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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, 11, and 19 are presented as currently amended claims.
No claims are newly presented.
No claims are cancelled.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basu et al. in view of Lekutai et al. (US 20220070792 A1) (referred to hereinafter as “combination Basu”).
Regarding claim 1, Basu teaches an information acquisition and communication method for:
an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), the method comprising: (Basu: ¶ 047; aspects disclosed herein, the PCR network 300 can distribute pathside data to . . .unmanned aerial vehicles (e.g., drones)) acquiring, by at least one first device, at least one of operational information or traffic information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle; (Basu: ¶ 076; receiving client data from a first client device 304(1) within the path over a wireless communication medium)
To the extent Basu does not teach or is silent about: providing, by the at least one first device, the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle to the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle or to a base station affecting the communication operation of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle; and determining, by the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle or the base station, a communication operational policy between the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle and the base station, based on the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle; Lekutai does teach:
providing, by the at least one first device, the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle to the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle or to a base station affecting the communication operation of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle; and (Lekutai: ¶ 104; network server 106 determines the altitude of the UAV 102 based on signals exchanged between the UAV 102 and the base station 104 and/or between the UAV 102 and other base stations) determining, by the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle or the base station, a communication operational policy between the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle and the base station, based on the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle. (Lekutai: ¶ 107; network server 106 determines the transmission power level based on the additional flight parameters and/or the network parameters. The network server 106 may apply the altitude, the additional flight parameters, and/or the network parameters to one or more models and/or rules to determine the transmission power level.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lekutai with the teachings of Basu because developing a model that adjusts the communication parameters based on interaction between the UAV and the network “improve[s] the ability of the UAV to communicate with the wireless carrier network while reducing interference with nearby devices" (Lekutai: ¶ 063).
Regarding claim 2, as detailed above, combination Basu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Basu further teaches:
wherein the acquiring of the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle comprises: acquiring the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information (Basu: ¶ 056; each client device 304(1)-304(M) along a vehicle path is in communication with at least one nearby PCR 302(1)-302(N), and may be transmitting client data to the PCR(s) 302(1)-302(N) periodically, intermittently, or otherwise via wireless signals 310(1)-310(P). The client data can include the client device's 304(1)-304(M) position, orientation, speed, acceleration, direction of travel, size, and/or an operating status of the client device) of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle within a sub-region; and (Basu: ¶ 048; the first PCR 302(1) can be connected to traffic monitoring devices adjacent the region of the vehicle path) obtaining the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information by collecting the operational information or traffic information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle within a super-region of the sub-region. (Basu: ¶ 079; The process 830 also comprises receiving second pathside data from a second PCR 302(2) adjacent a second region of the vehicle path (block 834). The process 830 also comprises determining whether the first pathside data comprises information relevant to the second region of the vehicle path (block 836). The process 830 also comprises routing at least a portion of the first pathside data to the second PCR 302(2) when the first pathside data comprises the relevant information (block 838).)
Regarding claim 4, as detailed above, combination Basu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Lekutai teaches:
wherein the determining of the communication operational policy comprises determining communication link adaptation between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle based on the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information (Lekutai: ¶ 010; As the UAV increases altitude, the cellular transceiver can decrease its transmission power.).
Regarding claim 11, Basu teaches a communication system for acquiring and utilizing information for at least one unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), the communication system comprising:
at least one unmanned aerial vehicle; (Basu: ¶ 047; aspects disclosed herein, the PCR network 300 can distribute pathside data to . . .unmanned aerial vehicles (e.g., drones),) a base station affecting the communication operation of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle; and (Basu: ¶ 042; PCR 302(1)-302(N) incorporates a communication interface circuit 306(1)-306(N) (e.g., wireless V2X telecommunication circuitry such as a radio frequency (RF) transmitter/receiver) configured to create a communication coverage area) at least one first device for acquiring at least one of operational information or traffic information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, (Basu: ¶ 076; receiving client data from a first client device 304(1) within the path over a wireless communication medium) wherein the at least one first device is configured to provide the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle to the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle or the base station, and (Basu: ¶ 076; process 800 also comprises processing the client data and the sensor data to produce pathside data (block 806). The process 800 also comprises transmitting the pathside data to a region of the path (block 808).)
To the extent Basu does not teach or is silent about: wherein the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle or the base station is configured to determine a communication operational policy between the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle and the base station, based on the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle; Lekutai does teach:
wherein the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle or the base station is configured to determine a communication operational policy between the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle and the base station, (Lekutai: ¶ 107; network server 106 determines the transmission power level based on the additional flight parameters and/or the network parameters. The network server 106 may apply the altitude, the additional flight parameters, and/or the network parameters to one or more models and/or rules to determine the transmission power level.) based on the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle (Lekutai: ¶ 104; network server 106 determines the altitude of the UAV 102 based on signals exchanged between the UAV 102 and the base station 104 and/or between the UAV 102 and other base stations)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lekutai with the teachings of Basu because developing a model that adjusts the communication parameters based on interaction between the UAV and the network “improve[s] the ability of the UAV to communicate with the wireless carrier network while reducing interference with nearby devices" (Lekutai: ¶ 063).
Regarding claim 12, as detailed above, combination Basu discloses the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Basu further discloses:
wherein the at least one first device is further configured to: acquire the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information (Basu: ¶ 056; each client device 304(1)-304(M) along a vehicle path is in communication with at least one nearby PCR 302(1)-302(N), and may be transmitting client data to the PCR(s) 302(1)-302(N) periodically, intermittently, or otherwise via wireless signals 310(1)-310(P). The client data can include the client device's 304(1)-304(M) position, orientation, speed, acceleration, direction of travel, size, and/or an operating status of the client device) of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle within a sub-region, and (Basu: ¶ 048; the first PCR 302(1) can be connected to traffic monitoring devices adjacent the region of the vehicle path) obtain the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information by collecting the operational information or traffic information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle within a super-region of the sub-region. (Basu: ¶ 079; The process 830 also comprises receiving second pathside data from a second PCR 302(2) adjacent a second region of the vehicle path (block 834). The process 830 also comprises determining whether the first pathside data comprises information relevant to the second region of the vehicle path (block 836). The process 830 also comprises routing at least a portion of the first pathside data to the second PCR 302(2) when the first pathside data comprises the relevant information (block 838).)
Regarding claim 14, as detailed above, combination Basu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 11. Lekutai teaches:
wherein the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle or the base station is further configured to determine communication link adaptation between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle based on the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information. (Lekutai: ¶ 010; As the UAV increases altitude, the cellular transceiver can decrease its transmission power.).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Basu as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively above, and further in view of Yamada (US 20210074168 A1).
Regarding claim 3, as detailed above, combination Basu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Basu further teaches:
wherein the acquiring of the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle comprises: acquiring the operational information, including speed, altitude, or mobility of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle; and (Basu: ¶ 056; each client device 304(1)-304(M) along a vehicle path is in communication with at least one nearby PCR 302(1)-302(N), and may be transmitting client data to the PCR(s) 302(1)-302(N) periodically, intermittently, or otherwise via wireless signals 310(1)-310(P). The client data can include the client device's 304(1)-304(M) position, orientation, speed, acceleration, direction of travel, size, and/or an operating status of the client device) . . . within a predetermined region, based on the operational information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle. (Basu: ¶ 056; all or a portion of this client data can be determined (e.g., by each PCR 302(1)-302(N) or the pathside control module 412) to be relevant to all client devices 304(1)-304(M) within an area (e.g., within a given radius, within adjacent communication coverage areas)
To the extent Basu is silent about or does not explicitly teach: . . . acquiring the traffic information, including congestion or cluster information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle . . . Yamada does teach:
acquiring the traffic information, including congestion or cluster information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle (Yamada: ¶ 044-047; server apparatus 20 sets a degree of risk in the airspace cells C . . . congestion degree of the airspace cells C is a density of the flying objects 10 located in the same airspace cells C. This density 0 may be calculated based on the number of the flying objects 10 detected by the detecting unit 116 [Examiner note: [116] is part of aircraft] . . . degree of risk may be set in accordance with the congestion degree of the airspace cells C.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Yamada with the teachings of Basu because calculating congestion at the server would result in the predicable benefit of "the processing burden of the flying object 10 [being] reduced and power consumption is also suppressed." (Yamada: ¶ 085).
Regarding claim 13, as detailed above, combination Basu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 11. Basu further teaches:
wherein the at least one first device is further configured to: acquire the operational information including speed, altitude, or mobility of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, and based on the operational information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, and (Basu: ¶ 056; each client device 304(1)-304(M) along a vehicle path is in communication with at least one nearby PCR 302(1)-302(N), and may be transmitting client data to the PCR(s) 302(1)-302(N) periodically, intermittently, or otherwise via wireless signals 310(1)-310(P). The client data can include the client device's 304(1)-304(M) position, orientation, speed, acceleration, direction of travel, size, and/or an operating status of the client device) . . . within a predetermined region. (Basu: ¶ 056; all or a portion of this client data can be determined (e.g., by each PCR 302(1)-302(N) or the pathside control module 412) to be relevant to all client devices 304(1)-304(M) within an area (e.g., within a given radius, within adjacent communication coverage areas)
To the extent Basu is silent about or does not explicitly teach: . . . acquire the traffic information including congestion or cluster information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle . . . Yamada does teach:
acquire the traffic information including congestion or cluster information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle (Yamada: ¶ 044-047; server apparatus 20 sets a degree of risk in the airspace cells C . . . congestion degree of the airspace cells C is a density of the flying objects 10 located in the same airspace cells C. This density 0 may be calculated based on the number of the flying objects 10 detected by the detecting unit 116 [Examiner note: [116] is part of aircraft] . . . degree of risk may be set in accordance with the congestion degree of the airspace cells C.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Yamada with the teachings of Basu because calculating congestion at the server would result in the predicable benefit of "the processing burden of the flying object 10 [being] reduced and power consumption is also suppressed." (Yamada: ¶ 085).
Claims 5-6, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Basu as applied to claims 4, 14, and 14 respectively above, and further in view of Paras et al. (US 20250024522 A1).
Regarding claim 5, as detailed above, combination Basu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 4. To the extent Basu is silent about or does not explicitly teach:
wherein the determining of the communication operational policy comprises determining communication link adaptation between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle based on the operational information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle and channel status information between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, when the operational information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle is obtained. Paras does teach: and channel status information between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, when the operational information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle is obtained; Paras does teach:
wherein the determining of the communication operational policy comprises determining communication link adaptation between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle (Paras: ¶ 031; establish a secondary communications channel 185 between the drone and the drone operation system 130. The secondary communications channel may be the channel that is used when the drone is suspected of being hijacked and may be used to attempt to restore the primary communication channel.) based on the operational information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle (Paras: ¶ 032; drone 110 may not be able to provide the functionality available when using the primary communications channel 180. For example, the drone may no longer be able to stream video from the onboard camera to the drone operation system 130. As another example, the drone may not be able to be piloted in real time) and channel status information between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, when the operational information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle is obtained. Paras does teach: and channel status information between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, when the operational information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle is obtained. (Paras: ¶ 047; drone 110 may then begin to collect log data related to the primary communications channel 180).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Paras with the teachings of Basu because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of increasing the speed of distribution of information acquired by UAVs such that end users receive information more quickly (Paras: ¶ 002).
Regarding claim 6, as detailed above, combination Basu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 4. To the extent Basu is silent about or does not explicitly teach:
wherein the determining of communication link adaptation between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle based on the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information comprises, determining communication link adaptation between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle based on the operational information, the traffic information, and channel status information between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, when the traffic information and operational information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle within a region to which the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle belongs is obtained; Paras does teach:
wherein the determining of communication link adaptation between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle (Paras: ¶ 031; establish a secondary communications channel 185 between the drone and the drone operation system 130. The secondary communications channel may be the channel that is used when the drone is suspected of being hijacked and may be used to attempt to restore the primary communication channel.) based on the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information comprises, determining communication link adaptation between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle based on the operational information, the traffic information, and channel status information between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, (Paras: ¶ 032; drone 110 may not be able to provide the functionality available when using the primary communications channel 180. For example, the drone may no longer be able to stream video from the onboard camera to the drone operation system 130. As another example, the drone may not be able to be piloted in real time) (Paras: ¶ 047; drone 110 may then begin to collect log data related to the primary communications channel 180) when the traffic information and operational information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle within a region to which the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle belongs is obtained. (Paras: ¶ 041; example of detecting that a drone has been hijacked is the drone being entering friendly locations or restricted areas. For example, drones may be restricted from flying over military bases or airports.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Paras with the teachings of Basu because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of increasing the speed of distribution of information acquired by UAVs such that end users receive information more quickly (Paras: ¶ 002).
Regarding claim 15, as detailed above, combination Basu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 14. To the extent Basu is silent about or does not explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle or the base station is further configured to determine communication link adaptation between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle based on the operational information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle and channel status information between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, when the operational information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle is obtained. Paras does teach:
wherein the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle or the base station is further configured to determine communication link adaptation between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle (Paras: ¶ 031; establish a secondary communications channel 185 between the drone and the drone operation system 130. The secondary communications channel may be the channel that is used when the drone is suspected of being hijacked and may be used to attempt to restore the primary communication channel.) based on the operational information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle (Paras: ¶ 032; drone 110 may not be able to provide the functionality available when using the primary communications channel 180. For example, the drone may no longer be able to stream video from the onboard camera to the drone operation system 130. As another example, the drone may not be able to be piloted in real time) and channel status information between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, when the operational information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle is obtained. (Paras: ¶ 047; drone 110 may then begin to collect log data related to the primary communications channel 180)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Paras with the teachings of Basu because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of increasing the speed of distribution of information acquired by UAVs such that end users receive information more quickly (Paras: ¶ 002).
Regarding claim 16, as detailed above, combination Basu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 14. To the extent Basu is silent about or does not explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle or the base station is further configured to determine communication link adaptation between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle based on the operational information, traffic information, and channel status information between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, when the traffic information and operational information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle within a region to which the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle belongs is obtained. Paras does teach:
wherein the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle or the base station is further configured to determine communication link adaptation between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle (Paras: ¶ 031; establish a secondary communications channel 185 between the drone and the drone operation system 130. The secondary communications channel may be the channel that is used when the drone is suspected of being hijacked and may be used to attempt to restore the primary communication channel.) based on the operational information, traffic information, and channel status information between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, (Paras: ¶ 032; drone 110 may not be able to provide the functionality available when using the primary communications channel 180. For example, the drone may no longer be able to stream video from the onboard camera to the drone operation system 130. As another example, the drone may not be able to be piloted in real time) (Paras: ¶ 047; drone 110 may then begin to collect log data related to the primary communications channel 180) when the traffic information and operational information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle within a region to which the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle belongs is obtained. (Paras: ¶ 041; example of detecting that a drone has been hijacked is the drone being entering friendly locations or restricted areas. For example, drones may be restricted from flying over military bases or airports.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Paras with the teachings of Basu because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of increasing the speed of distribution of information acquired by UAVs such that end users receive information more quickly (Paras: ¶ 002).
Regarding claim 18, as detailed above, combination Basu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 14. To the extent Basu is silent about or does not explicitly teach:
further comprising a second base station, wherein the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, the base station, or the second base station is further configured to determine whether to perform cooperative communication between the base station and the second base station to support communication of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle based on the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information; Paras does teach:
further comprising a second base station, wherein the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, the base station, or the second base station is further configured to determine whether to perform cooperative communication between the base station and the second base station to support communication of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle based on the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information. (Paras: ¶ 031; establish a secondary communications channel 185 between the drone and the drone operation system 130. The secondary communications channel may be the channel that is used when the drone is suspected of being hijacked and may be used to attempt to restore the primary communication channel.) (Paras: ¶ 032; drone 110 may not be able to provide the functionality available when using the primary communications channel 180. For example, the drone may no longer be able to stream video from the onboard camera to the drone operation system 130. As another example, the drone may not be able to be piloted in real time) (Paras: ¶ 047; drone 110 may then begin to collect log data related to the primary communications channel 180)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Paras with the teachings of Basu because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of increasing the speed of distribution of information acquired by UAVs such that end users receive information more quickly (Paras: ¶ 002).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Basu as applied to claims 4 and 14 respectively above, and further in view of Hochdorf (US 20230299841 A1).
Regarding claim 7, as detailed above, combination Basu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 4. To the extent Basu is silent about or does not explicitly teach:
wherein the determining of communication link adaptation between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle based on the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information comprises, when the traffic information or the operational information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle within a region to which the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle belongs is unavailable, determining communication link adaptation between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle based on channel status information between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle; Hochdorf does teach:
wherein the determining of communication link adaptation between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle based on the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information comprises, when the traffic information or the operational information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle within a region to which the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle belongs is unavailable, determining communication link adaptation between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle based on channel status information between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle. (Hochdorf: ¶ 055; During flight, vehicle 110 periodically evaluates the performance of the selected channel with respect to RF interference by generating an updated score for the channel. Should vehicle 110 detect that the score of the selected channel has fallen out of a range of satisfactory or acceptable performance, vehicle 110 evaluates the next channel on the list for communication with access point 130. Vehicle 110 generates an updated channel score for the next channel to determine its feasibility for communication by comparing the updated score to the performance threshold or to the performance of the previous channel.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hochdorf with the teachings of Basu because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "improv[ing] communication performance between ground control" by identifying a failure of a communication channel (Hochdorf: ¶ 014).
Regarding claim 17, as detailed above, combination Basu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 14. To the extent Basu is silent about or does not explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle or the base station is further configured to determine communication link adaptation between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle based on the channel status information between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, when the traffic information or operational information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle within the region to which the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle belongs is unavailable; Hochdorf does teach:
wherein the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle or the base station is further configured to determine communication link adaptation between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle based on the channel status information between the base station and the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, when the traffic information or operational information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle within the region to which the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle belongs is unavailable. (Hochdorf: ¶ 055; During flight, vehicle 110 periodically evaluates the performance of the selected channel with respect to RF interference by generating an updated score for the channel. Should vehicle 110 detect that the score of the selected channel has fallen out of a range of satisfactory or acceptable performance, vehicle 110 evaluates the next channel on the list for communication with access point 130. Vehicle 110 generates an updated channel score for the next channel to determine its feasibility for communication by comparing the updated score to the performance threshold or to the performance of the previous channel.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hochdorf with the teachings of Basu because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "improv[ing] communication performance between ground control" by identifying a failure of a communication channel (Hochdorf: ¶ 014).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Basu as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Paras et al. (US 20250024522 A1).
Regarding claim 8, as detailed above, combination Basu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. To the extent Basu is silent about or does not explicitly teach:
wherein the determining of the communication operational policy comprises determining whether to perform cooperative communication between the base station and a second base station to support the communication of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle based on the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information; Paras does teach:
wherein the determining of the communication operational policy comprises determining whether to perform cooperative communication between the base station and a second base station to support the communication of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle based on the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information. (Paras: ¶ 031; establish a secondary communications channel 185 between the drone and the drone operation system 130. The secondary communications channel may be the channel that is used when the drone is suspected of being hijacked and may be used to attempt to restore the primary communication channel.) (Paras: ¶ 032; drone 110 may not be able to provide the functionality available when using the primary communications channel 180. For example, the drone may no longer be able to stream video from the onboard camera to the drone operation system 130. As another example, the drone may not be able to be piloted in real time) (Paras: ¶ 047; drone 110 may then begin to collect log data related to the primary communications channel 180)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Paras with the teachings of Basu because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of increasing the speed of distribution of information acquired by UAVs such that end users receive information more quickly (Paras: ¶ 002).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Basu in view of Paras as applied to claims 8 above, and further in view of Vivanco (US 20230362746 A1).
Regarding claim 9, as detailed above, Basu in view of Paras teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 8. To the extent Basu is silent about or does not explicitly teach:
wherein the determining of whether to perform cooperative communication between the base station and the second base station comprises: predicting communication performance based on available resources within a region to which the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle belongs; evaluating whether the predicted communication performance meets a required communication performance for the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle; and determining whether to perform cooperative communication between the base station and the second base station based on an evaluation result. Vivanco does teach:
wherein the determining of whether to perform cooperative communication between the base station and the second base station comprises: predicting communication performance based on available resources within a region to which the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle belongs; (Vivanco: ¶ 066; At act 210, performance engine 102, can determine a projected trajectory associated with the UAV. At act 212, performance engine 102 can determine or identify a target special serving cell equipment or the group of special serving cell equipment to which the UAV will be handed over to and determine an available carrier of the group of carriers or an available frequency of the group of frequencies that the UAV can use) evaluating whether the predicted communication performance meets a required communication performance for the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle; and determining whether to perform cooperative communication between the base station and the second base station based on an evaluation result. (Vivanco: ¶ 069; UAV can transmit to core equipment a collection of available frequencies that the UAV can support. At act 508, core equipment can receive from special serving cell equipment a carrier of the group of carriers and/or a frequency of the group of frequencies, and in response to receiving the carrier of the group of carriers and/or the frequency of the group of frequencies, core equipment can determine a special serving cell equipment of the group of special serving cell equipment that the UAV is currently attaching to, or is currently attached to.) (Vivanco: ¶ 069; core equipment, can monitor the inter-frequency handover performance of the UAV from a first special serving cell equipment (e.g., the special serving cell equipment that the UAV is currently attached to) to a second special serving cell equipment (e.g., the target special serving cell equipment to which the UAV will be handed over to)).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Vivanco with the teachings of Basu because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "improv[ing] handover performance when servicing aerial UE or UAVs over advanced networks" (Vivanco: ¶ 005).
Regarding claim 10, as detailed above, combination Basu in view of Paras in view of Vivanco teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 9. Vivanco further teaches:
wherein the determining of whether to perform cooperative communication between the base station and the second base station further comprises determining a region to be provided with communication support and regions available for communication support using the cooperative communication. (Vivanco: ¶ 069; At act 514, core equipment, can instruct the target special serving cell equipment to decrease enb.tx.gain values of the carrier of the group of carriers and/or the frequency of the group of frequencies that the UAV is currently attached to and increase the enb.tx.gain values of one or more of the other carriers of the group of carriers and/or one or more frequency of the group of frequencies.) (Vivanco: ¶ 059; (ii) Special-eNB.1 has two carriers which can operate in F1 and F2, respectively; (iii) second terrestrial based special serving cell equipment (Special-eNB.2) is also operating using F1 and F2; (vi) Special-eNB.2 is a neighboring terrestrial based special serving cell equipment of Special-eNB.1; and (v) that only one UAV is traversing the overlapping broadcast coverage area afforded by Special-eNB.1 and Special-eNB.2, when the UAV approaches Special-eNB.2, in described embodiments, Special-eNB.2 can be required to reduce its enb.tx,gain.F1 values and boost its enb.tx.gain.F2 values. By doing this a low likelihood of intra-frequency interference can be enforced and a high likelihood of inter-frequency overlapping between Special-eNB.1 and Special-eNB.2 can be ensured. Accordingly, the UAV can them discover Special-eNB.2.F2 and perform a handover.)
Claim 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Basu in view of Paras as applied to claims 18 above, and further in view of Vivanco (US 20230362746 A1).
Regarding claim 19, as detailed above, combination Basu in view Paras teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 18. To the extent Basu is silent about or does not explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, the base station, or the second base station is further configured to: predict communication performance based on available resources within a region to which the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle belongs, evaluate whether the predicted communication performance meets a required communication performance for the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, and determine whether to perform cooperative communication between the base station and the second base station based on an evaluation result; Vivanco does teach:
wherein the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, the base station, or the second base station is further configured to: predict communication performance based on available resources within a region to which the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle belongs, (Vivanco: ¶ 066; At act 210, performance engine 102, can determine a projected trajectory associated with the UAV. At act 212, performance engine 102 can determine or identify a target special serving cell equipment or the group of special serving cell equipment to which the UAV will be handed over to and determine an available carrier of the group of carriers or an available frequency of the group of frequencies that the UAV can use) evaluate whether the predicted communication performance meets a required communication performance for the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, and determine whether to perform cooperative communication between the base station and the second base station based on an evaluation result. (Vivanco: ¶ 069; UAV can transmit to core equipment a collection of available frequencies that the UAV can support. At act 508, core equipment can receive from special serving cell equipment a carrier of the group of carriers and/or a frequency of the group of frequencies, and in response to receiving the carrier of the group of carriers and/or the frequency of the group of frequencies, core equipment can determine a special serving cell equipment of the group of special serving cell equipment that the UAV is currently attaching to, or is currently attached to.) (Vivanco: ¶ 069; core equipment, can monitor the inter-frequency handover performance of the UAV from a first special serving cell equipment (e.g., the special serving cell equipment that the UAV is currently attached to) to a second special serving cell equipment (e.g., the target special serving cell equipment to which the UAV will be handed over to)).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Vivanco with the teachings of Basu because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "improv[ing] handover performance when servicing aerial UE or UAVs over advanced networks" (Vivanco: ¶ 005).
Regarding claim 20, as detailed above, combination Basu in view Paras in view of Vivanco teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 19. Vivanco further teaches:
wherein the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, the base station, or the second base station is further configured to determine a region to be provided with communication support and regions available for communication support using the cooperative communication. (Vivanco: ¶ 069; At act 514, core equipment, can instruct the target special serving cell equipment to decrease enb.tx.gain values of the carrier of the group of carriers and/or the frequency of the group of frequencies that the UAV is currently attached to and increase the enb.tx.gain values of one or more of the other carriers of the group of carriers and/or one or more frequency of the group of frequencies.) (Vivanco: ¶ 059; (ii) Special-eNB.1 has two carriers which can operate in F1 and F2, respectively; (iii) second terrestrial based special serving cell equipment (Special-eNB.2) is also operating using F1 and F2; (vi) Special-eNB.2 is a neighboring terrestrial based special serving cell equipment of Special-eNB.1; and (v) that only one UAV is traversing the overlapping broadcast coverage area afforded by Special-eNB.1 and Special-eNB.2, when the UAV approaches Special-eNB.2, in described embodiments, Special-eNB.2 can be required to reduce its enb.tx,gain.F1 values and boost its enb.tx.gain.F2 values. By doing this a low likelihood of intra-frequency interference can be enforced and a high likelihood of inter-frequency overlapping between Special-eNB.1 and Special-eNB.2 can be ensured. Accordingly, the UAV can them discover Special-eNB.2.F2 and perform a handover.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed June 12, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that
[t]The amended independent claims exclude "routing" and therefore distinguish over Basu. From Basu's paragraph [0053], "pathside control module 412 can include a processor and/or other circuitry to control data exchanges through the PCR network 300," it can be understood that the pathside control module 412 of Basu is responsible for data flow within the PCR network, which implies data flow control (routing) in the PCR network. In contrast to Basu, the amended claims relate to "determining ... a communication operational policy" . . . In contrast to Basu, the present claims relate to a communication operational policy corresponding to communication operation control targeting wireless link parameters (such as MCS, power, scheduling, and mobility). . . To summarize, the present embodiments relate to determining a communication operational policy, and thus, communication operation control. In contrast, Basu only discloses the evaluation of data relevance with wireless link parameter control. (Applicant’s Arguments filed June 12, 2026, § I).
Newly applied prior art Lekutai (US 20220070792 A1) teaches a system in which a UAV “requests one or more of the network parameters 130 from the network server” periodically or “in response to detecting a change in one or more of the flight parameters 118 and/or a change in the number of base stations that are available” (Lekutai: ¶ 023) and then determines “communication rules [which] may include ranges and threshold for one or more of the network parameters 130, the UAV communication parameters 116, and/or the flight parameters 118 that corresponds to an adjustment to the transmission power level” (Lekutai: ¶ 026). Further, Lekutai teaches explicitly adjusting transmission power in relationship to altitude or other flight parameters (Lekutai: ¶ 104-107).
The instant application teaches that “the acquiring of the operational or traffic information of the at least one UAV 100 in operation S530 may include acquiring operational information such as speed (or velocity), altitude, and/or mobility of the at least one UAV” (Instant Application Specification, pg. 12) while Lekutai teaches acquiring altitude information (Lekutai: ¶ 104-107). The amended claims recite developing a “communication operational policy” while Lekutai teaches developing “communication rules” (Lekutai: ¶ 023). Finally, Applicant argues that the amended claim are targeted at “control[ling] targeting wireless link parameters (such as MCS, power, scheduling, and mobility)” (Applicant’s Arguments filed June 12, 2026, § I) while Lekutai teaches controlling power (Lekutai: ¶ 107). Consequently, Applicant's arguments with respect to obviousness of claims 1 and 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of prior art Basu in view of Lekutai.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Ebrahim (US 20220217497 A1) which discloses a wireless communication system includes a plurality of user devices, UEs. The UE is to communicate with one or more further UEs using a sidelink.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 9:30 - 18:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights