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 .
This office correspondence is in response to the application filed September 12, 2024.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (Statutory Categories)
The four categories of statutory subject matter are: (1) a process, (2) a machine, (3) a manufacture and (4) a composition of matter. MPEP § 2106.03.
These claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Independent claims 1, recite a series of steps and, therefore, is a process that are directed to the abstract idea because they cover the concepts of a mental process (process in the human mind) including grouping of certain methods of observing, organizing human activity. Hence, the designing steps in the independent claims fall within the mental process grouping of abstract idea.
Claims 1-10 are directed to a method, and the underlying invention is merely to provide an air-ground integrated wireless data transmission method for wide-area Internet of Things, and is therefore an abstract idea (Analysis: Step 2A-Prong 1). The claimed invention in claim 1 is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The underlying invention is merely providing an air-ground integrated wireless data transmission for wide-area Internet of Things, and is therefore an abstract idea. The claim recites the limitation of designing data acquisition, information delay, network access, flight control, power supply and shell of a data relay system. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. There is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, transmitting information indicating properties of the computing resources, the claim encompasses simply transmitting information of resources in his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic performance and does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
The claims do not recite any limitations that improve the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. These designing steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering computing resources to use in the steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas 2019-01-07 13 The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (2A – Prong 2).
Therefore, claim fails to provide an inventive concept (2B). As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, in the claim limitations, these steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication other than a generic, off the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt 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, a conclusion that the designing steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claims 2-6, and 9-10 recites further collection of properties of the computing resources. The information collected do not add any significant more to the Judicial Exception as they do not add any improvement to the computer system or a technology field. Hence, the claims do not add significant more.
In light of the explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is directed in view of those case laws are directed towards the abstract idea. Lacking significantly more for the remainder of the claim, the invention is nothing more than an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (US Publication 2026/0113244) hereafter Ding, in view of Kammachi Sreedhar et al. (US Publication 2024/0259454) Kammachi.
As per claim 1, an air-ground integrated wireless data transmission method for wide-area Internet of Things, comprising: S1: designing a data acquisition (paragraphs 127, 135: traffic usage reporting, QoS handling, and packet buffering); S2: designing an information relay subsystem (paragraphs 40, 42-43: relays related messages); S3: designing a network access subsystem (paragraphs 95, 248: provide the UE with air interface network access); S4: designing a flight control system of an unmanned aerial vehicle (paragraphs 8, 89: analyze flight sensing information); S5: designing a power supply system (paragraphs 97, 264: power measurement); and S6: designing a shell of a data relay system (paragraph 126: route data traffic to proper destination). Although, Ding discloses data analytics for sensing services but fails to expressly discloses data acquisition subsystem.
However, in the same filed of endeavor, Kammachi discloses data acquisition subsystem (paragraphs 162, 164: audio video streaming).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kammachis’ teaching of PDU set handling in a communication network with Ding. One would be motivated to greatly improve QoS policy and integrated packet handling for data transmission efficiency.
As per claim 2, Ding discloses the air-ground integrated wireless data transmission method for wide-area Internet of Things, wherein the data acquisition subsystem comprises a sensor information acquisition module, a LoRa data transmission terminal module and video coding module (paragraphs 197, 264, 273: sensing service and a set of parameters); the sensor information acquisition module uses an RS485 bus and an MODBUS-RTU protocol interface to support a temperature and humidity sensor, a wind speed sensor and an illumination sensor (paragraphs 43-44, 194-195); the LoRa data transmission terminal module is connected to the sensor information acquisition module by means of the RS485 bus (paragraphs 189, 265); and the video coding module is divided into layer (paragraphs 102, 182, 260). Although, Ding discloses data analytics for sensing services but fails to expressly discloses an H264 video coding module, and the H264 video coding module is divided into an NAL layer and a VCL layer.
However, in the same filed of endeavor, Kammachi discloses an H264 video coding module, and the H264 video coding module is divided into an NAL layer and a VCL layer (paragraphs 97, 211, 221).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 2.
As per claim 3, Ding discloses the air-ground integrated wireless data transmission method for wide-area Internet of Things, wherein the NAL layer splits a frame into a plurality of packets for transmission, and each Ethernet packet is no more than 1500 bytes in a transmission process (paragraphs 54, 264, 338; Kammachi: 380).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 3.
As per claim 4, Ding discloses the air-ground integrated wireless data transmission method for wide-area Internet of Things wherein the VCL layer is responsible for compressing original video data, and dynamically setting a compression ratio according to service requirements and link characteristics to achieve adaptive transmission (paragraphs 260; Kammachi: 380).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 4.
As per claim 5, Ding discloses the air-ground integrated wireless data transmission method for wide-area Internet of Things wherein the information relay subsystem comprises hardware components and internal software; and the hardware components comprise a LoRa communication module, a WiFi network card, a central controller and a 5G module (paragraphs 89, 197, 264).
As per claim 6, Ding discloses the air-ground integrated wireless data transmission method for wide-area Internet of Things, wherein flow design of the internal software is as follows: M1: polling sensor data with the central controller, and storing the sensor data; M2: applying an Aodv multi-hop routing protocol; M3: performing data analysis and processing by the central controller; and M4: supporting public network data transmission and private network data transmission (paragraphs 194, 127, 136, 187).
As per claim 7, Ding discloses the air-ground integrated wireless data transmission method for wide-area Internet of Things, wherein the network access subsystem is composed of a 5G base station, a 5G core network and a service server, and a Socket network for public network data transmission and a private communication network system for private network data transmission are arranged separately (paragraphs 253, 264); the private communication network system is composed of a 5G Pico base station, a 5G core network and a service server (paragraphs 92, 153, 264); the Socket network communication process comprises: Q1, server monitoring: making the server in a state of waiting for connection, and monitoring a network state in real time (paragraphs 89-91); Q2, a client request: making a connection request by a client socket, firstly defining a socket of a target server by the client socket, defining an IP address and port number of the server socket, and then making a connection request to the server socket (paragraphs 126, 131); and Q3, connection confirmation: when the server socket receives the connection request of the client socket, responding to the request of the client socket, establishing a new thread, sending configuration information of the server socket to a client, and once the client confirms the information, establishing communication connection therefrom; and further, making the server socket still in a monitoring state, and continuing to receive connection requests from other clients (paragraphs 51, 61-64, 131).
As per claim 8, Ding discloses the air-ground integrated wireless data transmission method for wide-area Internet of Things, wherein the flight control system of the unmanned aerial vehicle comprises: a flight control circuit board, configured to control a fixed wing, a multiple rotor, an intelligent vehicle and a movable robot architecture; and Raspberry Pi, acquiring information from the flight control circuit board, and sending the information to a ground station by in the form of UDP (paragraphs 231, 244, 255).
As per claim 9, Ding discloses the air-ground integrated wireless data transmission method for wide-area Internet of Things, wherein the power supply system uses a three-port 5521 mobile power supply to supply power to the LoRa communication module, the 5G module and a Jetson NX development board, and the WiFi network card is powered and driven by the central controller (paragraphs 192, 264).
As per claim 10, Ding discloses the air-ground integrated wireless data transmission method for wide-area Internet of Things, wherein the shell of the data relay system has a 5-hole and 2-layer structure as follows: four 5G patch antennas are placed in four holes on the shell separately, and a LoRa radio frequency antenna is placed in the other hole (paragraphs 32-33, 194-197); a ventilation opening is reserved in the shell; an upper layer of the shell is configured to allow the sensor information acquisition module, the LoRa data transmission terminal module, the H264 video coding module, the LoRa communication module, the WiFi network card, the central controller and the 5G module to be placed; and a power supply with a power of 12V is placed at a lower layer of the shell (paragraphs 89, 197, 264).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KUO et al. (US Publication 2021/0119692) discloses a wireless communication relay system for an unmanned vehicle includes a control station providing as a console for an implementation of a remote control; an unmanned mission vehicle operated in a first area and receiving the remote control from the control station through a communication link; and an unmanned relay vehicle operated in a second area and in the communication link between the control station and the unmanned mission vehicle.
Wang et al. (US Publication 2025/0071040) discloses flexible scheduling, self-healing, high-utilization strong stability for cellular network communications are discussed. Cellular network communication settings and strategies are developed with communication interval, transmit power data rate, channel delay, spectrum occupancy, source coding, receiving sensitivity, channel coding, signal-to-noise ratio, packet loss rate, channel occupancy rate, reception frequencies frequency band size of data package transmission frequencies, data package structure, modulation scheme, information coding scheme, antenna configuration.
Chai et al. (US Publication 2022/0103246) discloses a multi-unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) wireless communication network are provided. The system includes application UAVs that wirelessly provide applications. The system includes relay UAVs that connect the application UAVs to a ground station. The ground station connects to a wireless backhaul network. Processor devices determine mobility for the application UAVs based on application-specific objectives. The processor devices also determine mobility for the relay UAVs based on forming and maintaining the wireless backhaul network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA B HUQ whose telephone number is (571)270-3223. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Emmanuel L Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/FARZANA B HUQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights