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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18, 25 and 31 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/10/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 18, 25 and 31 are persuasive. The rejection of claims 18, 25 and 31 is withdrawn. Claims 18, 25 and 31 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.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 15-17, 19-24, 26-30 and 32 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that 3gpp does not teach or suggest "a cause value being set to PEER NOT RESPONDING" because Table 6.1.7.3-1 of 3gpp is an empty template providing only three column headings and containing no entries for any specific application error or cause value.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. 3gpp is not relied upon to teach the cause value being set to PEER NOT RESPONDING. Catt is relied upon for that limitation and discloses it (Table 6.1.3.2.2-2, "cause" attribute set to PEER_NOT_RESPONDING, returned with HTTP status code 504 Gateway Timeout). [insert FP 7.37.13 verbatim] Therefore, Applicant's attack on Table 6.1.7.3-1 of 3gpp does not address the rejection as set forth. Applicant argues that Catt discloses PEER_NOT _RESPONDING only in the context of the Ngmlc_Location service, as an example cause for the Providelocation service operation relating to location services, and that no explanation has been provided as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected that cause value and applied it to the context of UAV authentication and authorization.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. 3gpp expressly provides the mechanism into which the cause value is placed. 3gpp discloses that upon failure to authenticate the UAV, an HTTP status code is returned with the message body containing a ProblemDetails structure with the "cause" attribute set to an application error (Section 2b, "authResult" attribute set to "AUTH_FAILURE"; on failure or redirection, one of the HTTP status codes returned with the message body containing a ProblemDetails structure with the "cause" attribute set to one of the application error). Catt discloses the same mechanism and supplies a cause value for it (Table 6.1.3.2.2-2, ProblemDetails with the "cause" attribute set to PEER_NOT _RESPONDING for a 504 Gateway Timeout). Both references are 3GPP CT4 contributions directed to error handling on 5G core service based interfaces and are therefore in the same field of endeavor (MPEP 2141.01(a)). The modification places a known cause value into a slot that 3gpp already defines and leaves unpopulated.
Applicant argues that the rejection is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction using Applicant's own disclosure as a roadmap to combine the references in a manner not suggested by the prior art itself.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. [insert FP 7.37.03 verbatim] The reason to combine is drawn from the references. 3gpp discloses returning a cause value drawn from a list of application errors on authentication failure (Section 2b, on failure or redirection, one of the HTTP status codes returned with the message body containing a ProblemDetails structure with the "cause" attribute set to one of the application error). Catt discloses the cause value returned when a peer does not respond (Table 6.1.3.2.2-2, PEER_NOT_RESPONDING, 504 Gateway Timeout). Applicant argues that Samsung fails to cure the deficiencies of 3gpp and Catt.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Samsung is relied upon for the limitations of claims 17, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30 and 32. 3gpp in view of Catt is relied upon for the limitations of claims 15, 22 and 29 and teaches them as discussed above.
Applicant argues that claims 16-21, 23-28 and 30-32 are patentable by virtue of their dependency and for the additional features recited therein.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not identified any limitation of these claims that is said to distinguish over the applied art, and a bare statement that claims recite additional features is not an argument for separate patentability (MPEP 2145; 37 CFR 1.111(b)).
Thus, all the claimed and argued limitations have been met.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 21-23 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; 5G System; Uncrewed Aerial Systems Network Function (UAS-NF); Aerial Management Services; Stage 3 (Release 17)", 3GPP DRAFT; C4-214758, 5 September 2021 (2021-09-05), XP052048388 herein 3gpp in view of CATT ET AL: "Add Local Location", 3GPP DRAFT; C4-213454, 20210419 - 20210428 26 May 2021 (2021-05-26), XP052014247,herein Catt.
Claim 15, 3gpp discloses a method (5.2.2.2, Authenticate Service Operation) for a first node for mobility management (5.2.2.2.1, operation is invoked by consumer, e.g. AMF) in a core network (5.2.2.2.1, Since AMF, thus in a core network), the method comprising:
transmitting, to a second node (UAS-NF) for authentication and authorization of Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in the core network, a first message (5.2.2.2.1, NF service consumer (AMF) sends an authentication message"; "1. POST.... /uav-authentications (UAVAuthlnfo)", sent to the UAS-NF), the first message requesting the second node to invoke a service operation for the authentication and authorization of UAV for a third node related to an Uncrewed Aerial System (UAS) Service Supplier (USS) (5.2.1, communications of authentication and authorization messages between AMF and USS, the AMF can authenticate from UAS-NF); and
receiving, from the second node, a first response message (5.2.2.2.1, 2b. If failed to authenticate the UAV, the "authResult" attribute of the UAVAuthResponse shall be set to "AUTH_FAILURE". On failure or redirection, one of the HTTP status codes) in response to the first message in a case where the first node does not receive, from the third node, a response in response to the invocation of the service operation during predetermined period (5.2.2.2.1, “authResult” attribute of the “UAVAuthResponse” is set to Auth_Failure, thus in a case where no response is received).
3gpp may not explicitly disclose wherein the first response message includes a cause value being set to PEER NOT RESPONDING.
Catt discloses wherein the first response message includes a cause value being set to PEER NOT RESPONDING (Table 6.1.3.2.2-2, cause being a 504 gateway timeout with peer not responding). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3gpp to include setting the "cause" attribute to PEER NOT RESPONDING where a peer does not respond, as taught by Catt, so as to identify the failure as a non-responding peer rather than a rejected or denied request (Table 6.1.3.2.2-2).
Claim 16, 3gpp discloses may the method according to claim 15. 3gpp discloses wherein response message is HTTP (5.2.2.2.3).
3gpp not explicitly disclose wherein the first response message is HTTP status code 504 Gateway Timeout.
Catt discloses wherein the first response message is HTTP status code 504 Gateway Timeout RESPONDING (Table 6.1.3.2.2-2, cause being a 504 gateway timeout with peer not responding). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3gpp to include setting the "cause" attribute to PEER NOT RESPONDING where a peer does not respond, as taught by Catt, so as to identify the failure as a non-responding peer rather than a rejected or denied request (Table 6.1.3.2.2-2).
Claim 21, 3gpp in view of Catt discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein the first node is an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) (5.2.2.2.1, operation is invoked by consumer, e.g. AMF; 5.2.1, AMF), the second node is an Uncrewed Aerial System Network Function (UAS-NF) (5.2.2.2.1, UAS-NF, 5.2.1, UAS-NF), and the third node is a USS (5.2.1, USS is the external AF).
Claim 22, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 15. 3gpp discloses a method (UUAA-MM operation) for a second node (5.2.2.2.1, UAS-NF, 5.2.1, UAS-NF) for authentication and authorization of Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in a core network (5.2.2.2.1, "1. POST .. ./uav-authentications (UAVAuthlnfo)", sent to the UAS-NF, UAS-NF, 5.2.1, UAS-NF). The steps in the claim are recited from the point of view of a second node, i.e. UAS-NF. See claim 15.
Claim 23, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 16.
Claim 28, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 21.
Claim(s) 17, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27 and 29, 30 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3gpp in view of Catt in view of SAMSUNG: "TS 23.256: Clarifications to UUAA-MM procedure", 3GPP DRAFT; S2-2106873, vol. SA WG2, no. Elbonia; 20210816 - 20210827 27 August 2021(2021-08-27), XP052059391 herein Samsung.
Claim 17, 3gpp in view of Catt discloses the method according to claim 15. 3gpp may not explicitly disclose further comprising: receiving from a User Equipment (UE) a Registration Request message requesting a UAV service, the Registration Request message including an address of the third node; transmitting a Registration Accept message to the UE before transmitting the first message, the Registration Accept message including a Pending indication indicating that the authentication and authorization of UAV is pending; and transmitting, after receiving the first response message, a second message to the UE indicating that the authentication and authorization of UAV has failed.
Samsung discloses receiving from a User Equipment (UE) a Registration Request message requesting a UAV service (5.2.2.1, Figure 5.2.2.1-1, UE sends a registration message), the Registration Request message including an address of the third node (5.2.2.1, Figure 5.2.2.1-1, 1. “USS address”); transmitting a Registration Accept message to the UE before transmitting the first message (5.2.2.1, Figure 5.2.2.1-1, 4a. Registration accept message transmitted prior to 6. UUAA-MM), the Registration Accept message including a Pending indication indicating that the authentication and authorization of UAV is pending (5.2.2.1, Figure 5.2.2.1-1, pending UUAA-MM indication in the Registration Accept message); and transmitting, after receiving the first response message, a second message to the UE indicating that the authentication and authorization of UAV has failed (5.2.2.2 UUAA-MM procedure, Figure 5.2.2.2-1, 9. NAS MM transport message forwarding authentication message from USS including authentication/authorization result (success/failure); if UUAA-MM fails, AMF may trigger Network-initiated Deregistration and shall include in the explicit De-Registration Request the appropriate rejection cause value). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3gpp to include notification of an authentication result as taught by Samsung so as to reduce signaling
Claim 19, 3gpp in view of Catt in view of Samsung discloses the method according to claim 17. 3gpp may not explicitly disclose wherein the second message is a Deregistration Request message including a failure cause indicating that the authentication and authorization of UAV has failed.
Samsung discloses wherein the second message is a Deregistration Request message including a failure cause indicating that the authentication and authorization of UAV has failed (5.2.2.2 UUAA-MM procedure, Figure 5.2.2.2-1, 10 and 11, deregistration request message). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3gpp to include notification of an authentication result as taught by Samsung so as to reduce signaling.
Claim 20, 3gpp in view of Catt in view of Samsung discloses the method according to claim 17. 3gpp may not explicitly disclose further comprising determining whether the authentication and authorization of UAV is required in response to the receipt of the Registration Request message, wherein the determination is based on at least one of: the UE holds valid Aerial UE subscription information; execution of the authentication and authorization of UAV is required during registration in accordance with a local operator policy; previous procedures for the authentication and authorization of UAV have not been successful; the UE provides a Civil Aviation Administration (CAA)-Level UAV Identity (CAA- Level UAV ID); and the Pending indication is included in the Registration Accept message when the authentication and authorization of UAV is required.
Samsung discloses determining whether the authentication and authorization of UAV is required in response to the receipt of the Registration Request message (5.2.2.1, 3. AMF shall determine whether UUAA-MM is required for the UAV), wherein the determination is based on at least one of: the UE holds valid Aerial UE subscription information; execution of the authentication and authorization of UAV is required during registration in accordance with a local operator policy; previous procedures for the authentication and authorization of UAV have not been successful; the UE provides a Civil Aviation Administration (CAA)-Level UAV Identity (CAA- Level UAV ID); and the Pending indication is included in the Registration Accept message when the authentication and authorization of UAV is required (5.2.2.1, 3. Cell ID and other IDs provided). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3gpp to include notification of an authentication result as taught by Samsung so as to reduce signaling.
Claim 24, 3gpp in view of Catt discloses the method according to claim 22. 3gpp may not explicitly disclose wherein the first response message causes the first node to transmit a third message to the User Equipment (UE) indicating that the authentication and authorization of UAV has failed.
Samsung discloses wherein the first response message causes the first node to transmit a third message to the User Equipment (UE) indicating that the authentication and authorization of UAV has failed (5.2.2.2, 9. Authenticate success or failure message delivered to the UE). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 3gpp to include notification of an authentication result as taught by Samsung so as to reduce signaling.
Claim 26, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 19.
Claim 27, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 20.
Claim 29, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claims 15 and 17. 3gpp discloses a method for a User Equipment (UE) (UUAA-MM (USS UAV authorization/authentication) operation). The claim has simply combined steps from claim 17 with those of claim 15. See claims 15 and 17 above.
Claim 30, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 17.
Claim 32, as analyzed with respect to the limitations as discussed in claim 19.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20240267817 A1 – Systems and methods for supporting multiple uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV) Service Suppliers (multi-USS) are described. The methods may be performed by a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) including a UAV application enabling (UAE) client located in the UAV with the method performed with the UAV in-flight. Steps may include: sending a registration request to a UAE server, the registration request including an indication of multi-USS capability: receiving a registration response message that includes an indication that the UAE server supports multi-USS capability: receiving a multi-USS configuration request that includes multi-USS configuration parameters related to conditions under which the UAE client may initiate a USS change and a list of allowed USSs: sending a multi-USS configuration response; and performing a multi-USS change and sending a multi-USS change notification based on the multi-USS configuration parameters.
US 20240022906 A1 – A method of wireless communication of a network element is provided. The method includes initiating a network slice specific authentication and authorization (NSSAA) procedure to register a user equipment (UE) with a network slice associated with uncrewed aerial services. In response to successful registration of the UE with the network slice by the NSSAA procedure, the method includes initiating an uncrewed aerial system (UAS) service supplier (USS) uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV) authentication and authorization (UUAA) mobility management (UUAA-MM) procedure to register the UE with a USS associated with the network slice. The USS maintains the uncrewed aerial services.
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 Mehmood B. Khan whose telephone number is (571)272-9277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am-6:30 pm.
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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at (571) 272-3988. 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.
/Mehmood B. Khan/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights