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 .
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) 1-13, 15-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok (2020/0288370) in view of Okvist (2020/0404555).
Regarding claim 1, Mok discloses a method for transmitting a measurement report by a user equipment in a wireless communications system, the method comprising : receiving a transmission request for a first measurement report on a first cell (para 71); and transmitting the first measurement report on the first cell based on the transmission request (para 76), wherein the first measurement report includes aerial operation information on the UE (altitude or flying path, para 77). Mok fails to disclose the measurement report related to a second cell on a first cell but does discus the use of neighboring base stations in determining thresholds (para 75).
However, Okvist teaches in an analogous art, an aerial operation information (UAV altitude) in which a transmission request includes a measurement report related to a second cell on a first cell (para 68, neighbor relations sets of a cell, as well as figure 9, NRT table and para 84, relations between first cell (serving cell) and second cell (neighbor cells). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include neighbor measurements of both a first cell (serving cell) and second cell (neighbor cell) as taught by Okvist to avoid interference between cells.
Regarding claim 15, Mok discloses a user equipment (terminal 120) configured to transmit a measurement report in a wireless communications system, comprising : at least one transceiver (communication unit 310, Figure 3), at least one processor (controller 330, Figure 3); and at least one memory (storage 320, Figure 3) operatively connected to the processor and storing instructions, that when executed, cause the at least one processor to perform operations: receiving a transmission request for a first measurement report on a first cell (para 71); and transmitting the first measurement report on the first cell based on the transmission request (para 76), wherein the first measurement report includes aerial operation information on the UE (altitude or flying path, para 77). Mok fails to disclose the measurement report related to a second cell on a first cell but does discus the use of neighboring base stations in determining thresholds (para 75).
However, Okvist teaches in an analogous art, an aerial operation information (UAV altitude) in which a transmission request includes a measurement report related to a second cell on a first cell (para 68, neighbor relations sets of a cell, as well as figure 9, NRT table and para 84, relations between first cell (serving cell) and second cell (neighbor cells). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include neighbor measurements of both a first cell (serving cell) and second cell (neighbor cell) as taught by Okvist to avoid interference between cells.
Regarding claims 28 and 29 – the combination of Mok and Okvist discloses the transmission and reception of signals as claimed between a device and a wireless communications system and are rejected given the same reasoning as in the rejection of claims 1 and 15 above.
Regarding claims 2-3, 16-17, Okvist further teaches receiving a global cell identification (ID) of the second cell (para 155, physical cell identity of a neighbor cell) and transmitting the measurement report including the ID (para 154-161 – sending measurement report from UAV to the service base station) and wherein the global cell ID is received in a broadcasting message (BCCH broadcast channel, para 157-161).
Regarding claim 4, 18, Mok further transmitting a second measurement report including signal strength information related to the cells (para 62, report message includes signal strength information).
Regarding claims 5-9, 19-23, Mok discloses the use of altitude state or flying path (para 77). Okvist further teaches wherein based on the information corresponding to the second cell is not present in a neighbor cell relations table (NRT, par 153), the transmit request for the first measurement report is received (para 154-156), the aerial operation information includes at least one of altitude information (altitude intervals para 83, which are altitude levels which the UAV is located, claim 8) as well as information on signal strength (para 97 – RSRP or RSRQ measurements). Okvist also discloses the altitude is an absolute altitude information representing the UE’s altitude as an absolute value (para 108, 116 altitude indication as well as para 144, GPS to determine altitude above ground).
Regarding claim 10-12, 24-26, Mok discloses use of signal strength comparison against a threshold (para 62). Okvist further teaches that when signal strength exceeds a first and second threshold, the altitude information is mapped to a second cell within the NCRT and based on the aerial operation information, a possibility of handover to the second cell is updated in the NCRT (para 97-98, and 102, use of thresholds compared to the altitude to determine altitude intervals. Also see para 105-107, 110 use of measurements to determine handover as well). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include thresholds as well as handover determination in order to provide error-free communications.
Regarding claims 13, 27, Okvist discloses based on the aerial operation, a necessity of an Xn interface for the second cell is updated within the neighbor cell relation table (para 86, rules related to X2 connection).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok in view of Okvist as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Karampatsis (WO 2022/029635), provided by Applicant.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Mok and Okvist disclose that the UE is mounted on an urban aerial mobility device (Okvist, UAV 22 para 87). The combination fails to disclose the authentication and slice information as claimed. However, Karampatsis teaches in an analogous art, performing authentication for a UAM service (UTM/USS authorization system) in which slice information is generated in relation to the UAM service and transmitting the first message including slice information to a base station (see para 73, flight authorization identifier which may be also used as authorization, the use of a specific network slice (S-NSSAI, Figure 4c and para 90). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include an authentication and network slice as taught by Karampatsis in order to prevent unauthorized use of the wireless network.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Phuyal (2022/0232469) discloses a UAV tracking update based on a location of the UAV.
Pu (2021/0349458) discloses UAV tracking that use signal strength, RRC signaling, and cell ID.
Chang (11153790) discloses the use of neighbor information as well as thresholds to determine handover in a UAV wireless network.
Wang (11134401) discloses ANR related information and measurement reports in a wireless network.
Takahashi (2020/0015107) discloses measurement reports with neighbor cell information based on a threshold.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV whose telephone number is (571)272-7872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7a-4p, Fridays 7a-2p.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2641
/WILLIAM G TROST IV/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights