discloses an autonomous aerial navigation system
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
1 The Applicant is reminded that structure defines how an apparatus differs from prior art apparatuses and when no difference in structure is defined, the assumption is made that the prior art structure meets the limitations.
The Examiner will not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582-1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336,1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have otherwise been obvious). See also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (nonprecedential), aff' d, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Claim limitations directed to printed matter are not entitled to patentable weight unless the printed matter is functionally related to the substrate on which the printed matter is applied.” Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP Ltd., 890 F.3d 1024, 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (emphasis added). This printed matter doctrine is not strictly limited to “printed” materials. Mallinckrodt, 890 F.3d at 1032. More specifically, “a claim limitation is directed to printed matter ‘if it claims the content of information.' ” Mallinckrodt, 890 F.3d at 1032 (quoting In re Distefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
In method cases, the relevant inquiry is whether a new and unobvious functional relationship with the known method exists. See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1072-73, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011); King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279, 95 USPQ2d 1833, 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2010).