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 .
The following is a Final Office action in response to communications received 08/19/2025.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 18 have been amended.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 have been examined.
The objection to claim 9 is withdrawn in light of the applicant’s amendments to the claim.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 regarding the new limitations: “where the authentication information includes one or more of an identifier of the UAV, a possible flight plan of the UAV, and take-off location of the UAV, wherein the authentication comprises determining whether the possible flight plan of the UAV or the take-off location of the UAV is lawful; and wherein the message is based on the authentication of at least one of the take- off location of the UAV and the possible flight plan of the UAV”, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection presented in the current office action.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10, 11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over prior art of record CN105259916A to Yang (hereinafter Yang) and US 20190114925 to Schulman et al (hereinafter Schulman).
Examiner’s Note: The examiner used and English translation of CN105259916A which was provided in a previous office action.
As per claims 1 and 7, Yang teaches:
An authentication method performed by a communications apparatus that is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) or a chip of the UAV, the authentication method comprising:
sending a registration request message to a communications device, wherein the registration request message requests the communications device register the UAV with a network (Yang: [0040]: The scheduling device 1 can be a server cluster similar to a general computer architecture. The scheduling device 1 of the unmanned aerial vehicle includes a storage unit 2, a verification module 3 and a scheduling module 4. [0063]: In one embodiment, if the UAV 5 is able to communicate with the dispatch device 1, the registration and authentication of the dispatch device 1 will be started, and the identification code will be sent to the verification module 3 to determine the legitimacy of the identity of the UAV 5. [0072]: After the UAV is turned on, it initiates a registration request to the remote dispatching and control system through the network. Also, [0059]),
wherein the registration request message comprises authentication information of the UAV for authentication of the UAV (Yang: [0061]: The unmanned aerial vehicle 5 implements identity authentication of the unmanned aerial vehicle 5 by the scheduling device 1 on the Radius server through the Radius protocol. After verification, the unmanned aerial vehicle 5 has completed the registration process), and
where the authentication information includes one or more of an identifier of the UAV, a possible flight plan of the UAV, and take-off location of the UAV (Yang: [0043]: In one embodiment, the verification module 3 receives an identification code uniquely corresponding to the unmanned aerial vehicle 5 and sent from the unmanned aerial vehicle 5, and then the verification module 3 compares and verifies the identification code with the identification code data in the storage module 2. [0071], [0087]),
and
receiving a message from the communications device indicating authentication failure or success (Yang: [0043]: In one embodiment, the verification module 3 receives an identification code uniquely corresponding to the unmanned aerial vehicle 5 and sent from the unmanned aerial vehicle 5, and then the verification module 3 compares and verifies the identification code with the identification code data in the storage module 2. When the identification code does not belong to the identification code data, the verification module 3 verifies that it fails, and the scheduling device 1 can send a prohibition command to the unmanned aerial vehicle 5. Also, [0082]).
Yang does not teach: wherein the authentication comprises determining whether the possible flight plan of the UAV or the take-off location of the UAV is lawful; and wherein the message is based on the authentication of at least one of the take- off location of the UAV and the possible flight plan of the UAV. However, Schulman teaches:
wherein the authentication comprises determining whether the possible flight plan of the UAV or the take-off location of the UAV is lawful; and wherein the message is based on the authentication of at least one of the take- off location of the UAV and the possible flight plan of the UAV (Schulman: [0021]: obtaining a request for the UAV to fly within the flight-restriction region prior to granting or denying permission for the UAV to fly within the flight-restriction region. In some embodiments, the request originates from the UAV. Where desired, the request may comprise an indication of a proposed flight path of the UAV. The request is made in advance prior to the UAV flying toward the flight-restriction region. [0160]: The flight regulation module may approve or reject one or more flight plans of a UAV. In some instances, a flight plan including a proposed flight path for a UAV. The flight path may be provided in relation to the UAV and/or the environment. The flight regulation module may receive the flight plans and may approve or reject the flight plans. The flight regulation module may reject the flight plans if they are in contradiction to a set of flight regulations for the UAV. i.e., the flight regulation module determines whether the flight plan of a UAV is within regulations (lawful) or contradicts regulations (not lawful)). [0133]-[0134]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of Schulman in the invention of Yang to include the above limitations. The motivation to do so would be to provide a path to both autonomy and accountability for operators of UAVs (Schulman: [0004]).
As per claims 2 and 10, Yang in view of Schulman teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the authentication information comprises information identifying the UAV (Yang: [0043]: In one embodiment, the verification module 3 receives an identification code uniquely corresponding to the unmanned aerial vehicle 5 and sent from the unmanned aerial vehicle 5).
As per claims 3 and 11, Yang in view of Schulman teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the communications device is an access and mobility management function (AMF) network element or a mobility management entity (MME) (Yang: [0059]: The unmanned aerial vehicle 5UAV initiates an attachment request message to the Mobility Management Entity (MME) mobile management entity through the EnodeB base station).
As per claims 15 and 17, Yang in view of Schulman teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the authentication information of the UAV is used for the communications device to request authentication to an authentication server (Schulman: [0154]: The air control system may obtain information, about the user and the UAV (and/or any other devices involved in the UAV safety system) from the authentication center (Connection 4). The information may relate to confirmation or identification of the user and/or UAV identity).
As per claims 16 and 18, Yang in view of Schulman teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein sending the registration message and receiving the second or third message comprise a second authentication, the method further comprising: initiating, by the registration request message, a first authentication of the UAV that registers the UAV with a network, wherein successful registration identifies the UAV and allows the UAV to access the network; and initiating, by the registration request message and in response to a successful registration of the UAV with the network, the second authentication of the UAV (Yang: [0059]: The unmanned aerial vehicle 5UAV initiates an attachment request message to the Mobility Management Entity (MME) mobile management entity through the EnodeB base station. Unmanned aerial vehicle 5 sends an identification code identification request message to HSS (Home Subscriber Server)/AUC (authentication center), i.e., the home subscriber server/authentication center. The HSS/AUC returns an identification information response. MME checks whether the identification response data is consistent with the user identification data returned by HSS/AUC. If the identification is successful (first authentication with the network), the encryption method is negotiated and a security mode request is sent to the unmanned aerial vehicle 5 through EnodeB. After receiving the message returned by the service gateway, MME sends an attachment acceptance message to the unmanned aerial vehicle 5 through EnodeB. Unmanned aerial vehicle 5 replies with an attachment completion message to MME through EnodeB (successful registration of the UAV with the network). At this point, the unmanned aerial vehicle 5 has completed the process of accessing the scheduling device 1 through the 4G network. [0061]: The unmanned aerial vehicle 5 implements identity authentication of the unmanned aerial vehicle 5 by the scheduling device 1 on the Radius server through the Radius protocol. After verification, the unmanned aerial vehicle 5 has completed the registration process on the dispatching device 1. [0063]: In one embodiment, if the UAV 5 is able to communicate with the dispatch device 1, the registration and authentication of the dispatch device 1 will be started, and the identification code will be sent to the verification module 3 to determine the legitimacy of the identity of the UAV 5. After the identity authentication is successful (second authentication), the status of the UAV 5 in the dispatch device 1 will become online).
Claims 4, 6, 8, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over prior art of record US 20200162434 to Tang et al (hereinafter Tang) and Schulman.
As per claims 4 and 8, Tang teaches:
An authentication method performed by a communications apparatus that is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) or a chip of the UAV, the authentication method comprising:
sending a session establishment request message to a communications device, wherein the session request establishment message requests the communications device establish a communications session for the UAV with a network (Tang: [0029]: The command and control platform 106 also includes a communication manager 128 whose role is to establish a wireless communication link with the UAV 102 via an interface 130 to a network 132 (e.g., internet) and a wireless communication network such as an LTE wireless network 134. [0032]: FIG. 3 depicts a schematic illustration 300 of exemplary client/server communication between the UAV 102 and command and control SkyLTE platform 106 in accordance with the present embodiment which includes the SSL 204 handshake. As communication between the UAV 102 and the control platform 106 is two-directional, either the UAV 102 or the control platform 106 can serve as the “Client” 302 or the “Server” 304 in the client/server communication illustration 300 depending upon which entity initiates the communication. As seen in fig. 3, client (UAV) sends a Client Hello message (session establishment request message));
receiving a session establishment reject or complete message from the communications device indicating authentication failure or success, respectively (Tang: [0034]: exchange of key information 314, 316 using public key cryptography after mutual authentication leading to the generation of a session key 318. The symmetric session key is shared by both parties and is used in all subsequent communication. It was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the server sends a finished message once the server part of the handshake is done indicating an authentication success),
wherein the session establishment request message comprises authentication information of the UAV for authentication of the UAV (Tang: [0034]: During the SSL handshake 308, the control platform 106 and the UAV 102 both perform the following tasks: authentication of the UAV 102, if required, through the UAV 102 sending 312 its own certificate to the control platform 106 to verify that the UAV's 102 certificate was signed by a trusted certification authority),
where the authentication information includes one or more of an identifier of the UAV, a possible flight plan of the UAV, and take-off location of the UAV (Tang: [0034]: During the SSL handshake 308, the control platform 106 and the UAV 102 both perform the following tasks: authentication of the UAV 102, if required, through the UAV 102 sending 312 its own certificate to the control platform 106 to verify that the UAV's 102 certificate was signed by a trusted certification authority. [0027]: In accordance with the present embodiment, the digital certificates are compliant with ITU-T X509 standards, i.e., the UAV’s certificate will include the identification information of the UAV).
Tang does not teach: wherein authentication on the UAV includes determining whether the possible flight plan of the UAV or the take-off location of the UAV is lawful, and wherein the session establishment reject or complete message is based on the authentication of at least one of the take-off location of the UAV and the possible flight plan of the UAV. However, Shulman teaches:
wherein authentication on the UAV includes determining whether the possible flight plan of the UAV or the take-off location of the UAV is lawful, and wherein the session establishment reject or complete message is based on the authentication of at least one of the take-off location of the UAV and the possible flight plan of the UAV (Schulman: [0021]: obtaining a request for the UAV to fly within the flight-restriction region prior to granting or denying permission for the UAV to fly within the flight-restriction region. In some embodiments, the request originates from the UAV. Where desired, the request may comprise an indication of a proposed flight path of the UAV. The request is made in advance prior to the UAV flying toward the flight-restriction region. [0160]: The flight regulation module may approve or reject one or more flight plans of a UAV. In some instances, a flight plan including a proposed flight path for a UAV. The flight path may be provided in relation to the UAV and/or the environment. The flight regulation module may receive the flight plans and may approve or reject the flight plans. The flight regulation module may reject the flight plans if they are in contradiction to a set of flight regulations for the UAV. i.e., the flight regulation module determines whether the flight plan of a UAV is within regulations (lawful) or contradicts regulations (not lawful)). [0133]-[0134]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of Schulman in the invention of Tang to include the above limitations. The motivation to do so would be to provide a path to both autonomy and accountability for operators of UAVs (Schulman: [0004]).
As per claims 6 and 13, Tang in view of Schulman teaches:
The method according to claim 4, wherein the authentication information comprises information identifying the UAV (Tang: [0034]: During the SSL handshake 308, the control platform 106 and the UAV 102 both perform the following tasks: authentication of the UAV 102, if required, through the UAV 102 sending 312 its own certificate to the control platform 106 to verify that the UAV's 102 certificate was signed by a trusted certification authority. [0027]: In accordance with the present embodiment, the digital certificates are compliant with ITU-T X509 standards, i.e., the UAV’s certificate will include the identification information of the UAV. Shulman: [0134]: An authentication process may include a verification of the UAV's identity).
As per claims 19 and 20, Tang in view of Schulman teaches:
The method according to claim 4, wherein the authentication information of the UAV is used for the communications device to request authentication to an authentication server (Schulman: [0154]: The air control system may obtain information, about the user and the UAV (and/or any other devices involved in the UAV safety system) from the authentication center (Connection 4). The information may relate to confirmation or identification of the user and/or UAV identity).
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Schulman as applied to claims 4 and 8 above, and further in view of prior art of record WO2019183858A1 to Li (hereinafter Li).
Examiner’s Note: The examiner used an English translation of WO2019183858A1 which was provided in the previous office action.
As per claims 9 and 14, Tang in view of Schulman does not teach the limitations of claims 9 and 14. However, Li teaches:
wherein the communications device a session management function (SMF) network element (Li: [0009]: if the first network element determines that the received drone identity information is included in the legal set of drone identity information, then it sends an indication of drone identity authentication success to the second network element, if it determines that the received drone identity information is not included in the legal set of drone identity information, then it sends an indication of drone identity authentication failure to the second network element, the second network element sends an indication of drone identity authentication failure or an indication of drone identity authentication success to the drone supervision platform. [0074]: The network elements in the 5G architecture include drones, radio access network (RAN), AMF entity, session management function (SMF) entity. [0078]: The SMF entity is responsible for session management, such as user session establishment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of Li in the invention of Tang in view of Schulman to include the above limitations. The motivation to do so would be to provide a method and device for identifying a drone, so as to solve the problem that the drone cannot be correctly identified (Li: [0008]).
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 MADHURI R HERZOG whose telephone number is (571)270-3359. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Taghi Arani can be reached at (571)272-3787. 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.
MADHURI R. HERZOG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2438
/MADHURI R HERZOG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights