DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on April 27, 2026. Claims 2, 7-8 have been amended. Claims 1-16 are pending and directed towards METHODS AND APPARATUSES FOR UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM (UAS) IDENTIFICATION, BINDING AND PAIRING. Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendment to specification and claims, and therefore withdraws the previous objections to the specification, and the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection. However, the rejections under 35 USC § 103 and 101 are maintained. The rejection is stated below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/05/2024, 05/04/2026 and 06/15/2026 were Acknowledge. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues regarding independent claim 1 that the primary reference Hong does not disclose the limitation “transmitting, to a network node, after receipt of pairing authorization indicating that an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is paired with a UAV-controller (UAV-C), a request for command and control (C2) communication authorization between the UAV and the UAV-C”
In Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion. Transmitting a request for command and control communication authorization between UAV and UAV controller is very broad limitation, that simply can be interpreted as any subsequent communication or binding process after completing the pairing successfully. Given this broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation, Hong explicitly teaches that in different paragraphs and figures, see for example (After completing pairing, the first user device may directly communicate with the second user device to complete the binding process, and may further perform subsequent communication. Hong, para [0108]) (The core network may perform the pairing registration on the UAV and the UAV controller upon the reception of the first NAS signaling, and may allow that the UAV and the UAV controller communicate subsequently through the mobile cellular network. Hong, para [0115]).
Applicant argues regarding independent claim 1 that the primary reference Hong and the secondary reference Zhang in combination do not disclose the limitation “receiving, from the network node, based on the request for the C2 communication authorization, a response indicating rejection of the C2 communication authorization”
In Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion. The limitation is simply about rejecting a command control authorization. Given this broadest reasonable interpretation, the secondary reference Zhang teaches uncrewed aerial vehicle controller is rejected to control even after pairing process (The authorization response corresponding to the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller may include information about an uncrewed aerial vehicle that the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller is allowed to control, for example, an identifier or an identifier list of the uncrewed aerial vehicle that the UTM allows the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller to control. It may be understood as meaning that the UTM allows the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller to control a specified uncrewed aerial vehicle. The authorization response corresponding to the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller may include information about an uncrewed aerial vehicle that the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller is rejected to control, for example, an identifier or an identifier list of the uncrewed aerial vehicle that the UTM rejects the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller to control. Zhang, para [0165]-[0166])( the UTM may generate the authorization response based on the subscription information of the terminal. For example, if the subscription information does not include related information of a function of the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller (or the uncrewed aerial vehicle), the terminal is rejected, in the authorization response, to use the function of the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller (or the uncrewed aerial vehicle). If the subscription information includes related information of the function of the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller (or the uncrewed aerial vehicle), the UTM may determine information about an uncrewed aerial vehicle that the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller is allowed to control (or information about an uncrewed aerial vehicle controller that the uncrewed aerial vehicle is allowed to be paired with), and the like, and include the information in the authorization response. Zhang, para [0204])
Therefore, the combination of Hong and Zhang under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitation teach “transmitting, to a network node, after receipt of pairing authorization indicating that an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is paired with a UAV-controller (UAV-C), a request for command and control (C2) communication authorization between the UAV and the UAV-C” and “receiving, from the network node, based on the request for the C2 communication authorization, a response indicating rejection of the C2 communication authorization”
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-13, 16-18 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,903 B2 in view of Zhang et al. US 2021/0345117 A1 (hereinafter “Zhang”). Although some of the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The only difference between the instant application and the parent patent when combining claim 2 and claim is that the indicating rejection of authorization for C2 communication is sent as a NAS response message (the function indication information may be carried in an NAS message, and is parallel to the registration request. Optionally, the registration request may be carried in the NAS message, the NAS message further includes an authorization request of the terminal, and the authorization request is parallel to the registration request. Optionally, the registration request and the authorization request may be carried in the NAS message, and the authorization request may further include the function indication information. Zhang, para [0218-0220]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the limitation of using NAS messaging to send and receive commands.
Furthermore, the omission of an element with a corresponding loss of function is an obvious expedient. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 and Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375. In particular, all limitations of dependent claim 2 were omitted, which when added to independent claim 1, render claim 1 allowable over prior art.
Instant Application: 18/936,588
U.S. Patent No. 12,170,903 B2
Claim 1: A method comprising: transmitting, to a network node, after receipt of pairing authorization indicating that an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is paired with a UAV-controller (UAV-C), a request for command and control (C2) communication authorization between the UAV and the UAV-C; and receiving, from the network node, based on the request for the C2 communication authorization, a response indicating rejection of the C2 communication authorization.
Claim 2: The method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, to the network node, a first non-access stratum (NAS) request message that includes a registration request indication, a UAV identification (UAV ID) and a unmanned aerial system (UAS) service supplier (USS) identification (USS ID); receiving, from the network node, a first NAS response message that indicates that registration was accepted; transmitting, to the network node, a second NAS request message comprising pairing information for the UAV and the UAV-C to be paired with the UAV, wherein transmitting the second NAS request message is performed after receipt of the first NAS response message; and receiving, from the network node, a second NAS response message comprising the pairing authorization indicating that pairing was accepted
Claim 1: A method for use in an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) having a UAV wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) for cellular communication, the method comprising: transmitting, to a network node, a first non-access stratum (NAS) request message that includes a registration request indication, a UAV identification (UAV ID), and a USS identification (USS ID); receiving, from the network node, a first NAS response message that indicates that registration was accepted; transmitting, to the network node, a second NAS request message comprising pairing information for the UAV and a UAV-controller (UAV-C) to be paired with the UAV, wherein transmitting the second NAS request message is performed after receipt of the first NAS response message; receiving, from the network node, a second NAS response message that indicates that pairing was accepted; transmitting, to the network node, after receipt of the indication that pairing was accepted, a request for command and control (C2) communication authorization between the UAV and the UAV-C; and receiving, from the network node, based on the request for C2 authorization, a third NAS response message indicating rejection of authorization for C2 communication.
Claim 3: The method of claim 2, wherein the second NAS request message is a protocol data unit (PDU) session request message and the second NAS response message is a PDU session response message.
Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the second NAS request message is a protocol data unit (PDU) session request message and the second NAS response message is a PDU session response message.
Claim 4: The method of claim 2, wherein the second NAS response message further comprises an unmanned aerial system (UAS) identification (UAS ID), wherein an UAS associated with the UAS ID includes the UAV and the UAV-C.
Claim 10: The method of claim 1, wherein the second NAS request message includes a UAV ID associated with the UAV and a UAV-C ID associated with the UAV-C, and wherein an UAS comprises the UAV and the UAV-C.
Claim 5: The method of claim 2, wherein, based on the USS ID, the UAV ID is carried in a binding request to an unmanned aerial system (UAS) service supplier (USS)/UAS traffic management (USS/UTM) for binding authorization of a UAV wireless transmit/receive unit (UAV WTRU) with the UAV associated with the UAV ID; wherein a binding response indication is determined by the USS/UTM; and wherein transmitting the second NAS request message is performed responsive to receipt of the binding response indication.
Claim 6: The method of claim 1, wherein, based on the USS ID, the UAV ID is carried in a binding request to an unmanned aerial system (UAS) service supplier (USS)/UAS traffic management (UTM) for binding authorization of the UAV WTRU with the UAV associated with the UAV ID; wherein the binding response indication is determined by the USS/UTM; and wherein transmitting the second NAS request message is performed responsive to receipt of the binding response indication.
Claim 6: The method of claim 5, wherein the second NAS request message is transmitted based on that the UAV is bound with the UAV WTRU, wherein the second NAS request message includes an UAV-C ID.
Claim 7: The method of claim 6, wherein the second NAS request message is transmitted on a condition that the UAV is bound with the UAV WTRU, wherein the second NAS request message includes the UAV-C ID.
Claim 7: The method of claim 1, further comprising: based on receiving the response indicating acceptance of the C2 communication authorization, establishing, via a network node performing a session management function (SMF), a PDU session between the UAV and the UAV-C for C2 communication.
Claim 3: The method of claim 1, further comprising: upon receiving the second NAS response message, establishing, via a network node performing a session management function (SMF), a PDU session with the UAV-C for the C2 communication.
Claim 8: The method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, to the network node, another NAS request message that includes an authentication and authorization request that includes a UAV WTRU identification (UAV WTRU ID) and one or more UAV WTRU capabilities for cellular communication; and receiving, from the network node, another NAS response message that includes an authentication and authorization response indicating whether the UAV WTRU is authenticated and authorized for access to a cellular network for the cellular communication.
Claim 8: The method of claim 6, further comprising: transmitting, to the network node, another NAS request message that includes an authentication and authorization request that includes a UAV WTRU identification (UAV WTRU ID) and one or more UAV WTRU capabilities for the cellular communication; and receiving, from the network node, another NAS response message that includes an authentication and authorization response indicating whether the UAV WTRU is authenticated and authorized for access to the cellular network.
Claim 9: An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) comprising: a UAV wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU); and a processor, the UAV WTRU and the processor configured to: transmit, to a network node, after receipt of pairing authorization indicating that the UAV is paired with a UAV-controller (UAV-C), a request for command and control (C2) communication authorization between the UAV and the UAV-C; and receive, from the network node, based on the request for the C2 communication authorization, a response indicating rejection of the C2 communication authorization.
Claim 10: The UAV of claim 9, wherein the UAV WTRU and the processor are further configured to: transmit, to the network node, a first non-access stratum (NAS) request message that includes a registration request indication, a UAV identification (UAV ID) and an unmanned aerial system (UAS) service supplier (USS) identification (USS ID); receive, from the network node, a first NAS response message that indicates that registration was accepted; transmit, to the network node, a second NAS request message comprising pairing information for the UAV and the UAV-C to be paired with the UAV, wherein transmitting the second NAS request message is performed after receipt of the first NAS response message; and receive, from the network node, a second NAS response message comprising the pairing authorization indicating that pairing was accepted.
Claim 11: An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) comprising: a UAV wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) for cellular communication; and a processor, the UAV WTRU and the processor configured to: transmit, to a network node, a first non-access stratum (NAS) request message that includes a registration request indication, a UAV identification (UAV ID), and a USS identification (USS ID); receive, from the network node, a first NAS response message that indicates that registration was accepted; transmit, to the network node, a second NAS request message comprising pairing information for the UAV and a UAV-controller (UAV-C) to be paired with the UAV, wherein transmitting the second NAS request message is performed after receipt of the first NAS response message; receive, from the network node, a second NAS response message that indicates that pairing was accepted; transmit, to the network node, after receipt of the indication that pairing was accepted, a request for command and control (C2) communication authorization between the UAV and the UAV-C; and receive, from the network node, a third NAS response message indicating rejection of authorization for C2 communication.
Claim 11: The UAV of claim 10, wherein the second NAS request message is a protocol data unit (PDU) session request message and the second NAS response message is a PDU session response message.
Claim 12: The UAV of claim 11, wherein the second NAS request message is a protocol data unit (PDU) session request message and the second NAS response message is a PDU session response message.
Claim 12: The UAV of claim 10, wherein the second NAS response message further comprises an unmanned aerial system (UAS) identification (UAS ID), wherein an UAS associated with the UAS ID includes the UAV and the UAV-C.
Claim 20: The UAV of claim 11, wherein the second NAS request message includes a UAV ID associated with the UAV and a UAV-C ID associated with the UAV-C, and wherein an UAS comprises the UAV and the UAV-C.
Claim 13: The UAV of claim 10, wherein, based on the USS ID, the UAV ID is carried in a binding request to an unmanned aerial system (UAS) service supplier (USS)/UAS traffic management (USS/UTM) for binding authorization of a UAV wireless transmit/receive unit (UAV WTRU) with the UAV associated with the UAV ID; wherein a binding response indication is determined by the USS/UTM; and wherein transmitting the second NAS request message is performed responsive to receipt of the binding response indication
Claim 16: The UAV of claim 11, wherein, based on the USS ID, the UAV ID is carried in a binding request to an unmanned aerial system (UAS) service supplier (USS)/UAS traffic management (UTM) for binding authorization of the UAV WTRU with the UAV associated with the UAV ID; wherein the binding response indication is determined by the USS/UTM; and wherein transmitting the second NAS request message is performed responsive to receipt of the binding response indication.
Claim 14: The UAV of claim 13, wherein the second NAS request message is transmitted based on that the UAV is bound with the UAV WTRU, wherein the second NAS request message includes an UAV-C ID.
Claim 17: The UAV of claim 16, wherein the second NAS request message is transmitted on a condition that the UAV is bound with the UAV WTRU, wherein the second NAS request message includes the UAV-C ID.
Claim 15: The UAV of claim 9, wherein the UAV WTRU and the processor are further configured to, establish, based on receiving the response indicating acceptance of the C2 communication authorization, via a network node performing a session management function (SMF), a PDU session between the UAV and the UAV-C for C2 communication.
Claim 13: The UAV of claim 11, wherein the UAV WTRU and the processor are further configured to, upon receiving the second NAS response message, establish, via a network node performing a session management function (SMF), a PDU session with the UAV-C for the C2 communication.
Claim 16: The UAV of claim 9, wherein the UAV WTRU and the processor are further configured to: transmit, to the network node, another NAS request message that includes an authentication and authorization request that includes a UAV WTRU identification (UAV WTRU ID) and one or more UAV WTRU capabilities for cellular communication; and receive, from the network node, another NAS response message that includes an authentication and authorization response indicating whether the UAV WTRU is authenticated and authorized for access to a cellular network for the cellular communication.
Claim 18: The UAV of claim 16, wherein the UAV WTRU and the processor are further configured to: transmit, to the network node, another NAS request message that includes an authentication and authorization request that includes a UAV WTRU identification (UAV WTRU ID) and one or more UAV WTRU capabilities for the cellular communication; and receive, from the network node, another NAS response message that includes an authentication and authorization response indicating whether the UAV WTRU is authenticated and authorized for access to the cellular network.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 3-6 and 11-14 are objected by dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong US 2022/0022154 A1 (hereinafter “Hong”) in view of Zhang et al. US 2021/0345117 A1 (hereinafter “Zhang”)
As per claims 1 and 9, Hong teaches a method comprising:
transmitting, to a network node, after receipt of pairing authorization indicating that an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is paired with a UAV-controller (UAV-C), a request for command and control (C2) communication authorization between the UAV and the UAV-C (the embodiment provides the implementation solution in which the UAV or the UAV controller registers pairing to a mobile cellular network, thereby facilitating subsequent communication between the UAV or the UAV controller through the mobile cellular network. Hong, para [0006]), (the first NAS signaling is sent to a core network, to request registration of pairing information of the UAV and the UAV controller.. Hong, para [0153]); (second NAS signaling fed back by the core network and indicating a registration success is received. Hong, para [0154]) (the core network may feed registration success information back to the first user device…a notification message indicating the registration success is sent to the second user device. Hong, para [0012] [0013]); (establishing a corresponding relationship between the first identity and the second identity. Hong, para [0025]) (The core network may perform the pairing registration on the UAV and the UAV controller upon the reception of the first NAS signaling, and may allow that the UAV and the UAV controller communicate subsequently through the mobile cellular network. Hong, para [0115]).
Hong does not explicitly teach receiving, from the network node, based on the request for the C2 communication authorization, a response indicating rejection of the C2 communication authorization.
However, Zhang teaches receiving, from the network node, based on the request for the C2 communication authorization, a response indicating rejection of the C2 communication authorization (The authorization response corresponding to the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller may include information about an uncrewed aerial vehicle that the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller is allowed to control, for example, an identifier or an identifier list of the uncrewed aerial vehicle that the UTM allows the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller to control. It may be understood as meaning that the UTM allows the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller to control a specified uncrewed aerial vehicle. The authorization response corresponding to the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller may include information about an uncrewed aerial vehicle that the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller is rejected to control, for example, an identifier or an identifier list of the uncrewed aerial vehicle that the UTM rejects the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller to control. Zhang, para [0165]-[0166])( the UTM may generate the authorization response based on the subscription information of the terminal. For example, if the subscription information does not include related information of a function of the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller (or the uncrewed aerial vehicle), the terminal is rejected, in the authorization response, to use the function of the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller (or the uncrewed aerial vehicle). If the subscription information includes related information of the function of the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller (or the uncrewed aerial vehicle), the UTM may determine information about an uncrewed aerial vehicle that the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller is allowed to control (or information about an uncrewed aerial vehicle controller that the uncrewed aerial vehicle is allowed to be paired with), and the like, and include the information in the authorization response. Zhang, para [0204])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Hong in view of Zhang. One would be motivated to do so, mange controlling of UAVs by rejecting or allowing C2 as needed.
As per claims 7 and 15, Hong and Zhang teach the method of claim 1. Hong does not explicitly teach the method further comprising: based on receiving a response indicating acceptance of the C2 communication authorization, establishing, via a network node performing a session management function (SMF), a protocol data unit PDU session between the UAV and the UAV-C for the C2 communication.
However, Zhang teaches based on receiving a response indicating acceptance of the C2 communication authorization, establishing, via a network node performing a session management function (SMF), a protocol data unit PDU session between the UAV and the UAV-C for the C2 communication. (the authorization request corresponding to the terminal may be carried in a service request message, a protocol data unit (PDU) session establishment message, a PDU session modification message, or a non-access-stratum (NAS) message; and may also be carried in newly added signaling or another message. Correspondingly, an authorization response corresponding to the terminal may be carried in a service accept message, a PDU session establishment accept message, a PDU session modification accept message, newly added signaling, or another message. For example, if the authorization request is carried in the PDU session establishment message or the PDU session modification message, the terminal may send the authorization request to the SMF, and the SMF forwards the authorization request or the information in the authorization request to the UTM. Alternatively, the SMF may further parse out the information in the authorization request to automatically generate a new message, and sends the new message to the UTM. The new message is used to request authorization from the UTM.. Zhang, para [0191-0193]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Hong in view of Zhang. One would be motivated to do so, to exchange and manage data between a UAV and a UAV controller.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong US 2022/0022154 A1 (hereinafter “Hong”) in view of Zhang et al. US 2021/0345117 A1 (hereinafter “Zhang”) and further in view of Liao US 2022/0086741 A1 (hereinafter “Liao”)
As per claims 8 and 16, Hong and Zhang teach the method of claim 6. Hong does not explicitly teach the method further comprising: transmitting, to the network node, another NAS request message that includes an authentication and authorization request that includes a UAV wireless transmit/receive unit (UAV WTRU) identification (UAV WTRU ID) and one or more UAV WTRU capabilities for cellular communication; and receiving, from the network node, another NAS response message that includes an authentication and authorization response indicating whether the UAV WTRU is authenticated and authorized for access to a cellular network for the cellular communication.
However, Liao teaches transmitting, to the network node, another NAS request message that includes an authentication and authorization request that includes a UAV wireless transmit/receive unit (UAV WTRU) identification (UAV WTRU ID) and one or more UAV WTRU capabilities for cellular communication (The 3rd party SCS/AS sends a C-UTM Service Request (SCS/AS Identifier, TTRI, External Identifiers/External Group Identifier of the UAV/UAV controller, external Application Identifiers, UAS operation authorization for each Application Identifier) message to the SCEF… The SCEF sends a UAS Operation Service Authorization Request message (Application Identifier(s), one or more sets of UAS operation information for each Application Identifier, External identifiers/External Group identifiers or IMSI) to the C-UTMF. Liao, para [0125]-[0131]); and
receiving, from the network node, another NAS response message that includes an authentication and authorization response indicating whether the UAV WTRU is authenticated and authorized for access to a cellular network for the cellular communication (The SCEF sends a UAS Operation Service Authorization Request message (If UAS operation authorization is done successfully, it continues to create the list of UAS operation policies for each Application Identifier into the C-UTM function as requested by the respective UAS operation. If any of the authorization fails, the C-UTM function sends UAS Operation Service Authorization Response (Application Identifier(s), Cause) message to provide the feedback of the handling result for the C-UTM Service Request, whereby the cause can indicates the failure reasons for the authorization per Application ID, e.g. service suspend, service expiration, service unavailable…The SCEF sends a UAS Operation Service Response (TTRI, Result) message to the 3rd party SCS/AS to provide the feedback of the handling result for UAS Operation Service Request. Liao, para [0132]-[0134])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Hong in view of Liao. One would be motivated to do so, to identify communication capabilities between communicating entities.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALID M ALMAGHAYREH whose telephone number is (571)272-0179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8AM-5PM EST & Friday variable.
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, RUPAL DHARIA can be reached at (571)272-3880. 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.
Respectfully Submitted
/KHALID M ALMAGHAYREH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights