DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2,5 and 8-16 are pending. Claims dated 07/01/2026 are being examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Priority:
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/01/2026 with respect to the priority date have been fully considered, but they are not yet persuasive. Indicated in the previous Office Action, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate (MPEP 215 and 216). There is no record of a filed certified copy of the foreign application, and there is no statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. Therefore, entitlement to the foreign filing date cannot be determined at this time until the certified copy and the accuracy statement of the translation is provided.
Specification and Abstract:
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/01/2026, with respect to the Specification and Abstract have been fully considered, but they are not yet persuasive for reasons above.
The Examiner has reviewed the provided translation to determine whether the changes are supported by the foreign priority application as filed. In review of the Applicant’s translation, it appears the Applicant’s translation of the foreign priority documents contains the same previously identified issues.
For example, the present application, Application No. 18/981,710 specification as filed recites:
[0010]: According to an example aspect, a management apparatus includes: an allocation processing section configured to allocate a plurality of zones, each of which being identified by latitude, longitude, and altitude as a three-dimensional space in common among a plurality of mobile communication carrier networks…
Applicant’s filed translation recites:
[0010] According to an example aspect, a management apparatus includes: an allocation processing section configured to allocate a plurality of zones capable of identifying a three-dimensional space in common among a plurality of mobile communication carrier networks…
Support is not clear to the Examiner as why the instant specification would differ from the provided translation if the provided translation is an accurate translation of the foreign original. No reasons for the differences are disclosed in remarks, and no accuracy statement has been provided.
Applicant argues in p. 8 or remarks what “a plurality of zones capable of identifying a three-dimensional space” should be interpreted as based on various different paragraphs of the disclosure, and changes appear to have been made in the instant application to address this issue (as it appears in at least [0010] above), but Examiner maintains keeping this recited language in the Abstract is not a clear (whether is it due to mistranslation or literal translation, the originally filed language does not make logical sense).
The changes will not be treated as new matter if this is merely a change due to a mistranslation or literal translation from the foreign original. An accuracy statement is required (MPEP 215 and 216), and if the difference is merely a translation issue (i.e. grammar or literal translation problems) the applicant may state in the accuracy statement that the foreign original conveys the same disclosure as the instant application for the priority to be perfected.
102/103
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/01/2026 with respect to 102/103 rejections to the claims 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.
Priority
The application claims priority to Japanese Patent Application 2019-161402 filed on September 4, 2019. Applicant’s claim for foreign priority is not perfected (MPEP 216). The translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate (MPEP 215 and 216). There is no record of a filed certified copy of the foreign application, and there is no statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. Therefore, entitlement to the foreign filing date cannot be determined at this time until the certified copy and the accuracy statement of the translation is provided.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites “…a plurality of zones capable of identifying a three-dimensional space in common among a plurality of mobile communication carrier networks”. This phrase is unclear because it is unclear how a “zone” is “capable of identifying” a 3D space. A zone is ordinarily understood to be a spatial region, and it is unclear how such a region performs an identifying function. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-2, 5 and 8-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 has been amended to recite the following limitation (emphasis on bolded) that is not supported by the disclosure, as originally filed:
“receiving, from the airspace manager apparatus, a steering policy based on the current traffic situation of the first mobile terminal”
There is no reference in the specification as to a “steering policy”. Applicant’s specification describes receiving “instructions related to flight, such as the flight speed and the flight direction” in [0106], but does not specifically a mention a “steering policy”. It is not clear or currently made of record if “steering policy” encompasses other unmentioned parameters outside of speed and direction (undue breadth). Examiner suggests to word the claims more closely to the terms recited in the specification to avoid undue breadth (i.e., reciting “flight instructions” instead of “steering policy”).
Claims 2, 5, and 11-13 are similarly rejected, because of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
Independent claim 8, 9, and 10 are rejected for the same reason reciting “a steering policy”.
Claims 14-16 are similarly rejected, because of their dependencies on rejected claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 has been amended to recite the following limitation (emphasis on bolded) that is not supported by the disclosure, as originally filed:
“further comprising receiving the steering policy after extending the communication link to the second mobile terminal”
Applicant’s specification describes receiving “instructions related to flight, such as the flight speed and the flight direction” in [0106] and for examination purposes as per above, this is interpreted as the claimed “steering policy”. However, there is no explicit disclosure of any temporal or causal relationship between the establishment of the communication link with the second mobile terminal and receipt of the steering policy. The claimed sequence is not supported as the specification does not disclose the ordering (receiving must be performed “after extending…”).
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason reciting “after” when there is no explicit disclosure of any temporal or causal relationship.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 8-10, 12-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godwin et al. (US-20170358212-A1), in view Gong et al. (US-20180068567-A1), in view of Westerlund et al. (US-20180205720-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Godwin, Gong, and Westerlund, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Godwin teaches a method for a first mobile terminal, the method comprising:
establishing, with an airspace manager apparatus, a communication link ([0070] The UAV air traffic control system 300 includes a cell network 302 and optionally other wireless networks 304 communicatively coupled to one of more servers 200 and to a plurality of UAVs 50; [0172] the UAVs 50 can be configured for automatic communication to the networks 302, 304);
[…] via the communication link, sending, to the airspace manager apparatus, a current traffic situation of the first mobile terminal ([0088] As described herein, the UAV 50 is configured to communicate to the air traffic control system 300, during all of the flight phases, such as via the networks 302, 304. The air traffic control system 300 is configured to monitor and manage/control the flying lane 700 as described herein. The objective of this management is to avoid collisions, avoid obstructions, avoid flight in restricted areas or areas with no network 302, 304 coverage, etc.; supported by [0089]-[0092]);
receiving, from the airspace manager apparatus, a steering policy based on the current traffic situation of the first mobile terminal ([0073] The UAV air traffic control system 300 can control speed, flight path, and altitude for a vast number of UAVs 50 simultaneously; [0095] The UAV 50 is configured, with assistance and control from the air traffic control system 300 to adjust the flying lane 700 to overcome the obstacle 710 as well as add a buffer amount, such as 35 feet or any other amount for safety).
Godwin does not explicitly teach based on communication with the airspace manager apparatus, extending the communication link to a second mobile terminal; and via the communication link, exchanging information with the second mobile terminal, thereby avoiding a collision with the second mobile terminal.
However, Gong teaches a method for a first mobile terminal (FIG. 32 UAV 3210a; [0890] FIG. 32 shows an example of mobile geo-fencing devices in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. The mobile geo-fencing devices may be UAVs 3210 a, 3210 b)
extending the communication link to a second mobile terminal (FIG. 22 flight controller 2234; FIG. 32 the flight controller of UAV 3210b; [0892] The mobile geo-fencing devices may send out a wireless communication; [0893] When the mobile geo-fencing devices are UAVs, the messages may be sent out and received by one another); and
via the communication link, exchanging information with the second mobile terminal, thereby avoiding a collision with the second mobile terminal ([0898] When both UAVs broadcast the information, both UAVs may detect the possibility of collision and provide a course correction. In some instances, one of the UAVs may continue on its course while the other UAV takes evasive action to avoid a possible collision. In other instances, both UAVs may take some form of evasive action to avoid possible collision); supported by [0892]-[0893]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the communication capabilities of the UAVs as taught in Godwin to incorporate the teachings of Gong to include extending the communication link to a second mobile terminal; and via the communication link, exchanging information with the second mobile terminal, thereby avoiding a collision with the second mobile terminal, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of collision avoidance when a possibility of collision is detected between UAVs (Gong [0898]).
Godwin, in view of Gong does not explicitly teach the communication link is “based on communication with the airspace manager apparatus”.
However, Westerlund teaches a communication link is based on a management server ([0005] it is presented a method for a server for enabling setting up a secure peer-to-peer connection between a first peer and a second peer; FIG. 3 requests to connect).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the UAV peer-to-peer communication link and capability of the servers as taught in Godwin, in view of Gong to incorporate the teachings of Westerlund to include the communication link is “based on communication with the airspace manager apparatus”, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of improved communication security by including a authentication/verification handshake process prior to establishing the connection.
Regarding claim 2, Godwin, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 1.
Godwin also teaches wherein the first mobile terminal is an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) ([0070] The UAV air traffic control system 300 includes a cell network 302 and optionally other wireless networks 304 communicatively coupled to one of more servers 200 and to a plurality of UAVs 50; [0172] the UAVs 50 can be configured for automatic communication to the networks 302, 304).
Regarding claim 8, Godwin teaches a first mobile terminal comprising:
a memory; and at least one processor configured to access the memory, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to (FIG. 3 processor 102, memory 110):
establish, with an airspace manager apparatus, a communication link ([0070] The UAV air traffic control system 300 includes a cell network 302 and optionally other wireless networks 304 communicatively coupled to one of more servers 200 and to a plurality of UAVs 50; [0172] the UAVs 50 can be configured for automatic communication to the networks 302, 304);
[…] via the communication link, send, to the airspace manager apparatus, a current traffic situation of the first mobile terminal ([0088] As described herein, the UAV 50 is configured to communicate to the air traffic control system 300, during all of the flight phases, such as via the networks 302, 304. The air traffic control system 300 is configured to monitor and manage/control the flying lane 700 as described herein. The objective of this management is to avoid collisions, avoid obstructions, avoid flight in restricted areas or areas with no network 302, 304 coverage, etc.; supported by [0089]-[0092]);
receive, from the airspace manager apparatus, a steering policy based on the current traffic situation of the first mobile terminal ([0073] The UAV air traffic control system 300 can control speed, flight path, and altitude for a vast number of UAVs 50 simultaneously; [0095] The UAV 50 is configured, with assistance and control from the air traffic control system 300 to adjust the flying lane 700 to overcome the obstacle 710 as well as add a buffer amount, such as 35 feet or any other amount for safety).
Godwin does not explicitly teach based on communication with the airspace manager apparatus, extend the communication link to a second mobile terminal; and via the communication link, exchange information with the second mobile terminal, thereby avoiding a collision with the second mobile terminal.
However, Gong teaches a first mobile terminal (FIG. 32 UAV 3210a; [0890] FIG. 32 shows an example of mobile geo-fencing devices in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. The mobile geo-fencing devices may be UAVs 3210 a, 3210 b)
extending the communication link to a second mobile terminal (FIG. 22 flight controller 2234; FIG. 32 the flight controller of UAV 3210b; [0892] The mobile geo-fencing devices may send out a wireless communication; [0893] When the mobile geo-fencing devices are UAVs, the messages may be sent out and received by one another); and
via the communication link, exchanging information with the second mobile terminal, thereby avoiding a collision with the second mobile terminal ([0898] When both UAVs broadcast the information, both UAVs may detect the possibility of collision and provide a course correction. In some instances, one of the UAVs may continue on its course while the other UAV takes evasive action to avoid a possible collision. In other instances, both UAVs may take some form of evasive action to avoid possible collision); supported by [0892]-[0893]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the communication capabilities of the UAVs as taught in Godwin to incorporate the teachings of Gong to include extending the communication link to a second mobile terminal; and via the communication link, exchanging information with the second mobile terminal, thereby avoiding a collision with the second mobile terminal, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of collision avoidance when a possibility of collision is detected between UAVs (Gong [0898]).
Godwin, in view of Gong does not explicitly teach the communication link is “based on communication with the airspace manager apparatus”.
However, Westerlund teaches a communication link is based on a management server ([0005] it is presented a method for a server for enabling setting up a secure peer-to-peer connection between a first peer and a second peer; FIG. 3 requests to connect).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the UAV peer-to-peer communication link and capability of the servers as taught in Godwin, in view of Gong to incorporate the teachings of Westerlund to include the communication link is “based on communication with the airspace manager apparatus”, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of improved communication security by including a authentication/verification handshake process prior to establishing the connection.
Regarding claim 9, Godwin teaches a method for a network node, the method comprising:
establishing, with a first mobile terminal, a communication link ([0070] The UAV air traffic control system 300 includes a cell network 302 and optionally other wireless networks 304 communicatively coupled to one of more servers 200 and to a plurality of UAVs 50; [0172] the UAVs 50 can be configured for automatic communication to the networks 302, 304);
[…] via the communication link, receiving from the first mobile terminal, a current traffic situation of the first mobile terminal ([0088] As described herein, the UAV 50 is configured to communicate to the air traffic control system 300, during all of the flight phases, such as via the networks 302, 304. The air traffic control system 300 is configured to monitor and manage/control the flying lane 700 as described herein. The objective of this management is to avoid collisions, avoid obstructions, avoid flight in restricted areas or areas with no network 302, 304 coverage, etc.; supported by [0089]-[0092]);
sending, to the first mobile terminal, a steering policy based on the current traffic situation of the first mobile terminal ([0073] The UAV air traffic control system 300 can control speed, flight path, and altitude for a vast number of UAVs 50 simultaneously; [0095] The UAV 50 is configured, with assistance and control from the air traffic control system 300 to adjust the flying lane 700 to overcome the obstacle 710 as well as add a buffer amount, such as 35 feet or any other amount for safety).
Godwin does not explicitly teach wherein based on the communication link with the first mobile terminal, the communication link is extended to a second mobile terminal, and wherein, via the communication link, information is exchanged between the first mobile terminal and the second mobile terminal, thereby avoiding a collision between the first mobile terminal and the second mobile terminal.
However, Gong teaches the communication link is extended to a second mobile terminal (FIG. 22 flight controller 2234; FIG. 32 the flight controller of UAV 3210b; [0892] The mobile geo-fencing devices may send out a wireless communication; [0893] When the mobile geo-fencing devices are UAVs, the messages may be sent out and received by one another); and
and wherein, via the communication link, information is exchanged between the first mobile terminal and the second mobile terminal, thereby avoiding a collision between the first mobile terminal and the second mobile terminal ([0898] When both UAVs broadcast the information, both UAVs may detect the possibility of collision and provide a course correction. In some instances, one of the UAVs may continue on its course while the other UAV takes evasive action to avoid a possible collision. In other instances, both UAVs may take some form of evasive action to avoid possible collision); supported by [0892]-[0893]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the communication capabilities of the UAVs as taught in Godwin to incorporate the teachings of Gong to include the communication link is extended to a second mobile terminal, and wherein, via the communication link, information is exchanged between the first mobile terminal and the second mobile terminal, thereby avoiding a collision between the first mobile terminal and the second mobile terminal, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of collision avoidance when a possibility of collision is detected between UAVs (Gong [0898]).
Godwin, in view of Gong does not explicitly teach the communication link is “based on communication link with the first mobile terminal”.
However, Westerlund teaches a communication link is “based on communication link with a terminal”. ([0005] it is presented a method for a server for enabling setting up a secure peer-to-peer connection between a first peer and a second peer; FIG. 3 requests to connect).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the UAV peer-to-peer communication link and capability of the servers as taught in Godwin, in view of Gong to incorporate the teachings of Westerlund to include the communication link is “based on communication link with the first mobile terminal”, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of improved communication security by including a authentication/verification handshake process prior to establishing the connection.
Regarding claim 10, Godwin teaches a network node comprising:
a memory; and at least one processor configured to access the memory, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to (FIG. 4 processor 202, memory 210):
establish, with a first mobile terminal, a communication link ([0070] The UAV air traffic control system 300 includes a cell network 302 and optionally other wireless networks 304 communicatively coupled to one of more servers 200 and to a plurality of UAVs 50; [0172] the UAVs 50 can be configured for automatic communication to the networks 302, 304);
[…] via the communication link, receive from the first mobile terminal, a current traffic situation of the first mobile terminal ([0088] As described herein, the UAV 50 is configured to communicate to the air traffic control system 300, during all of the flight phases, such as via the networks 302, 304. The air traffic control system 300 is configured to monitor and manage/control the flying lane 700 as described herein. The objective of this management is to avoid collisions, avoid obstructions, avoid flight in restricted areas or areas with no network 302, 304 coverage, etc.; supported by [0089]-[0092]);
send, to the first mobile terminal, a steering policy based on the current traffic situation of the first mobile terminal ([0073] The UAV air traffic control system 300 can control speed, flight path, and altitude for a vast number of UAVs 50 simultaneously; [0095] The UAV 50 is configured, with assistance and control from the air traffic control system 300 to adjust the flying lane 700 to overcome the obstacle 710 as well as add a buffer amount, such as 35 feet or any other amount for safety).
Godwin does not explicitly teach wherein based on the communication link with the first mobile terminal, the communication link is extended to a second mobile terminal, and wherein, via the communication link, information is exchanged between the first mobile terminal and the second mobile terminal, thereby avoiding a collision between the first mobile terminal and the second mobile terminal.
However, Gong teaches the communication link is extended to a second mobile terminal (FIG. 22 flight controller 2234; FIG. 32 the flight controller of UAV 3210b; [0892] The mobile geo-fencing devices may send out a wireless communication; [0893] When the mobile geo-fencing devices are UAVs, the messages may be sent out and received by one another); and
and wherein, via the communication link, information is exchanged between the first mobile terminal and the second mobile terminal, thereby avoiding a collision between the first mobile terminal and the second mobile terminal ([0898] When both UAVs broadcast the information, both UAVs may detect the possibility of collision and provide a course correction. In some instances, one of the UAVs may continue on its course while the other UAV takes evasive action to avoid a possible collision. In other instances, both UAVs may take some form of evasive action to avoid possible collision); supported by [0892]-[0893]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the communication capabilities of the UAVs as taught in Godwin to incorporate the teachings of Gong to include the communication link is extended to a second mobile terminal, and wherein, via the communication link, information is exchanged between the first mobile terminal and the second mobile terminal, thereby avoiding a collision between the first mobile terminal and the second mobile terminal, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of collision avoidance when a possibility of collision is detected between UAVs (Gong [0898]).
Godwin, in view of Gong does not explicitly teach the communication link is “based on communication link with the first mobile terminal”.
However, Westerlund teaches a communication link is “based on communication link with a terminal”. ([0005] it is presented a method for a server for enabling setting up a secure peer-to-peer connection between a first peer and a second peer; FIG. 3 requests to connect).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the UAV peer-to-peer communication link and capability of the servers as taught in Godwin, in view of Gong to incorporate the teachings of Westerlund to include the communication link is “based on communication link with the first mobile terminal”, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of improved communication security by including a authentication/verification handshake process prior to establishing the connection.
Regarding claim 12, Godwin, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 1.
Godwin, as modified, also teaches further comprising sending, to the airspace manager apparatus, a request message for communication with the second mobile terminal (see rejection of claim 1 cited to Westerlund [0005] it is presented a method for a server for enabling setting up a secure peer-to-peer connection between a first peer and a second peer; Westerlund FIG. 3 requests to connect).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the UAV peer-to-peer communication link and capability of the servers as taught in Godwin, in view of Gong to incorporate the teachings of Westerlund to include further comprising sending, to the airspace manager apparatus, a request message for communication with the second mobile terminal, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of improved communication security by including a verification handshake process prior to establishing the connection.
Regarding claim 13, Godwin, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 12.
Godwin, as modified, also teaches further comprising receiving, from the airspace manager apparatus, an accept message for communication with the second mobile terminal (see rejection of claim 1 cited to Westerlund [0005] it is presented a method for a server for enabling setting up a secure peer-to-peer connection between a first peer and a second peer; Westerlund FIG. 3 requests to connect and shows server controlling the approval of which peers are allowed to communicate).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the UAV peer-to-peer communication link and capability of the servers as taught in Godwin, in view of Gong to incorporate the teachings of Westerlund to include further comprising receiving, from the airspace manager apparatus, an accept message for communication with the second mobile terminal, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of improved communication security by including a verification handshake process prior to establishing the connection.
Regarding claim 15, Godwin, as modified, teaches the first mobile terminal according to claim 8. Godwin, as modified, also teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to send, to the airspace manager apparatus, a request message for communication with the second mobile terminal (see rejection of claim 1 cited to Westerlund [0005] it is presented a method for a server for enabling setting up a secure peer-to-peer connection between a first peer and a second peer; Westerlund FIG. 3 requests to connect).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the UAV peer-to-peer communication link and capability of the servers as taught in Godwin, in view of Gong to incorporate the teachings of Westerlund to include wherein the at least one processor is further configured to send, to the airspace manager apparatus, a request message for communication with the second mobile terminal, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of improved communication security by including a verification handshake process prior to establishing the connection.
Regarding claim 16, Godwin, as modified, teaches the first mobile terminal according to claim 15. Godwin, as modified, also teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to receive, from the airspace manager apparatus, an accept message for communication with the second mobile terminal (see rejection of claim 1 cited to Westerlund [0005] it is presented a method for a server for enabling setting up a secure peer-to-peer connection between a first peer and a second peer; Westerlund FIG. 3 requests to connect and shows server controlling the approval of which peers are allowed to communicate).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the UAV peer-to-peer communication link and capability of the servers as taught in Godwin, in view of Gong to incorporate the teachings of Westerlund to include wherein the at least one processor is further configured to receive, from the airspace manager apparatus, an accept message for communication with the second mobile terminal, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of improved communication security by including a verification handshake process prior to establishing the connection.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godwin, in view Gong, in view of Westerlund, in further view of Casey et al. (US-20200027360-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Casey.
Regarding claim 5, Godwin, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 2.
Godwin, as modified, also teaches wherein the first mobile terminal performs the exchanging information with the second mobile terminal while the first mobile terminal and the second mobile terminal are performing a inter-terminal communication ([0894] The messages from the UAVs may be sent out on a periodic basis (e.g., regular or irregular time intervals)).
Godwin, as modified, does not explicitly teach performing the inter-terminal communication “during landing in a same tracking area”.
However, Casey teaches performing the inter-terminal communication “during landing in a same tracking area” (FIG. 1 UAVs 101, 103, 105 performs landing on same landing strip 107 shown with trajectories 102, 104, 106 respectively, and also performs peer-to-peer communication via wireless network 108; [0006] Each of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles includes a communication interface, a memory, and an electronic processor communicatively connected to the communication interface and the memory. The electronic processor is configured to control the communication interface to establish a wireless communication link with one or more unmanned aerial vehicles, and autonomously coordinate landings at a landing strip with the one or more unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent collisions. To autonomously coordinate the landings at the landing strip with the some or all of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent collisions, the electronic processor is configured to exchange messages with the some or all of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles according to a collision avoidance protocol and via the wireless communication link).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Godwin, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Casey to include performing the inter-terminal communication “during landing in a same tracking area”, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of “coordinating the landings to prevent collisions” (Casey [0006]).
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godwin, in view Gong, in view of Westerlund, in further view of Yamada et al. (US-20200283128-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Yamada.
Regarding claim 11, Godwin, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 1.
Godwin, as modified, does not explicitly teach further comprising receiving the steering policy after extending the communication link to the second mobile terminal.
However, Godwin teaches the steering policies can be continuously received until UAV reaches destination ([0091] A key aspect is the UAV 50 is continually in data communication with the air traffic control system 300 via the networks 302, 304; [0099] one of update the flying lane based on adjustments made by the one or more UAVs due to the new obstruction and provide an updated flying lane due to the new obstruction. The adjustments and/or the updated flying lane can include a buffer distance from the new obstruction; Godwin [0181] The method 1500 can further include periodically receiving updates or additions to the one or more no-fly zones (step 1506)) which implies that the last steering policy received after UAV communications would read on the temporal relationship “after”.
Further, Yamada teaches receiving a steering policy after extending a communication link to a second mobile terminal (FIG. 1 drones 30a-1 and 30a-2 are in wireless communication with each other and drone 30a-1 can receive flight instructions after connection is already made; [0035] Server apparatus 10 creates flight instructions instructing drone 30 to fly in the allocated airspace for the allocation permitted flight period, and transmits the created flight instructions to terminal 20).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Godwin, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Yamada to include further comprising receiving the steering policy after extending the communication link to the second mobile terminal, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of receiving updated steering policies.
Regarding claim 14, Godwin, as modified, teaches the first mobile terminal according to claim 8.
Godwin, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to receive the steering policy after extending the communication link to the second mobile terminal.
However, Godwin teaches the steering policies can be continuously received until UAV reaches destination ([0091] A key aspect is the UAV 50 is continually in data communication with the air traffic control system 300 via the networks 302, 304; [0099] one of update the flying lane based on adjustments made by the one or more UAVs due to the new obstruction and provide an updated flying lane due to the new obstruction. The adjustments and/or the updated flying lane can include a buffer distance from the new obstruction; Godwin [0181] The method 1500 can further include periodically receiving updates or additions to the one or more no-fly zones (step 1506)) which implies that the last steering policy received after UAV communications would read on the temporal relationship “after”.
Further, Yamada teaches receiving a steering policy after extending a communication link to a second mobile terminal (FIG. 1 drones 30a-1 and 30a-2 are in wireless communication with each other and drone 30a-1 can receive flight instructions after connection is already made; [0035] Server apparatus 10 creates flight instructions instructing drone 30 to fly in the allocated airspace for the allocation permitted flight period, and transmits the created flight instructions to terminal 20).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Godwin, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Yamada to include further comprising receiving the steering policy after extending the communication link to the second mobile terminal, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of receiving updated steering policies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20170238234-A1: Dowlatkhah teaches a UAV being able to do peer-to-peer communications with other UAVs in the network after joining the network
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571) 270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights