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 .
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 20 have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, and 13 have been amended.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 regarding the new limitations: “wherein the communications device is an access and mobility management function (AMF) network element in a cellular network, wherein the registration request message requests the communications device register the UAV with the cellular network and wherein the authentication of the UAV comprises determining whether the UAV is lawful” in claims 1 and 7 and “wherein the communications device is a session management function (SMF) network element in a cellular network, wherein the session request establishment message requests the communications device establish a communications session for the UAV with the cellular network and wherein the authentication of the UAV comprises determining whether the UAV is lawful” in claims 4 and 8, 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, 7, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210407301 to Zhang et al (hereinafter Zhang) and prior art of record US 20190114925 to Schulman et al (hereinafter Schulman).
As per claims 1 and 7, Zhang 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 communications device is an access and mobility management function (AMF) network element in a cellular network (Zhang: [0072] FIG. 1 depicts an embodiment of a wireless communication system 100. In one embodiment, the wireless communication system 100 includes mobile units 105, and base units 110, a core network 130 and an aerial server 120. [0077]: the core network 130 may be a 5G core network (cellular network). [0073]: the mobile units 105 may include aerial vehicles such as drones (UAVs) or the like. The mobile units 105 may be referred to as remote units, subscriber units, mobiles, mobile stations, users, terminals, mobile terminals, UEs, subscriber stations, user terminals, a device, or by other terminology used in the art. [0078] The core network 130 includes several network elements. As depicted, the core network 130 includes a SCEF 135, a HSS 140, and a MME 145. Although SCEF 135, HSS 140 and MME 145 are described in the embodiment, a person skilled in the art will recognize that, in 5G network, a Network Exposure Function (“NEF”) is equivalent to SCEF, a Unified Data Management (“UDM”) is equivalent to HSS, and a Core Access and Mobility Management Function (“AMF”) is equivalent to MME. [0106] In step 510, a mobile unit 105 sends an Attach Request (registration request message) to the MME 145 (AMF)),
wherein the registration request message requests the communications device register the UAV with the cellular network (Zhang: [0106] In step 510, a mobile unit 105 (UAV) sends an Attach Request (registration request message) to the MME 145 (AMF)). It was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an Attach Request is a request to register the mobile unit to the cellular network),
wherein the registration request message comprises authentication information of the UAV for authentication of the UAV, wherein the authentication information includes one or more of an identifier of the UAV, a possible flight plan of the UAV, or take-off location of the UAV (Zhang: [0106] In step 510, a mobile unit 105 (UAV) sends an Attach Request (registration request message) to the MME 145 (AMF)). It was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an Attach Request includes the identifier (authentication information) of the mobile unit), and
wherein the authentication of the UAV comprises determining whether the UAV is lawful (Zhang: [0107] In step 520, the HSS 140 authenticates the mobile unit 105 and sets up NAS security to activate integrity protection and NAS ciphering. [0108]: The MME 145 (AMF) may send the ME Identity Check Request (ME Identity, IMSI) to an EIR. The EIR shall respond with ME Identity Check Ack (Result) (determining whether the UAV is lawful)); and
receiving a message from the communications device indicating authentication failure or success (Zhang: [0107]: If the authentication succeeds, the HSS 140 sends the subscription information configuration 200 as subscription information of the mobile unit 105 to the MME 145. [0108]: The MME 145 (AMF) may send the ME Identity Check Request (ME Identity, IMSI) to an EIR. The EIR shall respond with ME Identity Check Ack (Result). Depending upon the Result, the MME 145 (AMF) decides whether to continue with this attach procedure or to reject the mobile unit. It was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the mobile unit will receive an Attack Accept or Attach Reject message (authentication success or failure) from the MME (AMF) based on the MME’s (AMF’s) decision),
Zhang does not teach: wherein the authentication of the UAV 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 or the possible flight plan of the UAV. However, Schulman teaches:
wherein the authentication of the UAV 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 or 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 Zhang 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 15 and 17, Zhang in view of Shulman 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 (Zhang: [0107] In step 520, the HSS 140 authenticates the mobile unit 105. [0108]: The MME 145 may send the ME Identity Check Request (ME Identity, IMSI) to an EIR. The EIR shall respond with ME Identity Check Ack (Result)).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Schulman as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of US 20200389531 to Lee et al (hereinafter Lee).
As per claims 2 and 10, Zhang in view of Shulman does not teach the limitations of claim 2. However, Lee teaches:
wherein the authentication information comprises generic public subscription identity (GPSI) (Lee: [0111]. Fig. 5, [0142] According to an embodiment, the electronic device 101 may include application(s) (hereinafter referred to as “client application (App)”) 510 for edge computing services (hereinafter referred to as “MEC services”), a service agent (e.g., MSA) 520 (hereinafter “MSA 520”), and a service enabler (e.g., MSE) 530 (hereinafter “MSE 530”). [0230] At operation 903, the MSA 520 may perform the authentication with the AA server 580. According to an embodiment, the MSA 520 may perform GPSI based user authentication with the AA server 580).
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 in the invention of Zhang in view of Schulman to include the above limitations. The motivation to do so would be to
Claims 4, 8, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, prior art of record US 20200162434 to Tang et al (hereinafter Tang) and Schulman.
As per claims 4 and 8, Zhang 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 communications device is a session management function (SMF) network element in a cellular network, wherein the session request establishment message requests the communications device establish a communications session for the UAV with the cellular network (Zhang: [0072] FIG. 1 depicts an embodiment of a wireless communication system 100. In one embodiment, the wireless communication system 100 includes mobile units 105, and base units 110, a core network 130 and an aerial server 120. [0077]: the core network 130 may be a 5G core network (cellular network). [0073]: the mobile units 105 may include aerial vehicles such as drones (UAVs) or the like. The mobile units 105 may be referred to as remote units, subscriber units, mobiles, mobile stations, users, terminals, mobile terminals, UEs, subscriber stations, user terminals, a device, or by other terminology used in the art. [0078] The core network 130 includes several network elements. As depicted, the core network 130 includes a SCEF 135, a HSS 140, and a MME 145. Although SCEF 135, HSS 140 and MME 145 are described in the embodiment, a person skilled in the art will recognize that, in 5G network, a Network Exposure Function (“NEF”) is equivalent to SCEF, a Unified Data Management (“UDM”) is equivalent to HSS, and a Core Access and Mobility Management Function (“AMF”) is equivalent to MME. Incidentally, in 5G network, a Session Management Function (“SMF”) is equivalent to SGW. [0109] In step 540, the MME sends the Create session request to SGW. It was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in a 5G network, the mobile unit sends a PDU session establishment request to the SMF to create a session with the 5G network);
receiving a session establishment reject or complete message from the communications device indicating authentication failure or success, respectively (Zhang: [0109] In step 540, the MME sends the Create session request to SGW. It was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in a 5G network, that after mobile unit sends a PDU session establishment request to the SMF, the SMF sends a session establishment accept or reject message to the mobile unit),
Zhang teaches receiving a session establishment accept or reject message but does not teach: receiving a session establishment reject or complete message indicating authentication failure or success, respectively, wherein the session establishment request message comprises authentication information of the UAV for authentication of the UAV, wherein the authentication information includes one or more of an identifier of the UAV, a possible flight plan of the UAV, or take-off location of the UAV, wherein the authentication of the UAV includes determining whether the UAV is lawful and 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 or the possible flight plan of the UAV. However, Tang teaches:
receiving a session establishment reject or complete message 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),
wherein the authentication information includes one or more of an identifier of the UAV, a possible flight plan of the UAV, or take-off location of the UAV, wherein the authentication of the UAV includes determining whether the UAV is lawful (Tang: (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 (determining whether the UAV is lawful). [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).
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 Tang in the invention of Zhang to include the above limitations. The motivation to do so would be to offer mission critical communication services to a range of industries such as public transportation, public safety, security and surveillance (Tang: [0025]).
Zhang in view of Tang does not teach: wherein the authentication of 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 or the possible flight plan of the UAV.
wherein the authentication of 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 or 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 Zhang in view 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 19 and 20, Zhang in view of Tang and Shulman 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 (Zhang: [0107] In step 520, the HSS 140 authenticates the mobile unit 105. [0108]: The MME 145 may send the ME Identity Check Request (ME Identity, IMSI) to an EIR. The EIR shall respond with ME Identity Check Ack (Result)).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Tang and Shulman as applied to claims 4 and 8 above, and further in view of Lee.
As per claims 6 and 13, Zhang in view of Tang and Shulman does not teach the limitations of claim 6. However, Lee teaches:
wherein the authentication information comprises generic public subscription identity (GPSI) (Lee: [0111]. Fig. 5, [0142] According to an embodiment, the electronic device 101 may include application(s) (hereinafter referred to as “client application (App)”) 510 for edge computing services (hereinafter referred to as “MEC services”), a service agent (e.g., MSA) 520 (hereinafter “MSA 520”), and a service enabler (e.g., MSE) 530 (hereinafter “MSE 530”). [0230] At operation 903, the MSA 520 may perform the authentication with the AA server 580. According to an embodiment, the MSA 520 may perform GPSI based user authentication with the AA server 580).
Conclusion
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