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
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/07/2026 and 05/09/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This Office action is in reply to filing by applicant on 05/09/2024.
Claims 1 – 10 and 12 – 15 have been amended by Applicant.
Claim 11 remains as original.
Claims 1 – 15 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Independent claims 1, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis of Independent claims 1, 14, and 15:
A method (using claim 1) of configuring an UAV and configuration unit (note that independent claims 1, 14, and 15 are mirrored);
A method performed by a configuration unit, the configuration unit being communicatively coupled to a communication network and an Uncrewed Aerial System(UAS) the UAS including an Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and a UAV controller (UAV-C) the method comprising:
receiving, for each of a plurality of UAV service suppliers (USS)) information specifying a service area of that USS;
obtaining UAS specific information,
wherein the UAS specific information comprises a UAV registration area, a USS service requirement, or a combination thereof; and
determining a mapping of the UAS specific information to one or more of the plurality of USSs based on the received USS information and the obtained UAS specific information.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims recite a method (claim 1, process), a configuration unit (claim 14, machine), and a system (claim 15, machine). Thus, these claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of: determining a mapping of the UAS specific information to one or more of the plurality of USSs based [on data via the receiving and obtaining steps]). This limitation, as drafted, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of being performed using a configuration unit, a communication network, an Uncrewed Aerial System (UAS), an Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle (UAV), an Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle (UAV), an Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle (UAV), and an UAV controller do not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitations recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claims 1, 14, and 15 recite additional elements or steps of using a configuration unit, a communication network, an Uncrewed Aerial System (UAS), an Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle (UAV)using a configuration unit, a communication network, an Uncrewed Aerial System (UAS), an Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle (UAV), Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic devices, processors, memories, and/or generic computer-readable media, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the several receiving / obtaining steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. There is nothing in the disclosure that recites that the configuration unit, communication network, Uncrewed Aerial System (UAS), Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle (UAV)Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the above underlined several elements / steps of determining, receiving, and obtaining info relative to UAV flight paths (mapping) amount to well-understood, routine, conventional activity and are supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, independent claims 1, 14, and 15 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2 – 13 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of these dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component(s). The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2 – 13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the above rejection of independent claims 1, 14, and 15.
Given the above analyses, all claims 1 – 15 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 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 paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office Action:
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.— A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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;
Claims 1 – 4, 7 – 9, and 13 – 15 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Burgess (US20180350246A1).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 15 (note that independent claim 15 is mapped directly below as it reads on both independent claims 1 and 14)
Burgess teaches:
A system comprising: a configuration unit for communicating with a communication network and an Uncrewed Aerial System (UAS) comprising an Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle (UAV) and a UAV controller (UAV-C); and an application unit; wherein the configuration unit is arranged to: Examiner notes that for this application, (“The described methods and apparatus may be practiced in other specific forms. … The scope of the invention is, therefore, indicated by the appended claims rather than by the foregoing description. All changes which come within the meaning and range of equivalency of the claims are to be embraced within their scope.”, see paragraph 167 of the instant specification.), that said … (“The power and/or control signals from fuselage 106 may be routed to PCBs 118 through cables running through fuselage 106, wings 102, and booms 104. … UAS 100 may include two PCBs, one per the boom. The PCBs carry electronic components 119 including, for example, power converters, controllers, memory, passive components, etc. In operation, propulsion units 108 and 110 of UAS 100 are electrically connected to the PCBs.”, [0036]);
receive, for each of a plurality of UAV service suppliers (USS), information specifying a service area of a respective USS from the application unit; (“(a) receive, from UAS operators, operation data for UASs operating in the service area served by the USS computing system, wherein the received operation data identifies data for each UAS with a unique UAS identifier assigned to the UAS, (b) receive, from the other USS computing systems for the airspace, operation data for UASs operating in the other service areas served the other USS computing systems, wherein the operation data for the other service areas identifies data for each UAS with a unique UAS identifier assigned to the UAS, (c) combine (i) the operation data received from the UAS operators for the corresponding service area, with (ii) the operation data received from the other USS computing systems for the other service areas in the airspace, to maintain an airspace-wide UAS database,”, [005]);
obtain UAS specific information, wherein the UAS specific information comprises a UAV registration area, a USS service requirement, or a combination thereof; and (“Each USS 652 provides service to one of a plurality of service areas within an airspace. A given USS 652 may accept data input from an operating UAS 662 through communications with the UAS operator 654 (e.g. through a mobile device or other computing device).”, [0135]) and (“The system also includes a plurality of UAS registration computing systems operable to create UAS accounts for the UAS registry and control access to the plurality UAS accounts via an authentication process.”, [005]) and (“As shown in FIG. 6A, the UAS account 608 may include owner information 610 corresponding to a particular UAS owner 602. Owner information 610 is personally identifiable information (PII) provided by the UAS owner 602 during registration. This information could include items such as: legal name, phone number, mailing address, email address, as examples. The information provided should be sufficient to enable identification, and provide a valid point of contact for a responsible party during UAS operations (e.g., phone number, mailing address).”, [0131]), info regarding registration areas, owner info, and service requirements, may be both transmitted and received;
determine a mapping of the UAS specific information to one or more of the plurality of USSs based on the USS information and the UAS specific information; and Examiner broadly interprets this limitation to include in its meaning that a specific UAV is mapped to / correlated with a specific service supplier (USS) … (“The system also includes a plurality of UAS service supplier (USS) computing systems that each provide service to one of a plurality of service areas within an airspace. Each USS computing system is operable to: (a) receive, from UAS [i.e., UAV] operators, operation data for UASs operating in the service area served by the USS computing system, wherein the received operation data identifies data for each UAS with a unique UAS identifier assigned to the UAS, (b) receive, from the other USS computing systems for the airspace, operation data for UASs operating in the other service areas served the other USS computing systems, wherein the operation data for the other service areas identifies data for each UAS with a unique UAS identifier assigned to the UAS, (c) combine (i) the operation data received from the UAS operators for the corresponding service area, with (ii) the operation data received from the other USS computing systems for the other service areas in the airspace, to maintain an airspace-wide UAS database,”, [005]);
wherein the application unit is an application unit selected from the group of application units consisting of a USS, a UAS Traffic Management module, the UAV, the UAV-C, a UAS application specific server, and a UAS operator. (“The system also includes a plurality of UAS service supplier (USS) computing systems that each provide service to one of a plurality of service areas within an airspace. Each USS computing system is operable to: (a) receive, from UAS operators, operation data for UASs operating in the service area served by the USS computing system, wherein the received operation data identifies data for each UAS with a unique UAS identifier assigned to the UAS, (b) receive, from the other USS computing systems for the airspace, operation data for UASs operating in the other service areas served the other USS computing systems, wherein the operation data for the other service areas identifies data for each UAS with a unique UAS identifier.
Regarding claim 2:
Burgess contains all limitations of claim 1:
Burgess further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the mapping comprises selecting one or more of the plurality of USSs to supply one or more services specified by the USS service requirement to the UAV as the UAV flies within the UAV registration area, (“The system also includes a plurality of UAS service supplier (USS) computing systems that each provide service to one of a plurality of service areas within an airspace. Each USS computing system is operable to: (a) receive, from UAS operators, operation data for UASs operating in the service area served by the USS computing system, wherein the received operation data identifies data for each UAS with a unique UAS identifier assigned to the UAS, (b) receive, from the other USS computing systems for the airspace, operation data for UASs operating in the other service areas served the other USS computing systems, wherein the operation data for the other service areas identifies data for each UAS with a unique UAS identifier assigned to the UAS,”, [005]);
the selecting based upon the received USS information and the obtained UAS specific information. (“In some cases, when the central dispatch system 310 receives a request for UAS-related service (e.g., transport of an item) from the access system 302, the central dispatch system 310 may select a specific UAS 304 to dispatch. The central dispatch system 310 may accordingly instruct the local dispatch system 312 that is associated with the selected UAS to dispatch the selected UAS. The local dispatch system 312 may then operate its associated deployment system 314 to launch the selected UAS.”, [0100]).
Regarding claim 3:
Burgess contains all limitations of claim 1:
Burgess further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the information specifying the service areas of the USSs is received from an application unit, the application unit being an application unit selected from the group of application units consisting of: a USS, a UAS Traffic Management module, the UAV, the UAV-C, a UAS application specific server, and a UAS operator. (“(c) a plurality of USS computing systems that each provide service to one of a plurality of service areas within an airspace, wherein each USS computing system is operable to: (i) receive, from UAS operators, operation data for UASs operating in the service area served by the USS computing system, (ii) receive, from the other USS computing systems for the airspace, operation data for UASs operating in the other service areas served the other USS computing systems,”, See [Abstract, published 12/06/2018]).
Regarding claim 4:
Burgess contains all limitations of claim 1:
Burgess further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the information specifying the service area of a USS comprises one or more of the group consisting of: information specifying a geographical extent for the service supplied by that USS; information specifying a geographical extent for the service supplied by that USS within a registration area of the UAV information specifying a time period during which a service is supplied by that USS; information specifying a time period during which a service is supplied by that USS within a registration area of the UAV; and information specifying a network topology for that USS. (“In yet another example, data representing information related to an entity's identity and/or location may only be available temporarily. For instance, a system could be configured to store such data for a certain time period and to then permanently delete the data upon detecting expiration of this time period. Other examples are possible as well.”, [0164]) and (“In particular, UASs may be provided at a number of different launch sites that may be in communication with regional and/or central control systems. Such a distributed UAS deployment system may allow UASs to be quickly deployed to provide services across a large geographic area (e.g., that is much larger than the flight range of any single UAS). For example, UASs capable of carrying payloads may be distributed at a number of launch sites across a large geographic area (possibly even throughout an entire country, or even worldwide), in order to provide on-demand transport of various items to locations throughout the geographic area”, [090]), note that “geographical extent”, at least, is addressed above.
Regarding claim 7:
Burgess contains all limitations of claim 1:
Burgess further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting the determined mapping to one or more network functions of the communication network or the UAS, or both. (“FIG. 6B also illustrates a supplemental data service provider 668 in communication with the USSs 652. The supplemental data service provider 668 may include radar and other info used to track UASs, weather reports, map data, other data used to keep track of the environment and use of the airspace.”, [0141]).
Regarding claim 8:
Burgess contains all limitations of claim 1:
Burgess further discloses:
The method of claim 1, route of the UAV or an expected route of the UAV, or both. (“For example, a remote operator could control high level navigation decisions for a UAS, such as by specifying that the UAS should travel from one location to another (e.g., from a warehouse in a suburban area to a delivery address in a nearby city), while the UAS's navigation system autonomously controls more fine-grained navigation decisions, such as the specific route to take between the two locations, specific flight controls to achieve the route and avoid obstacles while navigating the route, and so on.”, [045]).
Regarding claim 9:
Burgess contains all limitations of claim 1:
Burgess further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of USSs comprise one or more Local USS Networks (LUNs). (“The central dispatch system 310 may be further configured to route such requests or instructions to one or more local dispatch systems 312.”, [098]).
Regarding claim 13:
Burgess contains all limitations of claim 1:
Burgess further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the configuration unit is a unit selected from the group of units consisting of: an Uncrewed Aerial System Application Enabler Server (UAES), the UAES being a server that is remote from the UAS; the UAV-C; a Network Exposure Function(NEF);a Network Function (NF); an Application Function (AF); a Service Capability Exposure Function (SCEF); and the UAV. (“For example, the UAS 200 may provide a WiFi connection to a remote device, and serve as a proxy or gateway to a cellular service provider's data network, which the UAS might connect to under an LTE or a 3G protocol, for instance.”, [073], and remote server may be connect to.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 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 35 USC 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC 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.
Claim 5 is rejected pursuant to 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess (US20180350246A1) in view of Qiao (US20210360371A1).
Regarding claim 5:
Burgess contains all limitations of claim 1:
Burgess does not expressly disclose, but of Qiao teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising configuring a plurality of user-plane communication paths for the UAS, based on the determined mapping of the UAS to the plurality of USSs and the information specifying the service areas of the plurality of USSs, wherein each user-plane communication path comprises a Data Network Access Identifier (DNAI). (“In an example, an appropriate UPF 110 may be selected by matching the functionality and features required for a UE 100, DNN, PDU session type (i.e. IPv4, IPv6, ethernet type or unstructured type) and if applicable, the static IP address/prefix, SSC mode selected for the PDU session, UE 100 subscription profile in UDM 140, DNAI as included in the PCC rules, local operator policies, S-NSSAI, access technology being used by the UE 100, UPF 110 logical topology, and/or the like)”, [0291]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Burgess to incorporate the teachings of Qiao because Burgess would be more efficient and versatile should it incorporate the use of Data Network Access Identifiers (DNAI) to better Instill DNAI policies and technology as done in Qiao . (“In an example, an appropriate UPF 110 may be selected by matching the functionality and features required for a UE 100, DNN, PDU session type (i.e. IPv4, IPv6, ethernet type or unstructured type) and if applicable, the static IP address/prefix, SSC mode selected for the PDU session, UE 100 subscription profile in UDM 140, DNAI as included in the PCC rules, local operator policies, S-NSSAI, access technology being used by the UE 100, UPF 110 logical topology, and/or the like)”, [0291]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 10 – 12 would be allowable if amended to overcome the additional rejections herein pursuant to 35 USC 101. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independently, while the claims' limitations most recently set forth herein may individually be disclosed by the prior art, the claims as a whole are not obvious because the examiner would have to improperly use their separate limitations as a road map to combine them.
CONCLUSION
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form 892.
Han (US20210101679A1) – A communication method and system for converging a 5th generation (5G) communication system for supporting higher data rates beyond a 4th generation (4G) system with a technology for Internet of Things (IoT). The disclosure may be applied to intelligent services based on the 5G communication technology and the IoT-related technology, such as smart home, smart building, smart city, smart car, connected car, health care, digital education, smart retail, security and safety services. In consideration of the communication characteristics of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), a technology that considers UE mobility restrictions and registration areas in a mobile communication network in consideration of the flight mission and route of the UE in order to efficiently support communication services with the UAV is provided.
Kim (US20220053329A1- Various aspects of the present disclosure generally relate to wireless communication. In some aspects, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) user equipment (UE) may perform a registration procedure with a UAV service supplier (USS) device via a network connection to register with the USS device. The UAV UE may perform a registration procedure with a core network device to register with a network associated with the core network device based at least in part on performing the registration procedure with the USS device. The UAV UE may receive, from the core network device, an indication to perform an authentication and authorization procedure only after performing the registration procedure with the USS device and after performing the registration procedure with the core network device. Numerous other aspects are provided.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW COBB whose telephone number is (571) 272-3850. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5, M - F.
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 call examiner Cobb as above, or 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, Peter Nolan, can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/MATTHEW COBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661