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 12/4/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 14, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen at al. (US Publication 2021/0368372).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Chen teaches a method and a first user equipment (UE), comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first UE to: (i.e. fig. 9 shows a UE comprising a processor, memory and transceiver for executing programmed instructions; see paragraphs 179)
receive, from a second UE, a broadcast message that includes a
UE-specific identifier that is unique to the second UE for an unmanned aircraft
systems (UAS) traffic management (UTM) system; (i.e. fig. 3a shows a UE2 may receive an announcement message from UE1 which may be sent as a broadcast (element 1), the massage comprising a source identifier and service types supported; see paragraphs 31, 32)
transmit a direct communication request (DCR) message to the
second UE in response to the broadcast message, wherein the DCR message
comprises an application-layer identifier derived from the UE-specific identifier
included in the broadcast message, a service type associated with information for
communication with the first UE, or both; (i.e. fig. 3a shows in response to the announcement message, UE2 may respond with a direct connection request (DCR) sent to UE1 which may comprise a service-identifier derived from announcement message information (element 2); see paragraphs 32, 33) and
communicate unicast messages according to the service type with
the second UE based at least in part on transmitting the DCR message to the
second UE. (i.e. fig. 3a shows in response to the DCR, UE1 may respond with a DCA response indicating acceptance of unicast communications between UE1 and UE2; see paragraphs 31, 33)
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Chen teaches The first UE of claim 1, wherein the DCR message is transmitted as part of a unicast link establishment procedure with the second UE. (i.e. the direct connection request of UE2 is a response to a determination of unicast communication; see paragraph 33)
Regarding claims 8, Chen teaches a first user equipment (UE), comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first UE to: (i.e. fig. 9 shows a UE comprising a processor, memory and transceiver for executing programmed instructions; see paragraphs 179)
transmit, to a second UE, a broadcast message that includes a UE-specific identifier that is unique to the first UE for an unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) traffic management (UTM) system; (i.e. fig. 3a shows a UE1 may transmit an announcement message to a UE2 which may be sent as a broadcast (element 1), the massage comprising a source identifier and service types supported; see paragraphs 31, 32)
receive a direct communication request (DCR) message from the
second UE in response to the broadcast message, wherein the DCR message comprises an application-layer identifier derived from the UE-specific identifier included in the broadcast message, a service type associated with information for
communication with the first UE, or both; (i.e. fig. 3a shows in response to the announcement message, UE1 may receive a direct connection request (DCR) sent by UE2 which may comprise a service-identifier derived from announcement message information (element 2); see paragraphs 32, 33) and
communicate unicast messages according to the service type with
the second UE based at least in part on receiving the DCR message from the
second UE. (i.e. fig. 3a shows in response to the DCR, UE1 may respond with a DCA response indicating acceptance of unicast communications between UE1 and UE2; see paragraphs 31, 33)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 9, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chen at al. (US Publication 2021/0368372).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Chen discloses all the recited limitations of claim 1 and 14 as described previously from which claims 2 and 15 depend. Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the service type comprises an air-to-everything (A2X) service type. (i.e. Chen discloses the service type may comprise a V2X (vehicle to everything))
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to support the A2X service. Both V2X and A2X are 3GPP Cellular V2X (C-V2X) standards. V2X and A2X share the exact same foundational physical and upper-layer framework—specifically, the direct device-to-device communication using the sidelink/PC5 interface and network-based Uu communication. Because both technologies use the same cellular communication architecture, a PHOSITA would have had a high expectation of success when adapting these known parameters for drones.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Chen as implementing a broadcast-to-unicast procedure over cellular links for UTM allows for deconfliction and collision avoidance, which mirrors the fundamental goal of V2X on the ground.
Regarding claims 8, Chen discloses all the recited limitations of claim 7 as described previously from which claim 8 depends. Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the service type comprises an air-to-everything (A2X) service type. (i.e. Chen discloses the service type may comprise a V2X (vehicle to everything))
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to support the A2X service. Both V2X and A2X are 3GPP Cellular V2X (C-V2X) standards. V2X and A2X share the exact same foundational physical and upper-layer framework—specifically, the direct device-to-device communication using the sidelink/PC5 interface and network-based Uu communication. Because both technologies use the same cellular communication architecture, a PHOSITA would have had a high expectation of success when adapting these known parameters for drones.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Chen as implementing a broadcast-to-unicast procedure over cellular links for UTM allows for deconfliction and collision avoidance, which mirrors the fundamental goal of V2X on the ground.
Claims 6, 7, 12, 13 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chen at al. (US Publication 2021/0368372) in view of Baskaran et al. (US Publication 2026/0032432).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Chen discloses all the recited limitations of claim 1 and 14 as described previously from which claims 6 and 19 depend. Chen does not explicitly wherein at least one unicast message of the unicast messages comprises a unicast detect and avoid (DAA) message.
However, Baskaran teaches wherein at least one unicast message of the unicast messages comprises a unicast detect and avoid (DAA) message. (i.e. fig. 7 of Baskaran shows a direct unicast communication between a UE1 and UE2 can be established (elements 715, 740, 745) after receiving a broadcast message (UUAA) which provides UAS requirements (element 705), the unicast communication can include DAA; see paragraphs 116 - 118)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to support the transmission of DAA parameters of Baskaran into Chen. V2X and A2X share the exact same foundational physical and upper-layer framework—specifically, the direct device-to-device communication using the sidelink/PC5 interface and network-based Uu communication. Because both technologies use the same cellular communication architecture, a PHOSITA would have had a high expectation of success when adapting these known parameters for drones, including the transmission of collision avoidance information specific to drones or DAA.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Chen as implementing a DAA procedure over cellular links for UTM allows for deconfliction and collision avoidance, which mirrors the fundamental goal of V2X on the ground.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Chen discloses all the recited limitations of claim 1 and 14 as described previously from which claims 7 and 20 depend. Chen does not explicitly wherein the UE-specific identifier comprises a civil aviation administration (CAA) level identity that identifies the second UE.
However, Baskaran teaches wherein the UE-specific identifier comprises a civil aviation administration (CAA) level identity that identifies the second UE. (i.e. fig. 7 of Baskaran shows a UAV identifier comprises a CAA level ID; see paragraph 106)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to support the transmission of CAA identifiers of Baskaran into Chen. Using a specialized aviation/flight identifier (CAA ID) alongside a vehicular/direct communication identifier (V2X service ID) is a predictable step for a POSITA. As standardizing modern drone tracking inherently requires tying communications requests (DCR) to official, regulatory civil aviation identifiers.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Chen as 3GPP (telecommunications) standards dictate integrating UAV-specific identities (such as the CAA ID) directly into V2X frameworks to safely manage drone airspace. Using the CAA ID ensures that broadcast messages can uniquely resolve a drone's identity within the network.
Regarding claims 12, Chen discloses all the recited limitations of claim 8 and 14 as described previously from which claims 12 depend. Chen does not explicitly wherein at least one unicast message of the unicast messages comprises a unicast detect and avoid (DAA) message.
However, Baskaran teaches wherein at least one unicast message of the unicast messages comprises a unicast detect and avoid (DAA) message. (i.e. fig. 7 of Baskaran shows a direct unicast communication between a UE1 and UE2 can be established (elements 715, 740, 745) after receiving a broadcast message (UUAA) which provides UAS requirements (element 705), the unicast communication can include DAA; see paragraphs 116 - 118)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to support the transmission of DAA parameters of Baskaran into Chen. V2X and A2X share the exact same foundational physical and upper-layer framework—specifically, the direct device-to-device communication using the sidelink/PC5 interface and network-based Uu communication. Because both technologies use the same cellular communication architecture, a PHOSITA would have had a high expectation of success when adapting these known parameters for drones, including the transmission of collision avoidance information specific to drones or DAA.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Chen as implementing a DAA procedure over cellular links for UTM allows for deconfliction and collision avoidance, which mirrors the fundamental goal of V2X on the ground.
Regarding claims 13, Chen discloses all the recited limitations of claim 8 as described previously from which claims 13 depend. Chen does not explicitly wherein the UE-specific identifier comprises a civil aviation administration (CAA) level identity that identifies the second UE.
However, Baskaran teaches wherein the UE-specific identifier comprises a civil aviation administration (CAA) level identity that identifies the second UE. (i.e. fig. 7 of Baskaran shows a UAV identifier comprises a CAA level ID; see paragraph 106)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to support the transmission of CAA identifiers of Baskaran into Chen. Using a specialized aviation/flight identifier (CAA ID) alongside a vehicular/direct communication identifier (V2X service ID) is a predictable step for a POSITA. As standardizing modern drone tracking inherently requires tying communications requests (DCR) to official, regulatory civil aviation identifiers.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to Chen as 3GPP (telecommunications) standards dictate integrating UAV-specific identities (such as the CAA ID) directly into V2X frameworks to safely manage drone airspace. Using the CAA ID ensures that broadcast messages can uniquely resolve a drone's identity within the network.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 16 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.
Claims 4 and 17 objected to as being dependent upon a objected base claim which would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10 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.
Claims 11 objected to as being dependent upon a objected base claim which would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J LOPATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-7 EST.
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. 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.
ROBERT J. LOPATA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2471
/ROBERT J LOPATA/
June 25, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights