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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the first instance of “3GPPP SA1,” “QoS,” and “EPS” should be preceded with the full phrase for which the acronym stands for.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17, line 1, “UAV” should read “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)” because the first instance of an acronym should be preceded with the full phrase.
Claim 17, line 2, “3GPP” should be preceded with the full phrase for which the acronym stands for.
Claim 17, line 3, “QoS” should read “Quality of Service (QoS)” because the first instance of an acronym should be preceded with the full phrase.
Claim 27, line 5, “communication interface that is configured” should read “communication interface that is configured:”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“route planning unit” in claims 17 and 27. Applicant’s specification discloses “The route planning unit can be realized as a functional software unit that is called the route planning unit within the radio network or as a stand-alone unit in communication with the radio network” in paragraph [0038], “the route planning unit is part of the 3GPP system” in [0041], and “a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, in particular by the route planning unit, cause the computer to perform the steps of a method according to the invention” in [0045]. The “route planning unit” is therefore interpreted as a general computer with software.
“communication interface” in claims 17 and 27. Applicant’s specification does not provide structure for the limitation, thus the limitation will be further discussed under 35 USC §112.
“means to capture QoS capacities” in claim 27. Applicant’s specification discloses “Functionality to capture QoS capacities of radio cells; this may be a dedicated capacity acquisition module set up to have access to the necessary data of the radio cells of the radio network; this functionality can also be provided, in particular in a 5G core network, by functions that a virtual capacity acquisition unit can form. For example, the NWDAF already implemented in the 5G core network can be used for this purpose. In general, it is known to the skilled person how the different units of the system communicate with each other. Existing interfaces, interfaces, data channels and/or APIs can be used for this purpose” in paragraph [0040].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 17-31 are 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. The limitation “communication interface” in claim 17 invokes an interpretation under 35 USC §112(f) but the specification does not provide sufficient structure for the limitation. Claims 18-31 are dependent on claim 17 and inherit the deficiencies above. Therefore, claims 18-31 are also rejected on similar grounds to claim 17.
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.
Claims 17-31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the route" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this recitation of “the route” is a new route or is referring to the “possible route” in line 6.
The term “highest reliability criterion” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highest” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to what standard the “highest reliability criterion” is being calculated for the routes and what constitutes the “highest reliability criterion.”
Claims 18-31 are dependent on claim 17 and inherit the deficiencies above. Therefore, claims 18-31 are also rejected on similar grounds to claim 17.
Regarding claim 26, the limitation “a 3GPP radio network” renders the claim indefinite and unclear. It is unclear whether this limitation is a new instance of a 3GPP radio network or refers to the 3GPP radio network of claim 17.
Regarding claim 27, the limitations “a route planning unit” in line 1, “a 3GPP radio network” in line 1, “a UAV” in lines 1-2, “a communication interface” in line 5, “a communication interface” in lines 7-8, “ a route planning unit” in line 8, “a route planning algorithm” in line 12, and “a possible route” in line 13 all render the claim indefinite and unclear. These limitations are recited in claim 17 on which claim 27 depends. Therefore, it is unclear whether these limitations are new recitations or are referring to those of claim 17.
Regarding claim 28, the limitations “a UAV” in line 1 and “a route planning unit” in line 7 renders the claims indefinite and unclear. It is unclear whether these limitations are new instances or refer to those of claim 17.
Claims 29-31 are dependent on claim 28 and inherit the deficiencies above. Therefore, claims 29-31 are also rejected on similar grounds to claim 28.
Claim limitation “communication interface” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not provide sufficient structure for what the “communication interface” is. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 17, 19-24, 26-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahkonen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0103294 A1; hereinafter Mahkonen) in view of Halsey et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0183254 A1; hereinafter Halsey).
Regarding claim 17, Mahkonen teaches:
A method of route planning for a UAV (planning UAV flight plans/routes, see at least [0002]), which receives control signal and route information by means of a 3GPP radio network (“new supplemental data service can help UAVs and UAV operators plan data connectivity characteristics for a flight mission/plan. In one embodiment, this supplemental data service can receive connectivity requirements and use new functionality in a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Policy” (see [0026]), comprising the following steps:
providing QoS requirements of the UAV along with a starting point and a destination (flight plan includes a starting and ending point, see at least [0032]) point of the UAV by means of a communication interface to a route planning unit of the 3GPP network (receive flight plan and mission for UAV, see at least [0062]; determine quality of service requirements for accomplishing flight plan, see at least [0063]-[0065]);
calculating a possible route comprising a plurality of waypoints between the starting point and the destination point by a route planning algorithm of the route planning unit (flight plan includes points of a path including start, end, and waypoints, see at least [0032]), wherein the UAV shall traverse radio cells along the route and communicate with these radio cells (cells 140 may be radio base station, see at least [0058]; used for connectivity throughout mission, see at least [0059]),
wherein the possible route is calculated based on a highest reliability criterion (verify and plan optimal QoS settings/requirements, see at least [0049]);
requesting QoS capacities of the radio cells along the possible route (transmit to the 3GPP PCC system a reservation request for reserving resources in the wireless network to achieve the QoS requirements, see at least [0065]; determine resources necessary to fulfill QoS requirements, see at least [0068]);
verification that the QoS capacities of each radio cell along the route meet the QoS requirements (determine the network resources along the flight path necessary to fulfill QoS requirements for flight path, see at least [0068]; determine whether the resources are available, see at least [0071]):
if each radio cell along the possible route meets the QoS requirements: provide as output the route as the route to be taken by means of the communication interface of the radio network so that the flight can start (if resources are available, controller reserves as requested, see at least [0071]-[0072]; status of flight may be determined to be approved when response to reservation request indicates QOS requirements are scheduled to be fulfilled, see at least [0077]) , and
if at least one radio cell along the route does not meet the QoS requirements (if resources are unavailable, controller transmits response indicating reservation was unsuccessful or partially fulfilled, see at least [0071]-[0072]), another route is calculated taking into account the at least one radio cell that did not meet the QoS requirements, whereby this route is checked again with regard to the QoS requirements (response includes alternative reservation plans when QoS requirements cannot be met including an alternative flight path that traverses cells 140 in a wireless network that have resources to meet originally requested QoS requirements, see at least [0073] and [0076])
Mahkonen does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the waypoints have a granularity smaller than the size of the radio cells
However, Halsey teaches:
wherein the waypoints have a granularity smaller than the size of the radio cells (internet availability of greater granularity than waypoint, see at least [0046] and Fig. 5)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optimal route for a UAV based on QoS requirements disclosed by Mahkonen by adding the granularity taught by Halsey with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine available and not available internet availability between each waypoint (see [0046]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Mahkonen and Halsey teaches the elements above and Mahkonen further discloses:
a start time and/or arrival time of the user device are transferred to the radio network by means of its communication interface (requests include particular resources and times during which resources are to be reserved, see at least [0071])
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Mahkonen and Halsey teaches the elements above but Mahkonen does not disclose:
a map with non-usable areas and/or non-usable radio cells is transferred to the radio network by means of its communication interface
However, Halsey teaches:
a map with non-usable areas and/or non-usable radio cells is transferred to the radio network by means of its communication interface (coverage map includes areas where satellite internet services are not available, see at least [0044])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optimal route for a UAV based on QoS requirements disclosed by Mahkonen by adding the coverage map taught by Halsey with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to illustrate areas where internet services are not available (see [0044]).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Mahkonen and Halsey teaches the elements above and Mahkonen further discloses:
the calculation of the possible route comprises speed information, in particular speed vectors for the individual radio cells and/or time information (flight plan includes a time/expiration/duration, see at least [0032])
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Mahkonen and Halsey teaches the elements above but Mahkonen does not disclose:
the possible route leads the UAV along such areas within a radio cell which are redundantly also covered by an adjacent radio cell
However, Halsey teaches:
the possible route leads the UAV along such areas within a radio cell which are redundantly also covered by an adjacent radio cell (utilize multiple coverage maps, see at least [0050] and see where coverage overlaps in Fig. 5)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optimal route for a UAV based on QoS requirements disclosed by Mahkonen by adding multiple coverage maps taught by Halsey with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “to minimize chances in which no Internet service is available” (see [0050]).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Mahkonen and Halsey teaches the elements above and Mahkonen further discloses:
the route planning unit informs the base stations on the to-be-routed in advance about an identity of the mobile user device, the required QoS and/or the calculated arrival time (determine the network resources along the flight path necessary to fulfill QoS requirements for flight path, see at least [0068]; determine whether the resources are available, see at least [0071]; transmit to the 3GPP PCC system a reservation request for reserving resources in the wireless network to achieve the QoS requirements, see at least [0065])
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Mahkonen and Halsey teaches the elements above and Mahkonen further discloses:
the route planning unit monitors the QoS capacities of the radio cells of the route to be performed and takes measures if the QoS requirements for a radio cell along the route to be performed cannot be ensured (if resources are unavailable, controller transmits response indicating reservation was unsuccessful or partially fulfilled, see at least [0071]-[0072]; response includes alternative reservation plans when QoS requirements cannot be met including an alternative flight path that traverses cells 140 in a wireless network that have resources to meet originally requested QoS requirements, see at least [0073] and [0076])
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Mahkonen and Halsey teaches the elements above and Mahkonen further discloses:
A 3GPP radio network configured to execute the steps of claim 17 (3GPP network, see at least [0028]).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Mahkonen and Halsey teaches the elements above and Mahkonen further discloses:
A route planning unit of a 3GPP radio network for route planning of a UAV (planning UAV flight plans/routes, see at least [0002]) which receives control signal and/or route information by means of the radio network (“new supplemental data service can help UAVs and UAV operators plan data connectivity characteristics for a flight mission/plan. In one embodiment, this supplemental data service can receive connectivity requirements and use new functionality in a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Policy” (see [0026]), wherein the route planning unit is arranged to execute the method according to claim 17, wherein the route planning unit comprises:
a communication interface (interfaces to establish network connections, see at least [0025]) that is configured
i) for receiving QoS requirements of the mobile user device (receive flight plan and mission for UAV, see at least [0062]; determine quality of service requirements for accomplishing flight plan, see at least [0063]-[0065]), the start point, and the destination point of the mobile user device to a communication interface of a route planning unit (flight plan includes a starting and ending point, see at least [0032]), optionally the communication interface is also configured to receive the starting and/or the arrival time,
ii) to request and receive QoS capacity (transmit to the 3GPP PCC system a reservation request for reserving resources in the wireless network to achieve the QoS requirements, see at least [0065]; determine resources necessary to fulfill QoS requirements, see at least [0068]), and
iii) to send a calculated route (receiving flight plan for UAV, see at least [0062]);
a processor (one or more processors, see at least [0025]) on which a route planning algorithm is implemented, the route planning algorithm being set up to calculate a possible route, in particular according to a criterion, based on the starting point and the destination point, the route planning algorithm being set up to request at least the QoS capacities of the radio cells on the calculated route and to compare them with the QoS requirements of the user device (receive flight plan and mission for UAV, see at least [0062]; determine quality of service requirements for accomplishing flight plan, see at least [0063]-[0065]; verify and plan optimal QoS settings/requirements, see at least [0049]), the route planning algorithm being set up to send the possible route as a route to be taken by means of the communication interface (if resources are available, controller reserves as requested, see at least [0071]-[0072]; status of flight may be determined to be approved when response to reservation request indicates QOS requirements are scheduled to be fulfilled, see at least [0077]).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Mahkonen and Halsey teaches the elements above and Mahkonen further discloses:
A system for route planning of a UAV (planning UAV flight plans/routes, see at least [0002]), which receives control signal and/or route information by means of a radio network of, the system being arranged to perform the method according to claim 17, the system comprising:
the radio network comprising radio cells with base stations set up to communicate with the mobile user device (cells 140 may be radio base station, see at least [0058]; used for connectivity throughout mission, see at least [0059]), the radio cells providing QoS capacities (radio/network resource capable of delivery connectivity to achieve QoS requirements, see at least [0060]);
means to capture QoS capacities of radio cells (transmit to the 3GPP PCC system a reservation request for reserving resources in the wireless network to achieve the QoS requirements, see at least [0065]; determine resources necessary to fulfill QoS requirements, see at least [0068]); and
a route planning unit (plan for optimal flight paths, see at least [0052]).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Mahkonen and Halsey teaches the elements above and Mahkonen further discloses:
the system comprises an authorization unit for releasing the route to be taken (status of flight plan may be determined to be approved, see at last [0077])
Claims 18, 25, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahkonen in view of Halsey as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of DeBitetto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0011934 A1; hereinafter DeBitetto).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Mahkonen and Halsey teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the possible route is calculated based on an additional criterion, wherein the criterion comprises the shortest route, the shortest time duration and/or the economic route.
However, DeBitetto teaches:
the possible route is calculated based on an additional criterion, wherein the criterion comprises the shortest route, the shortest time duration and/or the economic route (navigate to desired location using shortest route to destination, see at least [0057])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optimal route for a UAV based on QoS requirements disclosed by Mahkonen and the granularity taught by Halsey by adding the shortest route taught by DeBitetto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to take an efficient route (see [0057]).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Mahkonen and Halsey teaches the elements above and further discloses:
the route to be performed preferentially selects radio cells (determine the network resources along the flight path necessary to fulfill QoS requirements for flight path, see at least [0068])
Mahkonen does not disclose:
a UAV highway
However, DeBitetto teaches:
the route to be performed preferentially selects radio cells along a provided UAV highway (navigate UAV along pathways designated to be within the UAV highway, navigation system configures routes along electrical power grid infrastructure near towers and telecommunication infrastructure, see at least [0057])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optimal route for a UAV based on QoS requirements disclosed by Mahkonen and the granularity taught by Halsey by adding the UAV highway taught by DeBitetto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “efficiently utilize elements of existing transportation, communication, and energy infrastructure systems” (see [0004]).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Mahkonen and Halsey teaches the elements above but does not teach:
a subset of the radio cells of the radio network are arranged and/or configured as a UAV highway
However, DeBitetto teaches:
a subset of the radio cells of the radio network are arranged and/or configured as a UAV highway (navigate UAV along pathways designated to be within the UAV highway, navigation system configures routes along electrical power grid infrastructure near towers and telecommunication infrastructure, see at least [0057])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optimal route for a UAV based on QoS requirements disclosed by Mahkonen and the granularity taught by Halsey by adding the UAV highway taught by DeBitetto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “efficiently utilize elements of existing transportation, communication, and energy infrastructure systems” (see [0004])
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahkonen in view of Halsey as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of Byrne (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0399791 A1).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Mahkonen and Halsey teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the route planning unit is part of a 5G core network and/or has an interface to the 5G core network
However, Byrne teaches:
the route planning unit is part of a 5G core network and/or has an interface to the 5G core network (3GPP 5G cellular communication capacity, see at least [0019])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optimal route for a UAV based on QoS requirements disclosed by Mahkonen and the granularity taught by Halsey by adding the 5G communication capacity taught by Byrne with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase cellular communications capacity (see [0019]) and to use the most recent generation of cellular communication.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0219402 A1) teaches a flight management method and program that acquires a flight schedule time and date, start position, and end position and estimates radio resources for the flight device by each base station.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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 at (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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights