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 statement (IDS) was submitted on 10/21/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 9, 17, 25-26, 28 and 35-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of Hong’733 et al (US Patent No. 12,222,733 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Hong’733 discloses, a method for configuring an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), characterized in being performed by the UAV [claim 7] and comprising:
sending equipment information of the UAV to a base station [claim 7; column 20, lines 6-20], wherein the equipment information comprises an equipment type of the UAV [claim 7; column 20, lines 6-20]; and
receiving first information sent by the base station based on the equipment information [claim 7; column 20, lines 20-21], wherein the first information is used for configuring the UAV [claim 7; column 20, lines 20-32].
Regarding claim 9, Hong’733 discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Hong’733 discloses, wherein the equipment information further comprises at least one of: an equipment group to which the UAV belongs; or an application field where the UAV is applied [see claim 7; column 20, lines 11-18].
Regarding claim 17, Hong’733 discloses, a method for configuring an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), characterized in being performed by a base station [see claim 1] and comprising:
receiving equipment information of the UAV, wherein the equipment information comprises an equipment type of the UAV [see claim 1; column 18, lines 62-67]; and
sending first information to the UAV based on the equipment information, wherein the first information is used for configuring the UAV [see claim 1; column 19, lines 8-11].
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 9.
Regarding claim 26, Hong’733 discloses, the method of claim 17 as set forth above.
Hong’733 discloses, wherein receiving the equipment information of the UAV comprises:
receiving a first signaling sent by the UAV [see claim 1; column 18, lines 62-67], wherein a first information element (IE) in the first signaling comprises the equipment information of the UAV [see claim 1; column 18, lines 62-67; note that every signaling has at least one information element].
Regarding claim 28, Hong’733 discloses, the method of claim 17 as set forth above.
Hong’733 discloses, wherein sending the first information to the UAV comprises:
sending a second signaling to the UAV, wherein the second signaling comprises a second IE, and the second IE comprises the first information [see claim 1; column 19, lines 8-11; note that the control instruction is considered as the first information or a signaling including the same, and every control instruction or signaling has at least one information element].
Regarding claim 35, Hong’733 discloses, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) [see claim 13], characterized in comprising:
a processor [see claim 13; column 22, line 8];
a memory storing instructions executable by the processor [see claim 13; column 22, lines 9-10]; and
a transceiver coupled to the processor [see claim 13; column 22, lines 11-28; note that every communication device has at least one transceiver to perform “receiving” and “transmitting” signals];
wherein the processor is configured to:
send, through the transceiver, equipment information of the UAV to a base station, wherein the equipment information comprises an equipment type of the UAV [see claim 13, column 22, lines 13-25]; and
receive, through the transceiver, first information sent by the base station based on the equipment information, wherein the first information is used for configuring the UAV [see claim 13, column 22, lines 28-30].
Regarding claim 36, Hong’733 discloses, a base station, characterized in comprising:
a processor [see claim 9; column 20, line 41];
a memory storing instructions executable by the processor [see claim 9; column 20, lines 43-44]; and
a transceiver coupled to the processor [see claim 9; column 20, lines 40-42; note that every communication device has at least one transceiver to perform “receiving” and “transmitting” signals].
Since claim 36 recites similar features to claim 17 without additional features, claim 36 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 17.
Claims 2 and 7-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of Hong’733 et al (US Patent No. 12,222,733 B2) in view of “Title 14 - Aeronautics and Space Chapter I - Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation Subchapter F - Air Traffic and General Operating Rules”, publicly available on 04/21/2021 (hereinafter, “CFR”).
Regarding claim 2, Hong’733 discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Hong’733 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but CFR discloses, wherein the equipment type is one of:
a UAV with a function of remotely reporting identity information [see section 89.110, standard remote identification unmanned aircraft];
a UAV reporting identity information through a remote reporting module, wherein the remote reporting module does not belong to the UAV [see section 89.115, unmanned aircraft that is not a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast modules]; or
a UAV that cannot report identity information remotely [see section 89.115 (b), an unmanned aircraft without remote identification equipment].
However, the above-mentioned feature is well known/established in the unmanned aircraft field as described in the FAA Regulations (i.e., 14 CFR Part 89).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above-mentioned FAA Remote Identification feature, as taught by CFR in the system of Hong’733 because such implementation follows an established FAA regulatory framework for unmanned aircraft operations and would facilitate compliance with satanized remote identification requirements.
Regarding claim 7, Hong’733 in view of CFR discloses, the method of claim 2 and particularly, “the equipment type is the UAV that cannot report identity information remotely” [see section 89.115 (b), an unmanned aircraft without remote identification equipment] as set forth above.
Hong’733 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but CFR discloses, the first information is used for configuring a take-off condition [see section 89.115 (b), Operations at FAA-recognized identification areas. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, a person may operate an unmanned aircraft without remote identification equipment only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) The unmanned aircraft and the person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system remain within the boundaries of an FAA-recognized identification area throughout the operation; note that a flying condition/take-off condition (i.e., within boundaries) is applied for an unmanned aircraft without remote identification equipment].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by CFR in the system of Hong’733 for similar rationales set forth above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, Hong’733 in view of CFR discloses, the method of claim 7 as set forth above.
Hong’733 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but CFR discloses, wherein the take-off condition comprises at least one of an area where the UAV can take off [see section 89.115 (b), Operations at FAA-recognized identification areas. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, a person may operate an unmanned aircraft without remote identification equipment only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) The unmanned aircraft and the person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system remain within the boundaries of an FAA-recognized identification area throughout the operation].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by CFR in the system of Hong’733 for similar rationales set forth above in claim 2.
Claims 27 and 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of Hong’733 et al (US Patent No. 12,222,733 B2) in view of Yeo et al (US Publication No. 2021/0099224 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Hong’733 discloses, the method of claim 26 as set forth above.
Hong’733 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Yeo discloses, wherein the first signaling comprises a first radio resource control (RRC) signaling [¶0081, the terminal may transfer at least one of the movement information and the location information to the base station using one or more combinations of L1 signaling, MAC CE, and RRC signaling], and the first IE comprises at least one of:
user equipment - evolved universal terrestrial radio access network - capability (UE- EUTRA-Capability) [¶0046, E-UTRA]; or
user equipment - new radio - capability (UE-NR-Capability) [¶0046, new radio].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Hong’733 with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Yeo to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Yeo into the system of Hong’733 would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as allowing for the UE to transmit only configured type of information required by the base station to improve signaling efficiency, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 29, Hong’733 discloses, the method of claim 28 as set forth above.
Although Hong’733 discloses, the second IE comprises other configuration (OtherConfig) [see claim 1; column 19, lines 8-11; note that other configuration can be any configuration for controlling the UAV, i.e., speed instruction or position instruction], but Hong’733 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Yeo discloses, wherein the second signaling comprises a second RRC signaling [¶0081, triggering may be delivered via L1 signaling or MAC CE, and RRC signaling can be used for periodic reporting].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Yeo in the system of Hong’733 for similar rationales set forth above in claim 27.
Claims 30-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of Hong’733 et al (US Patent No. 12,222,733 B2) in view of Hong’590 et al (US Publication No. 2021/0092590 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Hong’733 discloses, the method of claim 17 as set forth above.
Hong’733 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Hong’590 discloses, sending an inquiry instruction to the UAV, wherein the inquiry instruction is used for instructing the UAV to send the equipment information [¶0043-0044, in 302, the MME, after receiving an attach request sent by the UAV, sends an identity request to the UAV. The MME, after receiving the attach request sent by the UAV, may send the identity request to the UAV through the base station. The identity request may instruct the UAV to report an IMEI of the UAV to the MME].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Hong’733 with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Hong’590 to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Hong’590 into the system of Hong’733 would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling proper device management and network access control, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 31, Hong’733 in view of Hong’590 discloses, the method of claim 30 as set forth above.
Hong’733 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Hong’590 discloses, wherein sending the inquiry instruction to the UAV comprises: sending a third signaling to the UAV, wherein the third signaling comprises a third IE, and the third IE comprises the inquiry instruction [¶0043-0044, in 302, the MME, after receiving an attach request sent by the UAV, sends an identity request to the UAV. The MME, after receiving the attach request sent by the UAV, may send the identity request to the UAV through the base station; note that every signaling has at least one information element].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Hong’590 in the system of Hong’733 for similar rationales set forth above in claim 30.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 9, 17, 25-26, 28 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong’726 et al (EP 3792726 A1)1.
Regarding claim 1, Hong’726 discloses, a method for configuring an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) [FIG. 3; its related descriptions; ¶0038, a method for configuring a UAV], characterized in being performed by the UAV [FIG. 3; its related descriptions; ¶0038, the method performed by the UAV] and comprising:
sending equipment information of the UAV to a base station [FIG. 3; its related descriptions; ¶0039, in operation 301, the UAV sends an access message to a base station], wherein the equipment information comprises an equipment type of the UAV [FIG. 3; its related descriptions; ¶0039, the access message including a type identifier of the UAV]; and
receiving first information sent by the base station based on the equipment information [FIG. 3; its related descriptions; ¶0080, in operation 303, the base station (or the UAV) sends (or receives) a control instruction to the UAV (or from the base station) based on the target supervision strategy information; further see ¶0046, in Operation 302, the base station, after receiving the access message from the UAV, acquires target supervision strategy information based on the access message of the UAV sends an access message to a base station], wherein the first information is used for configuring the UAV [FIG. 3; its related descriptions; ¶0099, in operation 304, the control instruction is used for controlling the UAV].
Regarding claim 9, Hong’726 discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Hong’726 discloses, wherein the equipment information further comprises at least one of: an equipment group to which the UAV belongs; or an application field where the UAV is applied [¶0045, UAVs may be divided into micro, light, small, medium-sized and large UAVs, and of course, may also be classified according to another manner. For example, the UAV may be technically defined as an unmanned fixed-wing aircraft, an unmanned vertical take-off and landing aircraft, an unmanned airship, an unmanned helicopter, an unmanned multi-rotor aircraft and an unmanned parawing aircraft].
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is merely different from claim 1 in that it recites claimed features from the perspective of a base station, but recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features. Thus, claim 17 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 9.
Regarding claim 26, Hong’726 discloses, the method of any one of claim 17 as set forth above.
Hong’726 discloses, wherein receiving the equipment information of the UAV comprises: receiving a first signaling sent by the UAV [¶0042, the access message is attach request signal including the type identifier of the UAV; further see ¶0043, the access message is a random access message including the type identifier of the UAV], wherein a first information element (IE) in the first signaling comprises the equipment information of the UAV [¶0044, TLV format or the number of bits representing the type identifier of the UAV; note that the TLV format or the number of bits are considered as the claimed first information IE; further note that every signaling has at least one information element].
Regarding claim 28, Hong’726 discloses, the method of claim 17 as set forth above.
Hong’726 discloses, wherein sending the first information to the UAV comprises: sending a second signaling to the UAV [FIG. 3; its related descriptions; ¶0080, in operation 303, the base station sends a control instruction to the UAV based on the target supervision strategy information; note that the control instruction is considered as the first information or a signaling including the same], wherein the second signaling comprises a second IE, and the second IE comprises the first information [FIG. 3; its related descriptions; ¶0080, note that every control instruction or signaling has at least one information element].
Regarding claim 35, Hong’726 discloses, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) [FIG. 3; its related descriptions; ¶0038, UAV], characterized in comprising:
a processor [FIG. 6; its related descriptions; ¶0129, the apparatus 600 may be a UAV; further see ¶0130-0131, processing component 602 including one or more processor 620];
a memory storing instructions executable by the processor [FIG. 6; its related descriptions; ¶0129, the apparatus 600 may be a UAV; further see ¶0130-0132, memory 304 storing instructions executed by the processors]; and
a transceiver coupled to the processor [FIG. 6; its related descriptions; ¶0130, communication component 616 coupled to the processor; note that every mobile device has at least one transceiver].
Since claim 35 recites similar features to claim 1 without additional features, claim 35 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 36, Hong’726 discloses, a base station [FIG. 3; its related descriptions; ¶0038, base station; further see, base station of FIG. 7], characterized in comprising:
a processor [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0142, processor 704];
a memory storing instructions executable by the processor [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0142, memory 703 storing instructions executable by the processor]; and
a transceiver coupled to the processor [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0142, transmitter 702 and receiver 701 couped to the processor 704].
Since claim 36 recites similar features to claim 17 without additional features, claim 36 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 17.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong’726 et al (EP 3792726 B1) in view of “Title 14 - Aeronautics and Space Chapter I - Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation Subchapter F - Air Traffic and General Operating Rules”, publicly available on 04/21/2021 (hereinafter, “CFR”).
Regarding claim 2, Hong’726 discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Hong’726 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but CFR discloses, wherein the equipment type is one of:
a UAV with a function of remotely reporting identity information [see section 89.110, standard remote identification unmanned aircraft];
a UAV reporting identity information through a remote reporting module, wherein the remote reporting module does not belong to the UAV [see section 89.115, unmanned aircraft that is not a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast modules]; or
a UAV that cannot report identity information remotely [see section 89.115 (b), an unmanned aircraft without remote identification equipment].
However, the above-mentioned feature is well known/established in the unmanned aircraft field as described in the FAA Regulations (i.e., 14 CFR Part 89).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above-mentioned FAA Remote Identification feature, as taught by CFR in the system of Hong’726 because such implementation follows an established FAA regulatory framework for unmanned aircraft operations and would facilitate compliance with satanized remote identification requirements.
Regarding claim 7, Hong’726 in view of CFR discloses, the method of claim 2 and particularly, “the equipment type is the UAV that cannot report identity information remotely” [see section 89.115 (b), an unmanned aircraft without remote identification equipment] as set forth above.
Hong’726 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but CFR discloses, the first information is used for configuring a take-off condition [see section 89.115 (b), Operations at FAA-recognized identification areas. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, a person may operate an unmanned aircraft without remote identification equipment only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) The unmanned aircraft and the person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system remain within the boundaries of an FAA-recognized identification area throughout the operation; note that a flying condition/take-off condition (i.e., within boundaries) is applied for an unmanned aircraft without remote identification equipment].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by CFR in the system of Hong’726 for similar rationales set forth above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, Hong’726 in view of CFR discloses, the method of claim 7 as set forth above.
Hong’726 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but CFR discloses, wherein the take-off condition comprises at least one of an area where the UAV can take off [see section 89.115 (b), Operations at FAA-recognized identification areas. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, a person may operate an unmanned aircraft without remote identification equipment only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) The unmanned aircraft and the person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system remain within the boundaries of an FAA-recognized identification area throughout the operation].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by CFR in the system of Hong’726 for similar rationales set forth above in claim 2.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong’726 et al (EP 3792726 B1) in view of “Title 14 - Aeronautics and Space Chapter I - Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation Subchapter F - Air Traffic and General Operating Rules”, publicly available on 04/21/2021 (hereinafter, “CFR”) and further in view of Yeo et al (US Publication No. 2021/0099224 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hong’726 in view of CFR discloses, the method of claim 2 as set forth above.
Although Hong’726 in view of CFR discloses, “the first information is used for configuring the UAV” as set forth above, Hong’726 in view of CFR does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Yeo discloses, wherein the first information is used for configuring at least one type of identity information that the UAV is to send [FIG. 9; its related descriptions; ¶0083, the base station configures the type of information that the terminal should report, to the terminal as upper signaling (902). The type of the information may be at least one of location information and movement information; note that a signal for configuring the type of information is used for configuring at least one type of identify information that the UE is to send].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Hong’726 in view of CFR with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Yeo to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Yeo into the system of Hong’726 in view of CFR would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as allowing for the UE to transmit only configured type of information required by the base station to improve signaling efficiency, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 4, Hong’726 in view of CFR and Yeo discloses, the method of claim 3 and particularly, “wherein the equipment type is the UAV with the function of remotely reporting identity information” [see section 89.110 of CFR; supra rejections as set forth above in claim 2] as set forth above.
Hong’726 in view of CFR does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Yeo discloses, the at least one type of identity information comprises at least one of:
location information of the UAV [FIG. 9; its related descriptions; ¶0083, the type of the information may be at least one of location information];
a movement speed of the UAV [FIG. 9; its related descriptions; ¶0083, the type of the information may be at least one of movement information].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Yeo in the system of Hong’726 in view of CFR for similar rationales set forth above in claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Hong’726 in view of CFR and Yeo discloses, the method of claim 3 and particularly, “the equipment type is the UAV reporting the identity information through the remote reporting module” [see section 89.115, unmanned aircraft that is not a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft with remote identification broadcast modules] as set forth above.
Hong’726 further discloses, and the at least one type of identity information comprises at least one of: an equipment identifier of the UAV [FIG. 3; its related descriptions; ¶0039, the access message including a type identifier of the UAV].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong’726 et al (EP 3792726 B1) in view of “Title 14 - Aeronautics and Space Chapter I - Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation Subchapter F - Air Traffic and General Operating Rules”, publicly available on 04/21/2021 (hereinafter, “CFR”) and further in view of Yeo et al (US Publication No. 2021/0099224 A1) and further in view of Xu et al (US Publication No. 2020/0329453 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hong’726 in view of CFR and Yeo discloses, the method of claim 3 as set forth above.
Hong’726 in view of CFR and Yeo does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Xu discloses, wherein the first information comprises an information identifier of each identity information type in the at least one type of identity information [¶0139, each type of information included in the short message corresponds to one bit, that is, the downlink control information may further include an indication bit for each type of information in the short message]; or,
the first information comprises first identification information, and the first identification information is indicative of the at least one type of identity information [¶0139, each type of information included in the short message corresponds to one bit, that is, the downlink control information may further include an indication bit for each type of information in the short message]; or,
the first information comprises at least one bit, and each identity information type in the at least one type of identity information corresponds to one bit in the first information [¶0139, each type of information included in the short message corresponds to one bit, that is, the downlink control information may further include an indication bit for each type of information in the short message].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Hong’726 in view of CFR and Yeo with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Xu to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Xu into the system of Hong’726 in view of CFR and Yeo would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling user terminal to determine and report appropriate information to the network, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong’726 et al (EP 3792726 B1) in view of Yeo et al (US Publication No. 2021/0099224 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Hong’726 discloses, the method of claim 26 as set forth above.
Hong’726 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Yeo discloses, wherein the first signaling comprises a first radio resource control (RRC) signaling [¶0081, the terminal may transfer at least one of the movement information and the location information to the base station using one or more combinations of L1 signaling, MAC CE, and RRC signaling], and the first IE comprises at least one of:
user equipment - evolved universal terrestrial radio access network - capability (UE- EUTRA-Capability) [¶0046, E-UTRA]; or
user equipment - new radio - capability (UE-NR-Capability) [¶0046, new radio].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Hong’726 with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Yeo to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Yeo into the system of Hong’726 would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as allowing for the UE to transmit only configured type of information required by the base station to improve signaling efficiency, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 29, Hong’726 discloses, the method of claim 28 as set forth above.
Although Hong’726 discloses, the second IE comprises other configuration (OtherConfig) [¶0081, note that other configuration can be any configuration for controlling the UAV, i.e., speed instruction or position instruction], Hong’726 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations) =, but Yeo discloses, wherein the second signaling comprises a second RRC signaling [¶0081, triggering may be delivered via L1 signaling or MAC CE, and RRC signaling can be used for periodic reporting].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Yeo in the system of Hong’726 for similar rationales set forth above in claim 27.
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong’726 et al (EP 3792726 B1) in view of Hong’590 et al (US Publication No. 2021/0092590 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Hong’726 discloses, the method of claim 17 as set forth above.
Hong’726 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Hong’590 discloses, sending an inquiry instruction to the UAV, wherein the inquiry instruction is used for instructing the UAV to send the equipment information [¶0043-0044, in 302, the MME, after receiving an attach request sent by the UAV, sends an identity request to the UAV. The MME, after receiving the attach request sent by the UAV, may send the identity request to the UAV through the base station. The identity request may instruct the UAV to report an IMEI of the UAV to the MME].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Hong’726 with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Hong’590 to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Hong’590 into the system of Hong’726 would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling proper device management and network access control, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 31, Hong’726 in view of Hong’590 discloses, the method of claim 30 as set forth above.
Hong’726 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Hong’590 discloses, wherein sending the inquiry instruction to the UAV comprises: sending a third signaling to the UAV, wherein the third signaling comprises a third IE, and the third IE comprises the inquiry instruction [¶0043-0044, in 302, the MME, after receiving an attach request sent by the UAV, sends an identity request to the UAV. The MME, after receiving the attach request sent by the UAV, may send the identity request to the UAV through the base station; note that every signaling has at least one information element].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Hong’590 in the system of Hong’726 for similar rationales set forth above in claim 30.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong’726 et al (EP 3792726 B1) in view of Hong’590 et al (US Publication No. 2021/0092590 A1) and further in view of Jin et al (US Publication No. 2021/0243590 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Hong’726 in view of Hong’590 discloses, the method of claim 31 as set forth above.
Hong’726 in view of Hong’590 does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Jin discloses, wherein the third signaling comprises a third RRC signaling, and the third IE comprises user equipment capability enquiry (UECapabilityEnquiry) [¶0140, UE capability enquiry message may request a plurality of RAT types in one RRC message container. Meanwhile, the serving gNB 1e-02 may deliver the UE capability enquiry message including the RAT type-based request to the UE 1e-01 a plurality of times].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Hong’726 in view of Hong’590 with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Jin to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Jin into the system of Hong’726 in view of Hong’590 would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling proper device management and network access control, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hong’504 et al (US Publication No. 2021/0051504) [¶0078]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm(M-T).
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 Hong is an EP family patent application of CN 108700894 A1 cited in an IDS by the applicant.
Prosecution Insights