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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s RCE Amendment filed on December 16, 2025 in response to the Final Office Action filed on October 2, 2025. Claims 10 and 11 have been canceled, so that claims 1-9 and 12-20 are now pending in the present application. This Action is made NON-FINAL.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 16, 2025 has been entered.
Amendment
Drawings
The prior Drawings objections as to Figures 1-8 are withdrawn in view of the Replacement Drawings, which comply with 37 CFR 1.121(d), and because the Replacement Drawings 1-8 comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(l).
Specification
The prior objection to the specification and Abstract is withdrawn since the Abstract alone is now presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Objections
Claim 1 is objected to for an antecedent issue, as follows:
Claim 1, line 10, recites “determining an inconsistency”, which should read “detecting an inconsistency”.
As regards this objection, claim 1, line 13, recites “in response to detecting”—not “determining” as in line 10. It is also noted that the use of detecting (rather than determining) is consistent with its use in claim 19.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 1-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are unpatentable over the conference paper entitled “Integration of U-space and 5GS for UAV services”, Lechosław Tomaszewski et al., 2020 IEEE Conference Paper, Conference dated June 22-26, 2020, Published July 17, 2020 (“the Tomaszewski reference”), in view of the 3GPP standards document of ETSI TS 122 125 V16.3.0 (2020-11), 5G; Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) support in 3GPP (3GPP TS 22.125 version 16.3.0 Release 16) (“the 3GPP reference”), and further in view of U.S. Published Patent Application No. 2018/0143028 to Choi et al. (“the Choi reference”), as explained below.
Independent apparatus claim 1, as amended, recites an “apparatus” comprising: “at least one processor; and at least one memory storing computer program code, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform” the recited steps.
In the Tomaszewski reference, Figure 3 (and the related text at Section IV.A. of pages 769-770) discloses the architecture that is based on the 5GS reference architecture with addition of functional instances supporting Location services (LCS ), in which individual CP functions in the context of UTM integration and UAS support as well as their modifications are described. The 5G components shown, such as UAV/UAC, NWDAF, NEF, GLMC, AMF, NRF, LMF are implemented with processors, memories, and/or program code for implementing the functions.
In this regard, claim 1, as amended, recites “receiving travel path data and an acceptable threshold deviation from a traffic management entity, wherein the travel path data indicates a travel path for a vehicle comprising a user equipment registered to a mobile communication system”.
Any UAV requires receiving travel path data from a source. In the claim, the source is a “traffic management entity”. The specification (at page 18) states that the “traffic management entity” is a “USS/UTM (UAS Service Supplier/UAS Traffic Management entity)” that provides services for using an airspace by providing services to the operator of a UAS (Unmanned Aerial System).
In this regard, the Tomaszewski reference, “Integration of U-space and 5GS for UAV services”, Lechosław Tomaszewski et al., 2020 IEEE Conference Paper, Conference dated June 22-26, 2020, Published July 17, 2020, discloses (at page 767) UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) and UASs (Unmanned Aerial Systems) and a UAV control and unmanned traffic management system (UTM)—which is a traffic management entity.
Still further, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 768) discloses requirements for UAS support by the 5G System (5GS) (i.e., UE and gNB), including interactions with UTM (traffic management). The 3GPP reference defines UAS as a UAV and the UAV controller (UAC), and further discloses (at page 768) communications between the UAS and UTM (traffic management) and that 5GS augments exchanged data (i.e., flight path data) with network-based positioning information (i.e., travel or flight path data). In particular, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 768) discloses UTM-UAS interactions, in which a 5G System (5GS) enables UTM (traffic management) to provide communication for UAV control—so that for UAV control, travel or flight path data can be received from the UTM (traffic management).]
Still further, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 769) discloses that the Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) combines data collection from all 5GS Network Functions (NFs), including the monitoring of UAV UE threshold events. Accordingly, the NWDAF would receive travel or flight path data from the UTM (traffic management).
Finally, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 767) discloses a 5G mobile network—which is a mobile communication system—in which a UE is registered to the gNB. The Tomaszewski reference (at page 769) discloses an on-board UE as UAV capable, and the UAV UE is monitored, and further discloses in Figure 4 (at page 770) a gNB. The UE and gNB is a 5G mobile communication system.
Also, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 772) discloses a UE (User Equipment) registered to the mobile communication system since it discloses that “after the request from an on-board UE of UAV, 5GS performs UDM check for subscription information and 5G-EIR (Equipment Identity Register) check for UE validation in terms of UAV capabilities”, and further discloses (at page 768) that “USP services” include “registration” during “Identification and Tracking”.
In short, the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitation of
“receiving travel path data” from a “traffic management entity”, in which the “travel path data indicates a travel path for a vehicle comprising a user equipment registered to a mobile communication system”, as explained above.
As regards the “acceptable threshold deviation” of claim 1, it is based on canceled claim 11 (which depended from claim 10) that recited the limitation in which the threshold range of deviation is based on information from the traffic management entity”, and it simply adds the indefinite adjective of “acceptable”.
Since the Tomaszewski reference (at page 769) discloses that the Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) combines data collection from all 5GS Network Functions (NFs), including the monitoring of UAV UE threshold events—which inherently and necessarily includes data from the traffic management entity, so that if the UTM determines that there is little air traffic, then the event thresholds may be smaller since there is less chance of an accident, and vice versa.
In short, the Tomaszewski reference disclose, or at least suggest, the limitations in which acceptable threshold deviation is based on information from the traffic management entity, so that as explained as to prior canceled claims 10 and 11, the Tomaszewski reference and 3GPP reference disclose, or at least suggest, the present limitation.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation of “receiving location data for the vehicle’s current location transmitted by the user equipment”.
In this regard, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 767) discloses a UAV traffic management system, and further discloses (at page 770) a UTM (traffic management entity) Gateway Function (UGF) that uses the NWDAF (data analytics function) services, including sending Location Requests to GMLC or requesting periodic or triggered location reporting—which is from the UE, so that UE location (travel path data) is transmitted by the UE and received at the UTM through the NWDAF.
Still further, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 770) discloses a Location Management Function (LMF) that coordinates procedures and resources for locating the UE, which is registered with or accesses the Core Network (CN). The LMF can be requested as a single, periodic or triggered service, and the LMF verifies location (and estimated UE velocity), and accuracy (of the location data—which includes a current location) from the UE.
In short, the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitation of “receiving location data for the vehicle’s current location transmitted by the user equipment”.
Even if the Tomaszewski reference and the 3GPP reference may not explicitly disclose the limitation of “determining an inconsistency between the travel path data for the vehicle and the location data for the vehicle’s current location is outside of the acceptable threshold deviation from the travel path”, the Choi reference (which is directed to an apparatus and method for controlling the path of a vehicle), in view of the foregoing, discloses this further limitation of determining an inconsistency between the travel path data for the vehicle and the location data for the vehicle’s current location is outside of the acceptable threshold deviation (at paragraphs [0068]-[0071]), as follows:
[0068] FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating an operation of a method for controlling a path of a vehicle . . . .
[0069] As shown in FIG. 5, in operation S110, a path control apparatus 100 of a vehicle 10 may set a destination when the vehicle 10 is driven. In operation S120, the path control apparatus 100 may generate a first path from a current location of the vehicle 10 to the set destination. In operation S130, the vehicle 10 may drive along the first path.
[0070] The path control apparatus 100 may extract a path deviation prediction area on the first path in advance. In this case, in operation S140, the path control apparatus 100 may determine a forward path deviation prediction area on the first path while the vehicle 10 is driven. The path control apparatus 100 may verify a distance D from a current location of the vehicle 10 to the path deviation prediction area.
[0071] In operation S150, the path control apparatus 100 may determine whether the distance D from the current location of the vehicle 10 to the path deviation prediction . . . is less than or equal to . . . distance threshold Dth1. If the distance D is greater than . . . distance threshold Dth1 in operation S150, in operation S190, the path control apparatus 100 may determine whether the distance D is less than or equal to a second distance threshold Dth2 which is more distant from the first distance threshold Dth1. If the distance D is greater than the second distance threshold Dth2 in operation S190, the path control apparatus 100 may maintain the driving of the vehicle 10 along the first path. If the distance D is less than or equal to the second distance threshold Dth2, in operation S200, the path control apparatus 100 may determine whether a driving lane of the vehicle 10 is a target lane. If the driving lane of the vehicle 10 is the target lane in operation S200, the path control apparatus 100 may maintain the driving of the vehicle 10 along the first path. If the driving lane of the vehicle 10 is not the target lane, the path control apparatus 100 may calculate a road congestion level of a road around the vehicle 10.
The Tomaszewski reference and the Choi reference are plainly analogous to the claimed subject matter because they are in the same field of endeavor of controlling the path of a vehicle.
It is therefore the case that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date filing date of the claimed invention to understand that the Tomaszewski reference, based on the teachings, motivations and/or suggestions of the Choi reference, discloses or at least suggests an “acceptable threshold deviation”.
Thus, the Tomaszewski reference in view of the Choi reference discloses, or at least
suggests, the limitation of “receiving travel path data and an acceptable threshold deviation from a traffic management entity”.
Still further, claim 1, as amended, further recites the limitation of “determining an inconsistency between the travel path data for the vehicle and the location data for the vehicle’s current location is outside of the acceptable threshold deviation from the travel path”.
It is first noted that claim 1, as amended, essentially reflects the limitations of canceled claims 10 and 11.
In particular, canceled claim 10 (depended from claim 1) recited the limitations in which “the inconsistency between the travel path data for the vehicle from the traffic management entity” and in which “the location data for the vehicle transmitted by the user equipment comprises a deviation outside a threshold range of deviation”. The only revision is that the “threshold deviation” now reads “acceptable threshold deviation”. The use of the indefinite adjective “acceptable” adds nothing to the claim since any determined threshold must be acceptable.
The Tomaszewski reference (at page 769) discloses that the Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) combines data collection from all 5GS Network Functions (NFs), including the monitoring of UAV UE threshold events. It is submitted that a threshold event—which does not limit the nature of the event—includes a threshold for accuracy. It is noted, in any case, that it would be plain to a person having ordinary skill in the art that a UAV UE threshold event could concern a threshold for the accuracy, as explained above as to claim 1.
In short, the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitations in
which “the inconsistency between the travel path data for the vehicle from the traffic management entity” and in which “the location data for the vehicle transmitted by the user equipment comprises a deviation outside a threshold range of deviation”.
Likewise, canceled claim 11 (which depended from claim 10) recites the limitations in which “the threshold range of deviation is based on information from the traffic management entity”.
As previously explained in the Final Office Action, since the Tomaszewski reference (at page 769) discloses that the Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) combines data collection from all 5GS Network Functions (NFs), including the monitoring of UAV UE threshold events—which inherently and necessarily includes data from the traffic management entity, so that if the UTM determines that there is little air traffic, then the event thresholds may be smaller since there is less chance of an accident, and vice versa.
In short, the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitations in which “the threshold range of deviation is based on information from the traffic management entity”.
Even if the Tomaszewski reference and the 3GPP reference may not explicitly disclose the limitation of “determining an inconsistency between the travel path data for the vehicle and the location data for the vehicle’s current location is outside of the acceptable threshold deviation from the travel path”, the Choi reference (which is directed to an apparatus and method for controlling the path of a vehicle), in view of the foregoing, discloses this further limitation (at paragraphs [0068]-[0071]), as follows:
[0068] FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating an operation of a method for controlling a
path of a vehicle . . . .
[0069] As shown in FIG. 5, in operation S110, a path control apparatus 100 of a vehicle 10 may set a destination when the vehicle 10 is driven. In operation S120, the path control apparatus 100 may generate a first path from a current location of the vehicle 10 to the set destination. In operation S130, the vehicle 10 may drive along the first path.
[0070] The path control apparatus 100 may extract a path deviation prediction area on the first path in advance. In this case, in operation S140, the path control apparatus 100 may determine a forward path deviation prediction area on the first path while the vehicle 10 is driven. The path control apparatus 100 may verify a distance D from a current location of the vehicle 10 to the path deviation prediction area.
[0071] In operation S150, the path control apparatus 100 may determine whether the distance D from the current location of the vehicle 10 to the path deviation prediction . . . is less than or equal to . . . distance threshold Dth1. If the distance D is greater than . . . distance threshold Dth1 in operation S150, in operation S190, the path control apparatus 100 may determine whether the distance D is less than or equal to a second distance threshold Dth2 which is more distant from the first distance threshold Dth1. If the distance D is greater than the second distance threshold Dth2 in operation S190, the path control apparatus 100 may maintain the driving of the vehicle 10 along the first path. If the distance D is less than or equal to the second distance threshold Dth2, in operation S200, the path control apparatus 100 may determine whether a driving lane of the vehicle 10 is a target lane. If the driving lane of the vehicle 10 is the target lane in operation S200, the path control apparatus 100 may maintain the driving of the vehicle 10 along the first path. If the driving lane of the vehicle 10 is not the target lane, the path control apparatus 100 may calculate a road congestion level of a road around the vehicle 10.
The Tomaszewski reference, the 3GPP reference and the Choi reference are plainly analogous to the claimed subject matter because they are in the same field of endeavor of controlling the path of a vehicle.
It is therefore the case that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date filing date of the claimed invention to understand that the Tomaszewski reference, based on the teachings, motivations and/or suggestions of the Choi reference, discloses or at least suggests the limitation of “determining an inconsistency between the travel path data for the vehicle and the location data for the vehicle’s current location is outside of the acceptable threshold deviation from the travel path”.
Thus, as reflected in the limitations of canceled claims 10 and 11, as effectively added to claim 1—as explained above, the Tomaszewski reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, and in view of the Choi reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitation of “determining an inconsistency between the travel path data for the vehicle and the location data for the vehicle’s current location is outside of the acceptable threshold deviation from the travel path”.
Finally, claim 1 further recites “in response to detecting the inconsistency between the travel path data for the vehicle and the location data for the vehicle’s current location transmitted by the user equipment, outputting a travel path deviation report for the traffic management entity”.
In this regard, the Tomaszewski reference (at pages 769-770) discloses a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF), and a Location Management Function (LMF) that co-ordinates procedures and resources for locating a UE, which is registered with or accesses the Core Network (CN). The LMF is requested as a single, periodic or triggered service. The LMF verifies location (and estimated UE velocity), and accuracy—which includes a difference (or inconsistency) between an expected flight trajectory (path) and an actual flight trajectory (path).
Also, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 767) discloses a UAV traffic management
system, and further discloses (at page 770) a UTM (traffic management entity) Gateway Function
(UGF) that uses the NWDAF (data analytics function) services, including sending Location Requests to GMLC or requesting periodic or triggered location reporting (from the UE)—so that UE location (travel path data) is transmitted by the UE.
The Tomaszewski reference (at page 769) discloses a 5GS architecture that defines a Network Exposure Function (NEF), which is a gateway to Control Plane (CP) functions for an external environment, and a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF), which is a network monitoring and analytic engine. The Tomaszewski reference (at page 771) discloses exposure of network data through a Network Exposure Function (NEF) that is based on measurements collected by UAVs.
In short, the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitation of “in response to detecting the inconsistency between the travel path data for the vehicle and the location data for the vehicle’s current location transmitted by the user equipment, outputting a travel path deviation report for the traffic management entity”.
Even if the Tomaszewski reference may not explicitly disclose “current location”, the 3GPP standards document of ETSI TS 122 125 V16.3.0 (2020-11), 5G; Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) support in 3GPP (3GPP TS 22.125 version 16.3.0 Release 16) (“the 3GPP reference”) discloses (at sections 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3) that position (that is, location information) includes current location (see section 5.3), as follows:
“Unmanned Aerial System Traffic Management (UTM) is used to provide services to support UAS and their operations including but not limited to UAS identification and tracking, authorization, and also to store the data required for a UAS to operate” (section 4.1).
“The 3GPP system shall enable a UAS to send UTM the UAV data which can contain:” a unique identity (3GPP identity), UE capability of the UAV, position, operating status and route data (section 5.1).
The 3GPP system provides for a “UTM to provide route data . . . to a UAV”, and “route modification information received from a UTM to a UAS” (section 5.2).
The 3GPP system provides for a “UAV to broadcast the following data for identifying UAV(s) in a short-range area for collision avoidance:” “UAV current location and time”, “flight route information”, “current speed”, and “operating status” (section 5.3).
The Tomaszewski reference and the 3GPP reference are plainly analogous to the claimed subject matter because they are in the same field of endeavor of 5GS for UAV services.
It is therefore the case that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date filing date of the claimed invention to understand that the Tomaszewski reference, based on the teachings, motivations and/or suggestions of the 3GPP reference, so as to explicitly disclose that location information (or position) includes “current location”.
Claim 1 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Tomaszewski reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, and in view of the Choi reference for the foregoing reasons.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites that the “location data for the vehicle comprises travel path reporting data transmitted by the user equipment”.
The Tomaszewski reference (at page 770) discloses a Location Management Function (LMF) that coordinates procedures and resources for locating the UE, which is registered with or accesses the Core Network (CN). The LMF can be requested as a single, periodic or triggered service, and the LMF verifies location (and estimated UE velocity), and accuracy (of the location data). In this regard, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 767) discloses a UAV traffic management system, and further discloses (at page 770) a UTM (traffic management entity) Gateway Function (UGF) that uses the NWDAF (data analytics function) services, including sending Location Requests to GMLC or requesting periodic or triggered location reporting—so that UE location (travel path data) is transmitted by the UE.
Therefore, the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, that the “location data for the vehicle comprises travel path reporting data transmitted by the user equipment”.
Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Tomaszewski reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, and in view of the Choi reference, for the same reasons as claim 1 and for the foregoing reasons.
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and recites that “the travel path reporting data transmitted by the user equipment is transmitted by the user equipment as one or more messages indicating the location and arrival time for one or more waypoints”.
The Tomaszewski reference (at page 770) discloses a Location Management Function (LMF) that coordinates procedures and resources for locating the UE, which is registered with or accesses the Core Network (CN). The LMF can be requested as a single, periodic or triggered service, and the LMF verifies location (and estimated UE velocity), and accuracy (of the location data). In this regard, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 767) discloses a UAV traffic management system, and further discloses (at page 770) a UTM (traffic management entity) Gateway Function (UGF) that uses the NWDAF (data analytics function) services, including sending Location Requests to GMLC or requesting periodic or triggered location reporting—so that UE location (travel path data) is transmitted by the UE.
Still further, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 768) discloses “Credible location
information”, in which location information (i.e., travel path data) of UAS components (UAV) is provided to UTM (traffic management) in real time, so that the UTM receives triggered location reporting and time information.
It is noted that Merriam Webster’s Dictionary defines a waypoint as an intermediate point on a route (path) of travel. Since location data is being reported from the UE, it would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art that an arrival time is obtained in addition to the location data for at least one waypoint on the travel path, so as to better inform the traffic management entity about a more complete flight status of the UAV.
In short, the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitation in which “the travel path reporting data transmitted by the user equipment is transmitted by the user equipment as one or more messages indicating the location and arrival time for one or more waypoints”.
Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Tomaszewski reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, and in view of the Choi reference, for the same reasons as claim 2 and for the foregoing reasons.
Claim 4 depends from claim 2 and recites that “the travel path reporting data is transmitted periodically by the user equipment”.
Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Tomaszewski reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, and in view of the Choi reference, for the same reasons as claim 2, as explained above.
Claim 5, as amended, depends from claim 1 and recites that the “location data for the
vehicle is transmitted by the user equipment together with measurements related to the radio
access network made by the user equipment”.
The Tomaszewski reference (at page 770) discloses an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), which is a CP (Control Plane) proxy for interactions with UEs, which perform measurements, and NG-RAN, including requests of positioning based on RAN (Radio Access Network) measurements.
In short, the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitation in which “location data for the vehicle is transmitted by the user equipment together with measurements related to the radio access network made by the user equipment”.
Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Tomaszewski reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, and in view of the Choi reference, for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites the limitation of an in which the “computer program code is further configured to, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform” the recited steps.
In particular, claim 6 recites the limitation of “receiv[ing] the travel path data from the traffic management entity from a network exposure function of a core network of the mobile communication system”, in which, a “configuration of the user equipment to transmit location data for the vehicle is triggered by a message from the network exposure function to an access management function for the user equipment”.
The Tomaszewski reference (at page 769) discloses a 5GS architecture that defines a Network Exposure Function (NEF) (of the 5G Core (5GC) Network), which is a gateway to Control Plane (CP) functions for an external environment, and a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF), which is a network monitoring and analytic engine. The 5G standard of 3GPP TS 29.591 version 16.5.0 Release 16, 5G; 5G System; Network Exposure Function Southbound Services; Stage 3 (ETSI TS 29.591 V 16.5.0 (2021-08)) discloses that the NEF is part of the 5G Core (5GC) Network.
Still further, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 771) discloses network data through Network Exposure Function (NEF) that is based on measurements collected by UAVs. The Tomaszewski reference (at page 770) discloses a Location Management Function (LMF) that coordinates procedures and resources for locating a UE, which is registered with or accesses the Core Network (CN). The LMF can be requested as a single, periodic or triggered service. The LMF verifies location (and estimated UE velocity), and accuracy.
Finally, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 770) discloses an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), which is a CP (Control Plane) proxy for interactions with UEs and NG-RAN, including requests of positioning based on RAN (Radio Access Network) measurements.
In short, the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitation of “receiv[ing] the travel path data from the traffic management entity from a network exposure function of a core network of the mobile communication system”, in which, a “configuration of the user equipment to transmit location data for the vehicle is triggered by a message from the network exposure function to an access management function for the user equipment”.
Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Tomaszewski reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, and in view of the Choi reference, for
the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites the limitation in which the “computer program code is further configured to, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform” the recited steps.
In particular, claim 7 recites the limitation of “send[ing], to an access management function for the user equipment, a message triggering configuration of the user equipment to transmit location data for the vehicle”.
The Tomaszewski reference (at page 770) discloses an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), which is a CP (Control Plane) proxy for interactions with UEs and NG-RAN, including requests (messages) of positioning based on RAN (Radio Access Network) measurements. The Tomaszewski reference (at page 770) discloses a Location Management Function (LMF) that coordinates procedures and resources for locating the UE, which is registered with or accesses the Core Network (CN). The LMF can be requested as a single, periodic or triggered service, and the LMF verifies location (and estimated UE velocity), and accuracy (of the location data).
Thus, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 770) discloses sending a message (request) to the Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) for the UE to transmit location (position) data for the vehicle.
In short, the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitation of “send[ing], to an access management function for the user equipment, a message triggering configuration of the user equipment to transmit location data for the vehicle”.
Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
Tomaszewski reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, and in view of the Choi reference, for
the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and recites the limitations in which the “computer program code is further configured to, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform” the recited steps.
In particular, claim 8 recites the limitation of “receiv[ing] the travel path data from the traffic management entity from a network exposure function of a core network of the mobile communication system”, “receiv[ing] location data for the user equipment from a gateway location mobile centre”, and “in response to detecting that the location data for the user equipment from the gateway location mobile centre is not consistent with the location data for the vehicle transmitted by the user equipment”, and “report[ing] the inconsistency to the network exposure function”.
The Tomaszewski reference (at page 769) discloses a 5GS architecture that defines a Network Exposure Function (NEF) (of the 5G Core (5GC) Network), which is a gateway to Control Plane (CP) functions for an external environment, and to data via a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF), which is a network monitoring and analytic engine. Also, the Tomaszewski reference (at pages 769-770) discloses that a Gateway Mobile Location Centre (GMLC) exposes 5G Location Services (LCS) and serves as a gateway point to the location services, and further discloses that if UTM (traffic management) requires alternative positioning for validating the location data from the UAV/UAC, then a Network-Assisted Positioning Procedure is used, so that the NWDAF, which receives all data, receives the location data from the UE.
The Tomaszewski reference (at page 771) discloses that network data is obtained
through Network Exposure Function (NEF) that is based on measurements collected by UAVs. Also, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 770) discloses a Location Management Function (LMF) that coordinates procedures and resources for locating a UE, which is registered with or accesses the Core Network (CN). The LMF can be requested as a single, periodic or triggered service. The LMF verifies location (and estimated UE velocity), and accuracy.
Finally, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 770) discloses an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), which is a CP (Control Plane) proxy for interactions with UEs and NG-RAN, including requests of positioning based on RAN (Radio Access Network) measurements.
In short, the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitations of “receiv[ing] the travel path data from the traffic management entity from a network exposure function of a core network of the mobile communication system”, “receiv[ing] location data for the user equipment from a gateway location mobile centre”, and “in response to detecting that the location data for the user equipment from the gateway location mobile centre is not consistent with the location data for the vehicle transmitted by the user equipment”, and “report[ing] the inconsistency to the network exposure function”.
In short, the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitations of “receiv[ing] the travel path data from the traffic management entity from a network exposure function of a core network of the mobile communication system”, “receiv[ing] location data for the user equipment from a gateway location mobile centre”, and “in response to detecting that the location data for the user equipment from the gateway location mobile centre is not consistent with the location data for the vehicle transmitted by the user equipment”, and
“report[ing] the inconsistency to the network exposure function”.
Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Tomaszewski reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, and in view of the Choi reference, for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites the limitations in which “the vehicle is an aerial vehicle and the location data for the aerial vehicle transmitted by the user equipment indicates longitude, latitude and height of the aerial vehicle”.
The UAV position inherently and necessarily includes a height, in addition to latitude and longitude, since the Tomaszewski reference specifically refers to the position of a UAV, which is an aerial vehicle that flies at various heights along its travel path. It is also noted that this would be especially plain to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
In short, the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitations in which “the vehicle is an aerial vehicle and the location data for the aerial vehicle transmitted by the user equipment indicates longitude, latitude and height of the aerial vehicle”.
Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Tomaszewski reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, and in view of the Choi reference, for the same reasons as claim 1 and for the foregoing further reasons.
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 and recites the limitations in which “the apparatus comprises a network data analytics function or a management data analytics function of the mobile communication system”.
The Tomaszewski reference (at page 769) discloses a 5GS architecture that defines a
Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF), which is a network monitoring and analytic engine.
The Tomaszewski reference (at page 770) discloses a Location Management Function (LMF) that co-ordinates procedures and resources for locating a UE, which is registered with or accesses the Core Network (CN). The LMF is requested as a single, periodic or triggered service. The LMF also calculates or verifies location (and estimated UE velocity), and accuracy. Thus, the LMF is a management data analytic engine, since the LMF also calculates or verifies location (and estimated UE velocity), and accuracy.
In short, the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitations in which “the apparatus comprises a network data analytics function or a management data analytics function of the mobile communication system”.
Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Tomaszewski reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, and in view of the Choi reference, for the same reasons as claim 1 and for the foregoing further reasons.
Independent apparatus claim 13 recites the limitations like those of claim 1, but specifically recites the limitations of “sending the travel path data to a data analytics function of a core network of the mobile communication system”.
The instant specification (at page 22, lines 16-17) specifically provides that the “DAF 14 may be a network data analytics function (NWDAF) at a network layer of the core network 10”.
The Tomaszewski reference (at page 768) discloses requirements for UAS support by the 5G System (5GS) (i.e., UE and gNB), including interactions with UTM (traffic management). The 3GPP defines UAS as UAV and the UAV controller (UAC), and further discloses (at page 768) communication between UAS components and UTM (traffic management) and that 5GS augments exchanged data with network-based positioning information (i.e., travel path data). In particular, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 768) discloses “Credible location information”, in which location information (i.e., travel path data) of UAS components (UAV) is provided to UTM (traffic management) in real time.
Still further, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 769) discloses that the Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) combines data collection from all 5GS Network Functions (NFs), including the monitoring of UAV UE threshold events. In particular, the Tomaszewski reference (at pages 769-770) discloses that a Gateway Mobile Location Centre (GMLC) exposes 5G Location Services (LCS) and serves as a gateway point to the location services, and further discloses that if UTM (traffic management) requires alter- native positioning for validation of the location data from the UAV/UAC, then a Network-Assisted Positioning Procedure is used, so that the NWDAF, which receives all data, receives the location data from the UE.
Important, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 772) also discloses a UE (User Equipment) registered to the mobile communication system since it discloses that “after the request from an on-board UE of UAV, 5GS performs UDM check for subscription information and 5G-EIR (Equipment Identity Register) check for UE validation in terms of UAV capabilities”, and further discloses (at page 768) that “USP services” include “registration” during “Identification and Tracking”. The Tomaszewski reference (at page 767) also discloses a 5G mobile network—which is a mobile communication system—in which a UE is registered to the gNB.
Additionally, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 769) discloses an on-board UE as UAV
capable, and the UAV UE is monitored, and further discloses in Figure 4 (at page 770) a gNB. The UE and gNB is a 5G mobile communication system, and further discloses (at page 769) a 5GS architecture that defines a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF), which is a network monitoring and analytic engine.
Importantly, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 770) discloses a Location Management Function (LMF) that co-ordinates procedures and resources for locating a UE, which is registered with or accesses the Core Network (CN). The LMF is requested as a single, periodic or triggered service. The LMF also verifies location (and estimated UE velocity), and accuracy.
Still further, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 767) discloses UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) and UASs (Unmanned Aerial Systems) and a UAV control and traffic management system (UMT)—which is a traffic management entity.
The Tomaszewski reference (at page 769) discloses a 5GS architecture that defines a Network Exposure Function (NEF), which is a gateway to Control Plane (CP) functions for an external environment, and a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF), which is a network monitoring and analytic engine. The Tomaszewski reference (at page 771) further discloses network data through Network Exposure Function (NEF) that is based on measurements collected by UAVs. The Tomaszewski reference (at page 770) also discloses a Location Management Function (LMF) that coordinates procedures and resources for locating a UE, which is registered with or accesses the Core Network (CN). The LMF can be requested as a single, periodic or triggered service. The LMF verifies location (and estimated UE velocity), and accuracy.
Accordingly, the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitations of “sending the travel path data to a data analytics function of a core network of the mobile communication system”.
As explained above as to claim 1, the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitation of “in response to detecting the inconsistency between the travel path data for the vehicle and the location data for the vehicle’s current location transmitted by the user equipment, outputting a travel path deviation report for the traffic management entity”, so that the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitation of “in response to receiving the travel path deviation report from the data analytics function, sending the travel path deviation report to the traffic management entity”.
Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Tomaszewski reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, and in view of the Choi reference, for essentially the same reasons as claim 1, as explained above .
Claim 14 depends from claim 13 and recites the limitations in which the “computer program code is further configured to, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform” the recited steps.
In particular, claim 14 recites the limitation of “in response to receiving the travel path data from the traffic management entity, send, to an access management function for the user equipment, a message triggering configuration of the user equipment to transmit location data for the vehicle, for use by the data analytics function to check against the travel path data”.
The Tomaszewski reference (at page 770) discloses an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), which is a CP (Control Plane) proxy for interactions with UEs and NG-RAN, including requests (messages) of positioning based on RAN (Radio Access Network) measurements. The Tomaszewski reference (at page 770) discloses a Location Management Function (LMF) that coordinates procedures and resources for locating the UE, which is registered with or accesses the Core Network (CN). The LMF is requested as a single, periodic or triggered service, and the LMF calculates or verifies location (and estimated UE velocity), and accuracy (of the location data).
Thus, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 770) discloses sending a message (request) to the Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) for the UE to transmit location (position) data for the vehicle. Also, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 769) discloses a 5GS architecture that defines a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF), which is a network monitoring and analytic engine.
In short, the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitations in which “in response to receiving the travel path data from the traffic management entity, send, to an access management function for the user equipment, a message triggering configuration of the user equipment to transmit location data for the vehicle, for use by the data analytics function to check against the travel path data”.
Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Tomaszewski reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, and in view of the Choi reference, for the same reasons as claim 13 and for the foregoing further reasons.
Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and recites the limitations in which “the location data for the vehicle comprises travel path reporting data for the vehicle”.
Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
Tomaszewski reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, and in view of the Choi reference, for the same reasons as claim 14.
Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and recites the limitations in which “the message triggering configuration of the user equipment to transmit travel path reporting data comprises a message triggering the user equipment to send one or more messages indicating the location and arrival time for one or waypoints for the vehicle”.
The Tomaszewski reference (at page 770) discloses a Location Management Function (LMF) that coordinates procedures and resources for locating the UE, which is registered with or accesses the Core Network (CN). The LMF can be requested as a single, periodic or triggered service, and the LMF verifies location (and estimated UE velocity), and accuracy (of the location data). In this regard, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 767) discloses a UAV traffic management system, and further discloses (at page 770) a UTM (traffic management entity) Gateway Function (UGF) that uses the NWDAF (data analytics function) services, including sending Location Requests to GMLC or requesting periodic or triggered location reporting—so that UE location (travel path data) is transmitted by the UE.
Still further, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 768) discloses “Credible location information”, in which location information (i.e., travel path data) of UAS components (UAV) is provided to UTM (traffic management) in real time, so that the UTM receives triggered location reporting and time information.
It is noted that Merriam Webster’s Dictionary defines a waypoint as an intermediate point on a route (path) of travel. Since location data is being reported from the UE, it would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art that an arrival time is obtained in addition to the location data for at least one waypoint on the travel path, so as to better inform the traffic management entity about a more complete flight status of the UAV.
In short, the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitation in which “the message triggering configuration of the user equipment to transmit travel path reporting data comprises a message triggering the user equipment to send one or more messages indicating the location and arrival time for one or waypoints for the vehicle”.
Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Tomaszewski reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, and in view of the Choi reference, for essentially the same reasons as claim 15 and for the foregoing reasons.
Claim 17 depends from claim 13 and recites the limitations in which “the apparatus comprises a network function supported within a network exposure function of the mobile communication system”.
The Tomaszewski reference (at page 769) discloses a 5GS architecture that defines a Network Exposure Function (NEF) (of the 5G Core (5GC) Network), which is a gateway to Control Plane (CP) functions for an external environment, and a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF), which is a network monitoring and analytic engine. The Tomaszewski reference (at page 771) discloses network data through Network Exposure Function (NEF) that is based on measurements collected by UAVs.
In short, the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitations in which “the apparatus comprises a network function supported within a network exposure function of the mobile communication system”.
Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
Tomaszewski reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, and in view of the Choi reference, for the same reasons as claim 13 and for the foregoing further reasons.
Claim 18 depends from claim 13 and recites the limitations in which “the vehicle is an aerial vehicle”.
Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Tomaszewski reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, and in view of the Choi reference, for the same reasons as claim 13.
Claim 19, as amended, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Tomaszewski reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, for the following reasons:
Independent method claim 19 recites the limitation of “receiving, at a data analytics function of a core network of a mobile communication system, travel path data and an acceptable threshold deviation from a traffic management entity”, in which “the travel path data indicates a travel path for a vehicle comprising a user equipment registered to the mobile communication system.
The instant specification (at page 22, lines 16-17) specifically provides that the “DAF 14 may be a network data analytics function (NWDAF) at a network layer of the core network 10”.
The Tomaszewski reference (at page 768) discloses requirements for UAS support by the 5G System (5GS) (i.e., UE and gNB), including interactions with UTM (traffic management). The 3GPP defines UAS as UAV and the UAV controller (UAC), and further discloses (at page 768) communication between UAS components and UTM (traffic management) and that 5GS augments exchanged data with network-based positioning information (i.e., travel path data). In particular, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 768) discloses “Credible location information”, in which location information (i.e., travel path data) of UAS components (UAV) is provided to UTM (traffic management) in real time.
Still further, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 769) discloses that the Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) combines data collection from all 5GS Network Functions (NFs), including the monitoring of UAV UE threshold events. In particular, the Tomaszewski reference (at pages 769-770) discloses that a Gateway Mobile Location Centre (GMLC) exposes 5G Location Services (LCS) and serves as a gateway point to the location services, and further discloses that if UTM (traffic management) requires alter- native positioning for validation of the location data from the UAV/UAC, then a Network-Assisted Positioning Procedure is used, so that the NWDAF, which receives all data, receives the location data from the UE.
Important, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 772) also discloses a UE (User Equipment) registered to the mobile communication system since it discloses that “after the request from an on-board UE of UAV, 5GS performs UDM check for subscription information and 5G-EIR (Equipment Identity Register) check for UE validation in terms of UAV capabilities”, and further discloses (at page 768) that “USP services” include “registration” during “Identification and Tracking”. The Tomaszewski reference (at page 767) also discloses a 5G mobile network—which is a mobile communication system—in which a UE is registered to the gNB.
Additionally, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 769) discloses an on-board UE as UAV capable, and the UAV UE is monitored, and further discloses in Figure 4 (at page 770) a gNB. The UE and gNB is a 5G mobile communication system., and further discloses (at page 769) a 5GS architecture that defines a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF), which is a network monitoring and analytic engine.
Importantly, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 770) discloses a Location Management Function (LMF) that co-ordinates procedures and resources for locating a UE, which is registered with or accesses the Core Network (CN). The LMF is requested as a single, periodic or triggered service. The LMF also verifies location (and estimated UE velocity), and accuracy.
Still further, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 767) discloses UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) and UASs (Unmanned Aerial Systems) and a UAV control and traffic management system (UMT)—which is a traffic management entity.
The Tomaszewski reference (at page 769) discloses a 5GS architecture that defines a Network Exposure Function (NEF), which is a gateway to Control Plane (CP) functions for an external environment, and a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF), which is a network monitoring and analytic engine. The Tomaszewski reference (at page 771) further discloses network data through Network Exposure Function (NEF) that is based on measurements collected by UAVs. The Tomaszewski reference (at page 770) also discloses a Location Management Function (LMF) that coordinates procedures and resources for locating a UE, which is registered with or accesses the Core Network (CN). The LMF can be requested as a single, periodic or triggered service. The LMF verifies location (and estimated UE velocity), and accuracy.
As regards the “acceptable threshold deviation” of claim 19 and as with claim 1, it is essentially based on canceled claim 11 (which depended from claim 10) that recited the limitation in which the threshold range of deviation is based on information from the traffic management entity”, and it simply adds the indefinite adjective of “acceptable”.
Since, as explained with respect to claim 1, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 769) discloses that the Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) combines data collection from all 5GS Network Functions (NFs), including the monitoring of UAV UE threshold events—which inherently and necessarily includes data from the traffic management entity, so that if the UTM determines that there is little air traffic, then the event thresholds may be smaller since there is less chance of an accident, and vice versa.
In short, the Tomaszewski reference discloses or at least suggests the limitation in which acceptable threshold deviation is based on information from the traffic management entity, so that as explained above (and as to claim 1), the Tomaszewski reference and 3GPP reference discloses or at least suggests the present limitation.
Accordingly, the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitations of “receiving, at a data analytics function of a core network of a mobile communication system, travel path data from a traffic management entity”, in which “the travel path data indicates a travel path for a vehicle comprising a user equipment registered to the mobile communication system”.
Additionally, claim 19 recites the limitation of “receiving, at the data analytics function, location data for the vehicle’s current location transmitted by the user equipment”.
The instant specification (at page 22, lines 16-17) specifically provides that the “DAF 14 may be a network data analytics function (NWDAF) at a network layer of the core network 10”.
In this regard, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 769) discloses a 5GS architecture that defines a Network Exposure Function (NEF) and a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF), which is a network monitoring and analytic engine, and further discloses (at page 769) that the Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF) combines data collection from all 5GS Network Functions (NFs), including monitoring of UAV UE threshold events. The Tomaszewski reference (at page 770) also discloses a Location Management Function (LMF) for locating a UE (which is onboard the UAV). The LMF can be requested as a single, periodic or triggered service. The LMF verifies location (and estimated UE velocity), and can assess the accuracy (of the location). Accordingly, the NWDAF receives location data from the UE.
In short, the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitation of “receiving, at the data analytics function, location data for the vehicle’s current location transmitted by the user equipment”.
Claim 19, as amended, further recites the limitation of “detecting an inconsistency between the travel path data for the vehicle and the location data for the vehicle’s current location is outside of the acceptable threshold deviation from the travel path”.
Even if, as explained with respect to claim 1, as amended, the Tomaszewski reference and the 3GPP reference may not explicitly disclose the limitation of “detecting an inconsistency between the travel path data for the vehicle and the location data for the vehicle’s current location is outside of the acceptable threshold deviation from the travel path”, the Choi reference (which is directed to an apparatus and method for controlling the path of a vehicle), in view of the foregoing, discloses this further limitation (at paragraphs [0068]-[0071]), as follows:
[0068] FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating an operation of a method for controlling a path of a vehicle . . . .
[0069] As shown in FIG. 5, in operation S110, a path control apparatus 100 of a vehicle 10 may set a destination when the vehicle 10 is driven. In operation S120, the path control apparatus 100 may generate a first path from a current location of the vehicle 10 to the set destination. In operation S130, the vehicle 10 may drive along the first path.
[0070] The path control apparatus 100 may extract a path deviation prediction area on the first path in advance. In this case, in operation S140, the path control apparatus 100 may determine a forward path deviation prediction area on the first path while the vehicle 10 is driven. The path control apparatus 100 may verify a distance D from a current location of the vehicle 10 to the path deviation prediction area.
[0071] In operation S150, the path control apparatus 100 may determine whether the distance D from the current location of the vehicle 10 to the path deviation prediction . . . is less than or equal to . . . distance threshold Dth1. If the distance D is greater than . . . distance threshold Dth1 in operation S150, in operation S190, the path control apparatus 100 may determine whether the distance D is less than or equal to a second distance threshold Dth2 which is more distant from the first distance threshold Dth1. If the distance D is greater than the second distance threshold Dth2 in operation S190, the path control apparatus 100 may maintain the driving of the vehicle 10 along the first path. If the distance D is less than or equal to the second distance threshold Dth2, in operation S200, the path control apparatus 100 may determine whether a driving lane of the vehicle 10 is a target lane. If the driving lane of the vehicle 10 is the target lane in operation S200, the path control apparatus 100 may maintain the driving of the vehicle 10 along the first path. If the driving lane of the vehicle 10 is not the target lane, the path control apparatus 100 may calculate a road congestion level of a road around the vehicle 10.
The Tomaszewski reference, the 3GPP reference and the Choi reference are plainly analogous to the claimed subject matter because they are in the same field of endeavor of controlling the path of a vehicle.
It is therefore the case that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date filing date of the claimed invention to understand that the Tomaszewski reference, based on the teachings, motivations and/or suggestions of the Choi reference, discloses or at least suggests the limitation of “determining an inconsistency between the travel path data for the vehicle and the location data for the vehicle’s current location is outside of the acceptable threshold deviation from the travel path”.
Thus, as reflected in the limitations of canceled claims 10 and 11, as effectively added to claim 1—as explained above and here as to claim 19, the Tomaszewski reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, and in view of the Choi reference discloses or at least suggests the added limitation of “determining an inconsistency between the travel path data for the vehicle and the location data for the vehicle’s current location is outside of the acceptable threshold deviation from the travel path”.
Still further, claim 19 recites the limitation in which “in response to detecting an inconsistency between the travel path data for the vehicle and the location data for the vehicle transmitted by the user equipment”.
In this regard, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 767) discloses a Location Management Function (LMF) for locating a UE. The LMF can be requested as a single, periodic or triggered service. The LMF verifies location (and estimated UE velocity), and can assess the accuracy—which includes a difference (or inconsistency) between an expected flight trajectory (path) and an actual flight trajectory (path) of the UAV. The Tomaszewski reference (at page 767-768) also discloses a U-space ecosystem having a U-space Service Provider (USP), which is an operator of a UTM system, and the USP services include Identification and Tracking and a position report.
In short, the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitation of
“detecting an inconsistency between the travel path data for the vehicle and the location data for the vehicle’s current location transmitted by the user equipment.
Finally, claim 19 recites the limitation of “outputting a travel path deviation report for the traffic management entity”.
The Tomaszewski reference (at page 767-768) discloses a U-space ecosystem having a U-space Service Provider (USP), which is an operator of a UTM system, and the USP services include Identification and Tracking and a position report.
The Tomaszewski reference (at page 767) also discloses a UAV traffic management system, and further discloses (at page 770) a UTM (traffic management entity) Gateway Function (UGF) that subscribes to the NWDAF (data analytics function) services, including sending Location Requests to GMLC or requesting periodic or triggered location reporting. Location reporting, including accuracy, as provided for in the Tomaszewski reference inherently includes a travel path deviation report.
In any case, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that location reporting could be triggered, for example, based on deviations between an expected location and an actual location. The motivation to trigger the reporting based on the deviations would provide the advantage of receiving location information to improve safety by knowing when a UAV has deviated significantly from its flight path.
In short, the Tomaszewski reference discloses, or at least suggests, the limitation of “outputting a travel path deviation report for the traffic management entity”.
Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Tomaszewski reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, and in view of the Choi reference, for
the foregoing reasons.
Independent claim 20 recites limitations essentially like those of apparatus claim 13, except that claim 20 recites the limitation of “receiving, at a network exposure function of a core network of a mobile communication system, travel path data and an acceptable threshold deviation from a traffic management entity”, rather than “receiving travel path data and an acceptable threshold deviation from a traffic management entity”.
In this regard, and as explained above, the Tomaszewski reference (at page 769) discloses a 5GS architecture that defines a Network Exposure Function (NEF), which is a gateway to Control Plane (CP) functions for an external environment, and a Network Data Analytics Function (NWDAF), which is a network monitoring and analytic engine. The Tomaszewski reference (at page 771) discloses exposure of network data through a Network Exposure Function (NEF) (which is of a core network of a mobile communication system) that is based on measurements collected by UAVs. In other words, the NEF receives UAV measurement data, which includes, for example, travel path data, as would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, the Tomaszewski reference discloses or at least suggests the limitation of “receiving, at a network exposure function of a core network of a mobile communication system, travel path data and an acceptable threshold deviation from a traffic management entity”.
Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Tomaszewski reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, for essentially the same reasons as claim 13, as explained above, and for the further foregoing reasons.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection that are attributable to the new amendments. (See M.P.E.P. FP 7.38). .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON C. DEDITCH whose telephone number is (571) 272-4780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached at 571-272-7915. 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.
/Aaron C. Deditch/Examiner, Art Unit 2642
/Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2642
3/12/2026