The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filed on 27 August 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending in which Claims 1-6 are examined. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 7-20 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments against rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as not directed to patent eligible subject matter has been carefully considered. Applicant seems to draw similarity of currently amended claim 1 to Claim 2 of Example 37 “Claim 2: A method of rearranging icons on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer system, the method comprising: receiving, via the GUI, a user selection to organize each icon based on a specific criteria, wherein the specific criteria is an amount of use of each icon; determining the amount of use of each icon using a processor that tracks how much memory has been allocated to each application associated with each icon over a predetermined period of time; and automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use.” and argue that claim 1 is eligible based on similar analysis of claim 2 of Example 37. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The subject matter and substantive limitations are not similar and very different. Analysis of claim 2 of Example 37 does not apply to the amended claim 1. Examiner maintains the rejection of subject matter eligibility and is set forth in this Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments against rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., US 2021/0012665 (A1) in view of Saha et al., US 2022/0404484 (A1) have been carefully considered. Applicant seems to argue against neither Wang nor Saha teaches a set of time uncertainty values corresponding to the set of expected time value. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Saha teaches location response from the LMF 120 (e.g., containing a location estimate for the UE 105) may be returned to the GMLC 125 either directly or via the AMF 115 and the GMLC 125 may then return the location response (e.g., containing the location estimate) to the external client 130", ¶44, 104: "The present flight path includes the flight path based on the present location and previous locations of the target UE 801 and may include an updated expected path between the present location of the target UE 801 and a destination of the target UE 801", ¶114: "At stage 830, the target UE 801, e.g., the flight path reporting unit 550, transmits flight path information 832 to the network entity 802”, ¶115: "the additional information may include uncertainties associated with the waypoints", ¶120: "Thus, the flight path information 832, 922 may include a full or partial flight path comprising one or more waypoints, with each waypoint including a waypoint ID, a location, and a timestamp"; claim 1; figure 1; figure 8: step 822).
Applicant also argue that neither Wang nor Saha teaches the newly added limitation “communicate with the network entity using one or more communication resources allocated based at least in part on the flightpath report”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Saha teaches “In a network-centric RTT estimation, the serving base station instructs the UE to scan for/receive RTT measurement signals (e.g., PRS) on serving cells of two or more neighboring base stations (and typically the serving base station, as at least three base stations are needed). The one of more base stations transmit RTT measurement signals on low reuse resources (e.g., resources used by the base station to transmit system information) allocated by the network (e.g., a location server such as the LMF 120)”, ¶80).
Applicant does not argue the dependent claims except the dependency of base claim 1. As the rejection of claim 1 is proper, rejection of dependent claims is proper.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Analysis for Independent Claim 1:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) (Step 2A Prong 1), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A Prong 2), and if so, re-evaluate whether the inventive concept is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (Step 2B).
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: statutory category
Independent claim 1 rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a machine, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claim and the other claims recite a machine to receive control signalling, transmit a flightpath report, and communicate with the network device as recited in independent claim 1. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by one or more processors”. That is, other than reciting “by one or more processors” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the one or more processors” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of by a one or more processors does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The claim recites additional elements to receive control signalling, transmit a flightpath report, and communicate with the network device. The receiving is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the transmitting and communicating steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting and communicating steps also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting result from the receiving step), and amounts to mere post solution transmitting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. These insignificant extra-solution activities merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose communication application. The transmitting and communicating steps are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the receiving step.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No)
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the transmitting step was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background discloses that wireless communication for communication devices using user equipment is will known [0002] . MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2-6:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 2-6 are directed to “the apparatus”. The claims are directed to a machine, which are statutory categories. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”.
Claims 2-6 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-6 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 2-6 recite additional limitations, which viewed both individually and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong Two for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-6 are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements in claims 2-6 fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually and as a whole, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis of step 2B for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-6 fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Dependent claims 2-6 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 2-6 are not patent eligible. Overall, claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter and are not patent eligible.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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 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.
Claim Rejections
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 of this title, 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., US 2021/0012665 (A1) in view of Saha et al., US 2022/0404484 (A1).
As to claim 1, Wang teaches an aerial user equipment (AUE) for wireless communications, comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (Fig. 5 and related text); and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually
or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the AUE to (Fig. 5 and related text):
receive, from a network entity, control signaling including a request for a
flightpath report from the AUE (“location information of the base stations associated with the aerial UE may include one of the following: the location information of the base stations in a current tracking area of the aerial UE; the location information of the base stations in a current neighbor cell list of the aerial UE; and the specific location of a base station requested by the aerial UE”, ¶10); and
transmit, to the network entity and in response to the request, the flightpath report (“intended flight path information of the aerial UE 12 with a time tag may be reported, for example to a network entity”, ¶44), wherein the flightpath report indicates a sequence of expected geographic locations along an expected flightpath for the AUE (“intended flight path information may include at least one of the following: a) starting time tag, ending time tag, and the relevant location information of the aerial UE”, ¶44), a set of expected time values corresponding to the sequence of expected geographic locations (“series of discrete positions with time tags”, ¶44).
Wang does not explicitly teach:
a set of time uncertainty values corresponding to the set of expected time values, and
communicate with the network entity using one or more communication resources allocated based at least in part on the flightpath report.
However, Saha teaches:
a set of time uncertainty values corresponding to the set of expected time value "Saha: location response from the LMF 120 (e.g., containing a location estimate for the UE 105) may be returned to the GMLC 125 either directly or via the AMF 115 and the GMLC 125 may then return the location response (e.g., containing the location estimate) to the external client 130", ¶44, 104: "The present flight path includes the flight path based on the present location and previous locations of the target UE 801 and may include an updated expected path between the present location of the target UE 801 and a destination of the target UE 801", ¶114: "At stage 830, the target UE 801, e.g., the flight path reporting unit 550, transmits flight path information 832 to the network entity 802”, ¶115: "the additional information may include uncertainties associated with the waypoints", ¶120: "Thus, the flight path information 832, 922 may include a full or partial flight path comprising one or more waypoints, with each waypoint including a waypoint ID, a location, and a timestamp"; claim 1; figure 1; figure 8: step 822).
communicate with the network entity using one or more communication resources allocated based at least in part on the flightpath report (Saha: “In a network-centric RTT estimation, the serving base station instructs the UE to scan for/receive RTT measurement signals (e.g., PRS) on serving cells of two or more neighboring base stations (and typically the serving base station, as at least three base stations are needed). The one of more base stations transmit RTT measurement signals on low reuse resources (e.g., resources used by the base station to transmit system information) allocated by the network (e.g., a location server such as the LMF 120)”, ¶80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for the control of aerial user equipments as taught by Wang to include a set of time uncertainty values corresponding to the set of expected time values, and communication with the network entity using one or more communication resources allocated based at least in part on the flightpath report as taught by Saha to improve the control of user equipments (Wang: ¶2).
As to claim 2, Wang modified by Saha teaches the AUE wherein the flightpath report further indicates a set of geographic coordinates and altitudes for the AUE representative of the sequence of expected geographic locations, a set of location uncertainty values corresponding to the sequence of expected geographic locations, an algebraic equation representative of the sequence of expected geographic locations, wherein time is an independent variable of the algebraic equation, or a combination thereof (Saha: algebraic equations 1-6 and related text; ¶111).
As to claim 3, Wang modified by Saha teaches the AUE wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the AUE to:
transmit, to the network entity, a second flightpath report comprising updated
location uncertainty values corresponding to at least a portion of the sequence of expected geographic locations (“The present flight path includes the flight path based on the present location and previous locations of the target UE 801 and may include an updated expected path between the present location of the target UE 801 and a destination of the target UE 801. The flight path information request 822 may request that the target UE 801 implement a combination of these ways, e.g., partial and differential flight path reporting, partial and triggered flight path reporting, triggered and differential flight path reporting, or partial, triggered, and differential flight path reporting”, ¶104).
As to claim 4, Wang modified by Saha teaches the AUE wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the AUE to:
receive, with the control signaling, an indication of a coordinate system for
reporting the sequence of expected geographic locations in the flightpath report (“user may employ audio, video and/or data I/O (input/output) devices and/or body sensors and a separate wireline or wireless modem. An estimate of a location of the UE 105 may be referred to as a location, location estimate, location fix, fix, position, position estimate, or position fix, and may be geographic, thus providing location coordinates for the UE 105”, ¶37).
As to claim 5, Wang modified by Saha teaches the AUE wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the AUE to:
receive, from the network entity, an indication of a plurality of network entities
along the sequence of expected geographic locations (Wang: “management of the flight plans (e.g., via the network management system 135 and/or other flight plan management system) may be provided by the same mobile network operator that provides the network managing system 135 and the base stations 125A-E, one or more other mobile network operators, and/or another party. The flight plans may be generated and managed to facilitate cellular connectivity of devices (e.g., devices at or near ground level, devices at flight altitude) and facilitate flight of devices at flight altitude. In some cases, cellular connectivity and/or flight plan generation/management may be provided to subscribed UEs only. In other cases, cellular connectivity and/or flight plan generation may be provided to subscribed UEs as well as unsubscribed UEs (e.g., with an additional fee for unsubscribed UEs)”, ¶64); and
monitor for one or more messages from one or more of the plurality of network
entities based at least in part on the indication of the plurality of network entities (Wang: “network management system 135 provided by a mobile network operator may utilize traffic information, including air traffic information, associated with devices connecting to cellular networks provided by the mobile network operator, as well as traffic information (e.g., air traffic information) not associated with cellular networks provided by the mobile network operator…In some cases, the network management system 135 may receive air traffic information from one or more other mobile network operators, such as flight plans generated by other mobile network operators.”, 65).
As to claim 6, Wang modified by Saha teaches the AUE wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the AUE to:
transmit, to the network entity during an initial access procedure with the network
entity, an indication of a capability of the AUE to transmit the flightpath report (Saha: “means for receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a capability report indicating a capability of the UE to report a flight path of the UE to the network entity”, ¶187).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi, can be reached on (313)446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Yuen Wong/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
