DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 December 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2020/0245175), and further in view of Lee (US 2021/0116941).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, Zhang discloses a system, method, and programmed processing (Zhang at title, 0161) of acting upon a restriction in services for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV operation and communication corresponding to issued restrictions and authorization; Zhang at abstract, 0009), UAV, wherein the UAV is connected to a telecommunication network and wherein the UAV is allowed to utilize one or more services within the telecommunication network (UAV access to cellular network; Zhang at 0009, 0010), the method comprising the steps of:
Receiving, by the UAV, from a base station in the telecommunication network, access information for being served by the base station (base station transmits RRC information to UAV; Zhang at 0106, 0134, 0135, 0150, 0157).
Determining, by the UAV, from the access information that at least one service of the one or more allowed services is restricted (time-frequency communication restriction in resource scheduling; Zhang at 0140, 0267-0270).
Accessing, by the UAV, from a look up table a current listing of actions that can be performed for the restricted service (stored current height thresholds and connection information; Zhang at 0181), wherein the look-up table is adapted to be updated as the actions that can be performed for the restricted service changes with an updated listing of actions that can be performed for the restricted service (restrictions on communications and height updated for current usage; Zhang at 0145).
Determining, by the UAV, an action to be performed based on the at least one restricted service (UAV communications to be controlled by the UAV according to resource allocation plan; Zhang at 0018, 0144).
While Zhang discloses height restrictions for the UAV, Zhang is silent as to the action being a physical action of the UAV.
Lee, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the base station, in addition to providing communication service information to the UAV, provides limitations for physical actions for the UAV for future control (flight limitations including flight restricted areas and UAV flight control as well as base station handover data; Lee at 0046, 0063, 0064, 0131).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the claimed invention to augment the UAV restrictions of Zhang with the physical restrictions, as taught by Lee. Doing so would keep the UAV in compliance with legal restrictions within the flying region.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Zhang discloses wherein the step of determining comprises: forwarding, by the UAV, information on the at least one restricted service, via the telecommunication network, to a UAV control server; receiving, by the UAV, from the UAV control server, over the telecommunication network an instruction message comprising the action to be performed by the UAV (UAV capability transmitted to base station to server, authenticated, and procedure is transmitted to UAV; Zhang at 0154, 0155, 0159, 0160).
Regarding claims 3, 8, 11, and 16, in addition to that which is provided above with respect to claims 1 and 9, Zhang discloses wherein the step of determining comprises: sending, by the UAV, via the telecommunication network, to a UAV control server, a request message requesting the UAV control server approval for performing the determined action; and receiving, by the UAV, via the telecommunication network, from the UAV control server, a response message indicating an approval for performing the determined action (UAV requests over network a request, server authenticates and provides a response; Zhang at 0154-0157). Zhang discloses wherein the UAV control server further transmitting(sic) a look up table including a current listing of actions that can be performed for the restricted service (stored current height thresholds and connection information; Zhang at 0181), wherein the look up table is adapted to be updated as the actions that can be performed for the restricted service changes with an updated listing of actions that can be performed for the restricted service (restrictions on communications and height updated for current usage; Zhang at 0145).
The combination teaches wherein the action is a physical action (flight limitations including flight restricted areas and UAV flight control; Lee at 0046, 0063, 0064).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the combination teaches wherein the physical action is set minimum and/or maximum altitude of the UAV (flight restrictions; Lee at 0046).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Zhang discloses wherein the access information is comprised by a System Information Block, SIB (Zhang at 0135).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Zhang discloses a base station (BS; Zhang at Fig. 3) and method for facilitating an unmanned aerial vehicle, UAV, to act upon a restriction in services (a system and method for a UAV to act within communication restrictions; Zhang at title, abstract, 0140), wherein the UAV is connected to a telecommunication network (connected to network via base station; Zhang at 0150, 0154) and wherein the UAV is allowed to utilize one or more services within the telecommunication network, the method comprising the step of:
Broadcasting (system broadcast message; Zhang at 0131, 0135, 0137) by a base station comprised in the telecommunication network, access information for being served by the base station (broadcast message includes access information; Zhang at 0132-0136), wherein the UAV is able to determine from the access information that at least one service of the one or more allowed services is restricted (UAV determines resource availability; Zhang at 0140).
Wherein the access information broadcast to the UAV includes a look up table including a current listing of actions that can be performed for the restricted service (stored current height thresholds and connection information; Zhang at 0181), wherein the look up table is adapted to be updated as the actions that can be performed for the restricted service changes with an updated listing of actions that can be performed for the restricted service (restrictions on communications and height updated for current usage; Zhang at 0145).
The combination teaches wherein the one service is a physical action of the UAV (flight limitations including flight restricted areas and UAV flight control; Lee at 0046, 0063, 0064).
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s contention (see pages 10-12 filed 17 December 2025) with respect to the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been fully considered and is not persuasive.
4a. Applicant has first contended (see page 10 filed 17 December 2025) that the combination of Zhang and Lee does not disclose or suggests “determining, by the UAV, an action to be performed based on the at least one restricted service, the action being a physical action”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees; neither prior art cited were solely relied upon to teach the entirety of the contested embodiment. Zhang discloses that the UAV stores guidance on an action to be performed based on the at least one restricted service; altitude and communications to be implemented according to stored restrictions. The UAV determines its communication actions based on the stored restrictions (Zhang at 0018, 0144). Lee was relied upon to teach how the UAV may receive from a remote source instructions on physical travel limitations such as flight control and restricted airspaces; Lee at 0046. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further, a UAV relying on onboard stored restrictions, such as the UAV recited by Zhang and Lee, for influencing future control fits within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “determining, by the UAV” since the stored instructions influence the action is taken. Personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted “in view of the specification” without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily). In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
4b. Applicant has further contended (see pages 10-12 filed 17 December 2025) that the combination of Zhang and Lee does not disclose or suggests the amended portion of independent claim 1, namely “accessing, by the UAV, from a look up table a current listing of actions that can be performed for the restricted service, wherein the look up table is adapted to be updated as the actions that can be performed for the restricted service changes with an updated listing of actions that can be performed for the restricted service”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees; the UAV of Zhang inherently contains onboard memory which can include look up tables (Zhang at 0131-0134) wherein the restricted action of communication timing, as well as height limitations are stored whether directly received from base station or pre-loaded (Zhang at 0181). As the UAV travels the listing of actions will be updated (Zhang at 0145).
Lee provides for similar updates to physical actions such as a handover (Lee at 0131).
Thus, the examiner maintains the rejection of independent claim 1 (and all other independent claims) under 35 U.S.C. 103 for those reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action, which is incorporated herein.
4c. Although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds/rationales and applicable prior art for those reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M DAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1332. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 0830-1730.
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 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 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.
/JONATHAN M DAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663 03 February 2025