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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
3. The drawings were received 10/31/2023. These drawings are considered by examiner.
Claim - 35 USC § 101
4. Claims 15-20 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” are deemed in compliance with the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101, and are eligible claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 4-9, 12-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2022/0053329), hereinafter “Kim“, in view of Prabhakar et al (US 2021/0259045), hereinafter “Prabhakar“.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a computer-implemented method for subscribing or unsubscribing to mobility event notifications comprising:
determining a mobility event associated with a user equipment (UE) (pars [0068-0069]);
generating a request to subscribe to the mobility event notifications (pars [0092-0093]) or to unsubscribe from the mobility event notifications in response to the mobility event;
sending the request (pars [0092-0093]);
Kim does not explicitly teach receiving a response in response to the request; and acknowledging subscribing or unsubscribing to the mobility event notifications based on the response.
Prabhakar, in the same field of endeavor, teaches receiving a response in response to the request; and acknowledging subscribing or unsubscribing to the mobility event notifications based on the response (pars [0120] [0127] [0132]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Kim to Prabhakar, in order to provide the authentication for unmanned aerial vehicles in a wireless communication system for improvement in both wireless communications and in wireless communication devices including the new radio communication such as the fifth generation (5G) (as suggested by Prabhakar in paragraphs [0003-0004]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kim and Prabhakar teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Kim further teaches comprising: determining an event associated with dissociation from an uncrewed aircraft system (UAS) service supplier (pars [0062] [0222]; and generating a second request to unsubscribe from the mobility event notifications based on the event (pars [0071] [0084-0085]).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, the combination of Kim and Prabhakar teach the computer-implemented method of claims 4, 15, Kim does not clearly teach wherein the determining the event associated with the dissociation from the UAS service supplier comprises: receiving an authorization revocation request, wherein the generating the second request to unsubscribe is subsequent to the receiving the authorization revocation request.
Prabhakar, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the determining the event associated with the dissociation from the UAS service supplier comprises: receiving an authorization revocation request, wherein the generating the second request to unsubscribe is subsequent to the receiving the authorization revocation request (pars [0131-0132]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Kim to Prabhakar, in order to provide the authentication for unmanned aerial vehicles in a wireless communication system for improvement in both wireless communications and in wireless communication devices including the new radio communication such as the fifth generation (5G) (as suggested by Prabhakar in paragraphs [0003-0004]).
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 18, the combination of Kim and Prabhakar teach the computer-implemented method of claims 1, 9, 15, Kim further teaches wherein the request to subscribe to the mobility event notifications includes a subscription correlation ID for management of a subscription for mobility event notifications and the response includes a first event report corresponding to the subscription (par [0072] teaches create policy information associated with the UAV UE that includes an application level UAV identifier (assigned by the USS device), a network level UAV identifier (assigned by the core network), information associated with the USS device, and/or the like. The MME/AMF may use the policy information when performing an authentication and authorization procedure with the UAV UE, further pars [0092-0093] teach the network level UAV identifier associated with the UAV UE).
Regarding claims 7, 13, and 20, the combination of Kim and Prabhakar teach the computer-implemented method of claims 1, 9, 15, Kim does not clearly teach wherein the request to subscribe to the mobility event notification is a Namf_EventExposure_Subscribe request and the request to unsubscribe from the mobility event notifications is a Namf_EventExposure_UnSubscribe request.
Prabhakar, in the same field teaches wherein the request to subscribe to the mobility event notification is a Namf_EventExposure_Subscribe request and the request to unsubscribe from the mobility event notifications is Namf_EventExposure_UnSubscribe request (pars [0101-0103] [0107-0108 teach the commands and the application that controlled the UAV/UAS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Kim to Prabhakar, in order to provide the authentication for unmanned aerial vehicles in a wireless communication system for improvement in both wireless communications and in wireless communication devices including the new radio communication such as the fifth generation (5G) (as suggested by Prabhakar in paragraphs [0003-0004]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kim and Prabhakar teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, Kim further teaches wherein the UE is associated with a handover event from a first Access Mobility and Management Function (AMF) to a second AMF (par [0069] teaches the AMF may select another AMF), wherein the request is sent to the second AMF, and wherein the response is received from the second AMF (par [0069]).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches a system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory (par [0010] teaches a memory) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (par [0010] teaches a processor), cause the system to perform:
determining a mobility event associated with a user equipment (UE) (pars [0068-0069]);
generating a first request to subscribe to the mobility event notifications (pars [0092-0093]);
receiving a notification associated with a subscription to the mobility event notifications (pars [0073-0076]);
Kim does not explicitly teach determining a revocation of authorization received from an uncrewed aircraft system (UAS) service supplier; and generating a second request to unsubscribe from the mobility event notifications based on the revocation of authorization.
Prabhakar, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining a revocation of authorization received from an uncrewed aircraft system (UAS) service supplier (pars [0113-0115]); and generating a second request to unsubscribe from the mobility event notifications based on the revocation of authorization (pars [0007-0011] [0091] [0124]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Kim to Prabhakar, in order to provide the authentication for unmanned aerial vehicles in a wireless communication system for improvement in both wireless communications and in wireless communication devices including the new radio communication such as the fifth generation (5G) (as suggested by Prabhakar in paragraphs [0003-0004]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kim and Prabhakar teach the system of claim 9, Kim further teaches wherein the UE is an uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV) (pars [0091-0092]).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to:
determining a termination of a user equipment (UE) subscription (pars [0079] teach determine if the UAV authentication and authorization procedure is required or already completed, and par [0036] teaches allow unrestricted access by UEs with service subscription);
generating a request to unsubscribe to the mobility event notifications from an Access Mobility and Management Function (AMF) in response to the termination of the UE subscription (pars [0073-0075] [0079-0080]);
Kim does not explicitly teach sending the request to the AMF; and
receiving a response from the AMF in response to the request, wherein the response acknowledges the unsubscribe.
Prabhakar, in the same field teaches sending the request to the AMF; and
receiving a response from the AMF in response to the request, wherein the response acknowledges the unsubscribe (pars [0120] [0127] [0132]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Kim to Prabhakar, in order to provide the authentication for unmanned aerial vehicles in a wireless communication system for improvement in both wireless communications and in wireless communication devices including the new radio communication such as the fifth generation (5G) (as suggested by Prabhakar in paragraphs [0003-0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 2-3, 10-11, 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claims 2, 10, 16, the prior art of record fails to disclose initiating an authorization procedure in response to the mobility event; determining the authorization procedure succeeded; and determining the UE is not subscribed to the mobility event notifications, wherein the request to subscribe to the mobility event notifications is generated based on the determination the authorization procedure succeeded and the determination the UE is not subscribed to the mobility event notifications as specified in the claims.
As to claims 3, 11, 17, the prior art of record fails to disclose initiating an authorization procedure in response to the mobility event; determining the authorization procedure failed; and determining the UE is subscribed to the mobility event notifications, wherein the request to unsubscribe from the mobility event notifications is generated based on a determination the authorization procedure failed and the determination the UE is subscribed to the mobility event notifications.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T VU whose telephone number is (571)272-8131. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM to 6:00PM.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached on (571-272-7904. 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.
/MICHAEL T VU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights