DEATAILED 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
The examiner has taken notice that claims 1, 7 and 9 have been amended and 4 and 10 canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-9 and 11-12 are now pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Vivanco and Kosseifi don’t show an “area size” that changes with altitude, because (according to the applicant) “area size” means the size of the grid squares used to store data in the radio map not the size of a base station’s coverage area.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim doesn’t say “grid” or “mesh”. The claim says “area size… based on which radio qualities are managed on the radio map…varies according to altitudes.” It doesn’t say anything about a grid, a mesh, or a specific database format. So, we have to read “area size” broadly as any area used to organize radio quality data on the map, not just a grid square.
Vivanco Paragraph [0030] describes that a base station’s coverage area is bigger at flight altitude than near the ground, because there are fewer buildings and obstacles blocking the signal higher up. And Vivanco Paragraph [0034] that this same coverage information organized by base station, position, and altitude is what gets stored in the coverage map.
Therefore, “the coverage area” is the unit that organizes radio quality info in the map, and that unit gets bigger or smaller depending on altitude. The “area size” isn’t written to mean something very specific “a fixed grid size that’s separate from the real world coverage area”.
The rejection of claim 1 and 7 for the same reasons, is therefore maintained under Vivanco. Kosseifi remains cited as evidence that altitude dependent variation of coverage/interference managing units (Paragraphs [0044] “a coverage area of base station may be larger at flight altitudes…than at lower altitudes”) was independently known in the art further supporting the position that a POSITA would have understood coverage area based organization of a radio map to vary in size with altitude as matter of routine expected radio frequency behavior.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vivanco et al. (US 2022/0148434) in view of Kosseifi et al. (US 2018/0294871).
Regarding claim 1, Vivanco teaches a communication control system for controlling communication with a flying object that is taking off or landing (Paragraphs [0055]-[0056] describes a Unmanned Arial Vehicle (UAV) management system that controls communication with UAVs during takeoff operations (block 255)),
the communication control system comprising: a control system including a computation device that executes a prescribed process, and a storage device that is connected to the computation device (Paragraphs [0031]-[0032]; [0036]; [0042]; [0061] describes processor executing instructions, and a storage device connected to the computation device);
and a flying object that communicates with the control system via a base station (Paragraphs [0019]; [0031]-[0032] describes the UAV 105 receiving information relayed from the UAV management system 135 via the base stations 125),
wherein the control system stores a radio map indicating a radio quality of each position and each flight altitude of the flying object and each base station (Paragraphs [0030]; [0034]-[0035] describes that the UAV management system stores a coverage map that captures signal strength metrics (RSSI, RSRP) indexed by position (altitude, azimuth, range) and is altitude specific for each base station),
wherein an area size based on which radio qualities are managed on the radio map, varies according to altitudes (the claim doesn’t require a technical distinction between “physical radio frequency coverage area” and “map grid cell size.” The claim doesn’t recite “grid,” “mesh,” “cell’ or “resolution.” Paragraphs [0030]; [0034] describes coverage areas are the units by which the coverage map organizes and manages radio quality data, and those units change size with altitude),
Vivanco doesn’t teach and with reference to the radio maps of a plurality of altitudes, a base station that has a favorable radio quality is selected on a taking-off and landing route in a taking-off and landing port.
In analogous art Kosseifi teaches and with reference to the radio maps of a plurality of altitudes, a base station that has a favorable radio quality is selected on a taking-off and landing route in a taking-off and landing port (Paragraphs [0038]; [0071]; [0047];[0048]- [0049]; [0054]; [0064] describes a system that stores multi-altitude signal strength statistics across positions and altitudes in the control system uses that multi-altitude data to select among available base stations based on which provides the most favorable signal quality at each position, and performs this selection across the entire flight path including the takeoff and landing phases that originate at a defined takeoff point such as a warehouse).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Vivanco by incorporating the teaching of Kosseifi, since such modification would reduce interference of signals from different base stations and selecting among available base stations based on which provides the most favorable signal quality at each position.
Regarding claim 2, Vivanco in view of Kosseifi, Kosseifi teaches wherein the flying object has a function of adjusting a directivity of an antenna to communicate with the base station, and controls the directivity toward a direction of a base station to become a communication partner, in accordance with the radio maps of the plurality of altitudes so as to maintain connection with the selected base station (Paragraphs [0004]; [0025]; [0028]; [0030]; [0053]; [0055]; [0071] describes a flying object the UAV that processes the function of adjusting antenna directivity through a dynamic physical shielding system that rotates and repositions around the antenna that controls this directivity specifically toward the direction of a selected base station by blocking signals from all other directions that performs including altitude based signal factors and network signal propagation information organized across a three dimensional space and that actively maintains the wireless communication link with the selected base station throughout flight by continuously adjusting the shield orientation as the UAV’s position changes).
Regarding claim 3, Vivanco in view of Kosseifi, Kosseifi teaches, wherein the flying object has a function of adjusting a directivity of an antenna to communicate with the base station by controlling a body direction of the flying object, and controls the directivity toward a direction of a base station to become a communication partner, in accordance with the radio maps of the plurality of altitudes so as to maintain connection with the selected base station (Paragraphs [0037]-[0038]; [0053]; [0055]; [0064]; [0069]; [0075] describes a UAV system that adjusts antenna directivity by controlling its body direction, align that directivity toward the selected communication partner base station, performs this control in accordance with stored multi-altitude radio quality maps, and maintains the resulting communication link with the selected base station).
Regarding claim 6, Vivanco in view of Kosseifi, Kosseifi teaches, wherein the control system determines whether a specific base station can be designated (Paragraphs [0029]; [0053] describes that the control system either the UAV processor or the cellular network carrier evaluates available base stations and selects a specific one as the designated communication partner by configuring the antenna shielding to favor that base station while blocking all others),
and performs control to establish continuous connection with the specific base station if the specific base station can be designated (Paragraphs [0055] describes the wireless communication link that the system establishes and preserves with the selected base station),
determines whether a directivity of an antenna of the flying object is adjustable, and performs control to set the directivity of the antenna toward the specific base station if the directivity of the antenna is adjustable (Paragraphs [0025]; [0037] describes that the antenna housing may be either movable and rotatable about one, two or three axes, or alternative fixed and not rotatable, presenting two distinct states of directivity adjustability),
and determines whether the directivity of the antenna is adjustable by body control of the flying object (Paragraphs [0064]; [0069] describes that processor 111 controls both the UAV body direction through avionics and control actuators and the antenna shielding configuration through antenna shielding controller 116, and that the processor may receive commands to move and rotate the UAV body itself as part of antenna directivity management),
and performs control to set the directivity of the antenna toward the specific base station if the directivity of the antenna is adjustable (Paragraphs [0038]; [0075] describes the control element of setting directivity toward the specific base station through body control when that mechanism is determined to be available, because they disclose that when the UAV is approaching a base station it wants to communicate with the antenna directivity configuration is set based on the UAV’s direction of travel which is the body direction control mechanism).
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1 respectively.
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2 respectively.
Claim 9 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3 respectively.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6 respectively.
Claim(s) 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vivanco in view of Kosseifi in further view of Yiu et al. (US 2020/0033849).
Regarding claim 5, Vivanco in view of Kosseifi don’t teach, wherein the control system determines number of times of performing re-transmissions and/or number of times of performing consecutive transmissions of data between the flying object and the control system, corresponding to a radio quality which is determined based on the radio maps of the plurality of altitudes, so that quality and reliability of communication between the flying object and the control system are ensured.
In analogous art Yiu teaches wherein the control system determines number of times of performing re-transmissions and/or number of times of performing consecutive transmissions of data between the flying object and the control system, corresponding to a radio quality which is determined based on the radio maps of the plurality of altitudes (Paragraphs [0068]; [0098]-[0099] describes the determination of N (number of repetitions) is driven by the radio quality consequence specifically the bit error rate resulting from reduced transmission power. The base station determines N repetitions precisely because lower power degrades signal quality (radio quality), requiring more repetitions to ensure reliable reception),
so that quality and reliability of communication between the flying object and the control system are ensured (Paragraphs [0068]; [0098]-[0099]; [0136] describes the purpose of repeating transmissions N times is to enable error correction without requiring retransmission ensuring communication reliability, further the system increases repetition count specifically to improve reception).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Vivanco and Kosseifi reducing interference of signals from different base stations and select among available base stations by incorporating the teaching of Yiu, since such modification would increase the number of repetitions of communications data to improve reception of the lower power transmissions.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5 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 MEHERET WOLDEGEBREAL KIDANE whose telephone number is (571)270-3642. The examiner can normally be reached M-F8:30-5.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/M.W.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/KAN YUEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights