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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/25/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of foreign translation received 11/4/2025. Nothing further is needed here.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnjanovicjanovic et al. (US 2018/0233055 A1) in view of Bai et al. (US 2021/0258942 A1) in further view Phuyal et al. (US 2018/0324662 A1).
Regarding claim 1 & 11, Damnjanovic discloses a method and base station for detecting a drone with a user device located on-board, the method being implemented by a base station to which the user equipment is connected, the method comprising:
determining, from a plurality of receive beams of the base station, a receive beam through which at least one signal transmitted by the user equipment is received (see [0007], “drone UE indicator may be conveyed using non-access stratum (NAS) signaling during an NAS attach procedure, using Medium Access Control (MAC) signaling during a Random Access Procedure (RACH), etc.”);
Damnjanovic does not specifically disclose however Bai discloses determining (determining, [0008]) at least one parameter (see determining a value of a parameter for each receive beam, [0008]) determined from the at least one reference signal (based on receiving the first reference signal [0008])received through the determined receive beam; and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Damnjanovic with that of Bai. Doing so would conform to notoriously well-known conventions.
Damnjanovic in view of Bai does not specifically disclose however Phuyal discloses and detecting (monitor parameters of drone such as speed, altitude, direction of movement, [0077]) the drone as a function of the at least one parameter (see parameter and altitude [0077]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Phuyal with that of Damnjanovic in view of Bai. Doing so would conform to well-established commercial and surveillance needs by improving redundancy and accuracy (see [0005], Phuyal).
Regarding claim 9 & 13, management entity and method for communicating between a management entity of a network and a user equipment located on-board a drone, the method being implemented by the management entity of the network comprising:
transmitting a message to the user equipment requesting it to identify itself as a drone (drone UE indication to a wireless network [0007];
Damnjanovic does not specifically disclose a “reference signal”;
However, Bai specifically disclose a “reference signal” (see “reference signal”; [0008]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings Damnjanovic and Phuyal with that of Bai. Doing so would conform to well-known standards in within the field of invention.
Damnjanovic and Bai do not specifically disclose however Phuyal discloses receiving a message, transmitted from a base station to which the user equipment is attached (see [0066] “message conveyance at blocks 800 and 900 may be implemented during an initial Attach procedure between the drone-coupled UE and a base station”), comprising an altitude of the drone (see [0077], “transmitting a message to the user equipment requesting it to identify itself as a drone (drone UE indication to a wireless network [0007])”) and/or an indication of a detection of vibrations produced by a drone in a frequency response of at least one reference signal transmitted by the user equipment and received by the base station; and
when it is determined that the detected altitude and/or vibrations correspond to a drone (see altitude/height threshold [0074]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Phuyal with that of Damnjanovic. Doing so would conform to well-established commercial and surveillance needs by improving redundancy and accuracy (see [0005], Phuyal).
Regarding claim 3, Damnjanovic in view of Bai in further view of Phuyal disclose the method for detecting a drone according to claim 1, wherein Phuyal further discloses the at least one parameter comprises an altitude of the user equipment determined from a value of an elevation angle associated with the receive beam through which the at least one reference signal is received (see angle [0086]), and wherein the drone is detected when the altitude of the user equipment is greater than or equal to a detection threshold (see threshold [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Phuyal with that of Damnjanovic. Doing so would conform to well-established commercial and surveillance needs by improving redundancy and accuracy (see [0005], Phuyal).
Regarding claim 5, Damnjanovic in view of Bai in further view of Phuyal disclose the method for detecting a drone according to claim 3, wherein the altitude of the user equipment is determined as a function of at least one of the following parameters: a distance separating the base station from the user equipment (see distance between the drone UE and the base stations [0025]), a receive power of the at least one signal, and a signal propagation loss law.
Regarding claim 6, Damnjanovic in view of Bai in further view of Phuyal disclose the method for detecting a drone according to claim 1, wherein Phuyal further discloses transmitting, to a management entity of a network, a message comprising the altitude of the drone (see altitude [0074]) and/or an indication of a detection in a frequency response of the at least one received reference signal of a plurality of power spectral density values representative of vibrations produced by a drone (here and/or is given as an option and OR is being considered by examination).
Regarding claim 10, Damnjanovic in view of Bai in further view of Phuyal disclose the method for communicating between a management entity of the network and a user equipment embedded in a drone according to claim 9 comprising, when the user equipment does not identify itself as a drone, breaking a communication session established between the user equipment and a device of a communication network through the base station (switch to non UE mode [0045]).
Regarding claim 12, Damnjanovic in view of Bai in further view of Phuyal disclose the method for detecting a drone according to claim 11, wherein Phuyal further discloses transmitting, to a management entity of a network, a message comprising the altitude (see altitude [0077]) of the drone and/or an indication of a detection in a frequency response of the at least one received reference signal of a plurality of power spectral density values representative of vibrations produced by a drone (here claims 12 indicates and/or conditional as interchangeable choice, here examination is considering ‘OR”).
Regarding claim 14, Damnjanovic in view of Bai in further view of Phuyal disclose the management entity of the network capable of communicating with a user equipment embedded in a drone according to claim 9, comprising, when the user equipment does not identify itself as a drone, means for implementing a break in a communication session established between the user equipment and a device of a communication network through the base station (switch to non UE mode [0045]).
Regarding claim 15, Damnjanovic in view of Bai in further view of Phuyal disclose the processing circuit comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing program code instructions of a computer program for implementing the method according to claim 1, when the computer program is executed by the processor (see computer program [0050]).
Regarding claim 16, Damnjanovic in view of Bai in further view of Phuyal disclose the A processing circuit comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing program code instructions of a computer program for implementing the method according to claim 9, when the computer program is executed by the processor (see “computer program” [0050]).
Claim(s) 2 & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnjanovicjanovic et al. (US 2018/0233055 A1) in view of Bai in futher view of Phuyal et al. (US 2018/0324662 A1) in further view of US 11,794,222 B1.
Regarding claim 2, Damnjanovic in view of Bai in further view of Phuyal do not specifically disclose however Mishra discloses method for detecting a drone according to claim 1, wherein the parameter comprises a plurality of power spectral density values representative of the vibrations produced by a drone (see power spectral density and vibration, col. 23, lines 48-55);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Mishra with that of Damnjanovic, Bai and Phuyal. Doing so would conform to well established norms in the field of invention.
Regarding claim 4, Damnjanovic in view of Bai in further view of Phuyal disclose the method for detecting a drone according to claim 2,
wherein Phuyal further discloses the drone is detected when an altitude of the user equipment is lower than a detection threshold (see [0074] threshold requirement, wherein it would be obvious this can be below or above);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Phuyal with that of Damnjanovic and Bai. Doing so would conform to well-established commercial and surveillance needs by improving redundancy and accuracy (see [0005], Phuyal).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 K. WILFORD SHAHEED whose telephone number is (469) 295-9175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 am-6pm; CST; ALT Friday. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The examiner’s Supervisor, Jinsong Hu, can be reached at (571)272-3965, where attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful.
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.
/KHALID W SHAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643