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
Following response to arguments is based on Applicant’s arguments filed on 04 November 2025.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s arguments [Pages 11-14] with respect to rejection of claims 1 and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 1, on pages 12-13, Applicant argues that prior art of record fails to teach “usage of resources… indicative of corresponding usage parameters for the usage of the resources by the aerial UE… wherein each aerial zone of the plurality of aerial zones is associated with a corresponding aerial zone identifier included in the plurality of aerial zone identifiers”.
Newly found reference Venkatasubramanian discloses a system where an aerial UE 22 is in communication with a network entity 16, where usage of resources by the UE 22 for network 30 is determined based on mapping relationship of different identifiers of the UE and cells/bands of the network 30 [Paragraphs 98-101, 107, 115, 117, 120, 124].
Regarding claim 16, this claim has been amended to incorporate similar limitations to those set forth in independent claim 1, and is rejected based on similar reasoning.
Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejections.
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 16 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-30 are presented for examination.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 9, 16-19, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0033317) in view of Venkatasubramanian et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0417865).
Regarding claim 1, Lau teaches an apparatus of a network entity for wireless communications (Figs. 1), comprising:
at least one memory comprising instructions ([Paragraph 5]); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions ([Paragraph 5]) and cause the apparatus to:
transmit, to an aerial user equipment (UE) (UE 102), policy information associated with [([Paragraphs 47, 52, 110]), wherein the policy information includes a respective policy ([Paragraphs 52-53, 71]) [([Paragraphs 4, 22-23, 31]);
determine a mapping of a plurality of aerial zones to one or more cells of the wireless network ([Paragraphs 22, 31, 49, 82, 95, 101, 105]), [([Paragraphs 4, 31]); and
transmit, based on the mapping, at least one aerial zone identifier associated with a first cell of the one or more cells (Fig. 2A: 206 | Fig. 2B: steps 218- 220).
However, Lau does not explicitly mention: usage of resources… indicative of corresponding usage parameters for the usage of the resources by the aerial UE… wherein each aerial zone of the plurality of aerial zones is associated with a corresponding aerial zone identifier included in the plurality of aerial zone identifiers.
Venkatasubramanian teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
usage of resources… indicative of corresponding usage parameters for the usage of the resources by the aerial UE… wherein each aerial zone of the plurality of aerial zones is associated with a corresponding aerial zone identifier included in the plurality of aerial zone identifiers (Venkatasubramanian discloses a system where an aerial UE 22 is in communication with a network entity 16, where usage of resources by the UE 22 for network 30 is determined based on mapping relationship of different identifiers of the UE and cells/bands of the network 30 [Paragraphs 98-101, 107, 115, 117, 120, 124]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Lau) by determining usage of resources (as taught by Venkatasubramanian) for the purpose of avoiding loss of coverage (Venkatasubramanian – Paragraph 12).
Regarding claim 2, Lau further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to transmit the at least one aerial zone identifier, the at least one processor is configured to: transmit a system information broadcast (SIB) message or a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message indicative of the at least one aerial zone identifier ([Paragraphs 50, 88]).
Regarding claim 3, Lau further teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein each respective aerial zone identifier of the plurality of aerial zone identifiers is indicative of an aerial zone type ([Paragraphs 3-6, 25-32]).
Regarding claim 4, Lau further teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein each respective aerial zone type is associated with a different policy for the communication interface of the wireless network ([Paragraphs 52-53]).
Regarding claim 9, Lau further teaches the wherein the policy information includes a default policy corresponding to a subset of cells of a plurality of cells of the wireless network, wherein the subset of cells are not mapped to an aerial zone identifier ([Paragraphs 57-59]).
Regarding claim 16, Lau teaches an apparatus of an aerial user equipment (UE) for wireless communications (Figs. 1), comprising:
at least one memory ([Paragraph 5]); and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory ([Paragraph 5]) and configured to:
receive, from a network entity (network 114), policy information associated with a communication interface of a wireless network ([Paragraphs 47, 52, 110]), wherein the policy information includes a respective policy ([Paragraphs 52-53, 71]) corresponding to each aerial zone identifier of a plurality of aerial zone identifiers ([Paragraphs 4, 22-23, 31]);
receive, from the network entity, at least one aerial zone identifier associated with a first cell of one or more cells of the wireless network ([Paragraphs 22, 31, 49, 82, 95, 101, 105]), wherein the at least one aerial zone identifier corresponds to a mapping indicative of one or more aerial zone identifiers associated with each respective cell of the one or more cells ([Paragraphs 4, 31]); and
transmit a radio frequency (RF) signal based on the respective policy corresponding to the at least one aerial zone identifier associated with the first cell (Fig. 2A: 206 | Fig. 2B: steps 218- 220).
Regarding claims 17-19, 24, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 2-4, 9.
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0033317) in view of Venkatasubramanian et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0417865) and further in view of Simon (US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0188878).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lau and Venkatasubramanian teaches all the limitations recited in claim 3.
However, the combination of Lau and Venkatasubramanian does not explicitly mention: each respective aerial zone type is associated with a respective policy for resources corresponding to the communication interface of the wireless network; each respective policy is indicative of usage parameters for the resources; and the usage parameters correspond to a respective frequency range included in a spectrum associated with the resources or to a respective geographical region of a plurality of geographical regions associated with the resources.
Simon teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
each respective aerial zone type is associated with a respective policy for resources corresponding to the communication interface of the wireless network; each respective policy is indicative of usage parameters for the resources; and the usage parameters correspond to a respective frequency range included in a spectrum associated with the resources or to a respective geographical region of a plurality of geographical regions associated with the resources ([Paragraphs 13-20, 41, 45-48, 51, 86]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Lau) by determining usage of resources (as taught by Venkatasubramanian) by determining geographical regions (as taught by Simon) for the purpose of avoiding broadcasting interferences (Simon – Paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 5.
Claims 6-8 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0033317) in view of Venkatasubramanian et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0417865) and further in view of Fu et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0077297).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lau and Venkatasubramanian teaches all the limitations recited in claim 3.
However, the combination of Lau and Venkatasubramanian does not explicitly mention: a first respective policy indicative of one or more of a first transmission power or a first frequency corresponding to a first connectivity service associated with the communication interface; and a second respective policy indicative of one or more of a second transmission power or a second frequency corresponding to a second connectivity service associated with the communication interface, wherein the first respective policy is different from the second respective policy, and wherein the first connectivity service is different from the second connectivity service.
Fu teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
a first respective policy indicative of one or more of a first transmission power or a first frequency corresponding to a first connectivity service associated with the communication interface; and a second respective policy indicative of one or more of a second transmission power or a second frequency corresponding to a second connectivity service associated with the communication interface, wherein the first respective policy is different from the second respective policy, and wherein the first connectivity service is different from the second connectivity service ([Paragraphs 15-16, 24, 34-37, 43]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Lau) by determining usage of resources (as taught by Venkatasubramanian) by determining power or frequencies (as taught by Fu) for the purpose of supporting different type of systems (Fu – Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 7, Fu further teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein: the first respective policy corresponds to a broadcast remote ID (BRID) message service of a PC5 interface; and the second respective policy corresponds to a detect and avoid (DAA) message service of a PC5 interface ([Paragraphs 5, 105-106, 110, 115]).
Regarding claim 8, Lau teaches all the limitations recited in claim 1.
However, Lau does not explicitly mention: wherein the wireless network is a cellular network, and wherein the communication interface is a PC5 interface or a sidelink communication interface.
Fu teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the wireless network is a cellular network, and wherein the communication interface is a PC5 interface or a sidelink communication interface ([Paragraphs 176, 287]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Lau) by determining usage of resources (as taught by Venkatasubramanian) by determining power or frequencies (as taught by Fu) for the purpose of supporting different type of systems (Fu – Paragraph 3).
Regarding claims 21-23, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 6-8.
Claims 10-14 and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0033317) in view of Venkatasubramanian et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0417865) and further in view of White (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0165426).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lau and Venkatasubramanian teaches all the limitations recited in claim 1.
However, the combination of Lau and Venkatasubramanian does not explicitly mention: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive configuration information associated with the plurality of aerial zones; and determine the mapping using the configuration information.
White teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive configuration information associated with the plurality of aerial zones; and determine the mapping using the configuration information ([Paragraphs 26, 28, 1, 58, 64, 69-70, 75, 78, 108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Lau) by determining usage of resources (as taught by Venkatasubramanian) by determining configuration information (as taught by White) for the purpose of providing mapping data layer (White – Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 11, White further teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive the configuration information from an Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management (UTM) network entity ([Paragraphs 26, 74]).
Regarding claim 12, Lau further teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the configuration information is indicative of: one or more aerial zone identifiers associated with each respective aerial zone of the plurality of aerial zones ([Paragraphs 4, 25, 31]); and location information associated with each respective aerial zone of the plurality of aerial zones ([Paragraphs 5-6, 112]).
Regarding claim 13, White further teaches the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the location information comprises a two-dimensional footprint of each respective aerial zone ([Paragraph 118]) and, to determine the mapping, the at least one processor is configured to: determine a subset of cells of a plurality of cells of the wireless network that are located within a two-dimensional footprint of a particular aerial zone ([Paragraph 118]); and map one or more aerial zone identifiers associated with the particular aerial zone to each cell of the subset of cells ([Paragraph 118]).
Regarding claim 14, White further teaches the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the location information comprises a three-dimensional volume of each respective aerial zone and, to determine the mapping, the at least one processor is configured to: determine a subset of cells of a plurality of cells of the wireless network having a three-dimensional projection that intersects at least a portion of a three-dimensional volume of a particular aerial zone; and map one or more aerial zone identifiers associated with the particular aerial zone to each cell of the subset of cells ([Paragraphs 75, 118]).
Regarding claims 25-29, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 10-14.
Claims 15 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0033317) in view of Venkatasubramanian et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0417865) and further in view of White (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0165426) and of Han et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0144626).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lau, Venkatasubramanian and Han teaches all the limitations recited in claim 12.
However, the combination of Lau, Venkatasubramanian and Han does not explicitly mention: wherein, to determine the mapping for a particular aerial zone of the plurality of aerial zones, the at least one processor is configured to: determine a footprint of the particular aerial zone based on the location information; map the footprint of the particular aerial zone to one or more system information broadcast (SIB) areas of the wireless network; and map one or more aerial zone identifiers associated with the particular aerial zone to each cell of one or more cells within the one or more SIB areas.
Hang teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein, to determine the mapping for a particular aerial zone of the plurality of aerial zones, the at least one processor is configured to: determine a footprint of the particular aerial zone based on the location information; map the footprint of the particular aerial zone to one or more system information broadcast (SIB) areas of the wireless network; and map one or more aerial zone identifiers associated with the particular aerial zone to each cell of one or more cells within the one or more SIB areas ([Paragraphs 6-9, 22, 24, 26, 32]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Lau) by determining usage of resources (as taught by Venkatasubramanian) by determining configuration information (as taught by White) by comprising SIB (as taught by Hang) for the purpose of providing cell ball mechanisms for aerial UEs (Hang – Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 30, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 15.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. 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.
February 7, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633