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 communication received on 10/03/2025.
Claims 23-40 are pending and rejected.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 23, 33, 35, 36, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotecha et al. (US 20220028280 A1) (herein after “Kotecha”) in view of Liao et al (US 20220086741 A1) (hereinafter “Liao”).
Regarding claim 23, Kotecha discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; at least one memory comprising computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor (see para. [0023], [0026], [0027], [0028], [0029] discloses device with processor, memory, program) cause the apparatus at least to:
receive an unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier for an unmanned aerial vehicle system comprising unmanned aerial vehicles and an unmanned aerial vehicle controller for controlling the unmanned aerial vehicles (see Fig.1 (UAV and FMS Flight Management system), para. [0023] discloses UAV forwards indicator to the network);
provide the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier to a first network function of a core network, wherein the first network function comprises a network repository function (see para. [0047]-[0048] discloses information from UAV may be provisioned to UDM (Unified Data Management), UAV is authenticated via UDM, UDM uses the identity of the UAV to retrieve record and recognize UAV) or an unstructured data storage function (This part is optional) , by: providing a discovery request comprising the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier to the first network function (see para. [0047]-[0048] discloses information from UAV may be provisioned to UDM (Unified Data Management), UAV is authenticated via UDM, UDM uses the identity of the UAV to retrieve record and recognize UAV) ; and
Kotecha fails to disclose receiving a profile of a second network function from the network repository function or the unstructured data storage function; and
select a second network function of a core network for use by an unmanned aerial vehicle or the unmanned aerial vehicle controller of the unmanned aerial vehicle system based at least on the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier by selecting the second network function based on the profile of the second network function,
wherein the second network function is a session management function for the unmanned aerial vehicle system or a user plane function for the unmanned aerial vehicle system.
However, Liao teaches
receiving a profile of a second network function from the network repository function (see para. [0259] discloses UDM may handle subscription related information to support the network entities handling communication sessions and may store subscription data of the UE, that may be communicated between UDM and AMF. The UDR (part of UDM) may store subscription data and policy data for the UDM and PCF and application data for the NEF ) or the unstructured data storage function (This part is optional); and
select a second network function of a core network for use by an unmanned aerial vehicle or the unmanned aerial vehicle controller of the unmanned aerial vehicle system based at least on the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier by selecting the second network function based on the profile of the second network function (see para. [0141] discloses the UAS-ID is allocate by the UTM-AF to identify the association between a UAV and a UAV controller),
wherein the second network function is a session management function for the unmanned aerial vehicle system (see para. [0141] discloses the UAS-ID is allocated by the UTM-AF to identify the association between a UAV and a UAV controller) or a user plane function for the unmanned aerial vehicle system (This part is optional).
Kotecha and Liao are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods, apparatus and UAV systems
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotecha to include the network function with the identifier as described by Liao.
The motivation to combine both references would come from enhanced decision making in order to adjust operational parameters.
Regarding claim 33, Kotecha discloses an apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (see para. [0023], [0026], [0027], [0028], [0029] discloses device with processor, memory, program); and
at least one memory comprising computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor (see para. [0023], [0026], [0027], [0028], [0029] discloses device with processor, memory, program),
Kotecha fails to disclose causing the apparatus at least to:
receive a discovery request from an access and mobility function of a core network, the discovery request comprising an unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier for an unmanned aerial vehicle system comprising unmanned aerial vehicles and an unmanned aerial vehicle controller for controlling the unmanned aerial vehicles; and
determine a profile of a network function of a core network based at least on the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier, wherein the network function is a session management function or a user plane function; and
provide the profile of the network function to the access and mobility function.
However, Liao teaches causing the apparatus at least to:
receive a discovery request from an access and mobility function of a core network, the discovery request comprising an unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier for an unmanned aerial vehicle system comprising unmanned aerial vehicles and an unmanned aerial vehicle controller for controlling the unmanned aerial vehicles (see Fig. 4 (UAV, UAV-V, AMF) para. [0051];-[0187]-[0188] discloses UAS association and identification procedure using EPC-Level ProSe Discovery; solution following method for the UAS association and identification between UAV and UAV controller; the identifiers are designed for UAS users); and
determine a profile of a network function of a core network based at least on the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier, wherein the network function is a session management function (see Fig. 4 (2. PDU session) para. [0068] discloses UE in UAV and UAV controller request stablishing PDU session for a specific UAS-DNN, the SMF (Session Management Function initiate secondary authentication procedure if the UE sends the request with NAI (Network Access Identifier)) or a user plane function (This part is optional); and
provide the profile of the network function to the access and mobility function (see Fig. 4 (2. PDU session)).
Kotecha and Liao are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods, apparatus and UAV systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotecha to include the discovery request as described by Liao.
The motivation to combine both references would come from enhanced decision making in order to adjust operational parameters.
Regarding claim 35, Kotecha fails to disclose an apparatus according wherein the discovery request further comprises both a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) and a location of the unmanned aerial vehicle.
However, Liao teaches an apparatus according wherein the discovery request further comprises both a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) and a location of the unmanned aerial vehicle (see para. [0261]; [0384]; [0259] discloses NSSF may select a set of network slide instances serving the UE, may also determine mapping of S-NSSAIs; Individual network slices may have different S-NSSAIS; The UDM may include UDM-FE which is in charge of location management).
Kotecha and Liao are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods, apparatus and UAV systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotecha to include the S-NSSAI as described by Liao.
The motivation to combine both references would come from enhanced decision making in order to adjust operational parameters.
Regarding claim 36, Kotecha fails to disclose an apparatus according wherein the communication session type corresponds to a command-and-control (C2) indication.
However, Liao teaches an apparatus according wherein the communication session type corresponds to a command-and-control (C2) indication (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, para. [0039]-[0040] discloses Network based and Network navigated command-and-control (C2); mechanism to provide QoS for different traffics in C2 communication).
Kotecha and Liao are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods, apparatus and UAV systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotecha to include the command-and-control (C2) as described by Liao.
The motivation to combine both references would come from enhanced decision making in order to adjust operational parameters.
Regarding claim 40, Kotecha fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier is received from one of: a UAS Service Supplier, a UAS Application Server, or a UAS Traffic Management system.
However, Liao teaches an apparatus wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier is received from one of: a UAS Service Supplier (This part is optional), a UAS Application Server (This part is optional), or a UAS Traffic Management system (see Fig. 14, 5a; para. [0201] discloses Proximity Alert Message to C-UTM (Traffic Management) that may contain UAS ID).
Kotecha and Liao are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods, apparatus and UAV systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotecha to include the Traffic Management as described by Liao.
The motivation to combine both references would come from enhanced decision making in order to adjust operational parameters.
Claims 24, 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotecha et al. (US 20220028280 A1) (herein after “Kotecha”) in view of Liao et al (US 20220086741 A1) (hereinafter “Liao”) as applied to claim 23 above further in view of Pateromichelakis et al (US 20230239724 A1) (hereinafter “Pateromichelakis”).
Regarding claim 24, Kotecha fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the discovery request comprising the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier is included in a protocol data unit session establishment request from the unmanned aerial vehicle, the request further comprising an indication that the protocol data unit session is for command-and-control communication,
and wherein receiving the profile of the second network function comprises receiving, from the network repository function or unstructured data storage function, a stored profile updated to include the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier.
However, Pateromichelakis discloses an apparatus wherein the discovery request comprising the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier is included in a protocol data unit session establishment request from the unmanned aerial vehicle, the request further comprising an indication that the protocol data unit session is for command-and-control communication (see para. [0063];[0187] discloses the UAV may establish one or more PDU sessions with the mobile core network; application request including identifier of first UAV, and identifier of UAV-C, a C2 management requirement and time validity for the C2 management requirement),
and wherein receiving the profile of the second network function comprises receiving, from the network repository function or unstructured data storage function, a stored profile updated to include the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier (see para. [0003];[0190] discloses C2 communications are considered to provision UAS services by guaranteeing QoS for the C2; event indicating a change on the direct C2 communication comprising UAV identifier of first UAV, identifier of UAV-C, identifier of UAS, and QoS attribute for ongoing direct C2 session).
Kotecha and Pateromichelakis are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods, apparatus and UAV systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotecha to include the command-and-control communication as described by Pateromichelakis.
The motivation to combine both references would come from enhanced decision making in order to adjust operational parameters.
Regarding claim 32, Kotecha discloses an apparatus wherein the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier is received from one of a unified data management function, an unmanned aerial vehicle of the unmanned aerial vehicles of the unmanned aerial vehicle system, the unmanned aerial vehicle controller, an unmanned aerial vehicle system service supplier, an unmanned aerial vehicle system application server, or an unmanned aerial vehicle system traffic management system (see Fig. 1, para. [0007], [0023], [0045], [0046] discloses flight management system (FMS) and UAV forwards unique identifier to the network, to recognize UAV; UAV FMS server may establish or complete a connection between UAV and flight management system, so that flight management system can send commands to UAV for navigation and/or to receive data from UAV. In addition, UAV FMS server may receive flight-related information from flight management system (e.g., a flight path), UAV FMS may send commands to SONF for reconfiguring wireless stations for optimum UAV communications).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotecha et al. (US 20220028280 A1) (herein after “Kotecha”) in view of Liao et al (US 20220086741 A1) (hereinafter “Liao”) as applied to claim 23 above, in view of Youn et al (US 20220240222 A1) (hereinafter “Youn”) and further in view of Pateromichelakis et al (US 20230239724 A1) (hereinafter “Pateromichelakis”).
Regarding claim 25, Kotecha fails to disclose an apparatus wherein selecting the second network function comprises selecting a session management function or a user plane function based on
(i) the received profile,
(ii) the indication that the session is for command-and-control communication,
(iii) a location of the unmanned aerial vehicle, and
(iv) a traffic filter policy associated with the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier.
However, Youn teaches an apparatus wherein selecting the second network function comprises selecting a session management function or a user plane function based on
(i) the received profile (see para. [0255]-[0260] discloses N2 SM information including QoS profile, transmitted to AMF, the SMF may reject the activation of the PDU session when the SMF determines to change the UPF),
(iii) a location of the unmanned aerial vehicle (see para. [0230]-[0236] discloses operations when SMF determines that the UE is located in the LADN (Local Area Data Network) available area, the SMF may check for UPF selection based on location information), and
(iv) a traffic filter policy associated with the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier (see para. [0226];[230] when the ID corresponds to the LADN and the SMF determines that UE is located outside of available area, SMF may perform actions bases on a local policy; such as check for UPF selection).
Youn fails to disclose (ii) the indication that the session is for command-and-control communication.
However, Pateromichelakis teaches (ii) the indication that the session is for command-and-control communication (see para. [0081] the C2 initial configuration is provided to the UAV either by the UAV-C or by the UTM).
Kotecha, Youn and Pateromichelakis are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of wireless communication methods, apparatus and UAV systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotecha to include the second network function selection as described by Youn and Pateromichelakis.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving configuration of the UAV in network.
Claim 26, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotecha et al. (US 20220028280 A1) (herein after “Kotecha”) in view in view of Liao et al (US 20220086741 A1) (hereinafter “Liao”) as applied to claim 23 above and further in view of Zhu et al (US 11272371 B2) (herein after ‘Zhu”).
Regarding claim 26, Kotecha discloses an apparatus wherein the at least one memory and computer program code further configured to (see para. [0023], [0026], [0027], [0028], [0029] discloses device with processor, memory, program), with the at least one processor (see par. [0026] discloses include a processor), cause the apparatus to provide the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier to a first network function of a core network by:
providing a discovery request including the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier to the first network function (see para [0048] when UAV attaches to core network via wireless station and is authenticated via UDM, UDM uses the identity of the UAV to retrieve the record on UAV and recognizes UAV as an unmanned aerial vehicle. UDM forwards an information element indicating that the UAV is an unmanned aerial vehicle to AMF); and
Kotecha fails to disclose receiving context data from the first network function, wherein the context data is associated with an unmanned aerial vehicle of the unmanned aerial vehicles or the unmanned aerial vehicle controller of the unmanned aerial vehicle system.
However, Zhu teaches receiving context data from the first network function, wherein the context data is associated with an unmanned aerial vehicle of the unmanned aerial vehicles or the unmanned aerial vehicle controller of the unmanned aerial vehicle system (see col. 17, para. 5-15, disclose the AMF sends a context request to old AMF and context response message carrying context information of the UE).
Kotecha and Zhu are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because both are in the same field of communications networks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotecha to include the context as described by Zhu.
The motivation to combine both references would come from enhanced decision making in order to adjust operational parameters.
Regarding claim 27, Kotecha discloses an apparatus wherein the at least one memory and computer program code further configured to (see para. [0023], [0026], [0027], [0028], [0029] discloses device with processor, memory, program), with the at least one processor (see par. [0026] discloses include a processor).
Kotecha fails to disclose causing the apparatus to select a second network function of a core network based at least on the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier by: selecting the second network function based on the received context data.
However, Zhu discloses causing the apparatus to select a second network function of a core network based at least on the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier by: selecting the second network function based on the received context data (see col. 17, para. 5-15, disclose the AMF sends a context request to old AMF and context response message carrying context information of the UE).
Kotecha and Zhu are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because both are in the same field of communications networks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotecha to include the context as described by Zhu.
The motivation to combine both references would come from enhanced decision making in order to adjust operational parameters.
Claims 28, 29, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotecha et al. (US 20220028280 A1) (herein after “Kotecha”) in view of Liao et al (US 20220086741 A1) (hereinafter “Liao”) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Abraham et al (US 20200092923 A1) (hereinafter “Abraham”).
Regarding claim 28, Kotecha discloses an apparatus wherein the at least one memory and computer program code further configured to, with the at least one processor (see para. [0026] [0027] [0028] [0029] discloses device with processor, memory, program).
Kotecha fails to disclose causing the apparatus to receive by the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier by receiving a request for establishment a protocol data unit session from an unmanned aerial vehicle of the unmanned aerial vehicles of the unmanned aerial vehicle system, the request comprising the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier.
However, Abraham discloses an apparatus to receive by the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier by receiving a request for establishment a protocol data unit session from an unmanned aerial vehicle of the unmanned aerial vehicles of the unmanned aerial vehicle system, the request comprising the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier (see para [0093], [0098] disclose UE may establish session such as a multicast-protocol data unit ((M_PDU) session with the data network ; in some cases as part of session establishment, the UE provides M-PDU session identifier).
Kotecha and Abraham are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because both are in the same field of communications networks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotecha to include the PDU session as described by Abraham.
The motivation to combine both references would come from enhanced decision making in order to adjust operational parameters.
Regarding claim 29, Kotecha fails to disclose an apparatus wherein request further comprises: a communication session type for the protocol data unit session and a location of the unmanned aerial vehicle.
However, Abraham discloses an apparatus, wherein request further comprises: a communication session type for the protocol data unit session and a location of the unmanned aerial vehicle (see para. [0093], [0094] discloses the UE establish a session, such as multicast-protocol data unit (M-PDU) session with the data network, as part of the multicast session may perform registration procedure to setup or release predeterminate services; the data network may track the location of the UE and maintain reachability by registering the UE in the new tracking area).
Kotecha and Abraham are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because both are in the same field of communications networks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotecha to include the PDU session as described by Abraham.
The motivation to combine both references would come from enhanced decision making in order to adjust operational parameters.
Regarding claim 30, Kotecha discloses an apparatus wherein the at least one memory and computer program code further configured to, with the at least one processor (see para. [0026] [0027] [0028] [0029] discloses device with processor, memory, program),
Kotecha fails to disclose causing the apparatus to select the second network function for use by the user equipment by: selecting the second network function further based on at least one of the communication session type of the protocol data unit session and the location of the unmanned aerial vehicle.
However, Abraham discloses selecting the second network function further based on at least one of the communication session type of the protocol data unit session and the location of the unmanned aerial vehicle. (see para [0098] [0093], [0094] disclose an example where UE may provide M-PDU identifier which the AMF may use to select the M-SMF. The M-SMF may support session establishment, modification, release and session management for the M-UPF; the UE establish a session, such as multicast-protocol data unit (M-PDU) session with the data network, as part of the multicast session may perform registration procedure to setup or release predeterminate services; the data network may track the location of the UE and maintain reachability by registering the UE in the new tracking area).
Kotecha and Abraham are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because both are in the same field of communications networks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotecha to include the PDU session as described by Abraham.
The motivation to combine both references would come from enhanced decision making in order to adjust operational parameters.
Claims 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotecha et al. (US 20220028280 A1) (herein after “Kotecha”) in view of Liao et al (US 20220086741 A1) (hereinafter “Liao”) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Abraham et al (US 20200092923 A1) (hereinafter “Abraham”) and Pateromichelakis et al (US 20230239724 A1) (hereinafter “Pateromichelakis”).
Regarding claim 31, Kotecha fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the communication session type indicates that the protocol data unit session is for communication between the unmanned aerial vehicle and the unmanned aerial vehicle controller or for communication with one or more unmanned aerial vehicles in a vicinity of the unmanned aerial vehicle.
However, Pateromichelakis teaches an apparatus wherein the communication session type indicates that the protocol data unit session is for communication between the unmanned aerial vehicle and the unmanned aerial vehicle controller (see para. [0074] discloses scenarios where the UAV controller (UAV-C) establishes a connection to a UAV via access network and core network, when the UAV or UAV controller request to establish PDU session for UAV operation) or for communication with one or more unmanned aerial vehicles in a vicinity of the unmanned aerial vehicle (This par is optional).
Kotecha and Pateromichelakis are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods, apparatus and UAV systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotecha to include the PDU session as described by Pateromichelakis.
The motivation to combine both references would come from enhanced decision making in order to adjust operational parameters.
Claim 37, 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotecha et al. (US 20220028280 A1) (herein after “Kotecha”) in view of Liao et al (US 20220086741 A1) (hereinafter “Liao”) as applied to claim 23 and 36 above, and further in view of Pateromichelakis et al (US 20230239724 A1) (hereinafter “Pateromichelakis”).
Regarding claim 37, Kotecha fails to disclose an apparatus according wherein the second network function is selected based on the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier and the command-and-control (C2) indication.
However, Pateromichelakis teaches an apparatus according wherein the second network function is selected based on the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier and the command-and-control (C2) indication (see para. [0141] discloses UAE server sends a C2 UAE session change request message to specific server. The message includes one of the UAS-ID is allocated by the UTM-AF to identify the association between a UAV and a UAV controller, current C2 mode (C2 indication)).
Kotecha and Pateromichelakis are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods, apparatus and UAV systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotecha to include the selection with the identifier and C2 mode as described by Pateromichelakis.
The motivation to combine both references would come from enhanced decision making in order to adjust operational parameters.
Regarding claim 38, Kotecha fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the second network function is selected based on the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier and the location of the unmanned aerial vehicle.
However, Pateromichelakis teaches an apparatus wherein the second network function is selected based on the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier and the location of the unmanned aerial vehicle (see para. [0142] discloses UAE server sends a C2 UAE session change request message to specific server. The message includes at least one of the UAS-ID, UAV/UAV-C identifier, geographical area, location and capabilities of one or more UAVs in proximity, location and configuration of UAV-C).
Kotecha and Pateromichelakis are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods, apparatus and UAV systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotecha to include the selection with the identifier as described by Pateromichelakis.
The motivation to combine both references would come from enhanced decision making in order to adjust operational parameters.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotecha et al. (US 20220028280 A1) (herein after “Kotecha”) in view of Liao et al (US 20220086741 A1) (hereinafter “Liao”) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Poscher et al (US 20220187851 A1) (hereinafter “Poscher”).
Regarding claim 39, Kotecha fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the second network function is selected to be the same session management function and/or user plane function for a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles and an unmanned aerial vehicle controller that share the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier.
However, Poscher teaches an apparatus wherein the second network function is selected to be the same session management function and/or user plane function for a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles and an unmanned aerial vehicle controller that share the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier (see Fig. 9 (UAV group ID instruction) para. [0065] discloses interaction between entities when a command is directed to a group of UAVs, the command may include UAV ID or group of IDs).
Kotecha and Poscher are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods, apparatus and UAV systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kotecha to include the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles as described by Poscher.
The motivation to combine both references would come from enhanced decision making in order to adjust operational parameters.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poscher et al. (US 20220187851 A1) (herein after “Poscher”) in view of Pateromichelakis et al (US 20230239724 A1) (hereinafter “Pateromichelakis”).
Regarding claim 34, Poscher discloses an apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (see para. [0019], [0020], [0021] discloses at least one processor);
and at least one memory comprising computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor to (see para. [0017], [0019], [0020] discloses computer program code, at least one memory and instructions executable for the at least one processor), cause the apparatus at least to:
receive a query for context data for an unmanned aerial vehicle from an access and mobility function of a core network, the query comprising an unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier for an unmanned aerial vehicle system comprising unmanned aerial vehicles including the unmanned aerial vehicle and an unmanned aerial vehicle controller for controlling the unmanned aerial vehicles (see para. [0063] discloses creation of context for the UAV, in the AMF, AMF identifies the request as coming from the UAV and create context for UAV. The AMF may also update UDM with the specific UAV identified (IMSI, IMEI, UAV IP, etc.). The UAV may then register itself with the UAV application server to establish connectivity between the UAV and the UAV application server, thereby enabling communication between the UAV and the UAV application server as well as between the UAV and the UAV controller);
the context data for the unmanned aerial vehicle comprising an indication of a network function of the core network associated with the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier, wherein the network function is a session management function or a user plane function (see [0063] discloses based on the traffic running through the user plane connection, the PGW/UPF may identify the IP address of the UAV controller and provide this information to the MME/AMF which, in turn, may update the context of the UAV in the database/UDM with the UAV controller IP address); and
provide the context data for the unmanned aerial vehicle to the access and mobility function (see [0063] discloses and provide this information to the AMF which, in turn, may update the context of the UAV in the database/UDM with the UAV controller IP address).
Poscher does not clearly disclose determine context data for the unmanned aerial vehicle based on the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier from a first network function of the core network, wherein the first network function is a network repository function or an unstructured data storage function.
However, Pateromichelakis teaches determine context data for the unmanned aerial vehicle based on the unmanned aerial vehicle system identifier from a first network function of the core network, wherein the first network function is a network repository function or an unstructured data storage function (see para. [0097];[0236]-[0237] discloses application server may also provide additional UAS context information; in determination of switch of C2 is based on a relative location between UAV and UAV-C, included in the context information; C2 communication switching information comprising one of the following UAS identification, affected UAV identification, affected UAV-C identification, application ID).
Poscher and Pateromichelakis are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods, apparatus and UAV systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Poscher to include the context data as described by Pateromichelakis.
The motivation to combine both references would come from enhanced decision making in order to adjust operational parameters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 23, 33, 34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LUIS GUILLERMO LEMA LEMOS whose telephone number is (571)-272-5710. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at 571-270-3125. 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.
/LUIS LEMA LEMOS/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights