DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on 12/16/2025. Claims 1-20 have been canceled, and new claims 21-32 have been added. Claims 21-32 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The amendment filed 12/16/2025 has been entered and applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant has argued that the new claims are patent-eligible because “The human mind cannot transmit an indication that second flight path information is available, receive a request for only delta flight path information that indicates deltas between the first flight path information and the second flight path information and whether the deltas are propagative, determine the delta flight path information, and transmit flight path information that is limited to the deltas between the first flight path information and the second flight path information and an indication that the flight path update information is propagative.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees, because a human could mentally perform the step of determining the delta flight path information based on broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. This interpretation is supported by ¶ 73 of the instant specification, which states that “In examples, the partial or delta updated flight information may include a flag to report delta signaling. In examples, the partial or delta updated flight information may include at least one of a number of updated waypoints being available or a number of updated timestamps being available. In examples, the partial or delta updated flight information includes at least one of a number of invalid waypoints or a number of invalid timestamps.” Determining delta flight path information such as a number of updated and available or invalid waypoints or timestamps could be performed in the human mind.
Additionally, while the argued steps of receiving and transmitting the various messages could not be performed in the human mind, these steps are additional elements which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. This conclusion is explained in more detail in the section of claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 later in this Office action.
Since the claims recite an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and with no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The examiner respectfully suggests amending the claims to positively recite a practical application such as remote control of a UAV, as would be supported by ¶ 79 of the instant specification.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection which are necessitated by the filed amendment.
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 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 21 and 27:
Step 1: Claim 21 is directed to a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU). Claim 27 is directed to the corresponding method. Claims 21 and 27 are each directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claims 21 and 27 recite the abstract concept of determining delta flight path information. This abstract idea is described at least in claims 21 and 27 by the mental process steps of detecting that the first flight path information is required to be updated to second flight path information; and determining the delta flight path information between the first flight path information and the second flight path information. These steps fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas because they encompass a human mentally identifying that the first flight path information is required to be updated to second flight path information and mentally determining the delta flight path information between the first flight path information and the second flight path information.
This interpretation is supported by ¶¶ 71-72 of the instant specification, which states that “Based on information associated with changing from a previous flight path to an updated flight path, the WTRU may detect that a previous flight path is required to be updated with an updated flight path. In examples, the information about changing from the previous flight path to the updated flight path may include at least one of: a flag indicating an updated flight path is available, a flag indicating timing information is invalid, or a flag indicating waypoint information is invalid.” Detecting a requirement for updating flight path information based on a flag indicator could be performed in the human mind. Further, ¶ 73 of the instant specification states that “In examples, the partial or delta updated flight information may include a flag to report delta signaling. In examples, the partial or delta updated flight information may include at least one of a number of updated waypoints being available or a number of updated timestamps being available. In examples, the partial or delta updated flight information includes at least one of a number of invalid waypoints or a number of invalid timestamps.” Determining delta flight path information such as a number of updated and available or invalid waypoints or timestamps could be performed in the human mind. The limitations as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover their performance in the mind if not for the recitation of generic computing components.
Other than reciting the use of “a processor,” nothing in the steps of detecting that the first flight path information is required to be updated to second flight path information and determining the delta flight path information precludes the idea from practically being performed in the human mind. If not for the “processor” language, the claims encompass a human operator mentally performing each of these steps.
Step 2A, prong 2: The claims recite elements additional to the abstract concepts. However, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 21 recites a processor which is a generic computer (as supported by ¶ 29 of the instant specification) that is simply employed as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The use of generic computer components such as the processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 21 further recites that the processor is configured to transmit a first message, wherein the first message comprises an indication that first flight path information is available; receive, in a second message, a request for the first flight path information; transmit a third message, wherein the third message comprises the first flight path information; transmit a fourth message, wherein the fourth message comprises an indication that the second flight path information is available; and in response to the fourth message, receive a request for only delta flight path information that indicates deltas between the first flight path information and the second flight path information and whether the deltas are propagative. These steps amount to insignificant extra-solution activity because they are necessary data gathering and data output steps (i.e., all uses of the abstract idea require such data gathering and data output). Similarly, the recited step of transmitting a fifth message, wherein the fifth message comprises flight path update information, and wherein the flight path update information is limited to the deltas between the first flight path information and the second flight path information and an indication that the flight path update information is propagative, is insignificant extra-solution activity, because it is a data output step that does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. The recitation of such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 27 recites several steps which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity using the same analysis applied to claim 21 above, mutatis mutandis.
Step 2B: The additional elements are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the claimed processor is anything other than a conventional processor. The mere use of such generic and conventional computer components for executing the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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 receipt or transmission 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). Accordingly, the recited “receiving” and “transmitting” steps are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not quality as significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) and 2106.05(g)).
For the above reasons, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, whether considered individually or in combination. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 21 and 27 are not patent-eligible.
Regarding claims 22-26 and 28-32:
Claims 22-26 and 28-32 recite limitations further defining the mental process of claims 21 and 27. The dependent claims do not recite any limitations that would preclude the abstract idea from being done in the human mind. Accordingly, these limitations are considered additional mental process steps. Claims 22-26 and 28-32 recite no additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 22-26 and 28-32 are not patent-eligible.
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.
Claims 21-32 are each rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saha et al. (US 2022/0404484 A1), which is hereinafter referred to as Saha, in view of Jung et al. (WO 2024/128687 A1), which is hereinafter referred to as Jung.
Regarding claim 21:
Saha discloses the following limitations:
“A wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the WTRU comprising: a processor.” (Saha ¶ 53: “Referring also to FIG. 2, a UE 200 is an example of one of the UEs 105, 106 and comprises a computing platform including a processor 210, memory 211 including software (SW) 212, one or more sensors 213, a transceiver interface 214 for a transceiver 215 (that includes a wireless transceiver 240 and a wired transceiver 250), a user interface 216, a Satellite Positioning System (SPS) receiver 217, a camera 218, and a position device (PD) 219.”)
“configured to: transmit a first message, wherein the first message comprises an indication that first flight path information is available.” (Saha ¶ 103: “At stage 810, the target UE 801 transmits a capability report 812 to the network entity 802. The flight path reporting unit 550 of the target UE 801 may transmit the capability report 812 to the network entity 802 indicating that the target UE 801 supports reporting of flight path information to the network entity 802.”)
“receive, in a second message, a request for the first flight path information.” (Saha ¶ 104: “At stage 820, the network entity 802 transmits a flight path information request 822, here shown as an IE called RequestFlightPathInformation.”)
“transmit a third message, wherein the third message comprises the first flight path information.” (Saha ¶ 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.”)
“receive a request for only delta flight path information that indicates deltas between the first flight path information and the second flight path information.” (Saha ¶ 113: “As an example of configuring the target UE 801 for differential flight path reporting, the network entity 802, e.g., the flight path request unit 650, may produce the request 822 to request or enable the target UE 801 to perform differential reporting of the flight path. In differential reporting, the difference(s) between a previous flight path (e.g., a previously-reported or otherwise previously-determined flight path) and a present flight path is(are) reported, without reporting the entire present flight path.”)
“and whether the deltas are propagative.” (Saha ¶ 108: “As another example of configuring the target UE 801 for partial flight path reporting, the network entity 802, e.g., the flight path request unit 650, may produce the request 822 to provide a reference time and a temporal offset. For example, the request 822 may indicate a time t and a time offset Δt, indicating to the target UE 801 to report no more any waypoints whose timestamp is within t+/−Δt regarding of how many waypoints that includes. 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.” Indicating whether to only include certain limited waypoints in the flight path reporting is equivalent to including an indication of whether the deltas are propagative as claimed.)
“determine the delta flight path information between the first flight path information and the second flight path information; and transmit a fifth message, wherein the fifth message comprises flight path update information, and wherein the flight path update information is limited to the deltas between the first flight path information and the second flight path information and an indication that the flight path update information is propagative.” (Saha ¶ 115: “At stage 840, if requested by the flight path information request 822, the target UE 801 transmits further flight path information 842, e.g., in another ProvideFlightPathInformation IE. The further flight path information 842 may match or be a subset of the flight path information requested by the flight path information request 822 unless the network entity allows additional flight path information that the network entity 802 may use to confirm location of the target UE 801 and/or to improve a location estimate for the target UE 801. For example, the additional information may include uncertainties associated with the waypoints and/or UE velocities associated with the waypoints (e.g., expected and/or actual velocities at the waypoints).”)
Saha does not explicitly disclose that the processor is configured to “detect that the first flight path information is required to be updated to second flight path information; transmit a fourth message, wherein the fourth message comprises an indication that the second flight path information is available,” and “in response to the fourth message, receive a request” for flight path information. However, Jung does teach these limitations. (Jung ¶ 184: “At step 1f-40, the terminal (1f-01) may transmit a terminal assistance information message (UEAssistance-Information) including an indicator or information element indicating that (updated) flight path information is available to the base station (1f-02) if at least one of the following conditions is satisfied…” Further, Jung ¶ 193: “At step 1f-50, the base station (1f-02) can transmit a terminal information request message (UEInformationRequest) to the terminal (1f-01). The terminal information request message may include flightPathInfoReq information.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Saha by transmitting an indication that updated flight path information is available and then receiving a request for the updated flight path information in response as taught by Jung with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that updating flight path information in response to identifying that the current flight path information is out-of-date would help to improve accuracy in flight operations, which could help with avoiding collisions and reducing resource waste.
Regarding claim 22:
The combination of Saha and Jung teaches “The WTRU of claim 21,” and Jung additionally teaches “wherein the first flight path information is required to be updated with the second flight path information based on at least one of a number of timestamps being invalid or a number of waypoints being invalid.” (Jung ¶¶ 184-189: “At step 1f-40, the terminal (1f-01) may transmit a terminal assistance information message (UEAssistanceInformation) including an indicator or information element indicating that (updated) flight path information is available to the base station (1f-02) if at least one of the following conditions is satisfied… Condition 7: If at least one time stamp in the flightPathReport transmitted through step 1f-35 is greater than or equal to TimeStampDiff.” This at least teaches to update the flight path information based on “a number of timestamps being invalid” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 22, consistent with the instant specification, requiring the flight path information to be updated “based on at least one of a number of timestamps being invalid or a number of waypoints being invalid” is being treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only “a number of timestamps being invalid” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Saha by updating the flight path information based on a number of timestamps being invalid as taught by Jung with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that updating the flight path information in response to identifying that the current flight path information is out-of-date would help to improve accuracy in flight operations, which could help with avoiding collisions and reducing resource waste.
Regarding claim 23:
The combination of Saha and Jung teaches “The WTRU of claim 21,” and Jung additionally teaches “wherein the first flight path information is required to be updated with the second flight path information based on at least one of a number of timestamps being available or a number of waypoints being available.” (Jung ¶¶ 133-135: “At step 1e-45, the base station (1e-02) can transmit a terminal information request message (UEInformationRequest) to the terminal (1e-01). The terminal information request message may include flightPathInfoReq information. The flightPathInfoReq information may include at least one of the following… maxWayPointNumber: Indicates the maximum number of way points UE can include in the flight path information report if this information is available at the UE.” This disclosure at least teaches to update the flight path information based on “a number of waypoints being available” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 23, consistent with the instant specification, requiring the flight path information to be updated “based on at least one of a number of timestamps being available or a number of waypoints being available” is being treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only “a number of waypoints being available” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Saha by updating the flight path information based on a number of waypoints being available as taught by Jung with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that updating the flight path information in response to identifying that the current flight path information is out-of-date would help to improve accuracy in flight operations, which could help with avoiding collisions and reducing resource waste.
Regarding claim 24:
The combination of Saha and Jung teaches “The WTRU of claim 21,” and Saha also teaches “wherein the delta flight path information includes an indication to report delta signaling.” (Saha ¶ 113: “As an example of configuring the target UE 801 for differential flight path reporting, the network entity 802, e.g., the flight path request unit 650, may produce the request 822 to request or enable the target UE 801 to perform differential reporting of the flight path. In differential reporting, the difference(s) between a previous flight path (e.g., a previously-reported or otherwise previously-determined flight path) and a present flight path is(are) reported, without reporting the entire present flight path.”)
Regarding claim 25:
The combination of Saha and Jung teaches “The WTRU of claim 21,” and Jung additionally teaches “wherein the delta flight path information includes at least one of a number of waypoints being available or a number of timestamps being available.” (Jung ¶¶ 133-135: “At step 1e-45, the base station (1e-02) can transmit a terminal information request message (UEInformation-Request) to the terminal (1e-01). The terminal information request message may include flightPathInfoReq information. The flightPathInfoReq information may include at least one of the following… maxWayPointNumber: Indicates the maximum number of way points UE can include in the flight path information report if this information is available at the UE.” This at least teaches the delta flight path information including “a number of waypoints being available” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 25, consistent with the instant specification, the delta flight path information including “at least one of a number of waypoints being available or a number of timestamps being available” is being treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Therefore, while only “a number of waypoints being available” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Saha by identifying the number of available waypoints in the flight path information as taught by Jung with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that identifying specific ways in which the current flight path information is out-of-date would help to improve accuracy in flight operations, which could help with avoiding collisions and reducing resource waste.
Regarding claim 26:
The combination of Saha and Jung teaches “The WTRU of claim 21,” and Jung additionally teaches “wherein the delta flight path information includes at least one of a number of invalid waypoints or a number of invalid timestamps.” (Jung ¶¶ 184-189: “At step 1f-40, the terminal (1f-01) may transmit a terminal assistance information message (UEAssistanceInformation) including an indicator or information element indicating that (updated) flight path information is available to the base station (1f-02) if at least one of the following conditions is satisfied… Condition 7: If at least one time stamp in the flightPathReport transmitted through step 1f-35 is greater than or equal to TimeStampDiff.” This at least teaches that the delta flight path information can include “a number of invalid timestamps” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 26, consistent with the instant specification, the delta flight path information including “at least one of a number of invalid waypoints or a number of invalid timestamps” is being treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only “a number of invalid timestamps” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Saha by including a number of invalid timestamps in the delta flight path information as taught by Jung with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that identifying specific ways in which the current flight path information is out-of-date would help to improve accuracy in flight operations, which could help with avoiding collisions and reducing resource waste.
Regarding claims 27-32:
Claims 27-32 are rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 21-26 above, 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 Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662