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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 (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 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 1-3, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Arngren et al. (US 2019/0147747 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Arngren discloses a method of operating a first communication device, the method comprising:
determining a second communication device is within an area ([0062]), [0047] the 3D geo-fence of the car 7 interferes with the flight operation space of the UAV 1, see FIG. 3);
determining an identifier of the second communication device ([0058] The central server may keep e.g. position, time, type, number, and activity for identification of possible interfering flight operation space and POI or moving object and 0065] A UAV type may be determined by the identity of the UAV, and the dynamic restriction data is then based on the UAV type); and
transmitting a message to the second communication device using the identifier ([0062] retrieving 61 dynamic restriction data for the UAV based on the obtained geographical position and identity, and remotely 62 controlling the UAV based on the retrieved dynamic restriction data).
Regarding claim 2, Arngren further the method of claim 1, wherein the first communication device comprises an area airspace manager, AAM,([0039] A central server 6 for control of UAVs and support to wireless devices 2 and their UAVs 1 is also disclosed. The central server may be one physical server host, but may also be a server farm or a virtual server distributed over a plurality of hosts) wherein the second communication device comprises a unmanned aerial vehicle, UAV, and wherein the determining determines the second communication device is within at least one of: an arena; and an event space ([0047] the 3D geo-fence of the car 7 interferes with the flight operation space of the UAV 1, see FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 3 Arngren further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the second communication device is within the area comprises scanning the area using at least one of: a radar system; and a camera system.
Regarding claim 4, Arngren further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the identifier of the second communication device comprises: receiving a message from the second communication device, the message including the identifier.
Regarding claim 16, Arngren discloses a method of operating a second communication device, the method comprising: receiving a first message from a first communication device associated with an area ([0038] The UAV 1 may have better cellular coverage then the wireless device 2, since it usually is higher up then the wireless device 2. In case the UAV 1 has cellular capability, e.g. wife, cellular connectivity or a proprietary link may be used between the UAV 1 and the wireless device 2, to relay connection to the central server 6 via the UAV 1. In other cases the UAV 1 may be down in a basement searching for a bomb, and the user (pilot) is standing on the street with cellular coverage, while the UAV 1 has not. In this case the signaling goes via the wireless device 2.);
transmitting a portion of the first message to a third communication device ([0051] the 3server);
responsive to transmitting the portion of the first message, receiving a second message from the third communication device ([0051] the client application sends a geographical position and an identity of the UAV to the central server, which in return pushes flight restriction data, relevant to the position of the geographical position and identity of the UAV, to the client application); and modifying operation of the second communication device based on the second message ([0032] If a mobile application in the wireless terminal, used to remotely control the UAV, gets flight restriction data from a central server, then it is possible to keep the UAV away from e.g. restricted airspace by alerts in the mobile application or by automatic control commands to the UAV, e.g. to automatically return to origin if too close to restricted airspace).
Regarding claim 22, Arngren discloses a method of operating a third communication device, the method comprising:
receiving a first message from a first communication device ([0051] client application sends a geographic position an identity of the UAV to the central server); responsive to receiving the first message, determining instructions for operating a second communication device in the area based on the first message ([0051] central server in turn pushes flight restriction data relevant to the position of the geographical position and identity of the UAV, to the client application); and transmitting a second message to the second communication device, the second message including the instructions ([0055] sending restriction data to one or more UAV based on the geographical position of the wireless terminal and of the one or more UAV).
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 13, 15-19, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hwang (US 2022027252 A19).
Regarding claim 1 Hwang discloses a method of operating a first communication device, the method comprising:
determining a second communication device is within an area ([0079] drone may transmit the generated distributed packet including the position information to the nuclear plant server);
determining an identifier of the second communication device ([0079] drone may generate a distributed packet including at least one of a source address (i.e., drone identifier)).
transmitting a message to the second communication device using the identifier ([0079] when the nuclear power plant server confirms the trustworthiness of the distributed packet (i.e., when the distributed packet passes the trustworthiness check), it may transmit the flight permission message to the drone to permit the flight of the drone ).
Regarding claim 2, Hwang further the method of claim 1, wherein the first communication device comprises an area airspace manager, AAM,(see Fig. 2, drone controller 240 and flight permission approval server 230).
Regarding claim 4, Hwang further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the identifier of the second communication device comprises: receiving a message from the second communication device, the message including the identifier [0079] the drone may transmit the generated distributed packet including the position information to the nuclear power plant server).
Regarding claim 5, Hwang further discloses wherein receiving the message comprises receiving the message via at least one of : a broadcast message ([0083] the drone may broadcast position information by generating a distributed packet using the updated secondary secret key); and a short-range wireless message.
