DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, and 16-28 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 16-20, and 23-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (hereinafter “Park”, US 2022/0330197) in view of Ferdi et al. (hereinafter “Ferdi”, US 2023/0133187) and further in view of Ryu et al. (hereinafter “Ryu”, US 2023/0328520).
Regarding claims 1, 16, and 23, Park discloses a method, an apparatus, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having code for wireless communication stored thereon that, when executed by a session management function (“SMF”), causes the SMF to:
first request message comprising an indication to establish for unmanned aerial system (“UAS”) services for an unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”) device (i.e., UAV 301 and UAV controller (UAC) terminal 302 performs an initial registration process for a communication service through a wireless communication network as described in paragraph 0087. Also see step 911 & 912 PDU session establishment request of Fig. 9, and its descriptions); and
retrieve subscription information from a unified data management node (“UDM”) (i.e., retrieving subscription data from UDM as described in paragraph 0088), the subscription information indicating that UAV authorization is required by a UAS server (i.e., the wireless communication network determines that an additional authorization process with UTM for flight approval as described in paragraph 0089), the UAS server comprising a UAS service subscriber (“USS”) server or a UAS traffic management (“UTM”) server (i.e., UTM as described in paragraph 0089-0090).
Park, however, does not expressly disclose:
receive, from an access and mobility management function (“AMF”), a first request message comprising an indication to establish user plane resources for unmanned aerial system (“UAS”) services for an unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”) device; and
transmit to a UAS network function (“UAS-NF”) distinct from the USS server or the UTM server, a second request message to initiate the UAV authorization.
In a similar endeavor, Ferdi discloses unmanned aerial vehicle authentication and authorization by unmanned aerial system traffic management over user plane. Ferdi also discloses:
receive, from an access and mobility management function (“AMF”), a first request message comprising an indication to establish user plane resources for unmanned aerial system (“UAS”) services for an unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”) device (i.e., receiving a PDU Session Establishment Request 4 at AMF/SMF as shown in Fig. 4, and as described in paragraph 0117. It is also noted that AMF is connected to SMF as shown in Fig. 1D and as described in paragraphs 0064-0065); and
transmit to the USS server or the UTM server, a second request message to initiate the UAV authorization (i.e., transmitting a Session Establishment Registration 6 to USS/UTM as shown in Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to authenticate the UAV and to provide the subscribed UAS services to the UAV.
The combination of Park and Ferdi, however, does not expressly disclose the remaining features of this claim.
In a similar endeavor, Ryu disclose aerial service. Ryu also discloses:
transmit to a UAS network function (“UAS-NF”) distinct from the USS server or the UTM server, a second request message to initiate the UAV authorization (i.e., the AMF transmits an AA request message to the AA server via an UAS-NF as described in paragraphs 0226. It is also noted that the AA Server is the UTM/USS, which is distinct from the UAS-NF as shown in Fig. 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to support and coordinate the UAS operations.
With further regard to claim 16, even though the combination of Park and Ferdi does not expressly disclose the session management function comprising: a memory, and a processor coupled with the memory. However, it is obvious and/or well known in the art that the memory and the processor are included in the session management function in order to process the information in the wireless networks.
Regarding claims 2, 17, and 24, Park, Ferdi, and Ryu disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Ferdi also wherein the UAV authorization comprises one or more of: a command and control (“C2”) authorization for the UAV device, and a UAV USS authorization and authentication (“UUAA”) for the UAV device (i.e., C2 communications as described in paragraph 0073), wherein the second request message includes an indication of whether authorization is for C2 operation or for UUAA, or both (i.e., indicating C2 communication type as seen in step 5 & 6 of Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 3, 18, and 25, Park, Ferdi, and Ryu disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Ferdi also discloses wherein the first request message comprises a UAV identifier or flight authorization information, or both (i.e., UAV ID included in the PDU Session Establishment Request 4, and as described in paragraph 0117), and wherein the processor is further configured to cause the apparatus to receive an authorization response comprising a UAV authorization token or a flight authorization identifier, or both (i.e., PDU Session Establishment Accept 8 including key as described in paragraph 0124).
Regarding claims 4, 19, and 26, Park, Ferdi, and Ryu disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Ferdi also discloses wherein the second request message to the UAS-NF comprises: an address of the UAS server for authorization, the UAV identifier, and the flight authorization information provided by the UAV (i.e., an UAV ID in the Session Establishment Reg 6 as shown in Fig. 4, and as described in paragraph 0117).
Regarding claims 5, 20, and 27, Park, Ferdi, and Ryu disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Ferdi also discloses wherein the subscription information comprises session management subscription data that includes network slice-level data (i.e., S-NSSAI as described in paragraph 0116), wherein the session management subscription data comprises, for each DNN, an indication of whether a request to establish user plane resources requires UAV authorization from the UAS server (i.e., the S-NSSAI (e.g., an UAV operation specific S-NSSAI in the allowed NSSAI) and/or a DNN associated with the third-party service provider as described in paragraphs 0116-0117).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 21-22, and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 WAYNE CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 AM-5:00 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, KATHY WANG-HURST can be reached at (571)270-5371. 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.
/Wayne H Cai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights