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 .
Response to Amendment
Clams 19-38 are pending. Claims 26-27, 34-35, and 38 are amended. Pursuant to amendments made, Objection raised for claims 26 and 38 is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that, regarding claims 19 and 27, the limitation of “first WTRU has been assigned as a group leader for the UAV group” is not reasonably taught in Roy reference; potentially in figs. 7 & 9 and in the messages exchanged therebetween the participating nodes. Applicant makes similar argument pertaining to claim 35 [See applicant’s response of 7/31/2026, pages 7-8].
In response, the Examiner respectfully points out that because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified [ In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). (“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”); < In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969)].
Now pertaining to messages 751 for Authorization Request to pair with multiple UAVs by including an "UAV fleet control" indication or a similar indication. The request is made from UAV-C to form a group control over the UAV group, to UTM 710 via network 706. The request inherently indicates that WTRU (i.e., UAV-C) has been indicated as a group leader for the UAV group to be authorized to form. The authorized “UAV fleet control” status sufficiently indicates that “first WTRU has been assigned as a group leader for the UAV group”.
Similar arguments apply for claim 35.
Therefore, Examiner contends that the rejections made in the previous Office Action of 3/31/2026 is proper, and is substantially repeated herein as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Roy et al. (WO 2021041214 A1, hereinafter Roy. The reference is part of IDS).
Regarding claim 19, Roy discloses a first wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (Methods and apparatuses are described herein for paring an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) with a UAV-controller (UAV-C). For example, a UAV having a UAV wireless transmit/receive unit (UAV WTRU) may transmit, to an access and mobility management function (AMF) … - Abstract), comprising:
a processor (118, fig. 1B, ¶0039) configured to:
send a first message (message 751, fig. 7) to a first network node (706, fig. 7), wherein the first message indicates a request to operate as part of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) group (message 751, fig. 7, At step 751, the UAV-C 703 may transmit a request message to the network 706 to pair with multiple UAVs by including an "UAV fleet control" indication or a similar indication. – ¶0119);
receive a second message (message 756a in Fig. 7) from the first network node (706, fig. 7), wherein the second message indicates that the request to operate as part of the UAV group has been authorized, indicates that the first WTRU has been assigned as a group leader for the UAV group, and indicates UAV group authorization information that comprises a leader identification (message 756a in Fig. 7, which is received after authentication and/or authorization, where the authorization information is the list of UAS/UAV ids; see also ¶0124.
Alternatively or additionally, a list of UAVs associated with the UAV-C may be maintained at the UAS server instead of the 3GPP network. In that case, the network 706 may check from the UAV-C subscription information that the UAV-C 703 is authorized for "bulk pairing" of UAVs 702a, 702b. The network 706 may include a "UAV fleet control" indication instead of a list of UAVs pairing request towards the UTM 710. – ¶0120 );
send a third message (exchange 758, fig. 7) to a second network node (UAV-1 and/or UAV-2, fig. 7), wherein the third message indicates a request for command and control (C2) group communication and indicates the leader identification (At Steps 758 and 759, C2 communications between the UAV-C 703 and each UAV 702a, 702b may be established. – ¶0126. Message 758 is eventually generated in response to original message 751, which, “transmit a request message to the network 706 to pair with multiple UAVs by including an "UAV fleet control" indication or a similar indication.” – ¶0119.
The UAV and UAV-C may perform C2 communications based on a PDU session established between the UAV and the UAV-C using the cellular network (e.g., 5G). – ¶0085.
Example types of C&C or C2 communication may include, but are not limited to, as disclosed in Table 1 below – ¶0086);
receive a fourth message from the second network node, wherein the fourth message indicates C2 group authorization information (acknowledgement of completion of setup of a of C2 communications with each UAV, from exchange 758 in Fig. 7, ¶0085-0086, ¶0119, ¶0126); and
send a fifth message to a second WTRU (WTRU of UAV-1 an/or UAV-2) based on the C2 group authorization information, wherein the fifth message indicates a C2 command, and wherein the second WTRU is associated with the UAV group (exchange 759: "C2 communications" in Fig. 7.).
Regarding claim 20, Roy discloses the first WTRU of claim 19, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine from the UAV group authorization information that the group leader is authorized to establish a packet data unit (PDU) session for the C2 group communication (If Some C&C exchange (e.g., location or flight data reporting) may happen between the UAV and the UTM, and between the UAV and its UAV-C. The UAV and UAV-C may perform C2 communications based on a PDU session established between the UAV and the UAV-C using the cellular network (e.g., 5G). – ¶0085).
Regarding claim 21, Roy discloses the first WTRU of claim 20, wherein the third message further indicates a request to establish the PDU session for the C2 group communication with the first WTRU (If Some C&C exchange (e.g., location or flight data reporting) may happen between the UAV and the UTM, and between the UAV and its UAV-C. The UAV and UAV-C may perform C2 communications based on a PDU session established between the UAV and the UAV-C using the cellular network (e.g., 5G). – ¶0085
Alternatively or additionally, a list of UAVs associated with the UAV-C may be maintained at the UAS server instead of the 3GPP network. In that case, the network 706 may check from the UAV-C subscription information that the UAV-C 703 is authorized for "bulk pairing" of UAVs 702a, 702b. The network 706 may include a "UAV fleet control" indication instead of a list of UAVs pairing request towards the UTM 710. –
¶0120).
Regarding claim 22, Roy discloses the first WTRU of claim 20, wherein:
the PDU session is a first PDU session;
the third message further indicates a request to prevent a second PDU session from being used;
and
the second PDU session is associated with the UAV group (For example, the AMF 182a, 182b may be responsible for authenticating users of the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, support for network slicing (e.g., handling of different protocol data unit (PDU) sessions with different requirements), selecting a particular SMF 183a, 183b, management of the registration area, termination of non- access stratum (NAS) signaling … – ¶0072).
Regarding claim 23, Roy discloses the first WTRU of claim 19, wherein the processor is further configured to:
send a discovery message to the second WTRU, wherein the discovery message indicates a request for the second WTRU to perform a discovery procedure based on the C2 group authorization information (UAS entities (either UAV or UAV-C) may be able to discover available counterpart entities (e.g., UAV-C or UAV) upon successful authentication and binding, but prior to pairing – ¶0178).
Regarding claim 24, Roy discloses the first WTRU of claim 19, wherein the processor is further configured to:
perform a group discovery procedure to determine a UAV identification associated with the second WTRU based on the C2 group authorization information (Alternatively or additionally, a list of UAVs associated with the UAV-C may be maintained at the UAS server instead of the 3GPP network. In that case, the network 706 may check from the UAV-C subscription information that the UAV-C 703 is authorized for "bulk pairing" of UAVs 702a, 702b. The network 706 may include a "UAV fleet control" indication instead of a list of UAVs pairing request towards the UTM 710. –
¶0120
UAS entities (either UAV or UAV-C) may be able to discover available counterpart entities (e.g., UAV-C or UAV) upon successful authentication and binding, but prior to pairing – ¶0178).
Regarding claim 25, Roy discloses the first WTRU of claim 19, wherein the third message further indicates a group identification and a list of one or more UAVs associated with the UAV group (The network 706 may have a list of UAVs (for example, including UAVs 702a, 702b) associated/stored with the UAV-C subscription. – ¶0119.
Alternatively or additionally, a list of UAVs associated with the UAV-C may be maintained at the UAS server instead of the 3GPP network. In that case, the network 706 may check from the UAV-C subscription information that the UAV-C 703 is authorized for "bulk pairing" of UAVs 702a, 702b. The network 706 may include a "UAV fleet control" indication instead of a list of UAVs pairing request towards the UTM 710. –
¶0120).
Regarding claim 26, Roy discloses the first WTRU of claim 19, wherein the C2 group authorization information comprises group-related parameters, and wherein the group-related parameters comprise one or more of: a group ID, UAV IDs of group members, the leader identification, an unmanned aerial system service supplier (USS) address, or group subscription-related information (Alternatively or additionally, a list of UAVs associated with the UAV-C may be maintained at the UAS server instead of the 3GPP network. In that case, the network 706 may check from the UAV-C subscription information that the UAV-C 703 is authorized for "bulk pairing" of UAVs 702a, 702b. The network 706 may include a "UAV fleet control" indication instead of a list of UAVs pairing request towards the UTM 710. – ¶0120).
Regarding method claim(s) 27-34, although wording is different, the material is considered substantively equivalent to the claim(s) 19-26 respectively as described above.
Regarding claim 35, Roy discloses a first network node (706, fig. 7), comprising:
a processor (¶0206) configured to:
send a first message (752, fig. 7) to a second network node (710, fig. 7) when it is determined that a first UAV (703 UAV-C, fig. 7) and a second UAV (702a-b, UAV1 and/or UAV-2, fig. 7) are capable of direct communication (Alternatively, or additionally, the paring request may include a sidelink command and control request (SL C2 Request) for direct communication between the UAV 902 and the UAV-C 903. – ¶0154), wherein the first message indicates a request to authorize a group discovery, assigns the first UAV as a group leader, and indicates UAV group authorization information that comprises a leader indication (At step 752, the network 706 may forward the pairing request to the UAS server/UTM 710 including the list of UAVs 702a, 702b to be paired retrieved from the UAV-C subscription information. – ¶0120
Alternatively or additionally, a list of UAVs associated with the UAV-C may be maintained at the UAS server instead of the 3GPP network. In that case, the network 706 may check from the UAV-C subscription information that the UAV-C 703 is authorized for "bulk pairing" of UAVs 702a, 702b. The network 706 may include a "UAV fleet control" indication instead of a list of UAVs pairing request towards the UTM 710. – ¶0120
UAS entities (either UAV or UAV-C) may be able to discover available counterpart entities (e.g., UAV-C or UAV) upon successful authentication and binding, but prior to pairing – ¶0178);
receive a second message (754, fig. 7) from the second network node, wherein the second message indicates an authorization of command and control (C2) group communication (The UAV and UAV-C may perform C2 communications based on a PDU session established between the UAV and the UAV-C using the cellular network (e.g., 5G). – ¶0085.
Example types of C&C or C2 communication may include, but are not limited to, as disclosed in Table 1 below – ¶0086
At step 752, the network 706 may forward the pairing request to the UAS server/UTM 710 including the list of UAVs 702a, 702b to be paired retrieved from the UAV-C subscription information. –¶0120
At steps 758 and 759, C2 communications between the UAV-C 703 and each UAV 702a, 702b may be established. – ¶0126); and
send a third message (756a, fig. 7) to a third network node (703, UAV-C, fig. 7), wherein the third message indicates that the first UAV is authorized to perform the group discovery to communicate with the second UAV (Alternatively or additionally, a list of UAVs associated with the UAV-C may be maintained at the UAS server instead of the 3GPP network. In that case, the network 706 may check from the UAV-C subscription information that the UAV-C 703 is authorized for "bulk pairing" of UAVs 702a, 702b. The network 706 may include a "UAV fleet control" indication instead of a list of UAVs pairing request towards the UTM 710. –
¶0120
UAS entities (either UAV or UAV-C) may be able to discover available counterpart entities (e.g., UAV-C or UAV) upon successful authentication and binding, but prior to pairing – ¶0178).
Regarding claim 36, Roy discloses the first network node of claim 35, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine from the UAV group authorization information that the group leader is authorized to establish a packet data unit (PDU) session for the C2 group communication (If Some C&C exchange (e.g., location or flight data reporting) may happen between the UAV and the UTM, and between the UAV and its UAV-C. The UAV and UAV-C may perform C2 communications based on a PDU session established between the UAV and the UAV-C using the cellular network (e.g., 5G). – ¶0085).
Regarding claim 37, Roy discloses the first network node of claim 36, wherein the PDU session is a first PDU session, and wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive a request for a second PDU session, wherein the second PDU session is associated with the second UAV (For example, the AMF 182a, 182b may be responsible for authenticating users of the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, support for network slicing (e.g., handling of different protocol data unit (PDU) sessions with different requirements), selecting a particular SMF 183a, 183b, management of the registration area, termination of non- access stratum (NAS) signaling … – ¶0072); and
send a rejection message based on the assignment of the first UAV as the group leader, wherein the rejection message indicates that the request for the second PDU session has been rejected (The binding response message may include an indication (e.g., code) indicating the status UAV ID authentication procedure. For example, this code or indication may include, but is not limited to, one or more of: ACCEPT, REJECT - USS ID, and the like. – ¶0149
The pairing response message may include a code or indication indicating the status of UAS pairing procedure. This may include, but is not limited to, one or more of: ACCEPT, REJECT - UAV-C capabilities, REJECT - allowed pairing list, and REJECT - counterpart binding not complete. The paring response message may also include a UAS ID implicitly indicating that the UAV 902 is paired with the UAV-C 903, a Remote ID, and/or SL C2 Response. – ¶0154).
Regarding claim 38, Roy discloses the first network node of claim 35, wherein the second network node is an unmanned aerial system service supplier (USS) (710 is UAS, fig. 7) and the third network node is a policy control function (PCF) (UAV-C is understood as a policy control function, fig. 7).
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 SHAHBAZ NAZRUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1467. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9.30 am-3 pm, 6.30 pm-9 pm, F: 9.30 am-1.30 pm, 4 pm-8 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, Lin Ye can be reached on 571-272-7372. 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.
/SHAHBAZ NAZRUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights