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
Applicants’ arguments filed on 10 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
By the amendment filed 10 August 2026, claims 1-11, 14-20, 22, 23, and 29 have been amended.
Claims 1-30 are now pending.
Claims 1-30 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 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.
Claims 1-7, 9-20, and 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (US 2020/0396599 A1) (“Luo”), as recited in the IDS, in view of Hong et al. (US 2021/0243602 A1) (“Hong”).
Regarding claim 1, Luo discloses An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit, as part of a registration procedure between the UE and a network, capability signaling; receive, as part of the registration procedure and based at least in part on the capability signaling, a registration acceptance message; and communicate a sidelink message in accordance with the capability of the UE and information received from the network, as Luo discloses UE transmission of sidelink capability signaling to a network entity, receipt of configuration information in response to the capability signaling, and establishment/performance of sidelink communications in accordance with the reported capability and received configuration information (Luo ¶¶[0007]–[0010], [0061]–[0071], Fig. 4).
Luo further discloses that the capability signaling identifies a sidelink capability of the UE and that the network provides configuration information based upon the capability signaling (Luo ¶¶[0061]–[0065], [0069]–[0071]).
Luo does not specifically disclose the capability signaling indicating an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)-related category associated with the UE and a capability for the UE to perform sidelink communications to support one or more UAV services, or that the registration/subscription procedure concerns UAV services.
Hong discloses that a UE transmits UAV capability indication information to a network as part of an attach procedure, including in a UE network capability information element (Hong ¶¶[0110]–[0112]). Hong further discloses that the UAV capability includes UAV functions, such as a capability of flying to a certain altitude or moving at high speed (¶[0113]); that a UAV service authorization state is determined based on the UAV capability indication information (¶[0114]); and that the authorization state indicates whether the UE may use a UAV association service, including UAV-specific cellular service or exclusive network resources (¶[0115]). Hong further discloses communicating the UAV authorization state to the base station so that the UAV-related service may be provided when authorized (¶¶[0116]–[0118]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Luo's sidelink capability signaling and network configuration procedure to include Hong's UAV capability and UAV-service authorization information so that the network may identify UAV-related capabilities supported by the UE and determine which UAV-related communication services are appropriate for the UE. Both Luo and Hong concern UE capability signaling used by a network to determine subsequent communication treatment of the UE, and applying Hong's UAV-specific capability and authorization information to Luo's sidelink capability framework would predictably permit the network to configure and authorize sidelink communications appropriate to UAV-capable UEs.
Regarding claim 2, Luo discloses transmit, via the capability signaling, an indication of a supported radio access technology associated with the capability to perform sidelink communications. Luo further discloses 5G NR communication technologies, sidelink/V2X communications, synchronization relative to gNB/GNSS, and Uu interface communications (Luo ¶ [0060]). Luo therefore discloses a supported radio access technology associated with the capability to perform sidelink communications.
Luo further discloses wherein the sidelink message is communicated in accordance with the supported radio access technology. Luo further discloses sidelink/V2X communications using the disclosed 5G NR communication technologies (Luo ¶ [0060]).
Regarding claim 3, Luo discloses transmit, via the capability signaling, an indication of a second radio access technology. Luo further discloses 5G NR communication technologies for sidelink/V2X communications (Luo ¶ [0060]).
Luo further discloses wherein the second radio access technology comprises a Fifth Generation radio access technology, a New Radio access technology, or both. Luo further discloses 5G NR communication technologies (Luo ¶ [0060]).
Luo further discloses wherein the sidelink message is communicated in accordance with the second radio access technology. Luo further discloses sidelink/V2X communications using the disclosed 5G NR communication technologies (Luo ¶ [0060]).
Regarding claim 4, Luo discloses transmit, via the capability signaling, an indication of a bandwidth part associated with the capability to perform sidelink communications. Luo further discloses configuring one or more bandwidth parts (BWPs) for establishing sidelink communications (Luo ¶ [0065]).
Luo further discloses wherein the sidelink message is communicated within the bandwidth part. Luo further discloses “Configure Bandwidth Part(s)” in Fig. 4 and further discloses first and second sidelink capabilities using different bandwidth parts (Luo ¶¶ [0078]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 5, Luo discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive control signaling indicating a plurality of UAV services supported by the network, the plurality of UAV services including the one or more UAV services, wherein transmitting the capability signaling is based at least in part on receiving the control signaling in part. Luo discloses exchange of control/configuration signaling and subsequent UE capability signaling between the UE and network entity (Luo ¶¶[0007]–[0010], [0061]–[0065]), but does not specifically disclose control signaling identifying a plurality of UAV services supported by the network.
Hong discloses network provision and authorization of UAV-specific services according to UAV capability information and UAV service authorization state. Hong explains that the UAV association service may include maintaining cellular service for a UAV operating at an altitude or providing an exclusive network resource/service to the UAV (Hong ¶¶[0114]–[0115]). Hong further teaches that the base station determines whether such UAV services are provided according to authorization information supplied by the core network (¶¶[0116]–[0118]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to signal the available UAV services taught by Hong to Luo's UE before receiving the UE's corresponding capability signaling, so that the UE reports capabilities relevant to UAV services actually supported by the network. Such signaling would predictably avoid reporting irrelevant service capabilities and permit the network and UE to negotiate mutually supported UAV communication services.
Regarding claim 6, Luo discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive, via the registration acceptance message, an authorization for the UE to perform the sidelink communications to support the one or more UAV services, wherein communicating the sidelink message is based at least in part on the authorization in part. Luo discloses receiving network configuration information in response to UE capability signaling and performing sidelink communications according to the received configuration (Luo ¶¶[0061]–[0071]), but does not specifically disclose UAV-service authorization.
Hong discloses determining a UAV service authorization state based on UE-provided UAV capability information (Hong ¶[0114]). Hong further discloses that the authorization state indicates whether the UE is permitted to use a UAV association service (¶[0115]) and transmitting UAV authorization signaling to the base station indicating whether the UE is “authorized” or “not authorized” for the UAV service (¶¶[0116]–[0118]).
It would have been obvious to apply Hong's UAV-service authorization mechanism to Luo's registration/configuration procedure so that Luo's UE performs UAV-related sidelink communications only when the network has authorized the corresponding UAV service, thereby permitting the network to control access to UAV-related communication services according to UE capability and authorization.
Regarding claim 7, Hong further discloses The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive control signaling indicating a revocation of the authorization for the UE to perform the sidelink communications to support the one or more UAV services; and refrain from performing the sidelink communications to support the one or more UAV services based at least in part on the revocation. Hong expressly teaches that a UAV service authorization state may change from “authorized” to “not authorized,” for example when the UE runs out of credit or can no longer access the cellular network (Hong ¶[0138]). In response to the change, the core network transmits a UE context modification request containing UAV authorization signaling indicating the changed authorization state (¶¶[0137]–[0140]). When the changed state is “not authorized,” the base station stops providing the UAV association service to the UE (¶¶[0141]–[0143]).
It would have been obvious to apply Hong's authorization-revocation procedure to Luo's UAV-related sidelink communications so that sidelink communications supporting a UAV service cease when authorization for that UAV service is revoked, thereby preventing continued use of a service for which the UE is no longer authorized.
Claim 9 recites subject matter substantially similar to that of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 10, Luo discloses An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive, from a user equipment (UE) as part of a registration procedure between the UE and a network, capability signaling; receive, as part of the registration procedure and based at least in part on the capability signaling, information associated with the UE; and transmit information to the UE based at least in part on receiving the capability signaling, as Luo discloses a network entity receiving sidelink capability signaling from a UE, determining configuration information based upon the sidelink capability, and transmitting responsive configuration information to the UE (Luo ¶¶[0007]–[0010], [0061]–[0071]).
Luo does not specifically disclose the capability signaling indicating a UAV-related category associated with the UE and a capability for the UE to perform sidelink communications to support one or more UAV services; receiving subscription data associated with the UE, wherein the subscription data indicates an authorization for the UE to perform the sidelink communications to support the one or more UAV services; and transmitting a registration acceptance message based at least in part on the subscription data.
Hong discloses receiving UE-provided UAV capability indication information as part of an attach/registration procedure (Hong ¶¶[0110]–[0113]); determining a UAV service authorization state based on the UAV capability information (¶[0114]); retrieving that UAV service authorization state from an HSS using identification information of the UE (¶[0114]); and transmitting signaling toward the base station indicating whether the UE is authorized for the UAV service (¶¶[0115]–[0118]). Thus, Hong teaches obtaining subscriber-specific UAV-service authorization information in response to UE capability signaling and using that information to control provision of UAV-related network services.
It would have been obvious to incorporate Hong's UAV capability and subscription-based authorization procedure into Luo's sidelink capability signaling framework so that the network retrieves UAV-service authorization data corresponding to the UE's reported capabilities and returns registration/configuration information permitting UAV-related sidelink communications when authorized. Such a combination would predictably provide subscriber-based access control for Luo's sidelink communications when used to support UAV services.
Regarding claim 11, Hong further teaches The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the instructions to receive the subscription data are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: retrieve the subscription data from a unified data management repository associated with the network in that Hong's core network sends an enquiry containing identification information of the UE to an HSS and receives the UE's UAV service authorization state from the HSS (Hong ¶[0114]; see also ¶¶[0169]–[0170]).
Hong refers to the subscriber-data repository as an HSS rather than a unified data management repository. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art implementing Hong's subscriber-information retrieval in a 5G network to employ the corresponding unified subscriber-data management repository to retrieve the UAV-service subscription/authorization information, because both repositories perform the known function of storing and supplying subscriber-specific network service information.
Regarding claim 12, Hong further teaches The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the subscription data associated with the UE comprises UAV-to-everything subscription data by storing and retrieving subscriber-specific information identifying whether the UE is authorized to use UAV-specific network services (Hong ¶¶[0114]–[0115]). Hong's UAV service authorization information constitutes subscription information associated specifically with UAV communication services.
It would have been obvious to represent Hong's UAV-service subscription/authorization information as UAV-to-everything subscription data when applying Hong's UAV service-control mechanism to Luo's sidelink communications, because the combined system uses the subscription information specifically to authorize UAV-related sidelink communications.
Regarding claim 13, Hong further teaches The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the UAV-to-everything subscription data is associated with a subscription permanent identifier (SUPI) associated with the UE in that Hong retrieves the UAV service authorization information from the HSS using identification information of the UE (Hong ¶[0114]; ¶¶[0169]–[0170]).
Hong does not expressly identify the UE identification information as a SUPI. It would have been obvious to use a permanent subscription identifier, such as the SUPI employed in a 5G system, as Hong's UE identification information when querying the subscriber repository, because a permanent subscriber identity predictably and uniquely associates the retrieved UAV-service subscription data with the correct UE subscription.
Regarding claim 14, Luo and Hong disclose The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: update a UE context associated with the UE based at least in part on receiving the subscription data, wherein transmitting the registration acceptance message is based at least in part on updating the UE context in part. Hong teaches determining and retrieving the UAV service authorization state associated with the UE and communicating the authorization state to the base station during context establishment (Hong ¶¶[0114]–[0118]). Hong additionally teaches that when the UAV service authorization state changes, the core network transmits a UE context modification request containing UAV authorization signaling indicating the changed state (¶¶[0137]–[0140]).
It would have been obvious to update the UE context in Luo's network based on the retrieved UAV-service subscription/authorization information before transmitting the responsive registration/configuration information to the UE. Hong expressly uses UE-context signaling to convey UAV authorization information, and maintaining that authorization state in the UE context would predictably permit subsequent network procedures and UAV-related communications to reflect the UE's current subscription and authorization state.
Claims 15-20 recite subject matter substantially similar to that of claims 2-7, respectively, and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 22, Luo further discloses wherein the one or more UAV services comprise a UAV-to-everything communications service. (¶ [0005] [0060])
Claim 23 recites limitations substantially similar to those of claim 1 in method form and is rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 24-28 recite subject matter substantially similar to that of claims 2-7, respectively, and are similarly rejected.
Claim 29 recites limitations substantially similar to those of claim 10 in method form and is rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 10.
Claim 30 recites subject matter substantially similar to that of claim 11 and is similarly rejected.
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al.in view of Hong et al, and further in view of Hu et al. (US 2024/0371280 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Luo and Hong does not specifically disclose wherein the UAV-related category comprises a UAV-controller (UAV-C) category, an authority UE, a stationary UE, or any combination thereof.
Hu discloses differentiated UAV UE categories including a master UAV UE, member UAV UE, and backup UAV UE. Hu further discloses that “the master UAV UE manages the replacement of the member UAV UE,” that the master UAV UE initiates the replacement, and that the master UAV UE transmits a replacement command to the backup UAV UE (Hu ¶[0110]). Thus, Hu's master UAV UE performs an authoritative management and command role with respect to other UAV UEs and teaches the claimed alternative of “an authority UE.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Hu's authority-based UAV UE categorization into the UAV capability signaling framework of Luo and Hong in order to identify the management role of a UAV-related UE and facilitate coordination and control among UAV-related devices.
Claim 21 recites subject matter substantially identical to that of claim 8 and is thus similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (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 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.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights