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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments and remarks on November 25, 2025. Therein, Applicant submitted substantive arguments. Claims 13 and 21 have been amended. No claims were added or cancelled.
The submitted claims are considered below.
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.
Claims 13, 21, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahalingam, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200365042) in view of Li, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210065566) and in further view of Kim, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190349730).
Regarding claim 13, Mahalingam, et al. teaches: A first mobile terminal, which is an Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle (UAV) the first mobile terminal comprising: a memory storing instructions; (Paragraph [0053]: "…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). The non-removable memory (130) may include random-access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), a hard disk, or any other type of memory storage device [memory storing instructions].")
and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: (Paragraph [0053]: "…processor (118) may access information from, and store data in, any type of suitable memory [processor configured to execute instructions]")
exchange, using the established unicast communication, information with the second UAV, the information being for a conflict resolution (Paragraph [0170]: "…receive one or more PIBS messages, PIBS-R messages, RA-PIBS messages, and/or conflict alert(s), as described herein, and may determine on an edge node which UAVs in the airspace may encounter a conflict. The edge node may form a cluster with a list of UAVs in potential conflict. [...] The RA-PIBS message may include data in a field, RA-resolutions, which may be applicable for the UAV, e.g., the UAV that is being directed to change course due to a conflict associated with the cluster [additional communication related to UAV in conflict resolution]." ; Paragraph [0171]: "If the distributed DAA system or function is implemented at an edge node, an eNB may unicast the RA-PIBS message(s) to the UAV directly via addressing its C-RNTI or the RA-PIBS message(s) may be broadcast to a group of UAVs via a group RNTI (G-RNTI) [transmission of information to UAV through unicast communication].").
Mahalingam, et al. do not teach and perform the conflict resolution based on the exchange.
In a similar field of endeavor (collision avoidance for UAVs), Li, et al. teaches: and perform the conflict resolution based on the exchange (Paragraph [0223]: "A priority-based cooperative DAA may be implemented, for example, to speed up conflict resolution of RAs from multiple UAVs. […] A priority-based resolution scheme may be implemented to improve the process of conflict resolution [conflict resolution process implementation]." ; Paragraph [0226]: "Priority may be assigned by relative position based on, for example, a number of PIBS sources received. For example, the more PIBS that are received by a UAV, the more likely it may be at the center of a group of UAVs in the airspace proximity. Giving a higher priority for a UAV at center (e.g., over a UAV at an edge) may allow conflict resolution to start from the center which may be where more conflicts are statistically possible [performance of conflict resolution based on priority related to PIBS messages]."; Paragraph [0237]: "The backoff time of a UAV may be used for priority-based DAA, for example, to reduce the number of RA-PIBS message exchanges [data based on exchanged based system].").
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 Mahalingam, et al. to include the teaching of Li, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of using communication systems and methods to cause UAVs to perform maneuvers to avoid collisions (Li, et al. Paragraph [0003]).
The combination of Mahalingam, et al. and Li, et al. does not teach establish, using Layer ID information, unicast communication with a second UAV, wherein the Layer ID information includes a Layer 2 ID.
In a similar field of endeavor (transmission of data in UAV wireless communication systems), Kim, et al. teaches: establish, using Layer ID information, unicast communication with a second UAV, wherein the Layer ID information includes a Layer 2 ID (Paragraph [0022]: "...receive a Direct Communication Request message from a first UE in a broadcast manner; transmit a Direct Communication Accept message in a unicast manner; and receive data of a V2X service from the first UE in a unicast manner [unicast communication], wherein the source Layer-2 identity (ID) included in the broadcast Direct Communication Request message is used as a destination Layer-2 ID of the Direct Communication Accept message [Layer 2 ID information] for unicast reception of the data of the V2X service by the second UE." ; Paragraph [0171]: "Referring to FIG. 19, a wireless communication system may include a first device (9010) and a second device (9020)." ; Paragraph [0172]: "The first device (9010) may be [...] an unmanned aerial vehicle [first UAV]" ; Paragraph [0173]: "The second device (9020) may be [...] an unmanned aerial vehicle [second UAV]").
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 the combination of Mahalingam, et al. and 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]).
Regarding claim 21, Mahalingam, et al. teaches: A method for a first Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle (UAV), the method comprising: exchanging, by the at least one processor, using the established unicast communication, information with the second UAV, the information being for a conflict resolution (Paragraph [0056]: "…processor (118) may further be coupled to other peripherals (138), which may include one or more software and/or hardware modules that provide additional features, functionality and/or wired or wireless connectivity [using processor to receive]." ; Paragraph [0170]: "…receive one or more PIBS messages, PIBS-R messages, RA-PIBS messages, and/or conflict alert(s), as described herein, and may determine on an edge node which UAVs in the airspace may encounter a conflict. The edge node may form a cluster with a list of UAVs in potential conflict. [...] The RA-PIBS message may include data in a field, RA-resolutions, which may be applicable for the UAV, e.g., the UAV that is being directed to change course due to a conflict associated with the cluster [additional communication related to UAV in conflict resolution]." ; Paragraph [0171]: "If the distributed DAA system or function is implemented at an edge node, an eNB may unicast the RA-PIBS message(s) to the UAV directly via addressing its C-RNTI or the RA-PIBS message(s) may be broadcast to a group of UAVs via a group RNTI (G-RNTI) [transmission of information to UAV through unicast communication].").
Mahalingam, et al. do not teach and performing, by the at least one processor, the conflict resolution based on the exchange.
In a similar field of endeavor (collision avoidance for UAVs), Li, et al. teaches: and performing, by the at least one processor, the conflict resolution based on the exchange (Paragraph [0223]: "A priority-based cooperative DAA may be implemented, for example, to speed up conflict resolution of RAs from multiple UAVs. […] A priority-based resolution scheme may be implemented to improve the process of conflict resolution [conflict resolution process implementation]." ; Paragraph [0226]: "Priority may be assigned by relative position based on, for example, a number of PIBS sources received. For example, the more PIBS that are received by a UAV, the more likely it may be at the center of a group of UAVs in the airspace proximity. Giving a higher priority for a UAV at center (e.g., over a UAV at an edge) may allow conflict resolution to start from the center which may be where more conflicts are statistically possible [performance of conflict resolution based on priority related to PIBS messages]."; Paragraph [0237]: "The backoff time of a UAV may be used for priority-based DAA, for example, to reduce the number of RA-PIBS message exchanges [data based on exchanged based system].").
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 Mahalingam, et al. to include the teaching of Li, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of using communication systems and methods to cause UAVs to perform maneuvers to avoid collisions (Li, et al. Paragraph [0003]).
The combination of Mahalingam, et al. and Li, et al. does not teach establishing, by at least one processor, using Layer ID information, unicast communication with a second UAV, wherein the Layer ID information includes a Layer 2 ID.
In a similar field of endeavor (transmission of data in UAV wireless communication systems), Kim, et al. teaches: establishing, by at least one processor, using Layer ID information, unicast communication with a second UAV, wherein the Layer ID information includes a Layer 2 ID (Paragraph [0022]: "...wherein the at least one processor [processor] is configured to: receive a Direct Communication Request message from a first UE in a broadcast manner; transmit a Direct Communication Accept message in a unicast manner; and receive data of a V2X service from the first UE in a unicast manner [unicast communication], wherein the source Layer-2 identity (ID) included in the broadcast Direct Communication Request message is used as a destination Layer-2 ID of the Direct Communication Accept message [Layer 2 ID information] for unicast reception of the data of the V2X service by the second UE." ; Paragraph [0171]: "Referring to FIG. 19, a wireless communication system may include a first device (9010) and a second device (9020)." ; Paragraph [0172]: "The first device (9010) may be [...] an unmanned aerial vehicle [first UAV]" ; Paragraph [0173]: "The second device (9020) may be [...] an unmanned aerial vehicle [second UAV]").
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 the combination of Mahalingam, et al. and 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]).
Regarding claim 23, Mahalingam, et al., Li, et al., and Kim, et al. remain as applied to claim 21, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method according to claim 21, wherein the information is a scheduled landing point (Mahalingam, et al. Paragraph [0125]: "Conflict detection may be provided. A UTM system including one or more USSs may have a view of the airspace, the UAVs in that airspace, the missions the UAVs are executing, their current positions, the intended destination [conflict resolution information contains landing point of UAV] and waypoints of those UAVs").
Regarding claim 24, Mahalingam, et al., Li, et al., and Kim, et al. remain as applied to claim 13, and in a further embodiment, teach: The first UAV according to claim 13, wherein the first UAV is a first mobile terminal and the second UAV is a second mobile terminal (Mahalingam, et al. Paragraph [0147]: "If a RA-PIBS message is received from a second UAV [second mobile terminal] by the first UAV [first mobile terminal] with an RA-list field indicating first UAV in conflict and if a priority of the second UAV is greater than the priority of the first UAV, the first UAV may forego its cluster head bid during an RA phase, which may be set to formation [example - communication between terminals].").
Regarding claim 25, Mahalingam, et al., Li, et al., and Kim, et al. remain as applied to claim 13, and in a further embodiment, teach: The first UAV according to claim 13, wherein the information for the conflict resolution includes trajectory information (Li, et al. Paragraph [0027]: "Priority may be assigned by relative position based on, for example, a number of collision risks. For example, a UAV may be able to estimate the trajectories of surrounding UAVs and predict potential collision risks to itself based on the PIBS messages received from UAVs in the airspace proximity. The higher a number of collision risks a UAV may have, the higher priority it may be assigned. The RAs of the UAV may be used to resolve more collision risks [conflict resolution (collision risk issues) included estimated trajectory information].").
Regarding claim 26, Mahalingam, et al., Li, et al., and Kim, et al. remain as applied to claim 21, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method according to claim 21, wherein the first UAV is a first mobile terminal and the second UAV is a second mobile terminal (Mahalingam, et al. Paragraph [0147]: "If a RA-PIBS message is received from a second UAV [second mobile terminal] by the first UAV [first mobile terminal] with an RA-list field indicating first UAV in conflict and if a priority of the second UAV is greater than the priority of the first UAV, the first UAV may forego its cluster head bid during an RA phase, which may be set to formation [example - communication between terminals].").
Regarding claim 27, Mahalingam, et al., Li, et al., and Kim, et al. remain as applied to claim 21, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method according to claim 21, wherein the information for the conflict resolution includes trajectory information (Li, et al. Paragraph [0027]: "Priority may be assigned by relative position based on, for example, a number of collision risks. For example, a UAV may be able to estimate the trajectories of surrounding UAVs and predict potential collision risks to itself based on the PIBS messages received from UAVs in the airspace proximity. The higher a number of collision risks a UAV may have, the higher priority it may be assigned. The RAs of the UAV may be used to resolve more collision risks [conflict resolution (collision risk issues) included estimated trajectory information].").
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 Li, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210065566) because the references did not meet the claim limitation “establish, using Layer ID information, unicast communication with a second UAV, wherein the Layer ID information includes a Layer 2 ID”. Please note that Kim, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190349730) was cited in order to teach these features. In Kim, et al., a wireless communication system consisting of a first UAV and second UAV (Paragraphs [0171] – [0173]) undergoes the process of “…receive a Direct Communication Request message from a first UE in a broadcast manner; transmit a Direct Communication Accept message in a unicast manner; and receive data of a V2X service from the first UE in a unicast manner”, or unicast communication, in which “…the source Layer-2 identity (ID) included in the broadcast Direct Communication Request message is used as a destination Layer-2 ID of the Direct Communication Accept message for unicast reception of the data” , or Layer 2 ID information (Paragraph [0022]). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Kim, et al. with Mahalingam, et al. and Li, et al. because Mahalingam, et al. teaches the exchange of unicast communication with a section UAV for the purpose of conflict resolution (Paragraphs [0170] – [0171]) and Li, et al. teaches the process of conflict resolution based on the exchange of unicast communication data (Paragraphs [0223], [0226], and [0237]).
Applicant also asserted that amended claim 13 was patentable over Mahalingam, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200365042) in view of Li, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210065566) because the references did not meet the claim limitation “exchange, using the established unicast communication, information with the second UAV, the information being for a conflict resolution”. Specifically, Applicant alleges that the exchange of eNB data via RA-PIBS transmissions, as taught in Mahalingam, et al., described only a one-way transmission. The examiner disagrees. In Mahalingam, et al., a detailed multi-dimensional communication system is described through the use of “….command and control (C2) infrastructure. C2 messages and/or signals may traverse between the UAVs and (e.g., regulatory) infrastructures, such as a UTM system. The C2 messages and/or signals may exchange, for example, measurements, configurations, commands, updates to commands and/or the like”, which may be used to “…avoid potential collisions and/or resolve potential path conflicts” (Paragraph [0089]). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Mahalingam, et al. with Li, et al., and Kim, et al. because Li, et al. teaches the process of conflict resolution based on the exchange of unicast communication data (Paragraphs [0223], [0226], and [0237]) and Kim, et al. teaches the establishment of unicast communication between two UAVs using Layer 2 ID information (Paragraphs [0022] and [0171] – [0173]).
Applicant also asserted that amended claim 13 was patentable over Mahalingam, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200365042) in view of Li, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210065566) because the references did not meet the claim limitation “and perform the conflict resolution based on the exchange”. Specifically, Applicant alleges that Li’s method of determining priority based on the number of PIBS received from multiple UAVs is a statistical method and does not reflect an exchange-based methodology. The examiner disagrees. In Li, et al., the “…priority-based DAA” methodology for conflict resolution uses “…RA-PIBS message exchanges” and is therefore based on an exchange-based system (Paragraph [0237]). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Li, et al. with Mahalingam, et al. and Kim, et al. because Mahalingam, et al. teaches the exchange of unicast communication with a section UAV for the purpose of conflict resolution (Paragraphs [0170] – [0171]) and Kim, et al. teaches the establishment of unicast communication between two UAVs using Layer 2 ID information (Paragraphs [0022] and [0171] – [0173]).
Therefore, it can be concluded that since the combination of Mahalingam, et al., Li, et al., and Kim, et al. reads on the claim limitations “establish, using Layer ID information, unicast communication with a second UAV, wherein the Layer ID information includes a Layer 2 ID”, “exchange, using the established unicast communication, information with the second UAV, the information being for a conflict resolution”, and “and perform the conflict resolution based on the exchange”, 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.
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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