CTNF 18/589,020 CTNF 89558 3667 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 DETAILED ACTION 08-06 Claims 7-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 14 April 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in which Claims 1-6 are examined. Claims 7-20 are withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 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 and transmit a flightpath report. The receiving is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the transmitting step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting step is 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 step is recited at a high level of generality and is 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 One 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, and 10-18 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 applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent and dependent claim analysis). 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 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 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. However, Saha teaches a user equipment flight path reporting with uncertainty of timestamp with regards to a temporal offset of each waypoint (Saha: “offsets may indicate to the target UE 801 to exclude any waypoint in the flight path 710 whose location is outside of a volume, around the reference location, defined by x+/−Δx, y+/−Δy and z+/−Δz, or a timestamp beyond t+/−Δt. Alternatively, the temporal offset Δt may indicate for the target UE 801 to exclude any waypoint whose timestamp is beyond t+Δt, and thus exclude any waypoint whose timestamp is before the indicated time t. The time t may be a present timestamp or another timestamp, e.g., a future time or a past time. As another alternative, a different value of Δt may be used for either side of the time t, e.g., to indicate to exclude any waypoint whose timestamp is outside of t−Δt.sub.1 and t+Δt.sub.2, where t.sub.1≠t.sub.2.” (Saha: ¶105). 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 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). 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 Application/Control Number: 18/589,020 Page 2 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 18/589,020 Page 3 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 18/589,020 Page 4 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 18/589,020 Page 5 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 18/589,020 Page 6 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 18/589,020 Page 7 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 18/589,020 Page 9 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 18/589,020 Page 10 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 18/589,020 Page 11 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 18/589,020 Page 12 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 18/589,020 Page 13 Art Unit: 3667
Prosecution Insights