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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to application filed on 2/24/2026.
Claims 1-8 & 19-24 have been elected with traverse in response to the restriction.
Claims 1-8 & 19-24 have been examined and are pending with this action.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/26/2019 and these drawings are accepted.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 & 19-24 in the reply filed on 1/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Examiner Note: Examiner suggest Applicant to cancel non-elected claims which are 9-18 & 25-30.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-8 & 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Takakura et al (US 20250142510 A1).
INDEPENDENT:
As per claim 1, Takakura discloses a user equipment (UE) at an uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV) (Takakura: [0002]: “The 5G system (5GS) connects a radio terminal (user equipment (UE) or an Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle (UAV)) to a Data Network (DN).”), comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (Takakura: [Fig 2]: “The application processor 1504 includes a system software program (Operating System (OS)) read from the memory 1506 or a memory (not shown) ”), configured to:
transmit a request message configured associated with a mobility management procedure, the request message (Takakura: [0083]: “In step 201, the AMF 2 initiates the UAV authentication and authorization procedure (UUAA-MM procedure) in mobility management. The AMF 2 may initiate the UAV authentication and authorization procedure by transmitting an Nnef_Authentication_authenticate request message” ) including a command and control (C2) authorization payload associated with authorizing a direct C2 connection between the UAV and a controller (Takakura: [0024 & 0078]: “The UE must obtain C2 (Command and Control) communication authorization to enable operations based on the C2 communication & The Nnef_Authentication_authenticate service operation can include a USS address (e.g., Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN)) and a UUAA Aviation Payload”); and
receive a response message (Takakura: [0024]: “The UE must obtain C2 (Command and Control) communication authorization to enable operations based on the C2 communication), as part of the mobility management procedure (Takakura: [0083]: “In step 201, the AMF 2 initiates the UAV authentication and authorization procedure (UUAA-MM procedure) in mobility management), that
indicates whether the direct C2 connection between the UAV and the controller is authorized (Takakura: [0024]: “The UE must obtain C2 (Command and Control) communication authorization to enable operations based on the C2 communication. The C2 communication means a user plane link for propagating messages containing information about UAV operational commands and control from a UAV controller (UAV-C)”).
Claim 19 is rejected based on rationale provided for claim 1.
DEPENDENTS:
As per claim 3, Takakura discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the mobility management procedure includes an uncrewed aerial system (UAS) service supplier UAV authorization (Takakura: [0020]: “The UAV must be authenticated and authorized before it can use the UAS (Uncrewed Aerial System) Service, ”). and authentication mobility management (UUAA-MM) procedure (Takakura: [ABS]: “An Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) node initiates a UAV Authentication and Authorization (UUAA-MM) procedure, ”).
As per claim 4, Takakura discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the C2 authorization payload is a C2 aviation payload that indicates that the authorization is for the direct C2 connection (Takakura: [ABS]: “The UE must obtain C2 (Command and Control) communication authorization to enable operations based on the C2 communication. ”).
As per claim 5, Takakura discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the request message includes a destination address for an authorization server (Takakura: [0069]: “For UE authentication, the AUSF 4 works closely with the UDM 8. The Nausf_NSSAA_Authenticate service provides the NF consumer (e.g., AMF 2) with a Network Slice-Specific Authentication and Authorization service between the UE 1 and an AAA server via the AUSF 4.. ”).
As per claim 6, Takakura discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the C2 authorization payload includes C2 pairing information for the direct C2 connection (Takakura: [0119]: “The C2 communication authorization procedure is a procedure for pairing a UAV with a UAV-C to achieve C2 communication. ”).
As per claim 7, Takakura discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the response message indicates a successful authorization of the direct C2 connection and includes an application layer identifier (Takakura: [0085]: “the UAS NF 9 stores the UUAA context of the UAV indicating successful authentication and authorization and transmits an Nnef_Authentication_authenticate response to the AMF 2 with information indicating successful authentication and authorization.”).
As per claim 8, Takakura discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
transmit an updated request message with an updated C2 authorization payload (Takakura: [0083]: “In step 201, the AMF 2 initiates the UAV authentication and authorization procedure (UUAA-MM procedure) in mobility management. The AMF 2 may initiate the UAV authentication and authorization procedure by transmitting an Nnef_Authentication_authenticate request message & The Nnef_Authentication_authenticate service operation can include a USS address (e.g., Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN)) and a UUAA Aviation Payload” ) ; and
receive an updated response message that indicates whether the direct C2 connection between the UAV and the controller is still authorized or is reauthorized (Takakura: [0171]: “ the AMF 2 that has received the Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext Response transmits to the UE 1 a PDU Session Modification Command message including information indicating that the service-level authentication and authorization procedure”).
Claims 20-24 are rejected based on rationale provided for claims 4-8.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takakura et al (US 20250142510 A1) in view of PATEROMICHELAKIS (WO 2021233548 A1).
As per claim 2, Takakura discloses the UE of claim 1 (Takakura: [0002]: “The 5G system (5GS) connects a radio terminal (user equipment (UE) or an Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle (UAV)) to a Data Network (DN).”),
Takakura does not explicitly teaches a PC5 connection.
PATEROMICHELAKIS wherein the direct C2 connection is a PC5 connection (Takakura: [0078]: “the UAV controller (UAV-C) 104 uses a direct connection with the UAV(s) 103 to establish a C2 communication session. Here, the direct connection may use the PC5 reference point.”),
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Takakura in view of PATEROMICHELAKIS to figure out PC5 connection. One would be motivated to do so because this assures that UAV operates in the direct mode of C2 communications (0083).
Claims 15 and 25 are rejected based on rationale provided for claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sibte Bukhari whose telephone number is (571) 270-7122. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 - 6:00.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571) 272-7304. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIBTE H BUKHARI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights