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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention II in the reply filed on 12/01/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 1-6 and 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions I and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7-10 are 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 7, Line 4 recites “a mobile backhaul hub and a first aerial vehicle.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how each of the “a mobile backhaul” and the “a first aerial vehicle” as recited in line 4 relates to the previously recited “a mobile backhaul” and the “a first aerial vehicle” as recited in lines 1-2 of claim 7? I.e., are these recitations referring to the same or different claim elements?
Claim 7 recites “an initial location of the second aerial vehicle” in lines 9-10. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “an initial location” as recited in lines 9-10 of claim 7 relates to the “an initial location of a second aerial vehicle” as recited in lines 5-6 of claim 7? I.e., are the recitations referring to the same or different claim elements?
Claim 8 recites “a flying base station”. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “a flying base station” relates to either one of the previously recited first and second aerial vehicles? I.e., is the “flying base station” the same element/part of one of the first or second aerial vehicles?
Claim 9 recites “a first flying base station.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “a first flying base station” as recited in claim 9 relates to the “a flying base station” as previously recited in claim 8? I.e., are these recitations referring to the same or different claim elements?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the transformed first coordinates" in Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is indefinite and unclear as to what is meant by “transformed first coordinates” as lines 2-3 indicate the “first coordinates” are calculated, but does not appear to actually state that the “first coordinates” are transformed in any way?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the transformed second coordinates" in Line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is indefinite and unclear as to what is meant by “transformed second coordinates” as lines 4-5 indicate the “second coordinates” are calculated, but does not appear to actually state that the “second coordinates” are transformed in any way?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2015/139733 (Djordjevic et al.).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Djordjevic et al. teaches: Claim 7 – an apparatus (110) for setting an initial location of an aerial vehicle (100) for a replacement of the aerial vehicle (100) of a mobile backhaul system, the apparatus (110) comprising: an input interface device (1202/1204) configured to obtain input information comprising location information of a mobile backhaul hub (1206) and a first aerial vehicle (100) to be replaced; memory (1208) in which a program (described on page 35, Line 9+) that calculates an initial location of a second aerial vehicle (100) that replaces the first aerial vehicle (100) and moves the second aerial vehicle (100) based on the input information has been stored (at least Page 12, Lines 3-10 describing how one aerial vehicle having an issue at a given position (200) may be replaced by another aerial vehicle (100) at the same position (200)); and a processor (1200) configured to execute the program, wherein the processor (1200) determines information on an initial location of the second aerial vehicle (100) that replaces the first aerial vehicle (100) by transforming the location information of the first aerial vehicle (100), (Figures 1-12); Claim 8 – wherein the input information further comprises a service cell radius (130) of a flying base station (150) and information on handover of a user terminal (at least page 16, Line 9 – Page 18, Line 26 describe handover of communication for user equipment (120) based on a variety of factors including cell radius (130)) that receives a service from the flying base station (150), (Figures 1-12).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0091848 (CAI).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, CAI teaches: Claim 7 – an apparatus (300/1000) for setting an initial location of an aerial vehicle (100) for a replacement of the aerial vehicle (100) of a mobile backhaul system, the apparatus (300/1000) comprising: an input interface device (1040) configured to obtain input information comprising location information of a mobile backhaul hub (400) and a first aerial vehicle (100) to be replaced; memory (1030) in which a program (described in at least paragraph [0079]) that calculates an initial location of a second aerial vehicle (100) that replaces the first aerial vehicle (100) and moves the second aerial vehicle (100) based on the input information has been stored (at least paragraph [0077] describing how one aerial vehicle (100) having an issue at a given location may be replaced by another aerial vehicle (100) at the same location); and a processor (1010) configured to execute the program, wherein the processor (1010) determines information on an initial location of the second aerial vehicle (100) that replaces the first aerial vehicle (100) by transforming the location information of the first aerial vehicle (100), (Figures 1-8); Claim 8 – wherein the input information further comprises a service cell radius (the “target area” as described in at least paragraph [0024]) of a flying base station (100) and information on handover of a user terminal (at least paragraph [0061] describing the apparatus (300/1000) handling handover) that receives a service from the flying base station (150), (Figures 1-12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 272-1467. 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 E RODDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642