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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 14, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments and remarks on May 14, 2026. Therein, Applicant submitted substantive arguments. Claims 13 and 21 have been amended. Claims 28-30 were added. Claims 23-27 were cancelled.
The submitted claims are considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claims 13, 21, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210065566).
Regarding claim 13, Li, et al. teaches: A first user equipment (UE) comprising: a memory storing instructions; (Paragraph [0050]: "In addition, the processor (118) may access information from, and store data in, any type of suitable memory, such as the non-removable memory (130) and/or the removable memory (132) [memory storing instructions].")
and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: ("Paragraph [0050]: In addition, the processor (118) [processor] may access information from, and store data in, any type of suitable memory [execute instructions]")
receive, from an airspace management apparatus, steering information, wherein the steering information includes position information and information related to an allowed flying zone; (Paragraph [0143]: "The formats of messages and information elements used by DAA process are described herein. The formats may include essential data to perform the DAA functions [airspace management apparatus]. As shown in Table 1, a PIBS message may contain the real-time status of a UAV, including 4D position (time+3D coordinate) [position information]" ; Paragraph [0145]: "…RA-IE may contain a destination UAV's ID and a collision risk information element (RISK-IE), which refers to a given risk. It may follow the resolution advisory (RA) for the destination UAV. The RA may have multi-levels. A first level may be the simplest, indicating the one of 6 directions to move (e.g., slow/fast, left/right, or up/down). In other words, the UAV may have a constraint on a direction but may decide the time and the angle to turn, possibly based on its own sensing data. The second level may be the specific time and velocity to turn. The velocity may reflect a speed change and an angle to turn [steering information (direction/velocity)]. […] This information may be useful because certain collision avoidance action may cause a UAV incapable to original planned path including the waypoints [restricted flying zone].")
send, to a second UE, the steering information; (Paragraph [0146]: "If the 4D coordinate of the CPA for two risks estimated by two UAVs are within a given distance, for example, less than the protected volume (PV), they may be considered as the same risk. The RISK-IE may also include the pair of UAVs involved in the risk and use the UAV set as the risk identification [identifying steering information with respect to a second UE]" ; Paragraph [0147]: "A detect and avoid (DAA) solution may be developed based on PIBS messages over the V2V broadcasting channel. Every UAV may broadcast its position, velocity, and/or intent of flight in the PIBS messages. A UAV may predict collision risks to the nearby UAVs based on the trajectory estimations using the data collected from the PIBS messages [sending steering information to a second UE based on collision risk]")
avoid collisions, with the second UE, based on the steering information (Paragraph [0149]: "The first UAV may derive a pairwise resolution advisory (RA) for the collision risk with the second UAV. The first UAV may send an RA-PIBS with the pairwise RA to the second UAV. The first UAV may revise the pairwise RA and may re-send RA-PIBS until no conflict to the pairwise RA from the second UAV occurs [procedure for avoiding collisions with second UE with steering information].").
Regarding claim 21, Li, et al. teaches: A method for a first user equipment (UA), the method comprising: receiving, by at least one processor, from an airspace management apparatus, steering information, wherein the steering information includes position information and information related to allowed flying zone; (Li, et al. Paragraph [0050]: "…the processor (118) [processor] may access information from, and store data in, any type of suitable memory [execute instructions - receiving by processor]" ; Step (2002), Fig. 20, Paragraph [0175]: "FIG. 20 shows a flow chart of the hybrid DAA process. In step 2002, a UAV-1 in the air may receive PIBS messages from peer UAVs or RA-PIBS messages from an edge-DAA [step - receiving data from airspace management apparatus]." ; Paragraph [0143]: "The formats of messages and information elements used by DAA process are described herein. The formats may include essential data to perform the DAA functions [airspace management apparatus]. As shown in Table 1, a PIBS message may contain the real-time status of a UAV, including 4D position (time+3D coordinate) [position information]" ; Paragraph [0145]: "…RA-IE may contain a destination UAV's ID and a collision risk information element (RISK-IE), which refers to a given risk. It may follow the resolution advisory (RA) for the destination UAV. The RA may have multi-levels. A first level may be the simplest, indicating the one of 6 directions to move (e.g., slow/fast, left/right, or up/down). In other words, the UAV may have a constraint on a direction but may decide the time and the angle to turn, possibly based on its own sensing data. The second level may be the specific time and velocity to turn. The velocity may reflect a speed change and an angle to turn [steering information (direction/velocity)]. […] This information may be useful because certain collision avoidance action may cause a UAV incapable to original planned path including the waypoints [restricted flying zone].")
sending, by the at least one processor, to a second UA, the steering information; (Paragraph [0131]: "FIG. 11 shows a cooperative DAA process in which both a UAV-1 and a UAV-2 send their PIBS messages and are tracked by each other [method - sending information between UAVs]." ; Paragraph [0146]: "If the 4D coordinate of the CPA for two risks estimated by two UAVs are within a given distance, for example, less than the protected volume (PV), they may be considered as the same risk. The RISK-IE may also include the pair of UAVs involved in the risk and use the UAV set as the risk identification [identifying steering information with respect to a second UE]" ; Paragraph [0147]: "A detect and avoid (DAA) solution may be developed based on PIBS messages over the V2V broadcasting channel. Every UAV may broadcast its position, velocity, and/or intent of flight in the PIBS messages. A UAV may predict collision risks to the nearby UAVs based on the trajectory estimations using the data collected from the PIBS messages [sending steering information to a second UE based on collision risk]")
avoiding, by the at least one processor, collisions with the second UE based on the steering information (Paragraph [0149]: "The first UAV may derive a pairwise resolution advisory (RA) for the collision risk with the second UAV. The first UAV may send an RA-PIBS with the pairwise RA to the second UAV. The first UAV may revise the pairwise RA and may re-send RA-PIBS until no conflict to the pairwise RA from the second UAV occurs [procedure for avoiding collisions with second UE with steering information].").
Regarding claim 28, Li, et al. teaches: The first UE according to claim 13, wherein the first UE is a first Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and the second UE is a second UAV (Paragraph [0149]: "The first UAV [first UE is first UAV] may derive a pairwise resolution advisory (RA) for the collision risk with the second UAV. The first UAV may send an RA-PIBS with the pairwise RA to the second UAV [second UE is second UAV]").
Regarding claim 29, Li, et al. teaches: The first UE according to claim 13, wherein the sending is by use of at least one of: broadcast communication, groupcast communication and unicast communication (Paragraph [0130]: "A UAV may send PIBS messages with its position or velocity periodically over a broadcasting media [first UAV sending messages using broadcasting communication].").
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210065566) in view of Kim, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190349730).
Regarding claim 30, Li, et al. does not teach the first UE according to claim 13, wherein the sending is sending using sidelink.
In a similar field of endeavor (transmission of data in UAV wireless communication systems), Kim, et al. teaches: The first UE according to claim 13, wherein the sending is sending using sidelink (Paragraph [0163]: "…the PC5 operation may be interpreted as including […] sidelink search [sidelink], […] In V2X, the PC5 operations include, for example, transmitting and receiving a V2X message by a UE over PC5, transmitting and receiving, by a UE, various data generated by a V2X application over PC5, and transmitting and receiving, by a UE, various kinds of information associated with V2X over PC5 [sending by UE]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li, et al. to include the teaching of Kim, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of wireless communication between UAVs in a network (Kim, et al. Paragraphs [0171] – [0175]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on November 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserted that amended claim 13 was patentable over Mahalingam, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200365042) in view of Kim, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190349730) and further in view of Li, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210065566) because the reference did not meet the claim limitation “send, to a second UE, the steering information”. The examiner disagrees. In Li, et al., steering information is used in order to determine “…the CPA for two risks estimated by two UAVs are within a given distance, for example, less than the protected volume (PV), they may be considered as the same risk”, and as a result, uses the “…The RISK-IE may also include the pair of UAVs involved in the risk and use the UAV set as the risk identification”, or a second UAV (Paragraph [0146]). Once the risk has been determined, “…A detect and avoid (DAA) solution may be developed based on PIBS messages over the V2V broadcasting channel” in which steering information, such as “…position, velocity, and/or intent of flight in the PIBS messages” can be used to determine “…predict collision risks to the nearby UAVs based on the trajectory estimations using the data collected from the PIBS messages”, or a second UAV (Paragraph [0147]). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Li, et al. with Kim, et al. because Kim, et al. teaches a sidelink signal for communication between UAVs (Paragraph [0163]).
Applicant also asserted that amended claim 13 was patentable over Mahalingam, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200365042) in view of Kim, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190349730) and further in view of Li, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210065566) because the reference did not meet the claim limitation “avoid collisions, with the second UE, based on the steering information”. The examiner disagrees. In Li, et al., a procedure is followed in which “…The first UAV may derive a pairwise resolution advisory (RA) for the collision risk with the second UAV”, which involves the sending of an “…an RA-PIBS with the pairwise RA to the second UAV” and iterates through the process of “…the first UAV may revise the pairwise RA and may re-send RA-PIBS until no conflict to the pairwise RA from the second UAV occurs (Paragraph [0149]). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Li, et al. with Kim, et al. because Kim, et al. teaches a sidelink signal for communication between UAVs (Paragraph [0163]).
Therefore, it can be concluded that since the combination of Li, et al. and Kim, et al. reads on the claim limitations “send, to a second UE, the steering information” and “avoid collisions, with the second UE, based on the steering information”, as stated in amended claim 13, the arguments presented by the Applicant are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoshifuku, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10803756) teaches a flight controlling apparatus which has the ability to acquire data pertaining to an abnormality that negatively influences the safety an aircraft at a particular landing site and then reroutes the aircraft to land at an alternative landing site.
Nakazawa, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220024582) teaches a system for identifying a landing point for causing a UAV flying toward a destination point to make an emergency landing.
Akselrod, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10043398) teaches a system for drone coordination during adverse weather conditions which enables the plurality of drones to return to a selected emergency landing site.
Kusumi, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11869371) teaches a traffic management system for an unmanned aerial vehicle which includes the ability to receive landing requests from unmanned aerial vehicles that ask for an emergency landing.
Ishibashi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180290731) teaches a mobile body which can perform a motion presented by a user regardless of the unit being in a communication area with a control device.
Mahalingam, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 20200365042) teaches systems and methods with respect to equipment necessary to create a distributed detect and avoid (DM) framework for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered to limit the references in any way. The entire reference must be taken as a whole; accordingly, the Examiner contends that the art supports the rejection of the claims and the rejection is maintained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TORRENCE S MARUNDA II whose telephone number is (571)272-5172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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, ANGELA Y ORTIZ can be reached on 571-272-1206. 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.
/TORRENCE S MARUNDA II/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights