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 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 1-14, 16-19 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 limitation “plan generating unit, update unit, setting unit, acquisition unit, determining unit, and communication unit” 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 specification does not define the various units in a way that provides their structural makeup. 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.
The Examiner suggests amending the claims to remove the units and utilize a processor and memory.
Appropriate correction required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Vrind et al. “Vrind” US 2020/0260404.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Vrind teaches a method and a communication management system, comprising a plan generating unit that generates, on a basis of a state of a transmission channel on a movement route of a movable object and a priority of three-dimensional configuration view data to be used for generating a three-dimensional configuration view, a plan of a transmission timing that is a spatial timing at which the movable object transmits the three-dimensional configuration view data on the transmission channel (network node determines an aerial cell Trajectory in a network based on mobility of a UE (i.e. moveable object and current network traffic). The traffic is prioritized, the channel quality (i.e. channel state) is known and everything is with respect to 3D space; Paragraph 9. All of this is for the purpose of planning (i.e. generation of a plan), see also Figure 2 for a 3D plan. Lastly, the parameters that the network node utilizes are FACT parameters (see table 1) and these are sent from the UE (i.e. 3D configuration information)).
Regarding claim 2, Vrind teaches the transmission timing is configured to be a cell in which the moveable object is present when transmitting the 3D configuration view data (Figure 4 and paragraphs 45-49 show that the transmission/reception is based on the UEs (i.e. moveable objects) being within the “zone” i.e. the cell the moveable object is present when sending FACT information).
Regarding claim 9, Vrind teaches an update unit that updates the 3d view on a basis of the 3d configuration view data (the FACT information that is sent (Table 1) includes buffer information, prioritized traffic, staying in the same zone, and channel quality measurements. These values change over time and thus the configuration information would update as the UE sends different FACT information).
Regarding claim 12, Vrind teaches determining the state of the transmission channel and generating the plan on a basis of the state of the transmission channel determined by the determining unit and the priority (network node determines an aerial cell Trajectory in a network based on mobility of a UE (i.e. moveable object and current network traffic. The traffic is prioritized, the channel quality (i.e. channel state) is known/determined and everything is with respect to 3D space; Paragraph 9. All of this is for the purpose of planning (i.e. generation of a plan), see also Figure 2 for a 3D plan. Lastly, the parameters that the network node utilizes are FACT parameters (see table 1) and these are sent from the UE (i.e. 3D configuration information)).
Regarding claim 13, Vrind teaches generating, on a basis of the state of the transmission channel on the movement route of each moveable object and the priority of the 3D view data, the plan of each of the moveable objects (network node determines an aerial cell Trajectory in a network based on mobility of a UE from a plurality of UEs (i.e. moveable object and current network traffic, see Figure 4). The traffic is prioritized, the channel quality (i.e. channel state) is known and everything is with respect to 3D space; Paragraph 9. All of this is for the purpose of planning (i.e. generation of a plan), see also Figure 2 for a 3D plan. Lastly, the parameters that the network node utilizes are FACT parameters (see table 1) and these are sent from the UE (i.e. 3D configuration information)).
Regarding claim 14, Vrind teaches the transmission timing is temporal and spatial to transmit the 3D view data (the information is with respect to time and location/position of the devices; Paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 16, Vrind teaches a moveable object (UE Figure 4), comprising
A communication unit that transmits 3D configuration view data in accordance with a plan of a transmission timing that is a spatial timing to transmit 3D configuration view data, the plan being generated on a basis of a state of a transmission channel on a movement route of the moveable object and a priority of the 3D configuration view data to be used for generating a 3D configuration view (network node determines an aerial cell Trajectory in a network based on mobility of a UE (i.e. moveable object and current network traffic). The traffic is prioritized, the channel quality (i.e. channel state) is known and everything is with respect to 3D space; Paragraph 9. All of this is for the purpose of planning (i.e. generation of a plan), see also Figure 2 for a 3D plan. Lastly, the parameters that the network node utilizes are FACT parameters (see table 1) and these are sent from the UE (i.e. 3D configuration information)).
Regarding claim 17, Vrind teaches receiving transmission plan information representing the plan from a management apparatus that generates the plan and transmits the 3D data in view of the transmission plan information (network node determines an aerial cell Trajectory in a network based on mobility of a UE (i.e. moveable object and current network traffic). The traffic is prioritized, the channel quality (i.e. channel state) is known and everything is with respect to 3D space; Paragraph 9. All of this is for the purpose of planning (i.e. generation of a plan), see also Figure 2 for a 3D plan. Lastly, the parameters that the network node utilizes are FACT parameters (see table 1) and these are sent from the UE (i.e. 3D configuration information). Thus one can see the network device transmits (thus the UE receives) the plan information).
Regarding claim 18, Vrind teaches a management apparatus, comprising
a plan generating unit that generates, on a basis of a state of a transmission channel on a movement route of a movable object and a priority of three-dimensional configuration view data to be used for generating a three-dimensional configuration view, a plan of a transmission timing that is a spatial timing at which the movable object transmits the three-dimensional configuration view data on the transmission channel and a communication unit that sends to the moveable object, transmission plan information representing the plan generated (network node determines an aerial cell Trajectory in a network based on mobility of a UE (i.e. moveable object and current network traffic). The traffic is prioritized, the channel quality (i.e. channel state) is known and everything is with respect to 3D space; Paragraph 9. All of this is for the purpose of planning (i.e. generation of a plan), see also Figure 2 for a 3D plan. Lastly, the parameters that the network node utilizes are FACT parameters (see table 1) and these are sent from the UE (i.e. 3D configuration information). Thus one can see the network device transmits the plan information).
Regarding claim 19 Vrind teaches, generating, on a basis of the state of the transmission channel on the movement route of each moveable object and the priority of the 3D view data, the plan of each of the moveable objects and send to each moveable object, the plan (network node determines an aerial cell Trajectory in a network based on mobility of a UE from a plurality of UEs (i.e. moveable object and current network traffic, see Figure 4). The traffic is prioritized, the channel quality (i.e. channel state) is known and everything is with respect to 3D space; Paragraph 9. All of this is for the purpose of planning (i.e. generation of a plan), see also Figure 2 for a 3D plan. Lastly, the parameters that the network node utilizes are FACT parameters (see table 1) and these are sent from the UE (i.e. 3D configuration information). As there are a plurality of objects, the network device would send a plan to each of the devices based on those devices specific information).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrind in view of Mclachlan et al. “Mclachlan” US 2024/0176414.
Regarding claim 10, Vrind does not teach setting the priority of the 3D configuration view data on a basis of an update plan; however, Mclachlan teaches mapped 3D information around a user is updated with new information and a spatial priority map is created/updated; Paragraph 93.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Vrind to include the 3D spatial priority map using updated information as taught by Mclachlan.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that a user can have the most up to date prioritized information as taught by Mclachlan; Paragraph 93.
Regarding claim 11, Vrind does not teach acquiring the update plan and setting the priority on the basis of the update plan; however, Mclachlan teaches mapped 3D information around a user is updated with new information and a spatial priority map is created/updated; Paragraph 93. Updated information is being received (acquired) and then the prioritized information is set based on the acquired information)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Vrind to include the 3D spatial priority map using updated information as taught by Mclachlan.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that a user can have the most up to date prioritized information as taught by Mclachlan; Paragraph 93.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights