DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed subject matter of various claims must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered. For example, the process of claim 18 is shown in the flow chart of FIG. 4. However, several claims include steps that are not shown in a flowchart and are not clearly described in the specification, i.e., as discussed in the 112(b) rejection below claim 5 recites
“wherein the transmitting of the broadcast signal comprises:
receiving, by the second remote pilot station from a plurality of remote pilot stations of the at least one neighboring remote pilot station of the first remote pilot station, a plurality of predicted flight routes of the mobility device;
comparing, by the second remote pilot station, the plurality of predicted flight routes; and
based on the plurality of predicted flight routes differing by more than a threshold amount, determining, by the second remote pilot station, a second predicted flight route based on a most commonly searched predicted point, which is selected from the plurality of predicted flight routes searched at a predetermined time interval” and similarly recited in claim 13 is not shown in the drawings. The drawings should show each of the claim limitation steps for a proper understanding of the invention. Similarly, the limitations of claims 6-7, 9 and 14-16 are not shown in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation and Contingent Limitations
Claims 5, 9 and 13-16 contain conditional limitations “based on” modifying a condition not required to occur, i.e.,
(1) Claim 5: based on the plurality of predicted flight routes differing by more than a threshold amount, determining, by the second remote pilot station, a second predicted flight route based on a most commonly searched predicted point, which is selected from the plurality of predicted flight routes searched at a predetermined time interval
(2) Claim 9: transmit, based on receiving a second lost link signal, a broadcast signal; based on receiving, from the mobility device, a response signal requesting transfer of control of the mobility device, take over control of the mobility device; and
remotely control, based on the response signal, one or more operations of the mobility device
(3) Claim 13: based on the plurality of predicted flight routes differing by more than a threshold value, determining a second predicted flight route based on a most commonly searched predicted point, which is selected from the plurality of predicted flight routes searched at a predetermined time interval.
(4) Claim 14: cause the remote pilot station to remotely control the one or more operations of the mobility device further based on the second predicted flight route
(5) Claim 15: transmit, after transmitting the broadcast signal and based on receiving an acknowledge response from the mobility device, a mobility device detect signal
(6) Claim 16: suspend, based on receiving a mobility device detect signal, determining and transmitting of a predicted flight route of the mobility device
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04, II. In addition, limitations (1) –(6) recite either computer processing steps carried out by a computing device or method steps that required a first step if a first condition happens and a second step if a second condition happens.
With respect to conditional limitations in such cases, MPEP 2111.04 guides
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
Accordingly, Ex Parte Schulhauser applies to limitation (1). See MPEP 2111.04, II “contingent claims” ("[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed . . . [t]herefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);").
For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 5 does not require that the plurality of predicted flight routes either differing or not differing more than a threshold amount. Furthermore, the claim does not require that the difference between routes is compared with a threshold. Accordingly, claim 5 does not require “determining, by the second remote pilot station, a second predicted flight route based on a most commonly searched predicted point, which is selected from the plurality of predicted flight routes searched at a predetermined time interval”.
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.
Claims 1-17 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.
With respect to claim 1, the limitation “a method comprising from a first remote pilot station having control of a mobility device via a communication link with the mobility device, receiving, by a second remote pilot station, a lost link signal indicating a failure in the communication link, of the first remote pilot station, with the mobility device” is unclear and indefinite because of the compound interrelated concepts wherein attribution of claim elements is unclear due to the disjointed nature of actions and elements. It is recommended to clearly separate each action and the responsible element into separate limitations. For example, it is unclear if the received lost link signal is from a first remote pilot station or a mobility device due to “from . . . a mobility device via a communication link”. In addition, it is unclear what “of the first remote pilot station, with the mobility device” is intended to require. Claims 2-8 are rejected for at least depending from a rejected claim.
With respect to claims 2 and 10, the limitation “the failure in the communication link comprises: at least a threshold time amount elapsing after receiving, from the mobility device, flight information” as recited in claim 2 is unclear and indefinite. How is time elapsing after transmission of flight information a failure of a communication link? Because time necessarily always elapses after any event, including receiving flight information, it is unclear how this is a failure. Was there another intended transmission after this that did not come through? What is the failure here? Is the flight information supposed to be transmitted on a regular interval?
With respect to claims 5 and 13, the metes and bounds of what is and is not included in the limitation “wherein the transmitting of the broadcast signal comprises:
receiving, by the second remote pilot station from a plurality of remote pilot stations of the at least one neighboring remote pilot station of the first remote pilot station, a plurality of predicted flight routes of the mobility device;
comparing, by the second remote pilot station, the plurality of predicted flight routes; and
based on the plurality of predicted flight routes differing by more than a threshold amount, determining, by the second remote pilot station, a second predicted flight route based on a most commonly searched predicted point, which is selected from the plurality of predicted flight routes searched at a predetermined time interval” as recited in claim 5 and similarly recited in claim 13 is unclear and indefinite under a broadest reasonable interpretation. The “transmit broadcasting signal” is shown in FIG. 4 as step 111. This step is shown as performed by second remote pilot station 132. It is unclear how simply transmitting a signal can also include at least the receiving, comparing and determining steps recited above. Logically, these would have to occur outside of transmission of data. In addition, it is unclear what is being compared, what “differing” and “amount” are referring to and what a “a most commonly searched predicted point . . . searched at a predetermined time interval” is referring to. Spec. ¶ 63 restates this limitation but provides no further clarification. What component is performing a search and what are they searching for? In addition, the claim limitation does not appear in the drawings. Claims 6-7 and 14 are rejected for at least depending from a rejected claim.
Accordingly, with respect to claims 5-7 and 13-14, a great degree of uncertainty and confusion exists regarding the proper interpretation of the claim in light of the multiplicity and scope of rejections set forth under 35 USC §112(b) above and their interrelation with one another. The claim appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document. Considerable speculation is required to interpret the intended meaning of the claim and what the claim is intended to encompass. As such, the examiner is unable to interpret the meaning and scope of this claim with substantial certainty that would be required to attempt to apply prior art to reject the claim. Therefore, the examiner will not attempt to apply prior art to reject this claim because unreasonable and speculative assumptions as to the proper interpretation of claimed limitations that would be required to reject the claim on the basis of prior art would be improper. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), MPEP §2143.03(I), MPEP §2173.06(II)¶2; “it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions”; “a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”).
With respect to claim 9, limitations will be given numbers assigned in FIG. 4 for better mapping and understanding. The limitation “A remote pilot station (120) comprising . . . when executed by the processor . . . cause the remote pilot station to detect a failure in a communication link between the remote pilot station and a mobility device (S103); transmit, based on detecting the failure, a first lost link signal to at least one neighboring remote pilot station of the remote pilot station (s107). However, the remaining limitations do not appear to correspond to what is found in FIG. 4 or the remainder of the specification as they require the first remote pilot station (120) to:
“transmit, based on receiving a second lost link signal, a broadcast signal;
based on receiving, from the mobility device, a response signal requesting transfer of control of the mobility device, take over control of the mobility device; and
remotely control, based on the response signal, one or more operations of the mobility device”.
It is unclear how a remote pilot station that is already communicating with a MD, then detects a failure in the communication link could take over control of the MD. FIG. 4 indicates this is performed by different RPS (i.e., 132) rather than an RPS that has a communication link failure. It is also unclear how an RPS that cannot communicate with a MD could then receive a response signal requesting transfer. Claims 10-17 are further rejected at least on the basis of dependency.
Relatedly, claims 15-16 both further require that the same RPS that “detect a failure in a communication link between the remote pilot station and a mobility device” (claim 9) perform further actions that require communication with the same mobility device where communication has failed, i.e., claim 15 “based on receiving an acknowledge response from the mobility device”. Accordingly, with respect to claims 15-16, a great degree of uncertainty and confusion exists regarding the proper interpretation of the claim in light of the multiplicity and scope of rejections set forth under 35 USC §112(b) above and their interrelation with one another. The claim appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document. Considerable speculation is required to interpret the intended meaning of the claim and what the claim is intended to encompass. As such, the examiner is unable to interpret the meaning and scope of this claim with substantial certainty that would be required to attempt to apply prior art to reject the claim. Therefore, the examiner will not attempt to apply prior art to reject this claim because unreasonable and speculative assumptions as to the proper interpretation of claimed limitations that would be required to reject the claim on the basis of prior art would be improper. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), MPEP §2143.03(I), MPEP §2173.06(II)¶ 2; “it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions”; “a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 12, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170357273 to Michini et al. (Mich) in view of US 20210185568 to Chang et al. (Chang)
With respect to independent claims 1, 9 and 18, Mich discloses
a first remote pilot station and a second remote pilot station located at a predetermined distance away from the first remote pilot station; and
(¶¶ 65 UAV flight corridor . . . transferring control of the UAV between ground control stations . . . suitable locations to place GCSs along a predetermined flight corridor; i.e., FIG. 4A-4B 402, 403 showing ground control station locations; 83 respective locations of the first GCS and second GCS can be determined by GNSS receivers co-located with the first GCS and second GCS and transmitted to the UAV; GCS has GUI ¶ 68 which can be a desktop ¶ 54; 83 handoff prediction based on respective locations of the first GCS and the second GCS)
a mobility device configured to fly under control of the first remote pilot station (100, FIG. 1; ¶¶ 14 “FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an example Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) architecture”; UAV 401 FIG. 4A-4B; claims 1-10; 88 remotely operated aircraft; claim 1 “navigating the UAV under the control of the first ground control station”, i.e., 402, FIG. 4B GCS I)
wherein the first remote pilot station is configured to detect a failure in a communication link between the first remote pilot station and the mobility device and transmit, based on detecting the failure, a lost link signal to the at least one neighboring remote pilot station,
(claim 2 “a change in a characteristic of the first RF communication link”; 71-72 start of the handoff period can be based on the characteristics or a change in the characteristics of one or both of RF signals 404, 405 transmitted by GCS 402 and GCS 403, respectively, as observed by UAV 401 . . . handoff period can start when UAV 401 determines that RF signal 404 is decreasing at a first rate and RF signal 405 is increasing at a second rate . . . GCS 402 and GCS 403 to UAV 401 can be used to determine the start of the handoff period. In an embodiment, UAV 401, GCS 402 and GCS 403 work together to determine the start of the handoff period. For example, GCS 402 and GCS 403 can communicate through a separate channel and share their respective locations (e.g., determined by GNSS receivers), transmission characteristics and limits; 83 “the UAV can predict when in the future a handoff period should start. Alternatively, the prediction can be performed by one or both of the first GCS and the second GCS or by each GCS and the UAV; 65 threshold range can be determined by the GCS controlling the UAV)
wherein the second remote pilot station is configured to transmit, based on receiving the lost link signal, a broadcast signal1, and
(i.e., ¶ 65 “For determining handoff zones while in flight, the UAV can monitor RF signals from each GCS participating in the handoff to determine the start of a handoff period, as described with reference to FIG. 4A”; 66 the range can be calculated by normalizing the difference between the position of a GCS and the position of the UAV in a common reference coordinate frame. In another embodiment, the range can be calculated using RF signal propagation model . . . the transmission capabilities ( e.g., transmission range) of the UAV and GCS RF transmitters . . . if the UAV is determining the threshold range, the mobile GCS may periodically transmit its location to the UAV;
wherein the mobility device is further configured to send, to the second remote pilot station and based on receiving the broadcast signal, a response signal requesting transfer control of the mobility device; and
(¶¶ 71-75, i.e., 72 In an embodiment, UAV 401, GCS 402 and GCS 403 work together to determine the start of the handoff period. For example, GCS 402 and GCS 403 can communicate through a separate channel and share their respective locations (e.g., determined by GNSS receivers), transmission characteristics and limits; 83 “the UAV can predict when in the future a handoff period should start. Alternatively, the prediction can be performed by one or both of the first GCS and the second GCS or by each GCS and the UAV; 65 threshold range can be determined by the GCS controlling the UAV; 75 establishing a bi-directional communication link with GCS 403, authenticating GCS 403, downloading or syncing an updated flight plan and other data to GCS 403, transitioning control from GCS 402 to GCS 403, notifying GCS 402 and GCS 403 of completion of the transfer of control and acknowledgement by GCS 402 and GCS 403 of the transfer of control. If some of these steps are performed prior to the handoff period, then the estimated time may be shorter)
fly, based on sending the response signal to the second remote pilot station, under control of the second remote pilot station.
(¶ 79 GCS 403 can assume control of UAV 401 on the other side of structure 406 after completing handoff procedures, as described with reference to FIG. 4A; 81; 82 receiving a request from a second ground control station to control the UAV (606), authenticating the second GCS (608) and sending the updated flight plan to the second GCS (610); 83 either UAV, first GCS or second GCS can make handoff determinations used to initiate transfer “Alternatively, the prediction can be performed by one or both of the first GCS and the second GCS or by each GCS and the UAV”; claim 1 “after transferring control of the UAV from the first ground control station to the second ground control station, navigating the UAV under the control of the second ground control station”)
However, it is unclear if Mich explicitly discloses the RPS are considered to be “neighboring”, i.e., Chang defines neighboring as “base stations are considered to be neighboring each other if they are relatively close to each other and/or the UAV 106 can simultaneously receive signals from each of the neighboring base stations at a given time” (¶ 19).
Chang is from the same field of endeavor, as Chang also discloses handing over UAV control from a first base station to a second base station (FIG. 1) wherein a remote pilot station is configured to transmit, based on receiving the lost link signal, a broadcast signal and transferring control between remote pilot stations
(¶ 29 “In the instances where the UAV 106 is a drone, the flight of the UAV 106 may operate with various degrees of autonomy, either under remote control by a human operator, autonomously by an onboard computer, or autonomously by a remote computer”; 54-58, i.e., ¶ 57 “If the UAV 106 should be handed over, the serving cell 102 transmits, via its transmitter 206 and antenna 210, a handover command to inform the UAV 106 to handover to the neighboring cell 108”; claim 10 transmitting a handover command to the UAV based at least partially on the measurement report; i.e., ¶ 60-61, 63, 67 base station broadcasts)
wherein Chang discloses a first remote pilot station having at least one neighboring remote pilot station; a second remote pilot station located at a predetermined distance away from the first remote pilot station, wherein the second remote pilot station is one of the at least one neighboring remote pilot station of the first remote pilot station (FIG. 1, neighboring base stations 108, 102, 114, within a predetermined distance from each other, including separation based on same sized coverage areas 110, 103, 116 and corresponding descriptions; ¶¶ 12-14, 19-21, 34-38, 42-47).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date for the set of base stations in Mich to include neighboring base stations a predetermined distance from each other, as taught by Chang above, in order to provide continuous and reliable communication coverage areas for overhead UAVs (Chang, ¶¶ 16-19).
With respect to claim 2, as best understood in view of the 112(b) rejection above, Mich in view of Chang disclose the failure in the communication link comprises:
at least a threshold time amount elapsing after receiving, from the mobility device, flight information, wherein the flight information comprises at least one of:
a flight plan for the mobility device,
a flight status of the mobility device,
a last position of the mobility device,
a heading of the mobility device, or
a speed of the mobility device.
(Mich, ¶¶ 70-73 Reasons for failure can include but are not limited to: failed authentication of GCS 403, loss of signals from GCS 402, 403 and the like . . . start of the handoff window (t.sub.0) can be when a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) or carrier-to-noise (C/N) calculated from one or both of RF signals 404, 405 fall below or exceed threshold values . . . bit error rate (BER) of a digital message modulated on RF signals 404, 405 or some other data error metric (e.g., packet loss) can be used to determine the start of the handoff period . . . predict when RF signal 404 will be lost or obtained by a threshold amount. The prediction result can be used to specify the start of the handoff period at a future time; 76 maximum period of time to try and restore a failed radio link)
(Mich, ¶¶ 22 time, altitude, heading, ambient temperature, processor temperatures, pressure, battery level, fuel level, absolute or relative position, position coordinates (e.g., GPS coordinates), pitch, roll, yaw, ground speed, humidity level, velocity, acceleration, and contingency information; FIG. 2 flight plan system, GCS, UAV; 48-50 The flight plan information may be provided to the GCS 213 and then to the UAV or directly to the UAV, in a flight package 244 comprising the flight plan and other information ; 74 UAV 403 can download the updated flight plan to GCS 403. In an embodiment, the flight plan is digitally signed. If GCS 403 already has a copy of the flight plan, then UAV 401 can synchronize updates to the flight plan at GCS 403; claim 4 receiving, by the UAV from the first ground control station an updated flight plan; and transmitting the updated flight plan from the UAV to the second ground control station)
(Chang, ¶ 62, i.e., UAV context information)
With respect to claim 3, Mich in view of Chang disclose the receiving of the lost link signal comprises: receiving, by the second remote pilot station from the first remote pilot station, flight information that was most recently sent, before the failure, to the first remote pilot station from the mobility device.
(Mich, ¶¶ 22 time, altitude, heading, ambient temperature, processor temperatures, pressure, battery level, fuel level, absolute or relative position, position coordinates (e.g., GPS coordinates), pitch, roll, yaw, ground speed, humidity level, velocity, acceleration, and contingency information; FIG. 2 flight plan system, GCS, UAV; 48-50 The flight plan information may be provided to the GCS 213 and then to the UAV or directly to the UAV, in a flight package 244 comprising the flight plan and other information ; 74 UAV 403 can download the updated flight plan to GCS 403. In an embodiment, the flight plan is digitally signed. If GCS 403 already has a copy of the flight plan, then UAV 401 can synchronize updates to the flight plan at GCS 403; claim 4 receiving, by the UAV from the first ground control station an updated flight plan; and transmitting the updated flight plan from the UAV to the second ground control station)
With respect to claims 4 and 12, Mich in view of Chang disclose the transmitting of the broadcast signal comprises:
determining, by the second remote pilot station and based on the flight information, a predicted flight route of the mobility device and transmitting, by the second remote pilot station, the predicted flight route to at least one other remote pilot station of the at least one neighboring remote pilot station of the first remote pilot station.
(Mich, ¶¶ 73 measurements of RF signals 404, 405 are stored by UAV 401 and used in a predictor to predict when RF signal 404 will be lost or obtained by a threshold amount. The prediction result can be used to specify the start of the handoff period at a future time. The prediction can use 3D terrain models to determine physical structures that may block visual line of sight to UAV 401 along the flight path. The use of a predictor allows for authentication of GCS 403, syncing of updates to the flight plan and any other housekeeping tasks to be completed before the handoff period starts, which may result in a shorter handoff period.; 83 Alternatively, the prediction can be performed by one or both of the first GCS and the second GCS or by each GCS and the UAV; FIG. 7, i.e., step 704)
With respect to claim 8, Mich in view of Chang disclose the receiving the response signal comprises taking over, by the second remote pilot station and based on the response signal, control of the mobility device from the first remote pilot station
(Chang, claim 1 “after transferring control of the UAV from the first ground control station to the second ground control station, navigating the UAV under the control of the second ground control station”)
With respect to claim 17, Mich in view of Chang disclose the remote pilot station stores information associated with transferring control of the mobility device
(Mich, FIG. 12, 212, 213, 200 and corresponding description, i.e., ¶¶ 27-36 i.e., ¶ 28 “FPS 200 can be a component of, or be coupled to, one or more user devices 212 or a GCS 213”)
With respect to claim 20, Mich in view of Chang disclose the mobility device is further configured to store information associated with transferring control from the first remote pilot station to the second remote pilot station.
(Mich, FIG. 1 depicts architecture of UAV, including stored information associated with transferring control, i.e., 122-129 and corresponding description, i.e., ¶¶ 17-22)
(Mich, ¶¶ 73 measurements of RF signals 404, 405 are stored by UAV 401 and used in a predictor to predict when RF signal 404 will be lost or obtained by a threshold amount. The prediction result can be used to specify the start of the handoff period at a future time. The prediction can use 3D terrain models to determine physical structures that may block visual line of sight to UAV 401 along the flight path. The use of a predictor allows for authentication of GCS 403, syncing of updates to the flight plan and any other housekeeping tasks to be completed before the handoff period starts, which may result in a shorter handoff period.; 83 Alternatively, the prediction can be performed by one or both of the first GCS and the second GCS or by each GCS and the UAV; FIG. 7, i.e., step 704)
Claims 10-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170357273 to Michini et al. (Mich) in view of US 20210185568 to Chang et al. (Chang) and further in view of US 20220386208 to Phuyal et al. (Phu)
With respect to claim 10, Mich in view of Chang disclose causing the remote pilot station to detect the failure by updating and storing flight information of the mobility device,
wherein the flight information comprises at least one of:
a flight plan for the mobility device,
a flight status of the mobility device,
a last position of the mobility device,
a heading of the mobility device, or
a speed of the mobility device; and
determining that at least a threshold time amount has elapsed since a last transmission of the flight information from the mobility device.
(Mich, ¶¶ 70-73 Reasons for failure can include but are not limited to: failed authentication of GCS 403, loss of signals from GCS 402, 403 and the like . . . start of the handoff window (t.sub.0) can be when a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) or carrier-to-noise (C/N) calculated from one or both of RF signals 404, 405 fall below or exceed threshold values . . . bit error rate (BER) of a digital message modulated on RF signals 404, 405 or some other data error metric (e.g., packet loss) can be used to determine the start of the handoff period . . . predict when RF signal 404 will be lost or obtained by a threshold amount. The prediction result can be used to specify the start of the handoff period at a future time; 76 maximum period of time to try and restore a failed radio link)
(Mich, ¶¶ 22 time, altitude, heading, ambient temperature, processor temperatures, pressure, battery level, fuel level, absolute or relative position, position coordinates (e.g., GPS coordinates), pitch, roll, yaw, ground speed, humidity level, velocity, acceleration, and contingency information; FIG. 2 flight plan system, GCS, UAV; 48-50 The flight plan information may be provided to the GCS 213 and then to the UAV or directly to the UAV, in a flight package 244 comprising the flight plan and other information ; 74 UAV 403 can download the updated flight plan to GCS 403. In an embodiment, the flight plan is digitally signed. If GCS 403 already has a copy of the flight plan, then UAV 401 can synchronize updates to the flight plan at GCS 403; claim 4 receiving, by the UAV from the first ground control station an updated flight plan; and transmitting the updated flight plan from the UAV to the second ground control station)
(Chang, ¶ 62, i.e., UAV context information)
However, Mich in view of Chang fail to explicitly disclose the flight information is received from the mobility device at predetermined time intervals.
Phu, from the same field of endeavor, also discloses handover of UAV control from a first base station to a second base station (i.e., UAV 115 and stations 105, FIG. 1 and corresponding descriptions of 105 and 115) wherein the flight information is received from the mobility device at predetermined time intervals (¶ 54 “As will be described in more detail below, the flight path information may be dynamic and periodically updated. In some instances, a complete flight path including all waypoints (with or without expected time of arrivals (ETAs), also commonly referred to as timestamps) associated with the UE 115 may be communicated to the target BS 105b”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to for the UAV of Mich in view of Chang to transmit flight information at predetermined time intervals in view of the teachings of Phu, cited above, such that a threshold time amount since a last transmission of the flight information from the mobility device can be determined, i.e., for link fault purposes. Providing periodic flight plan updates to a base station improves fault detection and allows for frequent updates on various changes to a given flight path thereby providing increased system reliability and responsiveness (Phu, ¶ 54 the initial flight path may change over time. The flight path may change based on conditions including, without limitation, airspace restrictions, weather conditions, battery power conditions, destination changes (e.g., determined by a UAV controller, a user, the network, a law enforcement officer or agency, or combinations thereof), routing optimizations, etc. Accordingly, in some instances the flight path information may include updated flight path information that is different than an initial flight path or a previous updated flight path). Furthermore, in the case of a necessary handover, the base station will have up to date information that may be provided to the new base station.
With respect to claim 11, Mich in view of Chang in view of Phu disclose causing the remote pilot station to:
determine, based on the flight information that was last received by the remote pilot station from the mobility device, a first predicted flight route;
determine, based on the flight information and the first predicted flight route, an expected communication coverage area of the mobility device; and
determine the at least one neighboring remote pilot station by selecting at least one remote pilot station that is located in the expected communication coverage area.
(Phu, ¶¶ 5 Mobility support is important in a wireless communication network, where a UE may travel from one coverage area or cell to another coverage area or cell. For example, a BS may serve a UE in a coverage area of the BS. The UE may report channel measurements. When the BS detects a degradation in channel quality based on the reported channel measurements and/or other channel information, the BS may initiate a handover of UE to another BS that can provide the UE with a better channel quality; 31, 35-36)
(Mich, as modified by Chang, i.e., Mich ¶ 77 “For example, UAV 401 can use its current position, velocity and altitude (e.g., obtained from an onboard GNSS receiver) to predict its location at a future time when handoff is desired to occur. UAV 401 can determine a geographic area in which the GCS 403 should be located; 83 The UAV can perform the prediction using equations of motion, UAV flight parameters (e.g., position, airspeed, altitude), and the respective locations of the first GCS and second GCS. The respective locations of the first GCS and second GCS can be determined by GNSS receivers co-located with the first GCS and second GCS and transmitted to the UAV. Alternatively, the prediction can be performed by one or both of the first GCS and the second GCS or by each GCS and the UAV. The prediction can use a 3D terrain model to determine if any physical structures along the predicted flight path will block the visual line of sight of the first GCS or the second GCS to the UAV. In an embodiment, RF signal characteristics can be modeled in addition to geometry. The prediction result provides a time in the future where a handoff period can start and potentially complete successfully; 71-73)
(Chang, communication coverage/ service areas, i.e., 103, 110, 116 for respective base stations 102, 108, 114, ¶¶ 16-17 an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) monitors downlink messages from a neighboring cell based on a calculated estimation of the uplink interference experienced at the neighboring cell based on a downlink signal received at the UAV from the neighboring cell. The communication system 100 is part of a radio access network (not shown) that provides various wireless services to UE devices that are located within the respective service areas of the various base stations that are part of the radio access network . . . the determination of which base station is used to serve the UAV 106 in the Connected mode is controlled by the network according to multiple factors such as loading of the neighboring base stations, the base station antenna configurations, and the downlink signal strength measurement reports from the UAV 106. In this regard, it is worth noting that, similar to the coverage area that can be provided to traditional, terrestrial UE devices by a base station, the coverage area that can be provided to a UAV by a base station can also be affected by distance, environmental conditions, obstructions, and interference; 19, 34-35; 38-39; 67-68 used by the serving cell 102 to statistically predict which neighboring cells 108, 114 are likely to have uplink interference issue . . . to configure the UAV 106 to monitor one or more specific neighboring cells 108, 114 that are more likely to broadcast an uplink interference indicator due to uplink interference; claims 1-2, 4, 7, 10)
With respect to claim 19, Mich in view of Chang disclose the mobility device is further configured to send, to the first remote pilot station flight information comprising at least one of:
a flight plan for the mobility device,
a flight status of the mobility device,
a last position of the mobility device,
a heading of the mobility device, or
a speed of the mobility device, and
(Mich, ¶¶ 70-73 Reasons for failure can include but are not limited to: failed authentication of GCS 403, loss of signals from GCS 402, 403 and the like . . . start of the handoff window (t.sub.0) can be when a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) or carrier-to-noise (C/N) calculated from one or both of RF signals 404, 405 fall below or exceed threshold values . . . bit error rate (BER) of a digital message modulated on RF signals 404, 405 or some other data error metric (e.g., packet loss) can be used to determine the start of the handoff period . . . predict when RF signal 404 will be lost or obtained by a threshold amount. The prediction result can be used to specify the start of the handoff period at a future time; 76 maximum period of time to try and restore a failed radio link) (Mich, ¶¶ 22 time, altitude, heading, ambient temperature, processor temperatures, pressure, battery level, fuel level, absolute or relative position, position coordinates (e.g., GPS coordinates), pitch, roll, yaw, ground speed, humidity level, velocity, acceleration, and contingency information; FIG. 2 flight plan system, GCS, UAV; 48-50 The flight plan information may be provided to the GCS 213 and then to the UAV or directly to the UAV, in a flight package 244 comprising the flight plan and other information ; 74 UAV 403 can download the updated flight plan to GCS 403. In an embodiment, the flight plan is digitally signed. If GCS 403 already has a copy of the flight plan, then UAV 401 can synchronize updates to the flight plan at GCS 403; claim 4 receiving, by the UAV from the first ground control station an updated flight plan; and transmitting the updated flight plan from the UAV to the second ground control station)
(Chang, ¶ 62, i.e., UAV context information)
wherein the first remote pilot station is further configured to:
determine, based on the flight information, a first predicted flight route;
determine, based on the flight information and the first predicted flight route, an expected communication coverage area of the mobility device; and
determine the at least one neighboring remote pilot station by selecting at least one remote pilot station that is located in the expected communication coverage area.
(Mich, as modified by Chang, i.e., Mich ¶ 77 “For example, UAV 401 can use its current position, velocity and altitude (e.g., obtained from an onboard GNSS receiver) to predict its location at a future time when handoff is desired to occur. UAV 401 can determine a geographic area in which the GCS 403 should be located; 83 The UAV can perform the prediction using equations of motion, UAV flight parameters (e.g., position, airspeed, altitude), and the respective locations of the first GCS and second GCS. The respective locations of the first GCS and second GCS can be determined by GNSS receivers co-located with the first GCS and second GCS and transmitted to the UAV. Alternatively, the prediction can be performed by one or both of the first GCS and the second GCS or by each GCS and the UAV. The prediction can use a 3D terrain model to determine if any physical structures along the predicted flight path will block the visual line of sight of the first GCS or the second GCS to the UAV. In an embodiment, RF signal characteristics can be modeled in addition to geometry. The prediction result provides a time in the future where a handoff period can start and potentially complete successfully; 71-73)
(Chang, communication coverage/ service areas, i.e., 103, 110, 116 for respective base stations 102, 108, 114, ¶¶ 16-17 an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) monitors downlink messages from a neighboring cell based on a calculated estimation of the uplink interference experienced at the neighboring cell based on a downlink signal received at the UAV from the neighboring cell. The communication system 100 is part of a radio access network (not shown) that provides various wireless services to UE devices that are located within the respective service areas of the various base stations that are part of the radio access network . . . the determination of which base station is used to serve the UAV 106 in the Connected mode is controlled by the network according to multiple factors such as loading of the neighboring base stations, the base station antenna configurations, and the downlink signal strength measurement reports from the UAV 106. In this regard, it is worth noting that, similar to the coverage area that can be provided to traditional, terrestrial UE devices by a base station, the coverage area that can be provided to a UAV by a base station can also be affected by distance, environmental conditions, obstructions, and interference; 19, 34-35; 38-39; 67-68 used by the serving cell 102 to statistically predict which neighboring cells 108, 114 are likely to have uplink interference issue . . . to configure the UAV 106 to monitor one or more specific neighboring cells 108, 114 that are more likely to broadcast an uplink interference indicator due to uplink interference; claims 1-2, 4, 7, 10)
However, Mich in view of Chang fail to explicitly disclose the flight information is received from the mobility device at predetermined time intervals.
Phu, from the same field of endeavor, also discloses handover of UAV control from a first base station to a second base station (i.e., UAV 115 and stations 105, FIG. 1 and corresponding descriptions of 105 and 115) wherein the flight information is received from the mobility device at predetermined time intervals (¶ 54 “As will be described in more detail below, the flight path information may be dynamic and periodically updated. In some instances, a complete flight path including all waypoints (with or without expected time of arrivals (ETAs), also commonly referred to as timestamps) associated with the UE 115 may be communicated to the target BS 105b”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to for the UAV of Mich in view of Chang to transmit flight information at predetermined time intervals in view of the teachings of Phu, cited above, such that a threshold time amount since a last transmission of the flight information from the mobility device can be determined, i.e., for link fault purposes. Providing periodic flight plan updates to a base station improves fault detection and allows for frequent updates on various changes to a given flight path thereby providing increased system reliability and responsiveness (Phu, ¶ 54 the initial flight path may change over time. The flight path may change based on conditions including, without limitation, airspace restrictions, weather conditions, battery power conditions, destination changes (e.g., determined by a UAV controller, a user, the network, a law enforcement officer or agency, or combinations thereof), routing optimizations, etc. Accordingly, in some instances the flight path information may include updated flight path information that is different than an initial flight path or a previous updated flight path). Furthermore, in the case of a necessary handover, the base station will have up to date information that may be provided to the new base station.
CITATION OF PRIOR ART
US 20230388004 to Hu et al. (Hu) is cited to disclose a base station broadcasting configured to transmit, based on receiving the lost link signal, a broadcast signal
¶¶ 48 The incident detection configuration from the BS to the UAV UE can be transmitted by dedicated radio resource control (RRC) signaling or can be broadcasted by system information block (SIB) signaling; 73 The incident indication from the BS to the UAV swarm can be broadcasted by SIB signaling or be transmitted by RRC signaling; 113 the BS may inform application layer for the UAV swarm about the incident indication. The incident indication from the BS to the UAV swarm can be broadcasted by SIB signaling or be transmitted by RRC signaling; claim 5 “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to cause the apparatus to: receive an incident detection configuration from one or more of a master UAV UE or a base station (BS).”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-4854. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 No limiting definition is provided for “a broadcast signal”. Under a BRI of the plain ordinary meaning this includes “to send out by radio”. See definition of broadcast, Merriam-Webster dictionary, available at: BROADCAST Simple Definition - Merriam-Webster.
Prosecution Insights