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 .
Status of Claims
This final rejection is in response to Applicant’s amended filing of 02/17/2026.
Claims 1-9 and 13-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant has amended claim 1; cancelled claims 10-12; and added new claims 13-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 rejected under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC § 101 against claims 1-12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-12 rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant broadly argues that Murphy and “the other cited references” do not disclose the amended limitations. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Examiner acknowledges that Murphy does not disclose, teach, or suggest the amended limitations, Neubauer suggests the amended limitations and is relied on to remedy the deficiencies of Murphy in the rejection below.
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 1-8 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (US 20180293897 A1; reference provided in European search opinion filed 07/20/2025) in view of Neubauer et al. (US 20200394929 A1; reference provided in European search opinion filed 07/20/2025).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20, Murphy discloses an apparatus comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, the one or more processors configured to perform operations (claim 13; see abstract and ¶ [0020-0022]) and computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer program code stored thereon (claim 20; see abstract and ¶ [0020-0022]) that, in execution with at least one processor, configures a computer-implemented method (claim 1; see abstract and ¶ [0020-0022]) comprising:
receiving entity parameter data corresponding to at least one signal handling entity associated with an environment, wherein the at least one signal handling entity supports communication of at least one signal type (see at least ¶ [0009] and [0017] disclosing using base station configuration data to develop a coverage model, the data including the band and power output of network radio frequency signals);
receiving dynamic environment data associated with an impact of a signal strength of the signal type in the environment (see at least ¶ [0009] and [0017] disclosing using environmental data to develop a coverage model, the data including geography and structures);
generating a model of signal strength in an environment for the at least one signal type (see at least ¶ [0015-0019] and [0026-0027] disclosing a coverage forecast engine and modeling module for producing a coverage model) by at least:
modeling a signal propagation for each signal handling entity of the at least one signal handling entity based at least in part on the entity parameter data and the dynamic environment data (see at least ¶ [0015-0019] and [0026-0027] disclosing a coverage forecast engine utilizing base station configuration data and environmental data to develop the coverage model);
determining the signal strength for the at least one signal type in the environment based at least in part on a combination of the signal propagations for the at least one signal handling entity (see at least ¶ [0018-0019], [0026-0027], and [0030-0031] disclosing the coverage forecast engine measuring network signal robustness values in developing a coverage model of a network);
identifying a set of coverage areas within the environment that are associated with different signal strengths based at least in part on the model (see at least ¶ [0015-0019] and [0026-0027] disclosing a coverage forecast engine utilizing base station configuration data and environmental data to develop the coverage model);
outputting a top-down coverage map of the set of coverage areas at least within proximity of a vehicle (see at least ¶ [0040-0042] and Fig. 3 depicting a UAV traveling through a network area where it may have to modify its travel path to avoid a coverage gap, represented in an overhead view);
outputting a vertical profile coverage map of the set of coverage areas at least within the proximity of the vehicle (see at least ¶ [0040-0042] and Fig. 3 depicting a UAV traveling through a network area where it may have to modify its travel path to avoid a coverage gap, represented in a profile view of vertical coverage layers);
and determining that a portion of a travel path of the vehicle is within a dead zone in the set of coverage areas (see at least ¶ [0040-0042] and Fig. 3 depicting a UAV traveling through a network area where it may have to modify its travel path to avoid a coverage gap, represented in an overhead and/or a profile view of vertical coverage layers).
Murphy does not explicitly disclose determining an optimal network corresponding to the dead zone based on additional entity parameter data, wherein the optimal network corresponds to a second signal type that is different than the at least one signal type;
and causing the vehicle to connect to the optimal network when the vehicle is within the dead zone.
However, Neubauer suggests determining an optimal network corresponding to the dead zone based on additional entity parameter data, wherein the optimal network corresponds to a second signal type that is different than the at least one signal type (see at least ¶ [0053-0058], [0063], and [0113-0114] disclosing monitoring network coverage areas for the strongest connection signals to a UAV to optimize the flight path for coverage, wherein network handover includes wireless, radio, cellular, and satellite networks);
and causing the vehicle to connect to the optimal network when the vehicle is within the dead zone (see at least ¶ [0053-0058], [0063], and [0113-0114] disclosing monitoring network coverage areas for the strongest connection signals to a UAV to optimize the flight path for coverage).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the network and flight path optimization of Neubauer into the coverage modeling of Murphy with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward determining signal strength of areas that provide connectivity to UAVs. This would facilitate the UAV operating in the coverage area by ensuring the strongest connectivity throughout its flight.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Murphy discloses the model of signal strengths comprises a modeled connectivity signal strength and a modeled position accuracy signal strength (see at least ¶ [0036-0038] disclosing the coverage model includes a query module and path analysis module that associates signal strength to coordinates in the coverage area and directing UAV flight paths away from coverage gaps with low robustness).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Murphy discloses receiving an updated proposed travel plan that navigates throughout the environment (see at least ¶ [0038-0040] disclosing modifying UAV flight paths to avoid areas containing signal robustness gaps according to the coverage model);
and updating at least one user interface comprising the top-down coverage map and the vertical profile coverage map to depict at least one updated signal strength associated with the vehicle along the updated proposed travel plan (see at least ¶ [0038-0040] and Fig. 3 disclosing modifying UAV flight paths to avoid areas containing signal robustness gaps according to the coverage model).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Murphy discloses receiving at least one signal interface parameter indicating a particular signal type, a provider identifier, or another parameter associated with the signal strengths associated with the set of coverage areas (see at least ¶ [0019] disclosing updating and associating signal robustness with 3-dimensional sections of airspace that the UAV travels through along their flight path);
determining an updated set of coverage areas based at least in part on the at least one signal interface parameter (see at least ¶ [0056-0058] and Fig. 6 disclosing updating the coverage model based on new signal robustness values detected along the flight path of the UAV);
and outputting a coverage map to a display, wherein the coverage map depicts the updated set of coverage areas (see at least ¶ [0001], [0021], [0023], [0043], and [0056-0058] disclosing the computing devices include UAV control devices and coverage model data can provide updated coverage models on computing device displays).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Murphy discloses the model of a first signal type is based at least in part on a first set of type-specific modeling parameters and the model of a second signal type is based at least in part on a second set of type-specific modeling parameters (see at least ¶ [0026-0028] disclosing the coverage area modeling signal robustness in correlation to other modeling factors, including the coordinates of the measurement, RF band, and date and time the measurement takes place).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Murphy discloses generating a travel plan based at least in part on the set of coverage areas (see at least ¶ [0038-0040] disclosing modifying UAV flight paths to avoid areas containing signal robustness gaps according to the coverage model).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Murphy discloses the top-down coverage map and the vertical profile coverage map are outputted to a display of an external vehicle control system associated with the vehicle (see at least ¶ [0001], [0021], [0023], and [0043] disclosing the computing devices include UAV control devices and coverage model data can be provided on computing device displays).
Regarding claim 8, Murphy discloses the entity parameter data comprises one or more from a set of entity location data, entity coverage data, entity system data, environment map data, environment structure data, and obstacle data (see at least ¶ [0009] and [0017] disclosing using base station configuration data to develop a coverage model, the data including site location, antenna height, antenna type, antenna orientation, antenna down tilt angle, radio frequency (RF) band, RF power output, and more).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy in view of Neubauer, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Malviya et al. (US 20180158343 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Murphy and Neubauer does not explicitly disclose the top-down coverage map and the vertical profile coverage map are outputted to a display onboard the vehicle.
However, Malviya suggests disclose the top-down coverage map and the vertical profile coverage map are outputted to a display onboard the vehicle (see at least abstract and ¶ [0019-0020] disclosing coverage map information being displaying in the aircraft).
While Malviya is directed toward an aircraft instead of a UAV, it is directed toward operating the aircraft routed through a coverage map. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the in-vehicle display of Malviya into the combination of Murphy and Neubauer with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward determining signal strength of areas that provide connectivity to flying vehicles. One of ordinary skill would recognize that selecting the place the coverage model is displayed only involves routine skill.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JARED C BEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5255. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/J.C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights