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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-27 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 1-14 are elected without traverse, see explanation below.
Claims 15-27 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-14 are rejected.
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I: Claims 1-14, drawn to establishing a connection with an unmanned aerial service (UAS) network function (NF), G08G5/57.
Group II: Claims 15-27, drawn to establishing a connection with a server, H04W76/10.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of providing network-based aviation services to at least one user equipment (UE), this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Kuhlman (US 20220066443, provided in the IDS).
The technical feature of providing network-based aviation services to at least one user equipment (UE) was known in the art at the time of the effective filing.
Kuhlman discloses, in paragraphs [0012]-[0065], USS may provide service to clients in overlapping geographic areas, in which case they may communicate with each other to jointly ensure aircraft separation. Each USS of a UTM network may monitor one or more UAS operated by one of the clients of the USS. A USS may send commands to the operators of the UAS being monitored to ensure that UAS do not collide with each other and to provide other air traffic control features.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries);
the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claims 15-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups/invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made in the reply filed on 02/17/2026.
Applicant’s election of group/invention I in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Also, the applicant has forfeited the right to petition from the requirement for restriction, because the applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out all errors to be relied upon in the petition in a timely filed traverse (MPEP 818.01(c)). That is because the examiner provided proper factual basis for the restriction.
Group I: Claims 1-14, drawn to establishing a connection with an unmanned aerial service (UAS) network function (NF), G08G5/57. Group II: Claims 15-27, drawn to establishing a connection with a server, H04W76/10.
The inventions are distinct since it has been shown that the groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features. Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of providing network-based aviation services to at least one user equipment (UE), per paragraph [0021] in the applicant’s specification, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Kuhlman (US 20220066443, provided in the IDS).
The technical feature of providing network-based aviation services to at least one user equipment (UE) was known in the art at the time of the effective filing. Kuhlman discloses, in paragraphs [0012]-[0065], USS may provide service to clients in overlapping geographic areas, in which case they may communicate with each other to jointly ensure aircraft separation. Each USS of a UTM network may monitor one or more UAS operated by one of the clients of the USS. A USS may send commands to the operators of the UAS being monitored to ensure that UAS do not collide with each other and to provide other air traffic control features.
In addition, the applicant admits in their specification that the groups I and II are two different inventions. Per the applicant’s specification, the invention in group I is directed to Fig. 9 and the invention in group II is directed to Fig. 10. This is an admission by the applicant that these are two different inventions.
Since the groups I and II claims two different inventions, as explained by the examiner, there would be a serious search burden as evidenced by separate classification, status, and field of search and a serious examination burden as evidenced by, for example, non-prior art issues relevant to one invention that are not relevant to the other invention. See MPEP § 808.02. The examiner has demonstrated that there would be a serious search burden by that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification. In addition, it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries), a different field of search is shown. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search.
The applicant’s arguments are conclusionary statements that do not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, because the applicant does not provide any type of evidence that supports their assertion that the subject matters of claims 1-27 are interrelated to the extent that a search and examination of the subject matter of those claims would not be overly burdensome. The aforementioned applicant’s broad allegation that the requirement is in error does not comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.111. Since the election with traverse is accompanied by an incomplete traversal of the requirement for restriction, the required provisional election (see MPEP § 818.01(b)) has become an election without traverse. In addition, since the applicant does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election is being treated as an election without traverse and is being indicated to the applicant.
According to MPEP 818.01:
Election in reply to a requirement for restriction may be made either with or without an accompanying traverse of the requirement. A complete reply to a restriction requirement must include an election even if applicant traverses the requirement.
A traverse is a request for reconsideration of a requirement to restrict that must include a written statement of the reasons for traverse, distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors upon which the applicant relies for his or her conclusion that the requirement is in error. The absence of any statement indicating whether the requirement to restrict is traversed or the failure to provide reasons for traverse will be treated as an election without traverse.
According to MPEP 818.01(a):
As indicated in the first sentence of 37 CFR 1.143, the traverse to a requirement for restriction must be complete as required by 37 CFR 1.111(b). Under this rule, the applicant is required to specifically point out the reason(s) on which he or she bases his or her conclusion(s) that a requirement to restrict is in error. A mere broad allegation that the requirement is in error does not comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.111. Thus the required provisional election (see MPEP § 818.01(b)) becomes an election without traverse if accompanied by an incomplete traversal of the requirement for restriction.
According to MPEP 818.01(c):
To preserve the right to petition from the requirement for restriction, all errors to be relied upon in the petition must be distinctly and specifically pointed out in a timely filed traverse by the applicant. If applicant does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election should be treated as an election without traverse and be so indicated to the applicant.
Drawings
The formal drawings received on 08/28/2024 have been entered.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takakura (US 20240340643) in view of Gupta (US 20230103775).
1. Takakura teaches:
A method for communication at a server, comprising: – in paragraphs [0030]-[0136] (The SMF 3 receives a PDU SESSION ESTABLISHMENT REQUEST message including a USS address (e.g. FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name)) from the UE 1.)
establishing a connection with an unmanned aerial service (UAS) network function (NF); and – in paragraphs [0030]-[0136] (The UE 1 may select the specific DNN in a PDU session establishment request for the UAS Service. The SMF 3 receives a PDU SESSION ESTABLISHMENT REQUEST message including a USS address (e.g. FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name)) from the UE 1. The SMF 3 transmits to the UAS-NF 9 an Nnef_Authentication_authenticate request message including the USS address (e.g. FQDN) received from the UE 1.)
Takakura does not explicitly teach:
communicating with the UAS NF to exchange information with a UAS service supplier (USS) in order to provide network-based aviation services to at least one user equipment (UE) associate with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) served by the server.
However, Gupta teaches:
communicating with the UAS NF to exchange information with a UAS service supplier (USS) in order to provide network-based aviation services to at least one user equipment (UE) associate with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) served by the server. – in paragraphs [0004]-[0109] (OPERATION 202: USS/UTM 22 sends a UE flight path monitoring request to a UAS network function (NF) supported within a network exposure function (NEF) 18 of the core network 10 of the 3GPP mobile communication system. OPERATION 204A: UAS-NF supported within NEF 18 directs, to an access and mobility management function (AMF) 12 for UE 4, a message triggering AMF 12 to send a N2 interface (interface between AMF 12 and a gNodeB of the RAN 8) message to RAN 8 triggering RAN 8 to configure UE 4 for flight path reporting. The flight path reporting mechanism involves RAN sending a UEInformationRequest message including flightPathInformationReq parameter to the UAV-UE 4, and the UAV-UE 4 replying with a UEInformationResponse message including data for up to 20 waypoints. Each UEInformationResponse message transmitted by UE 4 of UAV 2 to the RAN node serving UAV-UE 4 indicates 3D location and estimated arrival time for each of one or more flight path way-points (intermediate points).)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Takakura with Gupta to include communicating with the UAS NF to exchange information with a UAS service supplier (USS) in order to provide network-based aviation services to at least one user equipment (UE) associate with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) served by the server, as taught by Gupta, in paragraphs [0002]-[0081], to provide a technique for authorising travel paths for unmanned aerial vehicles.
Claim(s) 2-5, 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takakura (US 20240340643) in view of Gupta (US 20230103775), and further in view of Baskaran (US 20240098494).
2. The method of claim 1, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Combination of Takakura and Gupta does not explicitly teach:
wherein communicating with the UAS NF to exchange information with the USS comprises at least one of: reporting a potential UAS conflict; or reporting a planned corrective action to avoid the potential UAS conflict.
However, Baskaran teaches:
wherein communicating with the UAS NF to exchange information with the USS comprises at least one of: reporting a potential UAS conflict; or reporting a planned corrective action to avoid the potential UAS conflict. – in paragraphs [0004]-[0383] (To support UAS operation and related security aspects, the mobile core network 140 may also include a UAS-NF 147 for interacting with a UAS Service Supplier (“US S”) system and/or a UAS Traffic Management (“UTM”) system (depicted as combined node “USS/UTM” 157). The USS/UTM 157, in one embodiment, provides a set of overlapping USSs that assist UAS operators 103 in conducting safe and compliant operations. The services may include deconfliction of flight plans, remote identification, and/or the like.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Takakura and Gupta with Baskaran to include wherein communicating with the UAS NF to exchange information with the USS comprises at least one of: reporting a potential UAS conflict; or reporting a planned corrective action to avoid the potential UAS conflict, as taught by Baskaran, in paragraphs [0002]-[0087] to ensure that the UAV can be authenticated and authorized by a USS before the connectivity for UAS services is enabled.
3. The method of claim 2, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Baskaran teaches:
wherein, when communicating with the UAS NF to exchange information with the USS, the server provides an identification (ID) of one or more UAVs involved in the potential UAS conflict. – in paragraphs [0004]-[0383] (To support UAS operation and related security aspects, the mobile core network 140 may also include a UAS-NF 147 for interacting with a UAS Service Supplier (“US S”) system and/or a UAS Traffic Management (“UTM”) system (depicted as combined node “USS/UTM” 157). The USS/UTM 157, in one embodiment, provides a set of overlapping USSs that assist UAS operators 103 in conducting safe and compliant operations. The services may include deconfliction of flight plans, remote identification, and/or the like.)
4. The method of claim 3, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Baskaran teaches:
further comprising using an ID of the UAV served by the server to discover the UAS NF. – in paragraphs [0004]-[0383] (Alternate option for the UAS-NF Discovery: The NEF (e.g., the NEF 146) can store the 3GPP UAV ID and the corresponding 3GPP NF routing Information (i.e., address of UAS-NF 209 or UFES, for example, a FQDN or IP address) after step 2. Later, in step 8, if the NEF receives any request message from the USS/UTM server 211 (for example, a Revocation or re-authorization request for any UAV/UAV-C) with a 3GPP UAV ID, then the NEF can fetch the 3GPP NF routing information stored locally for the corresponding 3GPP UAV ID and routes/sends the received request message to the corresponding UAS-NF 209 for it to process the UAS related request message for the UAV/UAV-C.)
5. The method of claim 3, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Baskaran teaches:
wherein the ID comprises a Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) level UAV ID. – in paragraphs [0004]-[0383] (The UAS-NF 209 retrieves a UUAA context associated with the 3GPP UAV ID and CAA-Level UAV ID.)
7. The method of claim 1, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Combination of Takakura and Gupta does not explicitly teach:
wherein communicating with the UAS NF to exchange information with the USS comprises receiving information regarding at least a portion of a flight plan for the UAV served by the server.
However, Baskaran teaches:
wherein communicating with the UAS NF to exchange information with the USS comprises receiving information regarding at least a portion of a flight plan for the UAV served by the server. – in paragraphs [0004]-[0383] (To support UAS operation and related security aspects, the mobile core network 140 may also include a UAS-NF 147 for interacting with a UAS Service Supplier (“US S”) system and/or a UAS Traffic Management (“UTM”) system (depicted as combined node “USS/UTM” 157). The USS/UTM 157, in one embodiment, provides a set of overlapping USSs that assist UAS operators 103 in conducting safe and compliant operations. The services may include deconfliction of flight plans, remote identification, and/or the like.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Takakura and Gupta with Baskaran to include wherein communicating with the UAS NF to exchange information with the USS comprises receiving information regarding at least a portion of a flight plan for the UAV served by the server, as taught by Baskaran, in paragraphs [0002]-[0087] to ensure that the UAV can be authenticated and authorized by a USS before the connectivity for UAS services is enabled.
14. The method of claim 1, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Combination of Takakura and Gupta does not explicitly teach:
further comprising performing a registration procedure with the UAS NF for the UAV served by the server.
However, Baskaran teaches:
further comprising performing a registration procedure with the UAS NF for the UAV served by the server. – in paragraphs [0004]-[0383] (The AMF or SMF triggers the UUAA procedure when the UAV has an Aerial UE subscription and when the UAV requests access to UAS services (e.g., by providing the CAA-Level UAV ID of the UAV in the Registration Request or PDU Session Establishment Request).)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Takakura and Gupta with Baskaran to include further comprising performing a registration procedure with the UAS NF for the UAV served by the server, as taught by Baskaran, in paragraphs [0002]-[0087] to ensure that the UAV can be authenticated and authorized by a USS before the connectivity for UAS services is enabled.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takakura (US 20240340643) in view of Gupta (US 20230103775), and further in view of Karampatsis (US 20240237089).
6. The method of claim 1, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Combination of Takakura and Gupta does not explicitly teach:
wherein communicating with the UAS NF to exchange information with the USS comprises receiving information regarding one or more policies for providing network-based aviation services serving to the UAV served by the server.
However, Karampatsis teaches:
wherein communicating with the UAS NF to exchange information with the USS comprises receiving information regarding one or more policies for providing network-based aviation services serving to the UAV served by the server. – in paragraphs [0004]-[0110] (The UAV includes in the PDU session a request for UAV pairing information (e.g., UAV-C, UAV pairing information) within a transparent container that the SMF forwards to the USS via the UAS NF. The USS authorizes the request and sends authorization information that includes pairing information in the response to the SMF. The SMF requests policies from the PCF include the authorization information provided by the USS. Based on the charging and policy control (“PCC”) rules provided by the PCF, the SMF configures the UPF with routing rules (e.g., to ensure traffic for C2 is only between the UAV and UAV-C).)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Takakura and Gupta with Karampatsis to include wherein communicating with the UAS NF to exchange information with the USS comprises receiving information regarding one or more policies for providing network-based aviation services serving to the UAV served by the server, as taught by Karampatsis, in paragraphs [0002]-[0058], to enable unmanned aerial systems (“UASs”) that include an unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”) controller and an UAV to operate (e.g., perform UAV operations) via a fifth generation (“5G”) mobile communication network.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takakura (US 20240340643) in view of Gupta (US 20230103775), and further in view of Baskaran (US 20240098494) and Vivanco (US 20220148434).
8. The method of claim 7, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Combination of Takakura, Gupta, and Baskaran does not explicitly teach:
wherein the portion of the flight plan corresponds to an area covered by the server.
However, Vivanco teaches:
wherein the portion of the flight plan corresponds to an area covered by the server. – in paragraphs (The flight rules may force (e.g., instruct) connectivity to base station 165, the anchor base station, and prevent the UAV 155 from connecting to base station 151 or base station 153 while traversing from location 1 to location 2, even though base station 151 or base station 153 may have a higher signal strength than base station 165 when the UAV 155 is at or near location 1 or location 2. The selection of the initial anchor base station 165 may be in consideration of the entire flight route, coverage areas of each base station that may be encountered along the flight route, and signal strength for each base station at a given location and altitude along the flight route.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Takakura, Gupta, and Baskaran with Vivanco to include wherein the portion of the flight plan corresponds to an area covered by the server, as taught by Vivanco, in paragraphs [0001]-[0021], to provide telecommunication networks that offer wide area, high speed, and secure wireless connectivity, which can enhance control and safety of UAV operations and enable beyond visual LOS.
9. The method of claim 7, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Combination of Takakura, Gupta, and Baskaran does not explicitly teach:
wherein communicating with the UAS NF to exchange information with the USS further comprises transmitting a request for at least the portion of the flight plan.
However, Vivanco teaches:
wherein communicating with the UAS NF to exchange information with the USS further comprises transmitting a request for at least the portion of the flight plan. – in paragraphs (The flight rules may force (e.g., instruct) connectivity to base station 165, the anchor base station, and prevent the UAV 155 from connecting to base station 151 or base station 153 while traversing from location 1 to location 2, even though base station 151 or base station 153 may have a higher signal strength than base station 165 when the UAV 155 is at or near location 1 or location 2. The selection of the initial anchor base station 165 may be in consideration of the entire flight route, coverage areas of each base station that may be encountered along the flight route, and signal strength for each base station at a given location and altitude along the flight route.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Takakura, Gupta, and Baskaran with Vivanco to include wherein communicating with the UAS NF to exchange information with the USS further comprises transmitting a request for at least the portion of the flight plan, as taught by Vivanco, in paragraphs [0001]-[0021], to provide telecommunication networks that offer wide area, high speed, and secure wireless connectivity, which can enhance control and safety of UAV operations and enable beyond visual LOS.
10. The method of claim 7, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Combination of Takakura, Gupta, and Baskaran does not explicitly teach:
wherein communicating with the UAS NF to exchange information with the USS further comprises transmitting an indication upon becoming the server for the UAV served by the server.
However, Vivanco teaches:
wherein communicating with the UAS NF to exchange information with the USS further comprises transmitting an indication upon becoming the server for the UAV served by the server. – in paragraphs (The flight rules may force (e.g., instruct) connectivity to base station 165, the anchor base station, and prevent the UAV 155 from connecting to base station 151 or base station 153 while traversing from location 1 to location 2, even though base station 151 or base station 153 may have a higher signal strength than base station 165 when the UAV 155 is at or near location 1 or location 2. The selection of the initial anchor base station 165 may be in consideration of the entire flight route, coverage areas of each base station that may be encountered along the flight route, and signal strength for each base station at a given location and altitude along the flight route.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Takakura, Gupta, and Baskaran with Vivanco to include wherein communicating with the UAS NF to exchange information with the USS further comprises transmitting an indication upon becoming the server for the UAV served by the server, as taught by Vivanco, in paragraphs [0001]-[0021], to provide telecommunication networks that offer wide area, high speed, and secure wireless connectivity, which can enhance control and safety of UAV operations and enable beyond visual LOS.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takakura (US 20240340643) in view of Gupta (US 20230103775), and further in view of Vivanco (US 20220148434).
13. The method of claim 1, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Combination of Takakura and Gupta does not explicitly teach:
wherein the USA NF discovers the server based on UAV location tracking.
However, Vivanco teaches:
wherein the USA NF discovers the server based on UAV location tracking. – in paragraphs (The flight rules may force (e.g., instruct) connectivity to base station 165, the anchor base station, and prevent the UAV 155 from connecting to base station 151 or base station 153 while traversing from location 1 to location 2, even though base station 151 or base station 153 may have a higher signal strength than base station 165 when the UAV 155 is at or near location 1 or location 2. The selection of the initial anchor base station 165 may be in consideration of the entire flight route, coverage areas of each base station that may be encountered along the flight route, and signal strength for each base station at a given location and altitude along the flight route.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Takakura and Gupta with Vivanco to include wherein the USA NF discovers the server based on UAV location tracking, as taught by Vivanco, in paragraphs [0001]-[0021], to provide telecommunication networks that offer wide area, high speed, and secure wireless connectivity, which can enhance control and safety of UAV operations and enable beyond visual LOS.
Claim(s) 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takakura (US 20240340643) in view of Gupta (US 20230103775), and further in view of Yang (US 20220046528).
11. The method of claim 1, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Combination of Takakura and Gupta does not explicitly teach:
wherein the server communicates with the UAS NF using a notification service used to exchange information with the USS to serve UAVs of different service level types.
However, Yang teaches:
wherein the server communicates with the UAS NF using a notification service used to exchange information with the USS to serve UAVs of different service level types. – in paragraphs (The particular network slice assigned to a UAV may be based on, for example, the type and/or usage associated with the UAV, a quality of service (QoS) or service level agreement (SLA) metric for a subscriber associated with the UAV. Subscriber database 630, as described above, may identify entities/parties, and their corresponding UAVs 110, that have subscribed to particular levels of service associated with providing telecommunications services for their UAVs 110.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Takakura and Gupta with Yang to include wherein the server communicates with the UAS NF using a notification service used to exchange information with the USS to serve UAVs of different service level types, as taught by Yang, in paragraphs [0001]-[0012], to provide reliable data services to UAVs while in flight, while also optimizing use of network resources.
12. The method of claim 11, – refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Yang teaches:
wherein a UAV service level type of a UAV is mapped to a UAV identification (ID) for that UAV. – in paragraphs (Slice selection logic 620 may also access subscriber database 630 to identify a QoS level or SLA associated with a party who has subscribed to particular levels of service (e.g., bandwidth requirement, latency, jitter) associated with one or more UAVs 110 owned/operated by the subscriber.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-7734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M..
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571)272-7304. 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.
/MUHAMMAD RAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights