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.
Applicant argues that the prior art 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) does not disclose limitation of claims 9 and 13.
However, claims 9 and 13 contain both “and’ and “or” conditional interchangeably. Two have both limitations considered the “or” conditional should be removed. Otherwise, the lesser conditional of A “or” B applies here. For example, the limitation of “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” appear following the “or” conditional. Meaning, only one condition could apply.
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) 9, 13, 10, 14 & 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 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 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 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 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]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-16 are allowed.
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
Prosecution Insights