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 action is in reply to the application filed on 06/14/2024. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/14/2024 have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS are hereby attached.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“positioning unit” performing the functions of determining the position as recited in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites a “a positioning unit” which is used to perform the function of determining a position of the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) based on a triangulation operation performed using a signal received, which invokes 112(f). However, the corresponding structure/algorithm to perform the function of determining the position is not described clearly in the specification ( Pg. 22, ll. 8-11 recites “For clarity and conciseness purposes, detailed description of conventional technology that may be utilised in or by the present invention, for example…the execution of machine-readable instructions by a processor or processors to achieve any described operation or function, is omitted.”) . Therefore, the specification fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 9-15 inherit the deficiencies of claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation, “and a positioning unit associated with the cellular network and functional to determine a position of the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) based on a triangulation operation performed using a signal received” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure does not provide any corresponding structure/algorithm in order to determine a position performed by the positioning unit. It is noted the term “unit” is considered to be a nonce term. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 9-15 inherit the deficiencies of claim 8.
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, 5-8 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract ideas as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as explained in Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in Step 2B analysis below:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–54.
The independent claims 1 and 8 are directed towards “A method” and “A system/apparatus respectively. Claims 5-7 and 12-15 cite similar limitations, therefore claims 1-15 are directed towards an apparatus, or a method.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, next analyzes whether claims 1, 5-8 and 12-15 recite additional elements that individually or in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–55. The 2019 Guidance identifies considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(a).
In addition to reciting the above-noted abstract ideas, the issue is whether the claims as a whole including various additional elements integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Independent claims 1 and 8 do not recite additional elements, taken
individually and in combination, that results in the claims as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception, for the following reasons:
The additional limitations in claim 1 include “A method comprising determining a position of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) based on a triangulation operation performed using a signal received, via cellular network communication, from a mobile communication device of the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) by each of a plurality of cellular network base stations of a cellular network.” Independent claim 8 cites similar limitations. None of the additional limitations provide a meaningful limit on the claimed invention. The specification as a whole appears to be directed to calculating the direction of the sun relative to the target satellite. The additional limitations are not directed to the inventive concept as it relates to the improvement. Rather the additional limitations are directed to data gathering and data processing which is an extra-solution activity.
The limitation “A method comprising determining a position of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) based on a triangulation operation performed using a signal received” (claim 1) is directed to a mathematical operation which amounts to a mathematical concept, thus failing to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The limitation “received, via cellular network communication, from a mobile communication device of the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) by each of a plurality of cellular network base stations of a cellular network” (claim 1) is directed to data gathering which amounts mere data acquisition, thus failing to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Independent claim 8 recites similar limitations, therefore are also analyzed similarly as claim 1 above. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 8 also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Under step 2B of the 2019 Guidance, the issue is whether the claims adds any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that, either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05(d).
As discussed above, the additional limitations recited are “A method comprising determining a position of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) based on a triangulation operation performed using a signal received, via cellular network communication, from a mobile communication device of the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) by each of a plurality of cellular network base stations of a cellular network.” (claim 1) and “via cellular network communication, from a mobile communication device of the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) by each of a plurality of cellular network base stations of a cellular network.” (claim 1)
The issue is whether the claims as a whole including the additional limitations, as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. In other words, the issue is whether the additional elements in combination (as well as individually) amount to an inventive concept.
Again, the additional limitations are directed to mere data gathering and data processing which is “well-understood, routine, and conventional” activity in the field. Thus, the additional limitations alone or in combination do not amount to an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 5-7 and 12-15 either further define the abstract ideas recited in claims 1 and 8 respectively, or add limitations which recite abstract ideas similar to the ones addressed above. Therefore, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Priest (US20190035287A1).
Regarding claim 1 Priest discloses: A method comprising determining a position of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) based on a triangulation operation performed using a signal received (Para 0086: “[0086] Referring to FIG. 7, in an embodiment, a map illustrates three cell towers 12 and associated coverage areas 410, 412, 414 for describing location determination of the UAV 50. Typically, for a cell site 10, in rural locations, the coverage areas 410, 412, 414 can be about 5 miles in radius whereas, in urban locations, the coverage areas 410, 412, 414 can be about 0.5 to 2 miles in radius. One aspect of the UAV air traffic control system 300 is to maintain a precise location at all time of the UAVs 50. This can be accomplished in a plurality of ways, including a combination. The UAV air traffic control system 300 can use triangulation based on the multiple cell towers 12, location identifiers from GPS/GLONASS transmitted over the cell network 402 by the UAVs 50, sensors in the UAV 50 for determining altitude, speed, etc., and the like.”), via cellular network communication, from a mobile communication device of the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) by each of a plurality of cellular network base stations of a cellular network (Para 0082: “Each UAV 50 is configured with a unique identifier, such as a SIM card or the like. Similar to standard mobile devices 100, each UAV 50 is configured to maintain an association with a plurality of cell towers 12 based on a current geographic location. Using triangulation or other location identification techniques (GPS, GLONASS, etc.), the location, altitude, speed, and direction of each UAV 50 can be continuously monitored and reported back to the servers 200. The servers 200 can implement techniques to manage this data in real-time in an automated fashion to track and control all UAVs 50 in a geographic region. For example, the servers 200 can manage and store the data in the data store 208.”).
Claim 8 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 7, therefore claim 8 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 2 Priest discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Priest further teaches: comprising deriving vehicle navigational data from the position determination (Para 0088:” The maintaining data can include the plurality of UAVs and/or the plurality of cell towers providing location, speed, direction, and altitude. The location can be determined based on a combination of triangulation by the plurality of cell towers and a determination by the UAV based on a location identification network. The plurality of function can include one or more of separation assurance between UAVs; navigation assistance; weather and obstacle reporting; monitoring of speed, altitude, location, and direction; traffic management; landing services; and real-time control. One or more of the plurality of UAVs can be configured for autonomous operation through the air traffic control. The plurality of UAVs can be configured with mobile device hardware configured to operate on a plurality of different cellular networks.”), and determining, using the derived vehicle navigational data, that a navigation assistance notification should be communicated to a notification receiver and, in response, communicating said navigation assistance notification to said notification receiver (Para 0058: “Further, the detected obstructions are static obstructions, i.e., not moving, which can be temporary or permanent. The ATC system can implement a mechanism to accurately define the location of the detected obstructions, for example, a virtual rectangle, cylinder, etc. defined by location coordinates and altitude. The defined location can be managed and determined between the ATC system and the UAVs as well as communicated to the UAVs for flight avoidance. That is, the defined location can be a “no-fly” zone for the UAVs. Importantly, the defined location can be precise since it is expected there are a significant number of obstructions at or near the ground and the UAVs need to coordinate their flight to avoid these obstructions. In this manner, the systems and methods seek to minimize the no-fly zones.”).
Claim 9 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 2, therefore claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 3 Priest discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Priest further teaches: wherein said notification receiver is the mobile communication device or a remote device (Para 0129: “The servers 200 are configured to receive the detection of potential obstructions. The UAVs 200 can either simply notify the servers 200 of a potential obstruction as well as provide the identification data for the servers 200 to perform identification and analysis. Upon receipt of any data from the UAVs 200 related to obstructions (a mere notification, actual photos, etc.), the servers 200 are configured to correlate this data with the DB 820. If the data correlates to an entry that exists in the DB 820, the servers 200 can update the entry if necessary, e.g., update any information related to the obstruction such as last seen date.”).
Claim 10 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 3, therefore claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 4 Priest discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Priest further teaches: wherein said navigation assistance notification comprises a warning (Para 0127: “For obstructions, the UAVs 50 can capture identification data, photos, video, etc. In an embodiment, the UAVs 50 are provided advanced notification of obstructions (in FIG. 18) and capable of local data processing of the identification data to verify the obstructions. If the local data processing determines an obstruction is already known, i.e., provided in a notification from the servers 200, the UAV 50 does not require any further processing or data transfer of the identification data, i.e., this obstruction is already detected. On the other hand, if the UAV 50 detects a potential obstruction, i.e., one that it has not been notified of, based on the local data processing, the UAV 50 can perform data transfer of the identification data to the servers 200.”).
Claim 11 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 4, therefore claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 5 Priest discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Priest further teaches: herein the cellular network has capabilities meeting a 2G, 3G, 4G or 5G standard as defined by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) (Para 0010: “Further, conventional wireless networks (e.g., Long Term Evolution (LTE), 5G, etc.) are optimized with the assumption User Equipment (UE) is located on the ground or close to it (e.g., multi-story buildings). There has not been a need to have adequate wireless coverage above the ground, e.g., several hundred feet to several thousand feet. With the proliferation of UAVs and the desire to have Air Traffic Control (ATC) using existing wireless networks (e.g., LTE, 5G, etc.), it is important to ensure adequate coverage, to identify coverage gaps, etc.”).
Claim 12 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 5, therefore claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 7 Priest discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Priest further teaches: wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is a multi-rotor unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Para 0014: “In a further embodiment, an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) includes one or more rotors disposed to a body and configured for flight; wireless interfaces including hardware and antennas adapted to communicate with a plurality of wireless networks at least one of which includes a cellular network; a processor coupled to the wireless interfaces and the one or more rotors”).
Claim 15 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 7, therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 13 Priest discloses all the limitations of claim 12. Priest further teaches: wherein the mobile communication communications device comprises a subscriber identification module (SIM) in a form of a universal integrated circuit card (SIM card) (Para 0082: “Each UAV 50 is configured with a unique identifier, such as a SIM card or the like. Similar to standard mobile devices 100, each UAV 50 is configured to maintain an association with a plurality of cell towers 12 based on a current geographic location.”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Priest (US20190035287A1) in view of Gong (US20160292403A1)
Regarding claim 6 Priest discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Priest does not teach “wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) has a weight that does not exceed 25kg “.
However, Gong in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) has a weight that does not exceed 25kg (Para 0143: “The UAV may be lightweight. For example, the UAV may weigh less than or equal to 1 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg, 500 mg, 1 g, 2 g, 3 g, 5 g, 7 g, 10 g, 12 g, 15 g, 20 g, 25 g, 30 g, 35 g, 40 g, 45 g, 50 g, 60 g, 70 g, 80 g, 90 g, 100 g, 120 g, 150 g, 200 g, 250 g, 300 g, 350 g, 400 g, 450 g, 500 g, 600 g, 700 g, 800 g, 900 g, 1 kg, 1.1 kg, 1.2 kg, 1.3 kg, 1.4 kg, 1.5 kg, 1.7 kg, 2 kg, 2.2 kg, 2.5 kg, 3 kg, 3.5 kg, 4 kg, 4.5 kg, 5 kg, 5.5 kg, 6 kg, 6.5 kg, 7 kg, 7.5 kg, 8 kg, 8.5 kg, 9 kg, 9.5 kg, 10 kg, 11 kg, 12 kg, 13 kg, 14 kg, 15 kg, 17 kg, or 20 kg. The UAV may have a weight greater than or equal to any of the values described herein. The UAV may have a weight falling within a range between any two of the values described herein. “) .
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Priest with Gong to incorporate the feature of: wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) has a weight that does not exceed 25kg. Priest and Gong are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose methods for safe operation of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). However, Priest fails to disclose UAV weight constraints. This feature is disclosed by Gong. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Priest with Gong to incorporate the feature of: wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) has a weight that does not exceed 25kg as such a feature would increase the energy efficiency of the system.
Claim 14 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 6, therefore claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bongani J. Mashele whose telephone number is (703)756-5861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00AM-5:00PM (CT).
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 Resha H. Desai, can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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.
/BONGANI JABULANI MASHELE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648