Regarding claim 7, Hwang further discloses wherein transmitting the message comprises transmitting an indication that the second communication device is to forward the message to a third communication device associated with the second communication device (0079], Accordingly, the drone may receive the flight prohibition message from the nuclear power plant server. In addition, the drone may transmit the received flight prohibition message to the drone controller. In addition, the drone may transmit the received flight permission message to the drone controller).
Regarding claim 13, Hwang further discloses determining information associated with the area ([0071] transmit a flight permission message to the flight permission approval server to permit the drone to fly in the entry restricted area), wherein transmitting the message comprises transmitting the information to the second communication device using the identifier ([0079] when the nuclear power plant server confirms the trustworthiness of the distributed packet (i.e., when the distributed packet passes the trustworthiness check), it may transmit the flight permission message to the drone to permit the flight of the drone).
Regarding claim 15, Hwang further discloses wherein the information associated with the area comprises at least one of:
information associated with other communication devices within the area;
information associated with structures and/or obstacles in the area; information associated with operating policies in the area; and
local detect and avoid, DAA, policies ([0079] he nuclear power plant server may transmit a flight prohibition message to the drone through the nuclear power plant transceiver to disallow the flight of the drone when the trustworthiness check performed on the distributed packet received from the drone is not successful. Accordingly, the drone may receive the flight prohibition message from the nuclear power plant server) .
Regarding claim 16, Hwang discloses a method of operating a second communication device, the method comprising:
receiving a first message from a first communication device associated with an area ([0079] In this case, when the nuclear power plant server confirms the trustworthiness of the distributed packet (i.e., when the distributed packet passes the trustworthiness check), it may transmit the flight permission message to the drone to permit the flight of the drone);
transmitting a portion of the first message to a third communication device ([0079], Accordingly, the drone may receive the flight prohibition message from the nuclear power plant server. In addition, the drone may transmit the received flight prohibition message to the drone controller. In addition, the drone may transmit the received flight permission message to the drone controller);
responsive to transmitting the portion of the first message, receiving a second message from the third communication device ([0098] Thereafter, when the drone is located in the entry restricted area of the nuclear power plant as a result of determination, the nuclear power plant server may transmit the flight permission message to the flight permission approval server to permit the flight of the drone); and
modifying operation of the second communication device based on the second message (permitting the flight of the drone when it is determined by the nuclear power plant server that the drone is located in the entry restricted area of the nuclear power plant).
Regarding claim 17, Hwang further discloses wherein the first communication device comprises an area airspace manager, AAM ((see Fig. 2, drone controller 240 and flight permission approval server 230),
wherein the second communication device comprises an unmanned aerial vehicle, UAV (drone 250), wherein the third communication device comprises an unmanned aerial vehicle controller, UAV-C, the UAV-C and the UAV being part of an unmanned aerial system (drone 250 and drone controller240), and wherein the area includes at least one of: an arena and an event space ([0098] restricted area of the nuclear power plant).
Regarding claim 18, Hwang further discloses moving into the area associated with the first communication device ([0079 he nuclear power plant server 210 may determine whether the drone is located in the entry restricted area of the nuclear power plant), and
transmitting an indication of an identifier of the second communication device to the first communication device (0068] In addition, the drone may additionally further use a drone identifier when generating group trust bits. Accordingly, the nuclear power plant server may inform the flight permission approval server of the group code, the primary secret key, the transmission time, the drone identifier, and the scheme of generating group trust bits), wherein receiving the first message comprises receiving the first message in response to transmitting the identifier (([0079] In this case, when the nuclear power plant server confirms the trustworthiness of the distributed packet (i.e., when the distributed packet passes the trustworthiness check), it may transmit the flight permission message to the drone to permit the flight of the drone).
Regarding claim 19, Hwang further discloses wherein transmitting the identifier comprises transmitting the indication of the identifier using at least one of: a broadcast message; and a short-range message ([0079] when the nuclear power plant server confirms the trustworthiness of the distributed packet (i.e., when the distributed packet passes the trustworthiness check), it may transmit the flight permission message to the drone to permit the flight of the drone and [0083] the drone may broadcast position information by generating a distributed packet using the updated secondary secret key).
Regarding claim 21 Hwang further discloses wherein the second message comprises at least one of:
information associated with other communication devices within the area;
information associated with structures and/or obstacles in the area; information associated with operating policies in the area; and
local detect and avoid, DAA, policies ([0079] the nuclear power plant server may transmit a flight prohibition message to the drone through the nuclear power plant transceiver to disallow the flight of the drone when the trustworthiness check performed on the distributed packet received from the drone is not successful. Accordingly, the drone may receive the flight prohibition message from the nuclear power plant server) .
Regarding claim 22 Hwang discloses a method of operating a third communication device, the method comprising: receiving a first message from a first communications device associated with an area ([0090] the nuclear power plant server may receive the distributed packet including the position information, the group code, and the group trust bits from the nuclear power plant transceiver In this case, the nuclear power plant server may obtain the position information of the drone from the distributed packet. In addition, the nuclear power plant server may determine whether the drone is located in an entry restricted area of the nuclear flight permission message to the flight permission approval server to permit the flight of the drone, when trustworthiness is confirmed by performing a trustworthiness check on the distributed packet including the position information received from the drone and the drone is located in the entry restricted area of nuclear power plant) ;
responsive to receiving the first message, determining instructions for operating a second communications device in the area based on the first message ([0091] Accordingly, the flight permission approval server may receive the flight permission message from the nuclear power plant server ); and
transmitting a second message to the second communication device, the second message including the instructions ([0091] the flight permission approval server may transmit the received flight permission message to the drone controller (S305b). Then, the drone controller may receive the flight permission message from the flight permission approval server. Thereafter, the drone controller may notify a user of the permission of the flight).
Regarding claim 23, Hwang further discloses wherein the first communication device comprises an area airspace manager, AAM ((see Fig. 2, drone controller 240 and flight permission approval server 230),
wherein the second communication device comprises an unmanned aerial vehicle, UAV (drone 250), wherein the third communication device comprises an unmanned aerial vehicle controller, UAV-C, the UAV-C and the UAV being part of an unmanned aerial system (drone 250 and drone controller240), and wherein the area includes at least one of: an arena and an event space ([0098] restricted area of the nuclear power plant).
Regarding claim 24, Hwang further discloses wherein receiving the first message from the first communication device comprises receiving the first message from the first communication device vi the second communication device ([0089] the drone may transmit the generated distributed packet to the nuclear power plant transceiver. Then, the nuclear power plant transceiver may receive the distributed packet including the position information from the drone. In addition, the nuclear power plant transceiver may transmit the distributed packet including the position information to the nuclear power plant server)
Regarding claim 25, Hwang further discloses wherein the first message comprises information associated with the area, the information comprising at least one of:
information associated with other communication devices within the area;
information associated with structures and/or obstacles in the area; information associated with operating policies in the area; and
local detect and avoid, DAA, policies ([0079] he nuclear power plant server may transmit a flight prohibition message to the drone through the nuclear power plant transceiver to disallow the flight of the drone when the trustworthiness check performed on the distributed packet received from the drone is not successful. Accordingly, the drone may receive the flight prohibition message from the nuclear power plant server) .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang as applied to claims 13 and 16 above and further in view of Medeiros et al. (WO 2023194013 A1).
Regarding claim 14 and 20 Hwang fails to explicitly teach wherein transmitting the information to the second communication device comprises transmitting the information to the second communication device via PC5 interface and wherein receiving the first message comprises receiving the first message via a PC5 interface.
In an analogous filed of endeavor, Medeiros discloses a method for optimization of interference avoidance and mitigation from ground network unmanned/uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAV) in which a report is broadcasted via detect-and -avoidance signaling over a PC5 interface so an unmanned aerial vehicle may obtain information indicative of an area comprising at least a transmitter a s a potential source of interference along a flight plan of the unmanned aerial vehicle (see [0011]-[0014].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Madeiros’ teaching of using direct PC5 interface for direct device-to-device communications into Hwang’s system in order to provide the advantage of improved reliability of UAV control and information exchange especially in areas of limited cellular network coverage or congestion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 6, the most pertinent prior art of record Hwang discloses determining a location of the second communication device but fails to explicitly disclose transmitting a first message to a database via a communication network, the first message including an indication of the location and a request for the identifier of the second communication device, and responsive to transmitting the first message, receiving a second message that includes the identifier from the database.
With regard to claim 8, Hwang fails to explicitly teach, alone or in combination receiving a second message from the third communication device associated with the second communication device, in which the second message include an indication of an address associated with the third communication device.
Claims 9-12 are allowable based on their respective dependencies on allowable claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chin et al (WO 2021179132 A1) discloses a method for access control including performing access barring check for an access attempt associated with an unmanned aerial systems (UAS) related access category according to an acquired barring parameters associated with the UAS related access category determined according to geofences and/pr time ranges of the UASs.
Mahkonen et al. (WO 2018178752 A1) discloses a method for managing an UAV in an area of interest using location monitoring and services.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES N APPIAH whose telephone number is (571)272-7904. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:30 M-TH.
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.
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.
/CHARLES N APPIAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights