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 .
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
(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.
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Basu et al. (US 20190306676 A1).
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) 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 (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).) determining, by the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle or the base station, the communication operation of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle based on the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle. (Basu: ¶ 053; a pathside control module 412 can include a processor and/or other circuitry to control data exchanges through the PCR network 300, such as by determining whether pathside data obtained by a second PCR 302(1) or any breaking news in the area (such as a police chase) are relevant to the first PCR 302(1) and/or client devices 304(1)-304(M) and/or traffic control device)
Regarding claim 2, as detailed above, 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 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).) wherein the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle or the base station is configured to determine the communication operation of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle based on the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle. (Basu: ¶ 053; a pathside control module 412 can include a processor and/or other circuitry to control data exchanges through the PCR network 300, such as by determining whether pathside data obtained by a second PCR 302(1) or any breaking news in the area (such as a police chase) are relevant to the first PCR 302(1) and/or client devices 304(1)-304(M) and/or traffic control device)
Regarding claim 12, as detailed above, 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).)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basu as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively above, and further in view of Hong (US 20210319704 A1).
Regarding claim 3, as detailed above, 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, 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 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basu as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively above, and further in view of Hong (US 20210319704 A1).
Regarding claim 4, as detailed above, 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 operation of 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 at least one of the operational information or the traffic information. Hong does teach:
wherein the determining of the communication operation of 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 at least one of the operational information or the traffic information. (Hong: ¶ 053; step 201, a UAV sends a radio resource control (RRC) connection resumption request to first access network equipment) (Hong: ¶ 061; step 202, the first access network equipment sends flight path information of the UAV to the UAV.) (Hong: ¶ 073; step 203, the first access network equipment sends an information acquisition request to the second access network equipment.).
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 Hong with the teachings of Basu because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of reducing the signalling overhead required by the UAV (Hong: ¶ 080).
Regarding claim 14, as detailed above, Basu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 11. 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 at least one of the operational information or the traffic information.; Hong 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 at least one of the operational information or the traffic information. (Hong: ¶ 053; step 201, a UAV sends a radio resource control (RRC) connection resumption request to first access network equipment) (Hong: ¶ 061; step 202, the first access network equipment sends flight path information of the UAV to the UAV.) (Hong: ¶ 073; step 203, the first access network equipment sends an information acquisition request to the second access network equipment.)
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 Hong with the teachings of Basu because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of reducing the signalling overhead required by the UAV (Hong: ¶ 080).
Claims 5-6, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basu in view Hong 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, Basu in view Hong 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 Paras 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, 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)
To the extent Basu is silent about or does not explicitly 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: 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, Basu in view Hong 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, Basu in view Hong 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, Basu in view Hong 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, Basu in view Hong 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 Basu in view of Hong as applied to claims 4 and 14 respectively above, and further in view of Hochdorf (US 20230299841 A1).
Regarding claim 7, as detailed above, Basu in view of Hong 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, Basu in view of Hong 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 Basu as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Paras et al. (US 20250024522 A1).
Regarding claim 8, as detailed above, Basu teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Basu does not explicitly teach: To the extent Basu is silent about or does not explicitly teach:
wherein the determining of the communication operation of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle based on the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information 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 operation of the at least one unmanned aerial vehicle based on the at least one of the operational information or the traffic information 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 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the 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, 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 Basu in view Hong 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, Basu in view of Hong 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 the 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 the 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, Basu in view of Hong 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.)
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.
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 M-F 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