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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 14, 16, 18-20, 27-29, and 31-33 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/24/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 14, 16, 18-20, 27-29, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
Regarding claim 1:
A method, implemented in a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising:
transmitting, to an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) application enabling (UA) server, a registration request for a first UAV, wherein the registration request comprises information indicating a detect and avoid (DAA) capability of the WTRU;
receiving, from the UAE server, a DAA configuration request message comprising information indicating a DAA policy;
storing DAA configuration parameters corresponding to the DAA policy;
detecting one or more second UAVs in proximity to the first UAV;
transmitting, to the UAV server, a message comprising information about the detected one or more second UAVs in proximity to the first UAV; and receiving, from the UAV server, a message including information indicating an updated flightpath.
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claims recites “detecting one or more second UAVs in proximity to the first UAV”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “implemented in a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU)”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. For example, a person could mentally/visually determine a second UAV near a first UAV. This step is directed to a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations – Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
Claim 1 recites the additional element of implemented in a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU). According to the specification, the computer is identified as a general-purpose computer such that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions to a generic computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the detecting, sending, and receiving steps. The generically recited computer merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental processes and business transaction using a generic or general-purpose processor.
The claim limitations of “sending” and “receiving” data is directed to extra-solution activity of data transmission. This step amounts to mere data outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP2106.05(g).
The claim limitation of “storing DAA configuration parameters” data is directed to extra-solution activity of data storage. This step amounts to mere data storage, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Per the evaluation in step 2A, general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of an inventive concept (significantly more).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the steps of data receiving, transmission, and storage were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification and background therein does not provide any indication that the processor and network are anything other than possible generic, off the-shelf computer components, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here), see MPEP 2106.05(g).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Independent claim 14 is ineligible for similar rationale, except for the differing statutory category, reciting generic computer components performing a similar abstract idea as in claim 1 above.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 16, 18-20, 27-29, and 31-33 merely provide additional detail with respect to the data transmission and receiving and are similarly ineligible as in claims 1 and 14 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 14, 16, 18-20, 27-29, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao (US 2022/0086741) in view of Ali et al. (US 2023/0098173).
Regarding claim 1:
Liao teaches a method, implemented in a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising:
transmitting, to an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) application enabling (UA) server, a registration request for a first UAV, wherein the registration request comprises information indicating a detect and avoid (DAA) capability of the WTRU (see at least Fig. 4, 3a, ¶0065, ¶0251);
receiving, from the UAE server, a DAA configuration request message comprising information indicating a DAA policy (see at least Fig. 4, 3b, ¶0050-76, UAS policy update, see at least Fig. 4-5, ¶0005, ¶0109, ¶0125-0150);
storing DAA configuration parameters corresponding to the DAA policy (UAS policy update, see at least Fig. 4-5, ¶0005, ¶0109, ¶0125-0150);
detecting one or more second UAVs in proximity to the first UAV (detect proximity, see at least Fig. 14, 4a, ¶0193-0204);
transmitting, to the UAV server, a message comprising information about the detected one or more second UAVs in proximity to the first UAV (see at least Fig. 14, 4b, 5a, 5b).
Liao does not explicitly teach receiving, from the UAV server, a message including information indicating an updated flightpath.
Ali teaches a system and method of deconfliction processing of UAVs, including detecting one or more second UAVs in proximity to the first UAV and receiving, from the UAV server, a message including information indicating an updated flightpath (see at least ¶0090, Figs. 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention to modify the UAV service system and method as taught by Liao with the well-known technique of modifying a flight path of an aerial vehicle based on proximity to an obstacle or other aircraft as taught by Ali in order to provide the expected result of operating a plurality of UAVs in a common space without collision.
Regarding claim 3:
Liao further teaches wherein the detecting the one or more second UAVs in proximity to the first UAV comprises receiving a broadcast message from the one or more second UAVs (detect proximity, see at least Fig. 14, 4a, ¶0193-0204).
Regarding claim 3:
Liao further teaches wherein the detecting the one or more second UAVs in proximity to the first UAV comprises obtaining location information of the first UAV and the one or more second UAVs using network location services (see at least Fig. 14, 4a, ¶0193-0204)..
Regarding claim 6:
Liao further teaches communicating between UAVs using direct V2X communications, but is silent as to a PC5 link (see at least ¶0220).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any available V2X standard, including PC5.
Regarding claim 8:
Ali further teaches wherein further comprising transmitting, to the one or more second UAVs, a deconfliction message (see at least abstract, ¶0004-0005, ¶0113).
Regarding claims 16 and 18-20, Liao and Ali teach the limitations as above.
Regarding claims 27 and 31:
Liao does not explicitly teach transmitting a response indicating whether the policy was received and stored.
Liao does teach a plurality of communication protocols, including the well-known Acknowledge, negative acknowledgement (ACK, NACK) messages.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention to modify the UAV communication system and method as taught by Liao and Ali by implementing an ACK/NACK message to confirm receipt of the DAA configuration request in order to utilize standard communication protocols to ensure data is properly transmitted and received.
Regarding claims 28-29 and 32-33:
Ali further teaches deconflicting and collision avoidance for a plurality of UAVS, (see at least UAVS 402-404, Fig. 4.)
Regarding claims 30 and 34:
Ali further teaches changing a flight path of the first UAV based on the updated flight path (see at least ¶0085)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Anna Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights