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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues “However, the policy rules and subscription-related
information of Narasimha do not teach or suggest receiving "control signaling indicating a UE policy configuration comprising a set of radio parameters usable by the UE to perform sidelink communications," as recited in independent claim 1. For example, while Narasimha generally describes using a PCF or UDM to configure or manage policy information and subscription information, Narasimha does not teach or suggest "control signaling indicating a UE policy configuration comprising a set of radio parameters usable by the UE to perform sidelink communications," as recited in independent claim 1, at least because Narasimha is silent as to either the policy information or subscription information relating to "sidelink communications," let alone "a UE policy configuration comprising a set of radio parameters usable by the UE to perform sidelink communications." Instead, Narasimha generally describes policy and subscription management.” See page 13 of applicant’s remarks. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Narasimha discloses the UDM 227 may handle subscription-related information to support the network entities' handling of communication sessions, and may store subscription data of UE 201. See col. 18, lines 4-34. Narasimha teaches a system of the network allowing the UE to communicate with network entities. It is well known and understood in the art to have subscription and/or policy information for supporting communication sessions. Further, Narasimha teaches the UEs 101 can be configured to communicate using OFDM communication signals with each other or with any of the RAN nodes 111 (the access nodes or RAN nodes can be referred to as BS, gNBs, etc. according to col. 7, lines 23-39) over a multicarrier communication channel in accordance with various communication techniques, such as…SC-FDMA communication technique (e.g., for uplink and ProSe or sidelink communications). See col. 8, lines 51-61. In other words, Narasimha teaches communication sessions such as, sidelink communications between the UE and network entities/RAN nodes. Therefore, it can be said that Narasimha also teaches communication sessions/sidelink communications as related to the policy information and/or subscription information required in the network for supporting/handling communications. According to Narasimha, the base station/gNB broadcasts a reference altitude and a corresponding default timing advance. Also, the base station/gNB can provide a mapping of RACH occasions to altitude ranges. See col. 4, lines 33-59. The reference altitude, timing advance or altitude ranges are considered as “a set of radio parameters” for the UE to use to perform communication sessions (such as, sidelink communications) with the base station/gNB. Narasimha describes policy information or subscription information as relating to “sidelink communications” and “a UE policy configuration comprising a set of radio parameters usable by the UE to perform sidelink communications." Narasimha discloses "control signaling indicating a UE policy configuration comprising a set of radio parameters usable by the UE to perform sidelink communications," as recited in the claims.
The applicant argues “Additionally, a gNB receiving RACH preambles from different UEs, as in Narasimha, does not teach or suggest communicating "a sidelink message associated with the one or more UAV services in accordance with the UE policy configuration and the altitude limitation parameter," as recited in independent claim 1. For example, a communication received at a gNB from a UE is inherently an uplink communication, which is not the same as communicating "a sidelink message," as recited in amended independent claim 1, let alone communicating "a sidelink message associated with the one or more UAV services in accordance with the UE policy configuration and the altitude limitation parameter." Instead, Narasimha describes communicating RACH preambles between a gNB and multiple UEs. Thus, Narasimha does not teach or suggest at least the aforementioned features of independent claim 1.” See page 13 of applicant’s remarks. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Narasimha teaches sidelink communications between the UE and RAN nodes (the access nodes or RAN nodes can be referred to as BS, gNBs, etc. according to col. 7, lines 23-39). See col. 8, lines 51-61. In other words, Narasimha teaches uplink communications (i.e., sidelink communication) between the UE and gNB. Further, the sidelink communication, RACH preambles are communication sessions supported by subscription/policy data within the network. See col. 18, lines 4-34. The RACH preambles are transmitted by the UE according to the reference altitude, timing advance and altitude ranges (at least the altitude ranges are considered as the altitude limitation parameter). See col. 4, lines 33-59 and figures 17 & 18. As such, Narasimha discloses a sidelink message in accordance with the UE policy configuration and the altitude limitation parameter. Han has been shown to teach associated with the one or more UAV services (see paragraph [0273]). The combination of Narasimha and Han discloses "a sidelink message associated with the one or more UAV services in accordance with the UE policy configuration and the altitude limitation parameter." as required in the claims.
The applicant argues “At the portions cited by the Office Action, Narasimha describes that a "[policy control function] PCF 226 may provide policy rules to control plane function(s) to enforce them," and a "[unified data manager] UDM 227 may handle subscription-related information to support the network entities' handling of communication sessions." Narasimha, col. 17, 11. 54-55 and col. 18, 11. 4-6. At additional portions, Narasimha describes that "if some UEs have stored timing advances and apply them for RACH preamble transmission, the times at which the preambles are received by the gNB can be further spread out." Id., col. 4, 11. 12-15. That is, Narasimha generally describes policy rules and subscription-related information and separately UEs storing timing advances and applying them to RACH preamble transmissions.” See page 14 of applicant’s remarks. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Narasimha discloses the UDM 227 may handle subscription-related information to support the network entities' handling of communication sessions, and may store subscription data of UE 201. See col. 18, lines 4-34. Narasimha teaches a system of the network allowing the UE to communicate with network entities. It is well known and understood in the art to have subscription and/or policy information for supporting communication sessions. Narasimha does discuss UEs have stored timing advances and apply them for RACH preamble transmission in col. 4, lines 12-13. Narasimha has the ability to update received mapping of RACH occasions to altitude ranges received by the base station in accordance with policy data and subscription data as discussed in col. 17, line 54-col. 18, line 34. Narasimha’s discussion of policy data and subscription data as required within the network is not separate when considering the UE receiving, storing or updating reference altitude, timing advance and/or altitude ranges. The UE uses this information for communicating with the base station/gNB within the same network which is referenced throughout the Narasimha reference for providing full context of systems and processes in a wireless communication network.
The applicant argues “However, as described with respect to independent claims 1 and 29, the policy rules and subscription-related information of Narasimha do not teach or suggest transmitting "control signaling indicating a user equipment (UE) policy configuration comprising a set of radio parameters usable by a UE to perform sidelink communications," as recited in independent claim 1. For example, while Narasimha generally describes using a PCF or UDM to configure or manage policy information and subscription information, Narasimha does not teach or suggest "control signaling indicating a user equipment (UE) policy configuration comprising a set of radio parameters usable by a UE to perform sidelink communications," as recited in independent claim 1, at least because Narasimha is silent as to either the policy information or subscription information relating to "sidelink communications," let alone "a user equipment (UE) policy configuration comprising a set of radio parameters usable by a UE to perform sidelink communications." Instead, Narasimha generally describes policy and subscription management.” See pages 14-15 of applicant’s remarks. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As described above, Narasimha discloses the UDM 227 may handle subscription-related information to support the network entities' handling of communication sessions, and may store subscription data of UE 201. See col. 18, lines 4-34. Narasimha teaches a system of the network allowing the UE to communicate with network entities. It is well known and understood in the art to have subscription and/or policy information for supporting communication sessions. Further, Narasimha teaches the UEs 101 can be configured to communicate using OFDM communication signals with each other or with any of the RAN nodes 111 (the access nodes or RAN nodes can be referred to as BS, gNBs, etc. according to col. 7, lines 23-39) over a multicarrier communication channel in accordance with various communication techniques, such as…SC-FDMA communication technique (e.g., for uplink and ProSe or sidelink communications). See col. 8, lines 51-61. In other words, Narasimha teaches communication sessions such as, sidelink communications between the UE and network entities/RAN nodes. Therefore, it can be said that Narasimha also teaches communication sessions/sidelink communications as related to the policy information and/or subscription information required in the network for supporting/handling communications. According to Narasimha, the base station/gNB broadcasts a reference altitude and a corresponding default timing advance. Also, the base station/gNB can provide a mapping of RACH occasions to altitude ranges. See col. 4, lines 33-59. The reference altitude, timing advance or altitude ranges are considered as “a set of radio parameters” for the UE to use to perform communication sessions (such as, sidelink communications) with the base station/gNB. Narasimha describes policy information or subscription information as relating to “sidelink communications” and “a UE policy configuration comprising a set of radio parameters usable by the UE to perform sidelink communications." Narasimha discloses "control signaling indicating a UE policy configuration comprising a set of radio parameters usable by the UE to perform sidelink communications," as recited in the claims.
The applicant argues “Additionally, UEs storing and applying timing advances to
RACH preambles, as in Narasimha does not teach or suggest updating "a subscription associated with the UE based at least in part on the altitude limitation parameter," as recited in independent claim 21. For example, Narasimha describes a UE applying stored timing advances to RACH preambles, which does not teach or suggest updating "a subscription associated with the UE based at least in part on the altitude limitation parameter," as recited in independent claim 21, at least because Narasimha is silent as to "a subscription," let alone "a subscription associated with the UE based at least in part on the altitude limitation parameter." The Office Action alleges that while "Narasimha does not disclose update a subscription associated with the UE based at least in part on the altitude limitation parameter… Narasimha does discuss UEs have stored timing advances and apply them for RACH preamble transmission in col. 4, lines 12-13," and that consequently, "Narasimha has the ability to update received mapping of RACH occasions to altitude ranges received by the base station in accordance with policy data and subscription data as discussed in col. 17, line 54-col. 18, line 34." Office Action, p. 16. However, the Office Action fails to indicate how UEs storing and applying timing advances for RACH preamble transmissions is related to "policy data and subscription data," as asserted, let alone how applying timing advances for RACH preambles teaches or suggests updating "a subscription associated with the UE based at least in part on the altitude limitation parameter," as recited in independent claim 21. Thus, Narasimha does not teach or suggest at least the aforementioned features of independent claim 21.” See page 15 of applicant’s remarks. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Narasimha discloses the UDM 227 may handle subscription-related information to support the network entities' handling of communication sessions, and may store subscription data of UE 201. See col. 18, lines 4-34. Narasimha teaches a system of the network allowing the UE to communicate with network entities. It is well known and understood in the art to have subscription and/or policy information for supporting communication sessions. Narasimha does discuss UEs have stored timing advances and apply them for RACH preamble transmission in col. 4, lines 12-13. Narasimha has the ability to update received mapping of RACH occasions to altitude ranges (in other words, altitude limitation parameter) received by the base station for allowing communication sessions and in accordance with policy data/subscription data as discussed in col. 17, line 54-col. 18, line 34. Further, Narasimha teaches the SMF 224 may retrieve and/or request to receive update notifications on SMF 224 level subscription data from the UDM 227. See col. 17, lines 8-11. According to Narasimha, the subscription data gets updated and retrieved. As such, Narasimha discloses updating "a subscription associated with the UE based at least in part on the altitude limitation parameter," as required in the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-12, 17-20 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narasimha et al. (Narasimha), U.S. Patent No. 11,985,618 in view of Han et al. (Han), U.S. Publication No. 2021/0101679.
Regarding Claims 1 and 29, Narasimha discloses a user equipment (UE) (i.e.,
device 301; see figure 3B), comprising:
a processor (i.e., application circuitry 305; see figure 3B);
memory (i.e., memory circuitry 320; see figure 3B) coupled with the processor (shown in figure 3B); and
instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor (see col. 41, lines 30-43) to cause the UE to:
receive control signaling indicating a UE policy configuration (i.e., policy data and subscription data as stored and described in col. 17, line 54-col. 18, line 34. Also, see figures 2A and 2B) comprising a set of radio parameters usable by the UE to perform sidelink communications to support one or more services (for example, the base station may broadcast a reference altitude and a corresponding default timing advance. A UE calculates an altitude based TA adjustment.; see col. 4, lines 40-42 and figures 17-18);
receive, via the control signaling, via additional control signaling, or both, an altitude limitation parameter associated with the one or more services (i.e., The gNB provides a mapping of RACH occasions to altitude ranges, such that a UE at an altitude within a range select the RACH occasion corresponding to the range; see col. 4, lines 53-55 and figures 17-18); and
communicate a sidelink message associated with the one or more services in accordance with the UE policy configuration and the altitude limitation parameter (in other words, independent reception of RACH preambles from UEs at different altitudes; see col. 4, lines 57-58 and figures 17-18). Also, see examiner’s response above.
Narasimha fails to disclose one or more unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) services.
Han discloses one or more unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) services (UAV as
described in paragraph [0273]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Han’s invention with Narasimha’s invention for improving network connectivity as described throughout Han.
Regarding Claim 2, Narasimha and Han disclose the UE as described above. Narasimha further discloses wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the UE to: identify an altitude associated with the UE, wherein communicating the sidelink message is based at least in part on the identified altitude satisfying the altitude limitation parameter (see col. 4, lines 40-42).
Regarding Claim 3, Narasimha and Han disclose the UE and UAV services as described above. Narasimha further discloses wherein the altitude limitation parameter comprises an altitude range associated with an authorization for the one or more services, and wherein the identified altitude satisfies the altitude limitation parameter if the identified altitude is within the altitude range (see col. 4, lines 53-55).
Regarding Claim 8, Narasimha and Han disclose the UE as described above. Narasimha further discloses wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the UE to: receive, via the control signaling, via the additional control signaling, or both, as described above. Narasimha fails to disclose an indication of one or more radio access technologies associated with the UE policy configuration, wherein the sidelink message is communicated in accordance with the one or more radio access technologies. Han discloses an indication of one or more radio access technologies associated with the UE policy configuration, wherein the sidelink message is communicated in accordance with the one or more radio access technologies (see paragraph [0275]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Han’s invention with Narasimha’s invention for improving network connectivity as described throughout Han.
Regarding Claim 9, Narasimha and Han disclose the UE as described above. Narasimha further discloses wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the UE to: receive, via the control signaling, via the additional control signaling, or both as described above. Narasimha fails to disclose an authorization to perform the one or more UAV services in accordance with the UE policy configuration and the one or more radio access technologies, wherein the one or more radio access technologies comprise a Fourth Generation radio access technology, a Long-Term Evolution radio access technology, a Fifth Generation radio access technology, a New Radio access technology, or any combination thereof, and wherein communicating the sidelink message is based at least in part on the authorization. Han discloses an authorization to perform the one or more UAV services in accordance with the UE policy configuration and the one or more radio access technologies, wherein the one or more radio access technologies comprise a Fourth Generation radio access technology, a Long-Term Evolution radio access technology, a Fifth Generation radio access technology, a New Radio access technology, or any combination thereof, and wherein communicating the sidelink message is based at least in part on the authorization (see paragraphs [0273]-[0275]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Han’s invention with Narasimha’s invention for improving network connectivity as described throughout Han.
Regarding Claim 10, Narasimha and Han disclose the UE and UAV services as described above. Narasimha further discloses wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the UE to: receive, via the control signaling, via the additional control signaling, or both, a first authorization, a second authorization, or both, wherein the first authorization is for the UE to perform the one or more services in accordance with the UE policy configuration during time intervals in which the UE is connected to a serving network, and wherein the second authorization is for the UE to perform the one or more services in accordance with the UE policy configuration during time intervals in which the UE is not connected to the serving network, wherein communicating the sidelink message is based at least in part on the first authorization, the second authorization, or both (see figures 15-17).
Regarding Claim 11, Narasimha and Han disclose the UE as described above. Narasimha further discloses wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the UE to: receive, via the control signaling, via the additional control signaling, or both as described above. Narasimha fails to disclose an indication of one or more radio access technologies associated with the one or more UAV services, wherein the sidelink message is communicated in accordance with the one or more radio access technologies. Han discloses an indication of one or more radio access technologies associated with the one or more UAV services, wherein the sidelink message is communicated in accordance with the one or more radio access technologies (see paragraph [0275]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Han’s invention with Narasimha’s invention for improving network connectivity as described throughout Han.
Regarding Claim 12, Narasimha and Han disclose the UE as described above. Narasimha further discloses wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the UE to: receive, via the control signaling, the additional control signaling, or both as described above. Narasimha fails to disclose an indication of a first radio access technology associated with a first subset of the one or more UAV services, and a second radio access technology associated with a second subset of the one or more UAV services, wherein the one or more radio access technologies include the first and second radio access technology. Han discloses an indication of a first radio access technology associated with a first subset of the one or more UAV services, and a second radio access technology associated with a second subset of the one or more UAV services, wherein the one or more radio access technologies include the first and second radio access technology (see paragraphs [0273]-[0275]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Han’s invention with Narasimha’s invention for improving network connectivity as described throughout Han.
Regarding Claim 17, Narasimha and Han disclose the UE and UAV services as described above. Narasimha further discloses wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the UE to: receive, via the control signaling, via the additional control signaling, or both, an indication of a set of mappings between the one or more services and corresponding subsets of the set of radio parameters, wherein each subset of the set of radio parameters comprises at least one of a frequency range, a geographical area, an altitude range (see col. 4, lines 53-55), a mode of communication, a Layer 2 identifier, a sidelink quality of service metric, a radio bearer, a discontinuous reception cycle, or any combination thereof, wherein communicating the sidelink message is based at least in part on the set of mappings.
Regarding Claim 18, Narasimha and Han disclose the UE as described above. Narasimha further discloses wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the UE to: receive the control signaling, via the additional control signaling, or both, from at least one of a network device (see col. 4, lines 40-42) or a second UE.
Regarding Claim 19, Narasimha and Han disclose the UE as described above. Narasimha further discloses wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the UE to: receive, via the control signaling, via the additional control signaling, or both as described above. Narasimha fails to disclose an indication as to whether the set of radio parameters are operator-managed, non- operator-managed, or both, wherein communicating the sidelink message is based at least in part on the indication. Han discloses an indication as to whether the set of radio parameters are operator-managed, non- operator-managed (see paragraph [0055]), or both, wherein communicating the sidelink message is based at least in part on the indication. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Han’s invention with Narasimha’s invention for improving network connectivity as described throughout Han.
Regarding Claim 20, Narasimha and Han disclose the UE as described above. Narasimha fails to disclose wherein one or more UAV services comprise one or more UAV-to-everything communications services. Han discloses wherein one or more UAV services comprise one or more UAV-to-everything communications services (see paragraph [0055]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Han’s invention with Narasimha’s invention for improving network connectivity as described throughout Han.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narasimha and Han in view of Wu et al. (Wu), U.S. Publication No. 2021/0029723.
Regarding Claim 4, Narasimha and Han disclose the UE as described
above. Narasimha and Han fail to disclose wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the UE to: identify a conflict between a first radio parameter from the set of radio parameters and a second radio parameter from an additional set of radio parameters; and communicate the sidelink message in accordance with the first radio parameter based at least in part on a priority rule associated with conflicts between the set of radio parameters and the additional set of radio parameters. Wu discloses wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the UE to: identify a conflict between a first radio parameter from the set of radio parameters and a second radio parameter from an additional set of radio parameters; and communicate the sidelink message in accordance with the first radio parameter based at least in part on a priority rule associated with conflicts between the set of radio parameters and the additional set of radio parameters (see paragraphs [0090]-[0093]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Wu’s invention with Narasimha’s and Han’s invention for enhancing services as described throughout Wu.
Regarding Claim 5, Narasimha and Han disclose the UE as described
above. Narasimha and Han fail to disclose wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the UE to: receive, via the control signaling, via the additional control signaling, or both, an indication of one or more priority rules associated with conflicts between the set of radio parameters and one or more additional radio parameters, the one or more priority rules including the priority rule, wherein identifying the conflict, communicating the sidelink message, or both, are based at least in part on the one or more priority rules. Wu discloses wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the UE to: receive, via the control signaling, via the additional control signaling, or both, an indication of one or more priority rules associated with conflicts between the set of radio parameters and one or more additional radio parameters, the one or more priority rules including the priority rule, wherein identifying the conflict, communicating the sidelink message, or both, are based at least in part on the one or more priority rules. (see paragraphs [0090]-[0093]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Wu’s invention with Narasimha’s and Han’s invention for enhancing services as described throughout Wu.
Claim(s) 7 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narasimha and Han in view of Kim et al. (Kim), U.S. Publication No. 2021/0105788.
Regarding Claim 7, Narasimha and Han disclose the UE and UAV as
described above. Narasimha and Han fail to disclose wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the UE to: identify an additional set of radio parameters usable by the UE to perform sidelink communications to support the one or more services based at least in part on a subscriber identification module associated with the UE, wherein communicating the sidelink message is based at least in part on the additional set of radio parameters. Kim discloses wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the UE to: identify an additional set of radio parameters usable by the UE to perform sidelink communications to support the one or more services based at least in part on a subscriber identification module associated with the UE, wherein communicating the sidelink message is based at least in part on the additional set of radio parameters (see paragraph [0274]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Kim’s invention with Narasimha’s and Han’s invention for maintaining network functionality as described throughout Kim.
Regarding Claim 13, Narasimha and Han disclose the UE wherein the
instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the UE to: receive, via the control signaling, the additional control signaling, or both and UAV as described above. Narasimha and Han fail to disclose an indication of one or more privacy parameters associated with the one or more services, one or more geographical areas, or both, wherein the sidelink message is communicated in accordance with the one or more privacy parameters. Kim discloses an indication of one or more privacy parameters associated with the one or more services, one or more geographical areas, or both, wherein the sidelink message is communicated in accordance with the one or more privacy parameters (see paragraphs [0050] and [0059]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Kim’s invention with Narasimha’s and Han’s invention for maintaining network functionality as described throughout Kim.
Regarding Claim 14, Narasimha and Han disclose the UE wherein the
instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the UE to: receive, via the control signaling, via the additional control signaling, or both as described above. Narasimha and Han fail to disclose an indication of a privacy timer value associated with the UE policy configuration, wherein the sidelink message is communicated in accordance with the privacy timer value. Kim discloses an indication of a privacy timer value associated with the UE policy configuration, wherein the sidelink message is communicated in accordance with the privacy timer value (see paragraphs [0128] and [0331]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Kim’s invention with Narasimha’s and Han’s invention for maintaining network functionality as described throughout Kim.
Regarding Claim 15, Narasimha and Han disclose the UE wherein the
instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the UE to: receive, via the control signaling, via the additional control signaling, or both as described above. Narasimha and Han fail to disclose an indication of a validity timer associated with the UE policy configuration, the set of radio parameters, or both, wherein communicating the sidelink message is based at least in part on the validity timer. Kim discloses an indication of a validity timer associated with the UE policy configuration, the set of radio parameters, or both, wherein communicating the sidelink message is based at least in part on the validity timer (see paragraphs [0128] and [0331]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Kim’s invention with Narasimha’s and Han’s invention for maintaining network functionality as described throughout Kim.
Regarding Claim 16, Narasimha and Han disclose the UE as described
above. Narasimha and Han fail to disclose wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the UE to: identify an expiration of the validity timer; and refrain from performing sidelink communications in accordance with the UE policy configuration based at least in part on the expiration of the validity timer. Kim discloses wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the UE to: identify an expiration of the validity timer; and refrain from performing sidelink communications in accordance with the UE policy configuration based at least in part on the expiration of the validity timer (see paragraphs [0331] and [0348]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Kim’s invention with Narasimha’s and Han’s invention for maintaining network functionality as described throughout Kim.
Claim(s) 21-22, 25-28 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narasimha in further view of Han.
Regarding Claims 21 and 30, Narasimha discloses an apparatus (i.e., base
station 300; see figure 3A) for wireless communication, comprising:
a processor (i.e., application circuitry 305; see figure 3A);
memory (i.e., memory circuitry 320; see figure 3A) coupled with the processor (shown in figure 3A); and
instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor (see col. 41, lines 30-43) to cause the apparatus to:
transmit control signaling indicating a user equipment (UE) policy configuration (i.e., policy data and subscription data as stored and described in col. 17, line 54-col. 18, line 34. Also, see figures 2A and 2B) comprising a set of radio parameters usable by a UE to perform sidelink communications to support one or more services (for example, the base station may broadcast a reference altitude and a corresponding default timing advance. A UE calculates an altitude based TA adjustment.; see col. 4, lines 40-42 and figures 17-18);
transmit, via the control signaling, via additional control signaling, or both, an altitude limitation parameter associated with the one or more services (i.e., The gNB provides a mapping of RACH occasions to altitude ranges, such that a UE at an altitude within a range select the RACH occasion corresponding to the range; see col. 4, lines 53-55 and figures 17-18). Also, see examiner’s response above.
Narasimha does not disclose update a subscription associated with the UE based at least in part on the altitude limitation parameter however, Narasimha does discuss UEs have stored timing advances and apply them for RACH preamble transmission in col. 4, lines 12-13. Therefore, Narasimha has the ability to update received mapping of RACH occasions to altitude ranges received by the base station in accordance with policy data and subscription data as discussed in col. 17, line 54-col. 18, line 34. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Narasimha’s invention for preventing lack of proper timing between the communication nodes as described in Narasimha’s background. Also, see examiner’s response above.
Narasimha fails to disclose one or more unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) services.
Han discloses one or more unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) services (UAV as
described in paragraph [0273]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Han’s invention with Narasimha’s invention for improving network connectivity as described throughout Han.
Regarding Claim 22, Narasimha and Han disclose the apparatus and UAV services as described above. Narasimha further discloses wherein the altitude limitation parameter comprises an altitude range associated with an authorization for the one or more services, and wherein an altitude associated with the UE satisfies the altitude limitation parameter if the altitude is within the altitude range (see col. 4, lines 53-55).
Regarding Claim 25, Narasimha and Han disclose the apparatus as described above. Narasimha further discloses wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit, via the control signaling, via the additional control signaling, or both as described above. Narasimha fails to disclose an indication of one or more radio access technologies associated with the UE policy configuration. Han discloses an indication of one or more radio access technologies associated with the UE policy configuration (paragraph [0275]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Han’s invention with Narasimha’s invention for improving network connectivity as described throughout Han.
Regarding Claim 26, Narasimha and Han disclose the apparatus as described above. Narasimha further discloses wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit, via the control signaling, via the additional control signaling, or both as described above. Narasimha fails to disclose an authorization to perform the one or more UAV services in accordance with the UE policy configuration and the one or more radio access technologies, wherein the one or more radio access technologies comprise a Fourth Generation radio access technology, a Long-Term Evolution radio access technology, a Fifth Generation radio access technology, a New Radio access technology, or any combination thereof. Han discloses an authorization to perform the one or more UAV services in accordance with the UE policy configuration and the one or more radio access technologies, wherein the one or more radio access technologies comprise a Fourth Generation radio access technology, a Long-Term Evolution radio access technology, a Fifth Generation radio access technology, a New Radio access technology, or any combination thereof (paragraphs [0273]-[0275]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Han’s invention with Narasimha’s invention for improving network connectivity as described throughout Han.
Regarding Claim 27, Narasimha and Han disclose the apparatus and UAV as described above. Narasimha further discloses wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit, via the control signaling, via the additional control signaling, or both, a first authorization, a second authorization, or both, wherein the first authorization is for the UE to perform the one or more services in accordance with the UE policy configuration during time intervals in which the UE is connected to a serving network, and wherein the second authorization is for the UE to perform the one or more services in accordance with the UE policy configuration during time intervals in which the UE is not connected to the serving network. (see figures 15-17).
Regarding Claim 28, Narasimha and Han disclose the apparatus as described above. Narasimha further discloses wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit, via the control signaling, via the additional control signaling, or both as described above. Narasimha fails to disclose an indication of one or more radio access technologies associated with the one or more UAV services. Han discloses an indication of one or more radio access technologies associated with the one or more UAV services (see paragraph [0275]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Han’s invention with Narasimha’s invention for improving network connectivity as described throughout Han.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narasimha and Han in view of Wu.
Regarding Claim 23, Narasimha and Han disclose the apparatus wherein the
instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit, via the control signaling, via the additional control signaling, or both as described above. Narasimha and Han fail to disclose an indication of one or more priority rules associated with conflicts between the set of radio parameters and one or more additional radio parameters. Wu discloses an indication of one or more priority rules associated with conflicts between the set of radio parameters and one or more additional radio parameters (see paragraphs [0090]-[0093]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Wu’s invention with Narasimha’s and Han’s invention for enhancing services as described throughout Wu.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 24 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.
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 SHANTELL LAKETA HEIBER whose telephone number is (571)272-0886. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Addy, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-0886. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHANTELL L HEIBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
September 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights