DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/21/2024, 12/27/2024, 07/18/2025, 09/24/2025 and 02/03/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 05/06/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/06/2026 have been fully considered but are respectfully found to be not persuasive for at least the following reason(s).
In regard to applicant’s remarks 05/06/2026 (Pages 2-4), regarding the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 103 with regards to claims 1, 11 and 16, applicant asserts that
First, neither Fujishiro nor Liao recognizes the technical problem in wireless networks that "multiple UAVs may work together as a group for specific purposes, such as relaying and monitoring [, h]owever, the process and configurations for grouping UAVs are still unclear," as explained in ¶ [0004]. As such, none of the cited references address this technical problem, much less propose the use of UAV grouping information that can include "a Group ID, and/or UA V Group Authorized Information" as discussed in ¶ [0040] of the specification, and as reflected in the claims. For instance, the Specification explains that after receiving the information, a core network may "allocate the Group ID for the UAV, and send the Group ID and UAV Group Authorized Information to the NG-RAN node" in ¶ [0048]. Hence, the cited references certainly cannot deliver the technical effect that "with the Group ID and UAV Group Authorized Information, the NG-RAN node can be aware of the grouping status of specific UAVs, allocate the network resource, control the access of specific UAVs, and adjust the schedule of handover," for instance as discussed in ¶ [0051] of the specification.
Instead, Fujishiro addresses a different technical problem of improving handover efficiency when multiple UEs move together, detailing that "if there are a plurality of radio terminals in a vehicle, the plurality of radio terminals may perform the handover all at once" and "it is desired to enable realization of an efficient handover" in ¶ [0003]. For example, Fujishiro further explains that in this scenario, a "target eNB 200-2 makes, based on the group handover request message, a determination (Admission Control) whether or not to accept the group handover," in ¶ [0075]. Fujishiro details that a "target eNB 200-2 transmits one group handover acknowledge message ... including configuration information for the UE 100-1 to the UE 100- 3," ¶ [0080] which may include a "common RRC configuration information [that] may include the group identifier (G-RNTI)," in ¶ [0081]. In Fujishiro, however, such group of UEs is merely assumed to already exist because of the circumstance of being co-located in a vehicle. Indeed, as acknowledged in the Office action, nowhere does Fujishiro contemplate "unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) grouping information", much less teach or suggest that such information comprises at least one of a group identifier or UAV Group Authorized Information, as required in the claims.
Liao likewise addresses a different technical problem and does not disclose the claimed UAV grouping information. Liao pertains to technical problems in providing Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) services, including how to "support UAS operation ... to enable UTM to associate the UAV and UAV controller, and to identify the combination as a UAS," in ¶ [0037]. Consistent with that focus, Liao states that "[t]he UAV and UAV controller are both with 3GPP UE capabilities including required capabilities for UAS operation," and that the UAV controller and UAV "establish respective unicast C2 (control and command) communication links to the 3GPP network" in ¶ [0054]-[0055]. In ¶ [0112], also cited in the Office Action, Liao describes "generic Public Subscription Identifier (GPSI)/External Group Identifier of the UAV/UAV controller" in a "UAS operation service authorization" request, going no further than describing an external group identifier associated with a UAS service authorization. The solutions of Liao concern whether a UAS service is authorized and whether a UAV and UAV-controller may be associated to operate as a UAS. Nowhere does Liao teach UAV grouping information as required in the pending claims. The additionally cited ¶ [0233]-[0234] do not cure this deficiency, as Liao merely explains that "[t]he RAN nodes 1611 may be configured to communicate with one another," and describes generic network architecture.
In view of the above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to combine the cited features of Fujishiro with those of Liao. Furthermore, even if Fujishiro and Liao could be combined, the described features related to managing an existing group or approving a service authorization, respectively, together would still not teach transmitting the claimed UAV grouping information that comprises at least one of a group identifier or UAV Group Authorized Information.
As such, the references fail to teach or suggest: "transmitting, by a first wireless communication node to a second wireless communication node, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) grouping information," where "the UAV grouping information comprises at least one of a group identifier or UAV Group Authorized Information," as recited in the claims.
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, however found to be not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
In regards to the limitation “unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) grouping information comprises at least one of a group identifier, or UAV Group Authorized Information”, Fujishiro discloses the formation and management of communication groups, associated with a group identifier, comprised of wireless communication devices (UEs) wherein communication groups may be based on common target cells, measurement report timing, movement history, or group proximity relationships, for example (Fujishiro, Pages 3-4, Paragraphs 65-69). Fujishiro further discloses, upon assignment of a group identifier to the communication group, notifying a wireless communication device of the assigned group identifier, transmitting a group handover request from a source eNB to the target eNB, wherein the request may comprise the group identifier, assigning a new group identifier at the target cell, and transmitting the group identifier within the group handover acknowledge message (Fujishiro, Page 4, Paragraphs 71-76, Paragraphs 80-81). Fujishiro does not disclose unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), but discloses grouping of a plurality of radio terminals capable of performing wireless communication (Fujishiro, Page 2, Paragraphs 38-41) and managed collectively through an assigned common group identifier during mobility procedures.
Liao discloses techniques for authorizing and managing Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations and policies in a cellular network, wherein a UAV is associated with a UAV controller based on the exchange of UAV-related information (Liao, Page 4, Paragraph 112, external group identifier of the UAV, UAV controller, UAS operation authorization information) between network entities and policies managing the UAS operation are thereafter established and can be updated (Liao, Pages 4-5, Paragraphs 110-148, UAS Association and Identification Procedure, UAS Operation Status Update Notification).
Claims 1, 11 and 16 recite “at least one of”. Since “at least one of” is disjunctive, any one of the elements found in the prior art is sufficient to reject the claim. Therefore, the disclosed “group identifier” of Fujishiro, assigned to a group of wireless communication devices, in view of the “external group identifier” and “authorization information” considered in facilitating the Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) services of Liao, sufficiently teaches the “grouping information” of Claims 1, 11 and 16.
The argument that neither Fujishiro nor Liao recognize “the technical problem in wireless networks that ‘multiple UAVs may work together as a group for specific purposes, such as relaying and monitoring’” and the examples provided from Paragraphs 4, 48 and 51 of the examined specification describing, “after receiving the information, a core network may 'allocate the Group ID for the UAV, and send the Group ID and UAV Group Authorized Information to the NG-RAN node'” and “with the Group ID and UAV Group Authorized Information, the NG-RAN node can be aware of the grouping status of specific UAVs, allocate the network resource, control the access of specific UAVs, and adjust the schedule of handover" (Applicant’s remarks, Page 2) are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. The Examiner gives the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, thus the disclosed “group identifier” of Fujishiro in view of the “external group identifier” and “authorization information” of Liao, sufficiently teaches the “grouping information” of Claims 1, 11 and 16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the group-based signaling system of Fujishiro, wherein grouping identifiers and related information are exchanged between network nodes to coordinate the mobility of a plurality of wireless communication devices, to include the UAS-management system of Liao, wherein UAV and UAS management can be performed through the exchange of UAC identification, association and authorization information between network entities communicating over a wireless network, as such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the group signaling techniques of Fujishiro as modified by the UAV communication environment of Liao can yield a predictable result for efficiently managing the mobility of a plurality of UAVs over a wireless network.
Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above, the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the prior arts of record, Fujishiro in view of Liao, with regards to claims 1-20 are remained proper and therefore maintained.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujishiro et al., US 2019 0037449 A1 (hereinafter “Fujishiro”) in view of Liao, US 2022 0086741 A1 (hereinafter “Liao”).
Regarding Claim 1, Fujishiro teaches a wireless communication method comprising:
transmitting, by a first wireless communication node to a second wireless communication node (Page 4, Paragraph 80, Fig. 7, Step C, Mass-Handover Request, target eNB, source eNB), unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) grouping information (Fujishiro discloses grouping of a plurality of radio terminals capable of performing wireless communication and managed collectively through an assigned common group identifier during mobility procedures on Page 2, Paragraphs 38-41),
wherein the UAV grouping information comprises at least one of a group identifier or UAV Group Authorized Information (Fujishiro discloses the formation and management of communication groups, associated with a group identifier [e.g., G-RNTI] on Pages 3-4, Paragraphs 65-69 and 81, related to a group of user equipment devices [Figs. 1-2, UE 100-1, UE 100-2, UE 100-3]).
Fujishiro fails to fully teach the limitation:
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) grouping information (Fujishiro does not disclose unmanned aerial vehicles)
However, Liao further teaches the limitation:
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) grouping information (Liao, Page 2, Paragraph 54-55, Fig. 1, unmanned aerial vehicle [UAV], UAV controller; Pages 4-5, Paragraphs 110-148, UAS Association and Identification Procedure, UAS Operation Status Update Notification)
Although Fujishiro addresses the remaining limitations of claim 1, Liao demonstrates the following limitations of a wireless communication method comprising:
transmitting, by a first wireless communication node to a second wireless communication node, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) grouping information (Liao, Page 10, Paragraphs 233-234, two or more RAN nodes 1611 configured to communicate with one another),
wherein the UAV grouping information comprises at least one of a group identifier or UAV Group Authorized Information (Liao, Page 4, Paragraph 112, Fig. 6, Step 1, UAS operation service authorization by sending the group identifier).
Liao and Fujishiro are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of services specially adapted for vehicles within wireless communication networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujishiro to incorporate the teachings Liao for a wireless communication method comprising unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) grouping information. Doing so would logically incorporate unmanned aerial vehicles into the group handover method as they are vehicles capable of sending and receiving wireless communication signals.
Regarding Claim 11, Fujishiro in view of Liao teaches a wireless communication method comprising:
receiving, by a second wireless communication node from a first wireless communication node, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) grouping information,
wherein the UAV grouping information comprises at least one of a group identifier or UAV Group Authorized Information (Fujishiro does not disclose UAVs. However, Fujishiro discloses grouping of a plurality of radio terminals capable of performing wireless communication and managed collectively through an assigned common group identifier during mobility procedures on Page 2, Paragraphs 38-41; Pages 3-5, Paragraphs 65-69, formation and management of communication groups, associated with a group identifier; Paragraph 80-81, source eNB, target eNB, G-RNTI; Liao, Paragraphs 110-148, UAS Association and Identification Procedure, UAS Operation Status Update Notification, Paragraph 112, Fig. 6, group identifier; Page 10, Paragraphs 233-234, RAN node communication configuration).
Regarding Claim 16, Fujishiro in view of Liao teaches a wireless communication method comprising:
receiving, by a third wireless communication node from a second wireless communication node, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) related information,
wherein the UAV related information comprises at least one of: a group identifier, UAV Group Authorized Information, a UAV identifier, or UAV Differentiation Information ((Fujishiro does not disclose UAVs. However, Fujishiro discloses grouping of a plurality of radio terminals capable of performing wireless communication and managed collectively through an assigned common group identifier during mobility procedures on Page 2, Paragraphs 27 and 38-41; Pages 3-5, Paragraphs 65-69, formation and management of communication groups, associated with a group identifier; Paragraph 80-81, source eNB, target eNB, G-RNTI; Liao, Paragraphs 110-148, UAS Association and Identification Procedure, UAS Operation Status Update Notification, Paragraph 112, Fig. 6, group identifier; Page 10, Paragraphs 233-234, RAN node communication configuration). Regarding Claim 2, Fujishiro in view of Liao teaches the wireless communication method of claim 1, wherein the UAV Group Authorized Information indicates whether a UAV is authorized to work in a group (Fujishiro, Page 4, Paragraph 80-81, Fig. 7, group handover acknowledge message; Liao, Page 3, Paragraphs 65-66, UAS operation authorization parameters).
Regarding Claim 3, Fujishiro in view of Liao teaches the wireless communication method of claim 1, wherein the first wireless communication node is configured to receive UAV information, and transmit the UAV grouping information according to the UAV information (Fujishiro, Pages 3-4, Paragraphs 65-71, Fig. 7, Step A-C, UE 100, eNB, measurement report, group identifier, handover request; Liao, Page 3, Paragraphs 67-68, registration and authentication procedures).
Regarding Claim 4, Fujishiro in view of Liao teaches the wireless communication method of claim 3, wherein the UAV information comprises at least one of a UAV identifier or UAV Differentiation Information (Fujishiro, Page 4, Paragraphs 71-74, group identifier of each of the UE, group ID; Liao, Page 3, Paragraphs 67-68, registration and authentication procedures).
Regarding Claim 5, Fujishiro in view of Liao teaches the wireless communication method of claim 4. Fujishiro does not teach the wireless communication method of claim 5. Liao teaches the wireless communication method of claim 5, wherein the UAV Differentiation Information comprises at least one of a scheduled communication time, a stationary indication, a power consumption level, flight path information, or flight height information (Liao, Page 4, Paragraph 112, UAS operation policy).
Regarding Claim 6, Fujishiro in view of Liao teaches the wireless communication method of claim 3, wherein the UAV information is received from the second wireless communication node, and the UAV information is transmitted via a Radio Access Network (RAN) Configuration Update message, a Handover Required message, a Path Switch Request message, a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) Session Resource Modify Indication message, an Initial UE Message message, or an Uplink Non-access stratum (NAS) Transport message (Fujishiro, Page 4, Paragraph 71-74, group handover request message; Liao, Page 3, Paragraphs 68-69, authorization parameters).
Regarding Claim 7, Fujishiro in view of Liao teaches the wireless communication method of claim 3, wherein the UAV information is received from the second wireless communication node, and the UAV grouping information is transmitted via a RAN Configuration Update Acknowledge message, a Handover Command message, a Path Switch Request Acknowledge message, a PDU Session Resource Modify Confirm message, or a Downlink Non-access stratum (NAS) Transport message (Fujishiro, Page 4, Paragraphs 80-81, handover request acknowledge message; Liao, Page 3, Paragraphs 68-69, authorization parameters).
Regarding Claim 8, Fujishiro in view of Liao teaches the wireless communication method of claim 3, wherein the UAV information is received from a UAV, and the UAV grouping information is transmitted via an Initial User Equipment (UE) Context Setup Request message, a Handover Request message, a Downlink RAN Configuration Transfer message, or a Downlink Non-access stratum (NAS) Transport message (Fujishiro, Page 3, Paragraphs 65, Fig. 7, Step A, UE 100, eNB, measurement report, group identifier; Liao, Page 26, Paragraph 353, Initial Context Setup Request Message).
Regarding Claim 9, Fujishiro in view of Liao teaches the wireless communication method of claim 8. Fujishiro does not teach the wireless communication method of claim 9. Liao teaches the wireless communication method of claim 9, wherein the UAV information is received from the UAV via NAS signaling (Liao, Page 24, Paragraph 335, NAS messaging).
Regarding Claim 10, Fujishiro in view of Liao teaches the wireless communication method of claim 1, wherein the first wireless communication node is configured to receive a response message from the second wireless communication node, and the response message is transmitted via an Initial User Equipment (UE) Context Setup Response message or a Handover Request Acknowledgement message (Fujishiro, Page 4, Paragraph 80-81, source eNB, target eNB, handover request acknowledge message; Liao, Page 4, Paragraphs 122-123, response message).
Regarding Claim 12, Fujishiro in view of Liao teaches the wireless communication method of claim 11, wherein the second wireless communication node is configured to transmit UAV information to the first wireless communication node, and receive the UAV grouping information in response to the UAV information (Fujishiro, Page 4, Paragraph 71-81, Fig. 7, Steps C-E, group handover request message, group handover acknowledge message; Liao, Page 4, Paragraphs 112-113, service request message, group identifier; Page 10, Paragraphs 233-234).
Regarding Claim 13, Fujishiro in view of Liao teaches the wireless communication method of claim 11, wherein the second wireless communication node is configured to transmit UAV related information to a third wireless communication node, and the UAV related information comprises at least one of: a group identifier, UAV Group Authorized Information, a UAV identifier, or UAV Differentiation Information (Fujishiro, Page 4, Paragraphs 71-74, group handover request message, group identifier of each of the UE, group ID; Liao, Pages 3-4, Paragraphs 65-66, UAS operation authorization parameters).
Regarding Claim 14, Fujishiro teaches the wireless communication method of claim 13, wherein the UAV related information is transmitted via a Next Generation Radio Access Network (NG-RAN) Configuration Update message, a Handover Request message, or a Retrieve User Equipment (UE) Context Request message (Fujishiro, Page 4, Paragraph 71-74, Fig. 7, Step C, handover request message).
Regarding Claim 15, Fujishiro in view of Liao teaches the wireless communication method of claim 13, wherein the second wireless communication node is configured to receive a response message from the third wireless communication node, and the response message is transmitted via a Next Generation Radio Access Network (NG-RAN) Configuration Acknowledge message, a Handover Request Acknowledge message, or a Retrieve UE Context Response message (Fujishiro, Page 4, Paragraphs 80-81, Fig. 7, Step E, handover request acknowledge message; Liao, Pages 3-4, Paragraph 74, operation status update, Paragraphs 122-123).
Regarding Claim 17, Fujishiro in view of Liao teaches the wireless communication method of claim 16, wherein the third wireless communication node is configured to transmit a response message to the second wireless communication node, and the response message is transmitted via a Next Generation Radio Access Network (NG-RAN) Configuration Acknowledge message, a Handover Request Acknowledge message, or a Retrieve User Equipment (UE) Context Response message (Fujishiro, Page 4, Paragraphs 80-81, handover request acknowledge message; Liao, Pages 3-4, Paragraph 74, operation status update, Paragraph 122-123; Page 10, Paragraphs 233-234).
Regarding Claim 18, it differs from Claim 1 only in that it is a wireless communication node, comprising:
a communication unit; and a
processor configured to the perform the wireless communication method of Claim 1. (Fujishiro in view of Liao teaches a wireless communication node comprising a communication unit and a processor in Fujishiro, Pages 2-4, Paragraphs 35-37, Fig. 1, evolved Node-B 200-1, Paragraphs 42-46, Fig. 3, eNB, transmitter, receiver, controller, memory and Liao, Pages 8-9, Paragraphs 218-221, node; Page 15, Paragraphs 265-268, Fig. 19, infrastructure equipment 1900, processor, memory, communication module 1915). It recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and Fujishiro in view of Liao discloses them.
Regarding Claim 19, it differs from Claim 11 only in that it is a wireless communication node, comprising:
a communication unit; and a
processor configured to the perform the wireless communication method of Claim 11. (Fujishiro in view of Liao teaches a wireless communication node comprising a communication unit and a processor in Fujishiro, Pages 2-4, Paragraphs 35-37, Fig. 1, evolved Node-B 200-1, Paragraphs 42-46, Fig. 3, eNB, transmitter, receiver, controller, memory and Liao, Pages 8-9, Paragraphs 218-221, node; Page 15, Paragraphs 265-268, Fig. 19, infrastructure equipment 1900, processor, memory, communication module 1915). It recites similar limitations as in Claim 11 and Fujishiro in view of Liao discloses them.
Regarding Claim 20, it differs from Claim 16 only in that it is a wireless communication node, comprising:
a communication unit; and a
processor configured to the perform the wireless communication method of Claim 16. (Fujishiro in view of Liao teaches a wireless communication node comprising a communication unit and a processor in Fujishiro, Pages 2-4, Paragraphs 35-37, Fig. 1, evolved Node-B 200-1, Paragraphs 42-46, Fig. 3, eNB, transmitter, receiver, controller, memory and Liao, Pages 8-9, Paragraphs 218-221, node; Page 15, Paragraphs 265-268, Fig. 19, infrastructure equipment 1900, processor, memory, communication module 1915). It recites similar limitations as in Claim 16 and Fujishiro in view of Liao discloses them.
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 GABRIELLE N DAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu. 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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, AKWASI SARPONG can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/GABRIELLE N DAI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2681
/AKWASI M SARPONG/SPE, Art Unit 2681 7/22/2026
Prosecution Insights