Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to the Application No. 18/857,701 filed on 10/17/24. Claims 1 – 6, 8 – 11, 15 – 16, 18 – 19, 22 – 25, 33 - 34 has been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1 – 4, 15 – 16, 18, 33 – 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (CN 111512657, for examination purpose US 2023/0354010 is used, Hong hereafter) in further view of Hong (CN 113093786, for examination purpose US 2021/0074167 is used, Hong 2 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Hong teaches An information transmission method, performed by an unmanned aerial vehicle (UE 11 may also be a device of an unmanned aerial vehicle. Paragraph 26), comprising:
reporting capability information to a base station through first radio resource control (RRC) signaling (reporting capability information is sent, in which the reporting capability information is configured to indicate that the UE supports reporting SIM information, Fig 2 – 3, paragraph 34; reporting the information of the at least one SIM in the UE by using a RRC signaling, paragraph 79 - 83), however, does not specifically disclose wherein the capability information indicates whether the unmanned aerial vehicle supports reporting flight path information of the unmanned aerial vehicle.
Hong 2 further teaches wherein the capability information indicates whether the unmanned aerial vehicle supports reporting flight path information of the unmanned aerial vehicle (In block S302, the flight path information of the UAV is reported by the UAV to a base station by means of radio resource control (RRC) signaling, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Hong 2’s reporting flight path information with the system of Hong. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because it can provide The content of the flight path information of the UAV is determined, and the flight path information of the UAV is reported to the base station by means of the RRC signalling, so that the base station can determine the flight-related information according to the content, so as to prepare for handover in advance (paragraph 143).
Regarding claim 2, Hong with Hong 2 teaches the method according to claim 1,
Hong 2 reporting the capability information to the base station through a first information element in the first RRC signaling (Examiner has interpreted a first information as one of the or the capability information such as flight information or time; or it can be interpreted as capability information of Hong).
Regarding claim 3, Hong with Hong 2 teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein
the first RRC signaling is user equipment-evolved universal terrestrial radio access-capability (UE-EUTRA-capability) signaling (UE), and the first information is an otherparameters information element (reporting the reporting capability information by using a UE evolved universal terrestrial radio access capability (UE-EUTRA-Capability) signaling; or, reporting the reporting capability information by using a UE new radio capability (UE-NR-Capability) signaling, paragraph 86, examiner has interpreted otherparameters information as SIM information or any capability information sent by either of Hong references as it is not specifically defined by the applicant); or
the first RRC signaling is user equipment -new radio-capability (UE-NR-Capability) signaling, and the first information element is an OtherParameters information element (UE-EUTRA-Capability) signaling; or, reporting the reporting capability information by using a UE new radio capability (UE-NR-Capability) signaling, paragraph 86, examiner has interpreted otherparameters information as SIM information or any capability information sent by either of Hong references as it is not specifically defined by the applicant).
Regarding claim 4, Hong with Hong 2 teaches the method according to claim 1, Hong further comprising;
receiving second RRC signaling sent by the base station, wherein the second RRC signaling carries configuration information for the unmanned aerial vehicle (reporting configuration sent based on the reporting capability information is received, in which the reporting configuration is at least configured for the UE to determine whether to report the SIM information, paragraph 52, 48 – 49, 54) as mentioned above the capability information can be report the flight path information as taught by Hong 2.
Regarding claim 15, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable (reverse steps performed by BS).
Regarding claim 16, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 3, thus the same rejection is applicable (reverse steps performed by BS).
Regarding claim 18, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 4, thus the same rejection is applicable (reverse steps performed by BS).
Regarding claim 33, the apparatus substantially has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 34, Hong with Hoang 2 teaches claim 15, Hoang teaches An information configuration apparatus, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory, configured to store processor-executable instructions, and
wherein the processor is configured to execute the information transmission method according to claim 15 (a processor, a transceiver, a memory, and executable programs stored on the memory and capable of being executed by the processor. When the processor runs the executable programs, the method for information transmission provided by the technical solution according to any one of the first aspect of the disclosure or the technical solution according to any one of the second aspect of the disclosure is performed, paragraph 9).
7. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (CN 111512657, for examination purpose US 2023/0354010 is used, Hong hereafter) in further view of Hong (CN 113093786, for examination purpose US 2021/0074167 is used, Hong 2 hereafter) in further view of Yeh et al. (US 11,388,638).
Regarding Claim 5, Hong with Hong 2 teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the configuration information indicates at least one of:
whether the unmanned aerial vehicle is allowed to report the flight path information (the UE capability configuration information indicating whether the aerial UE supports measurement events triggering generation of the measurement report based on the aerial height of the aerial UE, Claim 4);
a condition for reporting the flight path information;
a format for reporting the flight path information; or
a maximum number of path points allowed to be reported.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Yeh’s reporting flight path information is allowed or not with the combined system of Hong and Hong 2. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because it can provide information on whether flight path or other information is allowed or not which will make the processing faster and make the system more user friendly.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 6, 8 – 11, 19, 22 - 25 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANMAY K SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri - 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
TANMAY K. SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2632
/TANMAY K SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights