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 § 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 - 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a central controller (i.e., machine), claim 2 is directed to an apparatus and claim 3 is directed to a method (i.e., process). Therefore, claims 1 - 3 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
“A central controller, comprising:
a wireless communication interface configured to establish signaling connections with
one or more mobile relay cells and establish signaling connections with one or more
mobile Radio Access Network (RAN) cells;
a data storage configured to obtain input data related to radio environments of the one or more mobile RAN cells and the one or more mobile relay cells; and
a processor configured to determine, based on the input data, a planned route for the
one or more mobile relay cells;
wherein the wireless communication interface is further configured to transmit the
planned route to the one or more mobile relay cells.”
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The claimed “controller” is being interpreted to be equivalent in function to the human mind. For example, “a data storage configured to obtain input data related to radio environments of the one or more mobile RAN cells and the one or more mobile relay cells; and a processor configured to determine, based on the input data, a planned route for the one or more mobile relay cells; wherein the wireless communication interface is further configured to transmit the planned route to the one or more mobile relay cells.” in the context of this claim encompasses that a user may manually observe the radio environment containing mobile Radio Access Network (RAN) cells such as transceivers, antennas, satellite communications platforms (e.g., routers, radio antenna/uplinks/terminals) and/or vehicles (e.g., remote controlled vehicles, UAVs, drones, etc.) carrying similar communication platforms and writing down corresponding positions of the cells and subsequently writing and planning out a route for the mobile relay cells to travel. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows: “a wireless communication interface configured to establish signaling connections with one or more mobile relay cells and establish signaling connections with one or more
mobile Radio Access Network (RAN) cells; data storage and processor.”
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of using “a wireless communication interface configured to establish signaling connections with one or more mobile relay cells and establish signaling connections with one or more mobile Radio Access Network (RAN) cells; data storage and processor”, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere instructions to apply the above-noted abstract idea by merely using a computer to perform the process (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, the processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of establishing connections, gathering information and transmitting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “a wireless communication interface configured to establish signaling connections with one or more mobile relay cells and establish signaling connections with one or more mobile Radio Access Network (RAN) cells; data storage and processor” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, claims 1 - 3 are not patent eligible.
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)(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 - 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tan (Pub. No.: US 2016/0330771 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tan discloses a central controller (Controller Device, 225, FIG. 7A), comprising:
a wireless communication interface configured to establish signaling connections (Wireless connections, ¶ 14) with one or more mobile relay cells (UAV, FIG. 1A and UAVs, FIG. 1B) and establish signaling connections with one or more mobile Radio Access Network (RAN) cells (RANs and UAVs may establish wireless connections ¶ 14);
a data storage (330, 340; FIG. 3) configured to obtain input data related to radio environments of the one or more mobile RAN cells and the one or more mobile relay cells (Input component including sensor information e.g., GPS, accelerometer, gyroscope, actuator, etc. ¶ 34); and
a processor configured to determine, based on the input data, a planned route for the
one or more mobile relay cells (route information that identifies a route of one or more UAVs from the location to the destination, elevation information ¶ 63);
wherein the wireless communication interface is further configured to transmit the
planned route to the one or more mobile relay cells (¶¶ 63, 69).
Regarding claim 2, Tan discloses an apparatus (300, FIG. 3), comprising:
a first circuitry (310, FIG. 3) configured to establish signaling connections with one or more mobile relay cells (UAV, FIG. 1A and UAVs, FIG. 1B) and establish signaling connections with one or more mobile Radio Access Network (RAN) cells (RANs and UAVs may establish wireless connections ¶ 14);
a data storage (330, 340; FIG. 3) configured to obtain input data related to radio environments of the one or more mobile RAN cells and the one or more mobile relay cells (Input component including sensor information e.g., GPS, accelerometer, gyroscope, actuator, etc. ¶ 34); and
a second circuitry configured to determine, based on the input data, a planned route
for the one or more mobile relay cells (route information that identifies a route of one or more UAVs from the location to the destination, elevation information ¶ 63);
wherein the first circuitry is further configured to transmit the planned route to the one
or more mobile relay cells (¶¶ 63, 69).
Regarding claim 3, Tan discloses a method (FIG. 4), comprising:
establishing signaling connections with one or more mobile relay cells (UAV, FIG. 1A and UAVs, FIG. 1B) and establish signaling connections with one or more mobile Radio Access Network (RAN) cells (RANs and UAVs may establish wireless connections ¶ 14);
obtaining input data related to radio environments of the one or more mobile RAN
cells and the one or more mobile relay cells (Input component including sensor information e.g., GPS, accelerometer, gyroscope, actuator, etc. ¶ 34); and
determining, based on the input data, a planned route for the one or more mobile relay
cells (route information that identifies a route of one or more UAVs from the location to the destination, elevation information ¶ 63);
wherein establishing signaling connections is further configured to transmit the
planned route to the one or more mobile relay cells (¶¶ 63, 69).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663