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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/6/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/06/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach or suggest:
verifying that the unified data management entity that provided the security configuration is of the terrestrial cellular network; and
in response to verifying that the unified data management entity that provided the security configuration is of the terrestrial cellular network and based at least in part on the acknowledgment bit indicating that the acknowledgment of the security configuration is requested transmitting, to the unified data management entity via the access and mobility management function, a message…
However, the prior art “NAS” the verification and the responsive messaging. For example, NAS discloses the verification/validation of configuration information as from a terrestrial cellular network such as an HPLMN or PLMN (NAS, section 4.6.1; see also section 4.6.2.2, section 5.4.4.2-5.4.4.3). NAS discloses the responsive messaging in pgs. 117-119, section 5.4.4.2-5.4.4.3 which describe the message transmission based on the verified configuration.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 3-7, 9, 11, 20-23, 28, 30-34, 36, 38-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019052647A1 to Poscher in view of “Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) protocol for 5G System” (hereinafter “NAS”).
Regarding claim 1, Poscher teaches a method for wireless communication at an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in a terrestrial cellular network, comprising:
performing a registration procedure with one or more network functions for communications between the UAV and an unmanned aerial system service supplier, the one or more network functions comprising an access and mobility management function (pg. 13:30-37, pg. 14:1-37, pg. 15:1-34, 16:7-17, UAV registration procedure);
receiving, from a unified data management entity via the access and mobility management function, an indication of a security configuration in a non-access stratum transport message, the security configuration comprising one or more security credentials to enable communications between the UAV and the unmanned aerial system service supplier, and transmitting, to the unified data management entity via the access and mobility management function, an message (col. 2:30-37, col. 4:15-17, col. 9:5-15, col. 10:1-12, exchange of access information to enable communication; col. 15:15-20, non-access stratum messaging; col. 7:15-35, mobility management functions and registration procedures according to 5G registration procedures, pg. 16:1-6, performance of functions by unified data management entity; see also fig. 4b); and
communicating with the unmanned aerial system service supplier based at least in part on the one or more security credentials of the security configuration (col.11:30-37, col. 12:1-5, col. 13:20-30, col. 15:30-33, col. 16:19-29),
Poscher fails to teach, but NAS teaches:
the non-access stratum transport message comprising an acknowledgment bit indicating that an acknowledgment of the security configuration is requested (pg. 352, Table 9.11.3.18.1, non-access stratum transport message with acknowledgement bit requesting update acknowledgement);
verifying that the unified data management entity that provided the security configuration is of the terrestrial cellular network (section 4.6.1; see also section 4.6.2.2, section 5.4.4.2-5.4.4.3, pg. 118-119, verification of configuration provided from terrestrial cell network; 5G registration/verification procedures);
in response to verifying that the unified data management entity that provided the security configuration is of the terrestrial cellular network and based at least in part on the acknowledgment bit indicating that the acknowledgment of the security configuration is requested transmitting, to the unified data management entity via the access and mobility management function, a message (see pgs. 117-119, section 5.4.4.2-5.4.4.3, message transmission based on verified configuration)
wherein the message is an acknowledgment message indicating that the UE successfully received the security configuration based at least in part on the acknowledgment bit indicating that the acknowledgment of the security configuration is requested (pg. 118, section 5.4.4.3, UE sends acknowledgement update message); and communication based in part on the acknowledgement message (pgs. 117-119, section 5.4.4.2-5.4.4.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of NAS with the UAV system of Poscher. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating mobility and session management functionality (NAS, pg. 27, section 4.1).
Regarding claim 3, 30,
Poscher teaches:
transmitting, to the unmanned aerial system service supplier, a registration request for the communications between the UAV and the unmanned aerial system service supplier, the registration request comprising registration information corresponding to the UAV (pg. 13:30-37, pg. 14:1-37, pg. 15:1-34, 16:7-17, col. 2:30-37, col. 4:15-17, col. 9:5-15, col. 10:1-12, col. 15:15-20, col. 7:15-35, pg. 16:1-6, fig. 4b)
Regarding claim 4, 31,
Poscher teaches:
determining to transmit the registration request to the unmanned aerial system service supplier based at least in part on an identity of the unmanned aerial system service supplier received in the indication of the security configuration (fig. 4b, col. 15:12-34; col. 13:6-30; col. 14:5-35).
Regarding claim 5, 32,
Poscher teaches:
receiving, from the unmanned aerial system service supplier, a registration response message in response to the registration request, the registration response message comprising an identifier for the UAV, wherein the communication between the UAV and the unmanned aerial system service supplier is based at least in part on the identifier for the UAV in conjuncture with the security configuration (pg. 13:30-37, pg. 14:1-37, pg. 15:1-34, 16:7-17, col. 2:30-37, col. 4:15-17, col. 9:5-15, col. 10:1-12, col. 15:15-20, col. 7:15-35, pg. 16:1-6, fig. 4b).
Regarding claim 6, 33,
Poscher teaches:
wherein the registration request is protected based at least in part on the one or more security credentials received from the unified data management entity (fig. 4b, col. 15:12-34; col. 13:6-30; col. 14:5-35; col. 11:1-27).
Regarding claim 7, 34,
Poscher teaches:
wherein the indication of the security configuration is received based at least in part on transmitting the registration request (fig. 4b, col. 15:12-34; col. 13:6-30; col. 14:5-35; col. 11:1-27; see also col. 7:15-20, col. 13:30-37).
Regarding claim 9, 36,
Poscher fails to explicitly teach:
determining to remove security credentials previously used by the UAV for previous communications based at least in part on the non-access stratum transport message comprising a user equipment (UE) parameter update list that further comprises a UE parameters update data set with a UE parameters update data set type indicating a mobile entity security configuration, wherein the security configuration comprises the mobile entity security configuration (pg. 352, Table 9.11.3.18.1, sections 5.4.4.2-5.4.4.3, non-access stratum transport update message;; removal of security credentials; section 4.4.2.1, removal of security credentials).
However, NAS teaches:
determining to remove security credentials previously used by the UE for previous communications based at least in part on the non-access stratum transport message comprising a user equipment (UE) parameter update list that further comprises a UE parameters update data set with a UE parameters update data set type indicating a mobile entity security configuration, wherein the security configuration comprises the mobile entity security configuration (pg. 352, Table 9.11.3.18.1, sections 5.4.4.2-5.4.4.3, non-access stratum transport update message;; removal of security credentials; section 4.4.2.1, removal of security credentials). Motivation to include NAS is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 11, 38,
Poscher teaches:
wherein the indication of the security configuration is received at a hardware component of the UAV (fig. 4b)
Claim 20, 28, 39 are addressed by similar rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, 40,
Poscher teaches:
wherein transmitting or receiving the indication of the security configuration comprises: receiving, from the unified data management entity, the indication of the security configuration (fig. 4b).
Regarding claim 22, 41,
Poscher teaches:
wherein the security configuration is generated by the unified data management entity based at least in part on the UAV registering to a network comprising the unified data management entity, no security configuration being previously delivered to the UAV, a security refreshing for the UAV, a trigger received from the unmanned aerial system service supplier, or a combination thereof (pg. 13:30-37, pg. 14:1-37, pg. 15:1-34, 16:7-17, col. 2:30-37, col. 4:15-17, col. 9:5-15, col. 10:1-12, col. 15:15-20, col. 7:15-35, pg. 16:1-6, fig. 4b).
Regarding claim 23, 42,
Poscher teaches:
generating the security configuration for the communications between the UAV and the unmanned aerial system service supplier based at least in part on the registration information corresponding to the UAV received in the registration request (pg. 13:30-37, pg. 14:1-37, pg. 15:1-34, 16:7-17, col. 2:30-37, col. 4:15-17, col. 9:5-15, col. 10:1-12, col. 15:15-20, col. 7:15-35, pg. 16:1-6, fig. 4b).
Claim 24, 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poscher and NAS in view of WO 2019068654 A1 to Torvinen.
Regarding claim 24, 43,
Starsinic fails to teach but Torvinen teaches:
wherein transmitting or receiving the indication of the security configuration comprises transmitting, to the unified data management entity, the indication of the security configuration (fig. 1 8-11, acknowledgment message; pg. 7-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Torvinen. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Torvinen would have been advantageous in terms of securing network steering in formation (Torvinen, pg. 2, 7-9).
Claim 8, 10, 26-27, 35, 37, 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poscher and NAS in view of WO2020068765A1 to Starsinic.
Regarding claim 8, 35,
Poscher fails to teach:
wherein the registration request comprises a generic public subscription identifier of the UAV, and wherein the indication of the security configuration is received based at least in part on the generic public subscription identifier of the UAV
However, Starsinic teaches:
wherein the registration request comprises a generic public subscription identifier of the UE, and wherein the indication of the security configuration is received based at least in part on the generic public subscription identifier of the UAV (¶ 36-43, GUTI)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Starsinic with respect to UE communications to the UAV system of Poscher. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Starsinic would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating secure communications (Starsinic, ¶ 90-104; 70-77; 52-54).
Regarding claim 26, 45,
Poscher fails to teach:
wherein the registration request comprises a generic public subscription identifier of the UAV, and wherein the one or more security credentials are generated based at least in part on the generic public subscription identifier
However, Starsinic teaches:
wherein the registration request comprises a generic public subscription identifier of the UE, and wherein the one or more security credentials are generated based at least in part on the generic public subscription identifier (¶ 36-43, GUTI).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Starsinic with respect to UE communications to the UAV system of Poscher. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Starsinic would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating registration and authorization procedures (Starsinic, ¶ 36-43, 90-104; 70-77; 52-54).
Regarding claim 10, 37,
Poscher fails to teach:
wherein the security configuration comprises a user equipment (UE) identity used for identifying the UAV in the communications between the UAV and the unmanned aerial system service supplier, a certificate for the communications between the UAV and the unmanned aerial system service supplier, private and public security keys to enable the communications between the UAV and the unmanned aerial system service supplier, one or more security keys to be used for by the UAV for broadcasting a remote identifier of the UAV and for verifying received remote identifiers broadcasted by additional UAV s, an identifier of the unmanned aerial system service supplier, or a combination thereof
However, Starsinic teaches:
wherein the security configuration comprises a user equipment (UE) identity used for identifying the UE in the communications between the UE and the unmanned aerial system service supplier, a certificate for the communications between the UE and the unmanned aerial system service supplier, private and public security keys to enable the communications between the UE and the unmanned aerial system service supplier, one or more security keys to be used for by the UE for broadcasting a remote identifier of the UE and for verifying received remote identifiers broadcasted by additional UEs, an identifier of the unmanned aerial system service supplier, or a combination thereof (¶ 90-104; 70-77; 52-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Starsinic with respect to UE communications to the UAV system of Poscher. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Starsinic would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating secure communications (Starsinic, ¶ 90-104; 70-77; 52-54).
Regarding claim 27, 46,
Poscher fails to teach:
wherein the one or more security credentials comprise a UE identity used for identifying the UAV in the communications between the UAV and the unmanned aerial system service supplier, a certificate for the communications between the UAV and the unmanned aerial system service supplier, private and public security keys to enable the communications between the UAV and the unmanned aerial system service supplier, one or more security keys to be used for by the UAV for broadcasting a remote identifier of the UAV and for verifying received remote identifiers broadcasted by additional UAV s, an identifier of the unmanned aerial system service supplier, or a combination thereof
However, Starsinic teaches:
wherein the one or more security credentials comprise a UE identity used for identifying the UE in the communications between the UE and the unmanned aerial system service supplier, a certificate for the communications between the UE and the unmanned aerial system service supplier, private and public security keys to enable the communications between the UE and the unmanned aerial system service supplier, one or more security keys to be used for by the UE for broadcasting a remote identifier of the UE and for verifying received remote identifiers broadcasted by additional UEs, an identifier of the unmanned aerial system service supplier, or a combination thereof (¶ 90-104; 70-77; 52-54). Motivation to include Starsinic is the same as presented above.
Claim 24 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poscher, NAS, and Torvinen in view of Starsinic.
Regarding claim 25, 44,
Poscher fails to teach but Starsinic teaches:
wherein transmitting the indication of the security configuration comprises: transmitting, to the unified data management entity, the indication of the security configuration via a unified data management services message, a network exposure function update message, or a combination thereof (abstract, ¶ 52-54, 71-77, 93, 117, fig.3, device credentials and registration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Starsinic with respect to UE communications to the UAV system of Poscher. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Starsinic would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating secure communications (Starsinic, ¶ 90-104; 70-77; 52-54).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights