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 filed 12/12/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Independent claims 1 and 20:
The applicant argues “Poscher discloses a technique for an external "regulator
entity" to take control of a UAV. See Poscher, paragraphs [005] and [0041]. The regulator sends a command to the network (e.g., MME/AMF), which then forwards this command to the UAV via a high-priority Non-Access Stratum (NAS) message. See Poscher, paragraph [0048]. This command can include an instruction to revoke the connection. See Poscher, paragraphs [0044] and [0050]. The network entity in
Poscher acts as a relay for enforcing this externally initiated command (See Poscher, paragraphs [0042] and [0048], and FIG. 3); the network entity in Poscher does not autonomously determine revocation based on rules received in a monitoring request, as will be discussed below. ” See pages 8-9 of applicant’s remarks. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the network entity in Poscher does not autonomously determine revocation based on rules received in a monitoring request) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Pateromichelakis has been shown to determine connection actions based on rules received in a monitoring request. Pateromichelakis discloses ensuring E2E QoS fulfilment at an indirect UAS communication. In UAS communications, there are various scenarios which require the interaction between the UAV and the pilot-owner aka UAV-controller (UAV-C)… One additional scenario is the Remote UAV controller through HD video. After a UAV and a UAV controller have set up association and have begun a flight task, the C2 link is established and it supports UAS operation normally. In some scenarios, e.g. UAV flying beyond the line of sight or in an emergency event (i.e., monitoring events), the UAV controller will be taken over by another UAV controller or by a high priority UAV controller (i.e., based on the monitoring events connection actions were determined and taken). In this case, the C2 connection shall be set up with the new UAV controller to ensure continuous support for the flight task (in this case, the connection action was “taking back” the initial UAV controller and setting up a new/higher priority UAV controller). See paragraphs [0039] and [0048]. Pateromichelakis does not teach the connection action as specifically “revocation” however, Poscher has been shown to teach the connection action as specifically “revocation” (discussed in par. [0044] of Poscher for teaching a command for blocking usage of one or more resources) for the same reasons as Pateromichelakis’ consisting of monitoring QoS and determining connection actions to adapt for overall QoS and preserve the connection by balancing service quality where flight changes can be made (i.e., blocking of one or more resources such as blocking the initial UAV controller) specifically in restricted spaces (or restrict flight spaces for managing flight paths as brought out in Poscher, par. [0003]) as discussed above.
As such, the combination of Pateromichelakis and Poscher discloses receiving a monitoring request including "information indicating one or more rules or triggering conditions associated with the network event of the first type to trigger a connection revocation action," and "determining that the connection revocation action is to be performed based on the one or more rules or triggering conditions associated with the network event of the first type," as recited in claim 1 and the similar elements recited in claim 20.
For the reasons as described above, Pateromichelakis discloses receiving a monitoring request that includes rules or triggering conditions associated with the network event of the first type to trigger a connection action (therefore, the examiner disagrees with applicant’s remarks on pages 9-10). For the reasons as described above, Poscher discloses the connection action as specifically “revocation” (therefore, the examiner disagrees with applicant’s remarks on page 10).
The applicant argues “Even accepting a general desire to 'take action in case of misbehaviors,' the Office Action does not articulate how a person of ordinary skill would (i) inject 'information indicating one or more rules or triggering conditions to trigger a connection revocation action' into a UAV-C monitoring request within Pateromichelakis, and (ii) reassign revocation decision-making from Poscher's regulator to the claimed NE applying those rules upon detecting the first-type event. Absent a reasoned explanation, the proposed combination rests on hindsight rather than an articulated rationale, which is insufficient under KSR and MPEP 2143.” See page 10 of applicant’s remarks. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of
obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Poscher’s invention of a blocking command instructing the cellular network entity to trigger blocking at least a portion of the user plane connection between the UAV and the UAV controller, or at least one service provided thereon (see par. [0050]) with Pateromichelakis’ invention of the connection action of taking back the initial UAV controller and setting up a new/higher priority UAV controller (see par. [0048]) (in other words, considered as a blocking command between the connection of the UAV and initial UAV controller) for taking action in case of misbehaviors, such as in a case when UAVs fly over non-allowed areas (also, considered as UAV flying beyond the line of sight as mentioned in Pateromichelakis), e.g., to block services, restrict flight spaces or travel speeds and/or to manage flight paths in general (also, considered as blocking or managing as required in Pateromichelakis changing of UAV controllers) (see paragraph [0003] of Poscher).
The applicant argues “Moreover, Pateromichelakis and Poscher do not
teach determining that the connection revocation action is to be performed based on the rules or triggering conditions associated with the network event. As discussed above, the determination performed in Pateromichelakis is for QoS adaptation, not connection revocation. The explicit purpose of the determination in Pateromichelakis is to evaluate or check whether a QoS requirement adaptation can be achieved to preserve the connection. See Pateromichelakis, paragraph [0103]. The reference emphasizes maintaining E2E QoS via adaptation rather than terminating connections, and provides no suggestion to replace its adaptation decisions with revocation decisions. Hence, Pateromichelakis is designed to maintain connectivity, which teaches away from the claimed function of terminating a connection (i.e., connection revocation).” See pages 10-11 of applicant’s remarks. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The combination of Pateromichelakis and Poscher disclose determining that the connection revocation action is to be performed based on the rules or triggering conditions associated with the network event. As discussed above, Pateromichelakis discloses monitoring QoS and determining connection actions to adapt for overall QoS to preserve the connection by balancing service quality where flight changes can be made (i.e., blocking of one or more resources such as blocking the initial UAV controller) specifically in restricted spaces. Therefore, the reference teaches a scenario where a determination is made to terminate/block an initial UAV connection and replace with another UAV connection. Pateromichelakis clearly teaches adaption decisions including blocking/terminating certain connections however, Poscher has been shown to teach “revocation” actions for further clarity. As such, Pateromichelakis does not teach away from the determining step as discussed in the claim. Matter of fact, Pateromichelakis’ teachings are in line with applicant’s purpose of “ enabling immediate or deferring network actions based on UAV operations, network events, network, and operator rules/policies, among other operators” as mentioned in par. [0004] of the publication. In the case of Pateromichelakis, network actions are being deferred based on UAV operations, network events and rules/policies.
In response to applicant’s argument (specifically, page 11 of applicant’s remarks) that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Poscher’s invention of a blocking command instructing the cellular network entity to trigger blocking at least a portion of the user plane connection between the UAV and the UAV controller, or at least one service provided thereon (see par. [0050]) with Pateromichelakis’ invention of the connection action of taking back the initial UAV controller and setting up a new/higher priority UAV controller (see par. [0048]) (in other words, considered as a blocking command between the connection of the UAV and UAV controller) for taking action in case of misbehaviors, such as in a case when UAVs fly over non-allowed areas (also, considered as UAV flying beyond the line of sight as mentioned in Pateromichelakis), e.g., to block services, restrict flight spaces or travel speeds and/or to manage flight paths in general (also, considered as blocking or managing as required in Pateromichelakis changing of UAV controllers) (see paragraph [0003] of Poscher).
In response to the rest of applicant’s arguments on pages 11-12, the examiner disagrees. The applicant mentions no teaching in prior art of the “autonomous” determination, this is not mentioned in the claims. The applicant argues improper hindsight, no reason to combine the Pateromichelakis and Poscher references and teaching away. The examiner disagrees for the same reasons as already explained above.
Regarding Dependent claims 9 and 28, The applicant argues “…Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Office Action's motivation for incorporating Liao is also misplaced. The Office Action states that the motivation is for "collision avoidance." However, the confirmation step in claims 9 and 28 serves an entirely different technical purpose: to confirm a network management decision related to enforcing an administrative or operational policy. A person of ordinary skill would not be motivated to import a confirmation handshake from a real-time collision avoidance system into a policy-based connection management system, as the technical problems being solved are distinct and unrelated.” See page 13 of applicant’s remarks. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Liao discloses a UAV to broadcast the following identity data in a short-range area for collision avoidance: UAV type, current location and time, route data, operating status. To enhance 5GS/Evolved Packet System (EPS) system architecture in support of UAS operation and to enable UAS operation service by proposed new procedures and the enhancement to the existing procedures, Liao further discloses Implementation 0: High level Procedure for UAS Association, Identification, and Operation, Implementation 1: UAS subscriptions, Implementation 2, 3: New UAS association and identification procedure, Implementation 4: C2 communication Set up for an AS session with required QoS, Implementation 5: Flight Plan based UAS operation, Implementation 6: UAS association and identification procedure using EPC-Level ProSe Discovery. As a result of one or more of the embodiments disclosed herein, the UAS services may be authorized and identified by the 3GPP system. Further, the UAS operation may be provisioned with required QoS and would result in increased safety for UAS operation. See paragraphs [0042]-[0052].
Likewise, Liao has a purpose consisting of network management decisioning related to enforcing administrative or operational policy in order to avoid, such things as collisions for an overall mission for increasing safety for UAS operation. Liao discloses sending a confirmation request, receiving a confirmation response and sending the message to control performance of connection actions for avoiding collisions and maintaining safety. As discussed above, Pateromichelakis and Poscher teaches the performance connection actions as specifically “revocation”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Liao’s invention of network management for enforcing administrative/operational policies with Pateromichelakis’ and Poscher’s inventions of controlling UAV and UAV controller by network management through monitoring and determining actions based on rules or triggered conditions (in other words, for enforcing administrative/operational policies) for avoiding, such things as collisions and providing an overall mission for increasing safety for UAS operation as described throughout Liao.
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) 1-8 and 20-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pateromichelakis et al. (Pateromichelakis), U.S. Publication No. 2023/0284078 in view of Poscher et al. (Poscher), U.S. Publication No. 2022/0187851.
Regarding Claims 1 and 20, Pateromichelakis discloses a method implemented
by a Network Entity (NE) to control a connection of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), the method comprising:
receiving a monitoring request (in other words, the application enabler client
(UAE-C/SEAL-C) at the UAV or the UAV-C sends a request to the application enabler server (UAE-S/SEAL-S) to monitor and manage the end-to-end application QoS for the C2 communication; see paragraph [0107]), the monitoring request including: (1) a UAV identifier (ID) (i.e., UAV/UAV-C identification; see paragraph [0114]), (2) information indicating a network event of a first type to be tracked for the UAV (such as, C2 control mode… C2 KPIs…Geographical area where the requirement applies…Time of validity for the requirement; see paragraphs [0118]-[0120]) and (3) information indicating one or more rules or triggering conditions associated with the network event of the first type to trigger a connection action (i.e., C2 E2E QoS parameters; see paragraph [0121]);
detecting the network event of the first type associated with the UAV ID (i.e.,
receives a trigger event related to the QoS change of the second QoS parameter. In some embodiments, the trigger event comprises a downgrade indication for the second QoS parameter.; see paragraphs [0234]-[0235]);
determining that the connection action is to be performed based on the one or more rules or triggering conditions associated with the network event of the first type (i.e., the control unit 405 at UAE/SEAL server, determines an action, based on the evaluation of the E2E QoS.; see paragraphs [0154]-[0155]).
Pateromichelakis fails to disclose revocation of a connection, revocation action, and sending a message to control performance of the connection revocation action to revoke the connection of the UAV with a UAV control entity.
Poscher discloses revocation of a connection (for example, a command to
block usage of one or more resources of the cellular network by the UAV 100 (e.g., to disconnect the control channel on the user plane connection, or to block use of a certain Radio Access Technology (RAT) or a certain cell or sector of the cellular network to prohibit use of the UAV 100 in a particular region); see paragraph [0044]), revocation action (described in paragraphs [0044] and [0049]), and sending a message to control performance of the connection revocation action to revoke the connection of the UAV with a UAV control entity (i.e., the command may be forwarded to the UAV via a NAS message; see paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Poscher’s invention with Pateromichelakis’ invention to take action in case of misbehaviors, such as in case of misuse of services provided by the UAVs (e.g., video) or when UAVs fly over non-allowed areas, e.g., to block services, restrict flight spaces or travel speeds and/or to manage flight paths in general (see paragraph [0003] of Poscher).
Regarding Claims 2 and 21, Pateromichelakis and Poscher disclose the method and NE as described above. Pateromichelakis further discloses wherein:
the NE includes an Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Network Function (NF) (see figure 5A); and the reception of the monitoring request is from the UAV control entity (step 517).
Regarding Claims 3 and 22, Pateromichelakis and Poscher disclose the method and NE as described above. Pateromichelakis further discloses wherein:
the network event of the first type is one of a plurality of types of events; and
the plurality of types of events including any of: (1) a service available/authorized event
type; (2) an abnormal event type; (3) a registration event type; (4) a deregistration event type; (5) an aerial subscription revocation event type; (6) an aerial subscription event type; (7) a network slice authorization event type; (8) a network slice revocation event type; (9) a connectivity service authorization event; and (10) a link Quality of Service (QoS) variation event (see paragraph [0235]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 23, Pateromichelakis and Poscher disclose the method and NE as described above. Pateromichelakis fails to disclose wherein: the determining that the connection revocation action is to be performed includes one of: determining that the connection revocation action without a revocation confirmation is to be performed based on the indicated one or more rules and/or triggering conditions; or determining that the connection revocation action is to be performed after the revocation confirmation is received by: sending a confirmation request to any of: (1) a UAS Service Supplier (USS) and/or (2) a UAS Traffic Management (UTM), and receiving a confirmation response including confirmation information such that the determining that the connection revocation action is to be performed is further based on the received confirmation information. Poscher discloses wherein: the determining that the connection revocation action is to be performed includes one of: determining that the connection revocation action without a revocation confirmation is to be performed based on the indicated one or more rules and/or triggering conditions (see paragraphs [0044] and [0049]); or determining that the connection revocation action is to be performed after the revocation confirmation is received by: sending a confirmation request to any of: (1) a UAS Service Supplier (USS) and/or (2) a UAS Traffic Management (UTM), and receiving a confirmation response including confirmation information such that the determining that the connection revocation action is to be performed is further based on the received confirmation information. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Poscher’s invention with Pateromichelakis’ invention to take action in case of misbehaviors, such as in case of misuse of services provided by the UAVs (e.g., video) or when UAVs fly over non-allowed areas, e.g., to block services, restrict flight spaces or travel speeds and/or to manage flight paths in general (see paragraph [0003] of Poscher).
Regarding Claims 5 and 24, Pateromichelakis and Poscher disclose the method and NE as described above. Pateromichelakis fails to disclose wherein sending the message to control performance of the connection revocation action includes sending, to a further NE, a command to revoke the connection of the UAV. Poscher discloses wherein sending the message to control performance of the connection revocation action includes sending, to a further NE (for example, instructing gateway node; see paragraph [0050]), a command to revoke the connection of the UAV. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Poscher’s invention with Pateromichelakis’ invention to take action in case of misbehaviors, such as in case of misuse of services provided by the UAVs (e.g., video) or when UAVs fly over non-allowed areas, e.g., to block services, restrict flight spaces or travel speeds and/or to manage flight paths in general (see paragraph [0003] of Poscher).
Regarding Claims 6 and 25, Pateromichelakis and Poscher disclose the method and NE as described above. Pateromichelakis fails to disclose wherein the further NE includes any of: (1) an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) or (2) a Session Management Function (SMF). Poscher discloses wherein the further NE includes any of: (1) an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) (see paragraph [0042]) or (2) a Session Management Function (SMF). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Poscher’s invention with Pateromichelakis’ invention to take action in case of misbehaviors, such as in case of misuse of services provided by the UAVs (e.g., video) or when UAVs fly over non-allowed areas, e.g., to block services, restrict flight spaces or travel speeds and/or to manage flight paths in general (see paragraph [0003] of Poscher).
Regarding Claims 7 and 26, Pateromichelakis and Poscher disclose the method and NE as described above. Pateromichelakis further discloses wherein the UAV ID corresponds to any of: (1) a UAV (see paragraph [0041]), (2) an aerial drone, (3) an autonomous vehicle, and (4) an emergency vehicle.
Regarding Claims 8 and 27, Pateromichelakis and Poscher disclose the method and NE as described above. Pateromichelakis further discloses wherein the indicated one or more rules or triggering conditions associated with the network event of the first type relate to any of: (1) a subscription authorization revocation, (2) a subscription authorization change (i.e., QoS profile downgrade or upgrade; see paragraph [0235]), (3) a network slice authorization revocation, and (4) a network slice authorization change.
Claim(s) 9 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pateromichelakis and Poscher in view of Liao, U.S. Publication No. 2022/0086741.
Regarding Claims 9 and 28, Pateromichelakis and Poscher disclose the method and NE as described above. Pateromichelakis and Poscher fail to disclose comprising: sending a confirmation request to an Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) entity; and receiving, from the UAS entity, a confirmation response including confirmation information indicating to perform the connection revocation of the UAV; wherein the sending of the message to control performance of the connection revocation action is performed after reception of the confirmation response indicating to perform the connection revocation. Liao discloses comprising: sending a confirmation request to an Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) entity; and receiving, from the UAS entity, a confirmation response including confirmation information indicating to perform the connection revocation of the UAV; wherein the sending of the message to control performance of the connection revocation action is performed after reception of the confirmation response indicating to perform the connection revocation (see figure 27).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Liao’s invention with Pateromichelakis’ and Poscher’s invention for collision avoidance as described throughout Liao.
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 SHANTELL LAKETA HEIBER whose telephone number is (571)272-0886. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Addy, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-0886. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHANTELL L HEIBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
February 2, 2026