DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application: Claims 1-32 are present for examination at this time.
Claims 1-32 are rejected.
Please refer to Forms 892 of record in this application and/or submitted IDSes to resolve any possible discrepancies in the listed reference numbers, titles, and/or author or inventor names.
Applicant is reminded that claim mapping is provided as a courtesy to the applicant, but applicant should consider a reference as a whole, as the entire reference gives context to mapped sections.
Notice of Pre-AIA AIA Status
The present application, filed on after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first invent to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 4/18/2025 has/have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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. All obviousness rationales stated below are rationales that would have been obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date of the application.
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 1-7, 15-21, 29, 30, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over “Dynamic Flight Path Variation for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles” by Mehta et al, US 20230306355 A1 (“Mehta”) in view of Vehicle, A Method For Controlling A Vehicle, A Vehicle Control System And A Network Node” by Vandikas et al., US2022/0187852A1 (“Vandikas”).
With respect to claims 1, 15, 29, 30, 31, and 32 Mehta in view of Vandikas discloses a method (related wireless device, processor, non-transitory medium, basestation, and method of operating a basestation) performed by a wireless device in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
receiving, from a network, a configuration for flight path information including a condition related to a certain location (Mehta at ¶4 where an updated flight plan is sent to the UAV, ¶31 where the update may relate to a change in location and ¶35 where the communication comes through a network. See also ¶43.);
determining whether a flight path of the wireless device is updated from the first flight path to a second flight path (Mehta at ¶70 where the flight planner decides to update the flight path); and
based on (i) a current location of the wireless device satisfying the condition related to the certain location and (ii) the flight path being updated, transmitting a second message including information on the second flight path to the network (Mehta at ¶71 where the system sends a message to a user device via the network informing the user about the update flight path).
Metha does not explicitly state that which is known in the art as taught by Vandikas. Vandikas discloses: transmitting, to the network, a first message including information on a first flight path (Vandikas at ¶¶38 ,40 where the drone can transmit flight path data about the current route back to a control center.)
Reasons to Combine/Modify:
Mehta and Vandikas are analogous to the claimed invention in that they are from the same field of endeavor, providing travel flight plans to an unmanned aerial vehicle. Vandikas at ¶¶3, 38 states that there is a need to keep a control center apprised of possible difficulties along a flight path in case a modification is needed, to avoid potential problems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Metha with Vandikas for the reasons above, e.g., to avoid problems with a first flight path.
Differences in Claim 29: Claim 29 is drawn to a processor that carries out method steps seen in Claim 1 Mehta discloses this at ¶¶11, 83, and ¶90“The technology described herein may be implemented as logical operations and/or modules in one or more systems. The logical operations may be implemented as a sequence of processor-implemented steps directed by software programs executing in one or more computer systems and as interconnected machine or circuit modules within one or more computer systems, or as a combination of both. Likewise, the descriptions of various component modules may be provided in terms of operations executed or effected by the modules. The resulting implementation is a matter of choice, dependent on the performance requirements of the underlying system implementing the described technology. Accordingly, the logical operations making up the embodiments of the technology described herein are referred to variously as operations, steps, objects, or modules. Furthermore, it should be understood that logical operations may be performed in any order, unless explicitly claimed otherwise or a specific order is inherently necessitated by the claim language.
Differences in Claim 30: Claim 30 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium that has steps seen in Claim 1 Mehta discloses this at ¶11 and ¶90“The technology described herein may be implemented as logical operations and/or modules in one or more systems. The logical operations may be implemented as a sequence of processor-implemented steps directed by software programs executing in one or more computer systems and as interconnected machine or circuit modules within one or more computer systems, or as a combination of both. Likewise, the descriptions of various component modules may be provided in terms of operations executed or effected by the modules. The resulting implementation is a matter of choice, dependent on the performance requirements of the underlying system implementing the described technology. Accordingly, the logical operations making up the embodiments of the technology described herein are referred to variously as operations, steps, objects, or modules. Furthermore, it should be understood that logical operations may be performed in any order, unless explicitly claimed otherwise or a specific order is inherently necessitated by the claim language.
Differences in Claim 31: Claim 31 is drawn to using a base station to carry out the steps seen in Claim 1. Mehta discloses this at ¶89 “The foregoing description has a broad application. For example, while examples disclosed herein may focus on central communication system, it should be appreciated that the concepts disclosed herein may equally apply to other systems, such as a distributed, central or decentralized system, or a cloud system. For example, the flight planner 120 and/or other components in the distribution system (e.g., distribution center inventory and computing systems) may reside on a server in a client/server system, on a user mobile device, or on any device on the network and operate in a decentralized manner.” A basestation is a device on the network.
Differences in Claim 32 Claim 32 is drawn to a base station capable of carrying out the steps seen in Claim . Mehta discloses this at ¶89 “The foregoing description has a broad application. For example, while examples disclosed herein may focus on central communication system, it should be appreciated that the concepts disclosed herein may equally apply to other systems, such as a distributed, central or decentralized system, or a cloud system. For example, the flight planner 120 and/or other components in the distribution system (e.g., distribution center inventory and computing systems) may reside on a server in a client/server system, on a user mobile device, or on any device on the network and operate in a decentralized manner.” A basestation is a device on the network.
With respect to claims 2, and 16Mehta in view of Vandikas discloses the method of Claim 1 (and related device) wherein the information on the second flight path includes all way points of the second flight path (Vandikas at ¶¶47, 57 where new waypoints are calculated and sent to the control center).
With respect to claims 3 and 17 Mehta in view of Vandikas discloses the method of claim 1 (and related device) wherein the information on the second flight path includes one or more way points of the second flight path different from the first flight path (Mehta at ¶¶47, 57 where new waypoints are calculated and sent to the control center).
With respect to claims 4, and 18 Mehta in view of Vandikas discloses the method of claim 1 (and related device) wherein the information on the second flight path includes an indication informing that the flight path of the wireless device is updated (Mehta at ¶71 providing an update is an indication of an update).
With respect to claims 5 and 19 Mehta in view of Vandikas discloses the method of claim 4 (and related device), wherein the method further comprises, transmitting, to the network, a third message including one or more way points of the second flight path. (Mehta at ¶¶47, 57 where new waypoints are calculated and sent to the control center).
With respect to claims 6 and 20 Mehta in view of Vandikas discloses the method of claim 1 (and related device) wherein the condition related to the certain location is satisfied based on that (i) the wireless device enters the certain location from outside the certain location, or (ii) the wireless device leaves the certain location from outside the certain location (Mehta at ¶80 where the system executes the next flight plan upon satisfying the condition of completing the order).
With respect to claims 7 and 21 Mehta in view of Vandikas discloses the method of claim 1 (and related device) wherein the second message includes UE assistance information (UAI), and
wherein the UAI includes information on the second flight path (Mehta at ¶47 “ The flight controller 122 may receive data from the communications system 116 and the sensor system 118 to continuously compute the location, speed, and heading of the UAV 102.” As the communication system is wireless the UAV has a user equipment in it as that term UE is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Using location data from the communication system is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be synonymous with User Equipment Assistance information).
With respect to claims 12 and 26 Mehta in view of Vandikas discloses the method of claim 1 (and related device), wherein the method further comprising transmitting, to the network, a measurement report including an indication informing that the flight path of the wireless device is updated (Mehta at ¶71 providing an update is an indication of an update. Also, a updated estimated time of delivery is a measurement report.).
With respect to claims 14 and 28 Mehta in view of Vandikas discloses the method of claim 1 (and related device), wherein the wireless device is in communication with at least one of a user equipment, a network, or an autonomous vehicle other than the wireless device (Mehta at ¶58 “[0058] Once the updated flight plan is generated, the flight planner 120 communicates the updated flight plan to the flight controller 122 for execution. In implementations where the flight planner 120 is separate from the UAV 102, the updated flight plan may be first received by the communications system 116 of the UAV 102 and then transmitted to the flight controller 122. In some implementations, the flight planner 120 may also transmit the updated flight plan to other devices and locations such as the operation device 110, a distribution center (e.g., the origin 104 or another distribution center 134 in the distribution network), and/or a centralized control center.”.
Claims 8, 9, 13, 22, 23, and 27 Mehta rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta in view of Vandikas and further in view of “Position Calculation Device, Position Calculation Method, And Program Storage Medium” by Tokumi US2026/0221026 (“Tokumi”).
With respect to claims 8 and 22, while Mehta in view of Vandikas discloses the method of claim 1 (and related device), neither Mehta nor Vandikas explicitly states that which is known in the art as taught by Tokumi. Tokumi discloses wherein the method further comprises, receiving, from the network, a UE information request message for flight path information (Tokumi at ¶85 where the user can request the current status of the flight plan, i.e., the drone’s position, and have the position sent back to the user).
Reasons to Combine/Modify:
Mehta, Vandikas, and Tokumi are analogous to the claimed invention in that they are from the same field of endeavor, providing travel flight plans to an unmanned aerial vehicle. A common issue in package delivery, is wondering where your package is. While Mehta provides updates from the delivery service, there are times a user may still want to know where their delivery is. Tokumi provides the ability for the user to pull real-time updates. A service that has real time updates is more desirable to consumers than not. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Metha as modified by Vandikas with Tokumi. Additional motivation for combining Tokumi can be found at ¶63 as it relates to improving the precision of flight position information.
With respect to claims 9 and 23 Mehta in view of Vandikas discloses the method of claim 8 (and related device), wherein the first message including information on the first flight path is a UE information response message in response to the UE information request message (Tokumi at ¶85 where the user can request the current status of the flight plan, i.e., the drone’s position, and have the position sent back to the user).
With respect to claims 13 and 27 Mehta in view of Vandikas and further in view of Tokumi discloses the method of claim 12 (and related device), wherein the method further comprising, receiving, from the network, a UE information request message for flight path information, and wherein the second message is a UE information response message in response to the UE information request message (Tokumi at ¶85 where the user can request the current status of the flight plan, i.e., the drone’s position, and have the position sent back to the user)..
Claims 10-11 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta in view of Vandikas and further in view of “Method For Providing Flight Path Of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Obtaining Method, Apparatus, And System” by Hong US2021/0351840A1 (“Hong”).
With respect to claims 10 and 24 while Mehta in view of Vandikas discloses the method of claim 1 (and related device), neither Mehta nor Vandikas explicitly states that which is known in the art as taught by Hong. Hong discloses the method of claim 1 (and related device), wherein the method further comprises, transmitting, to the network, a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration complete message including a flight path available indication (Hong at ¶¶20-23 where all of the flight path information can be sent in RRC format).
Mehta, Vandikas, andHong are analogous to the claimed invention in that they are from the same field of endeavor, providing travel flight plans to an unmanned aerial vehicle. A common issue in package delivery, is wondering where your package is. Mehta at ¶ 43 lists a variety of communication protocols that can be used e.g, 3G, 4G, 5G, and LTE. RRC is dominant signaling protocol in 5G. Taking the system of Mehta as modified by Vandikas and making sure it uses the efficient signaling techniques of the wireless systems it can work with optimizes interoperability. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Metha as modified by Vandikas with Hong.
With respect to claims 11 and 25 Mehta in view of Vandikas and futher in view of Hong discloses the method of claim 1 (and related device), wherein the method further comprises, receiving, from the network, an RRC reconfiguration including a configuration for flight path information (Hong at ¶¶20-23 where all of the flight path information can be sent in RRC format)..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7494. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10a-6p.
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, Yuwen “Kevin” Pan at 571-272-7855. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights