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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-3, 8-9 and 12-13 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. The claims recite limitations such as: “wherein the message includes a first parameter set for determining the mobility state of a normal terminal and a second parameter set for determining the mobility state of the UAV terminal”; the examiner was unable to find in the specification a clear mapping of which parameters were for the “normal” terminal and which one were for the UAV terminal. It appears that the parameters are based on speed rather than type of terminal. Please indicate where in the specification support can be found for the above claims mentioned limitations.
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 2-3, 8-9 and 12-13 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. The claims recite limitations such as: “wherein the message includes a first parameter set for determining the mobility state of a normal terminal and a second parameter set for determining the mobility state of the UAV terminal”; since the examiner was unable to find support in the specification, the scope of the limitations is unclear. Please clarify the scope of the limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang 20250159519.
As to claim 1, Wang discloses a method performed by a terminal [110] in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
receiving [610, 710], from a base station [120], a message including parameters for determining a measurement configuration with a mobility state of the terminal [The aerial state information comprises at least one of an altitude range, a mobility state or a battery status… the terminal device 110 may receive a configuration indicating at least one criterion for determining the aerial state information] (see par. 0122-0124, 0135);
identifying, in the message, information for determining the mobility state of an uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV) terminal [110 Examples of the terminal device include, but not limited to … the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) commonly known as a drone which is an aircraft without any human pilot] (see par. 0031, 0124, 0145); and
determining the mobility state of the terminal based on the information for determining the mobility state of the UAV terminal [the terminal device 110 may receive a configuration indicating at least one criterion for determining the aerial state information, and determine the aerial state information based on the at least one criterion.] (see par. 0067, 0124).
As to claim 2, Wang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the message includes a first parameter set for determining the mobility state of a normal terminal and a second parameter set for determining the mobility state of the UAV terminal [please see 112 rejection configuration of mobility state can have multiple thresholds depending on speed, altitude, etc.] (see par. 0031, 0042, 0055-0058, 0124).
As to claim 4, Wang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the message includes at least one of a radio resource control (RRC) connection release message (see par. 0053) or a system information block (SIB) message.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 9, they are the corresponding terminal claims of method claims 1-2 and 4. Therefore, claims 6-7 and 9 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
Regarding claims 11-12 and 14-15, they are the corresponding base station claims of device method claims 1-2 and 4. Therefore, claims 11-12 and 14-15 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang.
As to claims 5 and 10, Wang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting the [report result of the] mobility state of the terminal to the base station [the terminal device 110 may determine a subset of configuration parameters associated with the aerial state information from the set of configuration parameters, and report the results of the radio measurements based on the subset of configuration parameters.] (see par. 0064, 0080, 0112, 0125-0126, 0131, 0139). Although Wang does not disclose explicitly transmitting the determined mobility state of the terminal to the base station, it would be obvious that the results of the radio measurements based on the subset of configuration parameters implicitly indicate the aerial state information such as the mobility state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective date of the present invention that since the aerial state information of a terminal device may be associated with one or more report configurations, then the report indicate the mobility state of the terminal such as Aerial state information; thereby, indicating where the measurement is valid.
Claim(s) 3, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Zhang 20200236573.
As to claims 3, 8 and 13, Wang discloses wherein the message includes a parameter set for determining the mobility state of a normal terminal (see par. 0122-0124, 0135). Wang fails to disclose a scaling factor. In an analogous art, Zhang discloses a scaling factor for determining the mobility state of the UAV terminal (see par. 0183), and wherein the scaling factor for determining the mobility state of the UAV terminal is applied to the parameter set (see par. 0184). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective date of the present invention to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of correcting the measurements in high speed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights