DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims dated 12/16/2024 are being examined.
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
The application claims priority to Japanese Patent Application 2019-161402 filed on September 4, 2019. The record does not include an English language translation of the Japanese priority application. An acceptable translation and accuracy statement of the translation of said foreign priority application has NOT been made of record; thus, Applicant’s claim for foreign priority is not perfected (MPEP 216). Specifically, when an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate (MPEP 215 and 216). Until the translation and the statement is provided, entitlement to the foreign filing date cannot be determined.
The translation and statement are required by the Examiner to also verify that the changes to the specification are supported. For example, the Examiner finds the specification has been amended from the specification, as originally filed, of Application No. 17/633,642. Application No. 17/633,642 (corresponding to PGPUB US-20220319340-A1) recites:
PGPUB [0012]: According to an example aspect, a management apparatus includes: an allocation processing section configured to allocate a plurality of zones capable of identifying a three-dimensional space in common among a plurality of mobile communication carrier networks…
The present application, Application No. 18/981,710 (corresponding to PGPUB US-20250118214-A1) recites:
PGPUB [0013]: According to an example aspect, a management apparatus includes: an allocation processing section configured to allocate a plurality of zones, each of which being identified by latitude, longitude, and altitude as a three-dimensional space in common among a plurality of mobile communication carrier networks…
Because an English language translation of the Japanese priority application and a statement that the translation is accurate has not provided, the Examiner is unable to verify whether the specification changes are supported by the Japanese priority application.
Under the circumstance that the translation and accuracy statement indicate that these changes are not supported, the specification filed 12/16/2024 will be objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because of new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action or present evidence that these changes are supported by the Japanese priority application by providing the English language translation of the Japanese priority application and the statement that the translation is accurate.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites “…a plurality of zones capable of identifying a three-dimensional space in common among a plurality of mobile communication carrier networks”. This phrase is unclear because it is unclear how a “zone” is “capable of identifying” a 3D space. A zone is ordinarily understood to be a spatial region, and it is unclear how such a region performs an identifying function. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Note: Examiner’s citation of Applicant’ paragraphs below are in reference to Applicant’s PGPUB US-20250118214-A1.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites two limitations (A and B) that lack written description support:
“receiving, from the network node, a message including authorization information for the inter-terminal communication” (Emphasis on italicized)
“performing a collision avoidance with the neighbouring mobile terminal” (Emphasis on italicized)
With regards to A., “authorization information”, the Applicant’s PGPUB and FIG. 11, only states:
FIG. 11: authentication processing S1107
[0151] Next, the flight control apparatus 200 performs authentication processing in response to the discovery request (S1107), and when the flight control apparatus 200 succeeds in authentication, the flight control apparatus 200 transmits a message of discovery response to the mobile terminal 3 (S1109).
While the specification describes “authentication” information, the specification does not describe “authorization” information. Authentication (verification of identity) and authorization (determination of access rights or permissions) while similar, are distinct technical concepts. The specification’s disclosure of authentication information does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession, at the time of filing, of generating, transmitting, or using authorization information.
With regards to B., “performing collision avoidance”, the Applicant’s PGPUB only states:
[0148] “Owing to such inter-terminal communication, a situation in which two or more mobile terminals collide with each other can be avoided”
[0151] “In this manner, owing to the inter-terminal communication between the mobile terminals 3, for example, with the current position information being transmitted and/or received to and from each other, secure landing can be achieved while avoiding collision.”
However, claim 1 affirmatively requires “performing a collision avoidance”, which is more active than mere communication. While the specification discloses a drone communicates with another drone, and that such communication allows the drones to avoid collision, the specification does not describe the drone itself performing a collision avoidance maneuver or otherwise taking affirmative avoidance action. For example, the specification does not disclose any change in trajectory, speed adjustment, altitude modification, control algorithm, or other operational steps in response to an imminent collision with a neighboring drone that would constitute the drone “performing” collision avoidance.
The mere disclosure of communication between drones that “allows” collision avoidance does not reasonably covey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession, at the time of filing, of a drone that performs collision avoidance.
Claims 2-7 are similarly rejected, because of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, as summary, claim 7 depends on claim 6. Claims 6 recites “the network node sends, to the mobile terminal, information related to a flight”. The network node in light of Applicant’s PGPUB [0095] is “the flight control apparatus 200”. The mobile terminal in light of Applicant’s PGPUB [0066] is “for example, a drone or an unmanned aircraft (UAV)”. The claims are directed towards inter-terminal communication where for example, a drone communicates with a flight control apparatus of another drone as shown in FIG. 11 of Applicant’s drawings. There is also support for a flight control apparatus giving instruction related to flight to a mobile terminal as per [0133].
Claim 7 further defines that the information sent by the network node “indicates a plurality of zones capable of identifying a three-dimensional space in common among a plurality of mobile communication carrier networks” (Emphasis on italicized). This limitation lacks written description support.
With regards to this limitation, the Applicant’s PGPUB and FIG. 1 only states:
Abstract: There is provided a management apparatus configured to allocate a plurality of zones capable of identifying a three-dimensional space in common among a plurality of mobile communication carrier networks to a flight airspace allowing a plurality of mobile terminals to be flown, the plurality of mobile terminals being configured to respectively perform wireless communication with the plurality of mobile communication carrier networks, and configured to transmit information on allocation of the plurality of zones to a mobile communication network respectively managed by the plurality of mobile communication carriers.
[0016] …receiving, from a management apparatus managing a plurality of zones, information on allocation of the plurality of zones allocated to a flight airspace allowing a plurality of mobile terminals to be flown.
FIG. 1 management apparatus 100 send the information to flight control apparatus 200
While the specification describes “a management device” sending the information related to the flight indicating a plurality of zones capable of identifying a three-dimensional space in common among a plurality of mobile communication carrier networks, the specification does not describe “a flight control apparatus” sending the information related to the flight indicating a plurality of zones capable of identifying a three-dimensional space in common among a plurality of mobile communication carrier networks. That is, claim 7 incorporates features only performed by a management device as also part of features performed by a flight control apparatus.
The mere disclosure of a management device sending information related to the flight, wherein the information related to the flight indicates a plurality of zones capable of identifying a three-dimensional space in common among a plurality of mobile communication carrier networks does not reasonably covey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession, at the time of filing, of a flight control apparatus sending information related to the flight, wherein the information related to the flight indicates a plurality of zones capable of identifying a three-dimensional space in common among a plurality of mobile communication.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites two limitations (A and B) that lack written description support:
“receive, from the network node, a message including authorization information for the inter-terminal communication” (Emphasis on italicized)
“perform a collision avoidance with the neighbouring mobile terminal” (Emphasis on italicized)
The reasons for lack of written description support in claim 8 is the same as the reasons provided in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the following limitation that lacks written description support:
“sending, to the mobile terminal, a message including authorization information” (Emphasis on italicized)
As discussed in the reasons for rejection of claim 1 above, while the specification describes “authentication” information, the specification does not describe “authorization” information. Authentication (verification of identity) and authorization (determination of access rights or permissions) while similar, are distinct technical concepts. The specification’s disclosure of authentication information does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession, at the time of filing, of generating, transmitting, or using authorization information.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the following limitation that lacks written description support:
“send, to the mobile terminal, a message including authorization information” (Emphasis on italicized)
As discussed in the reasons for rejection of claim 1 above, while the specification describes “authentication” information, the specification does not describe “authorization” information. Authentication (verification of identity) and authorization (determination of access rights or permissions) while similar, are distinct technical concepts. The specification’s disclosure of authentication information does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession, at the time of filing, of generating, transmitting, or using authorization information.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites a mobile terminal “performing a collision avoidance with the neighbouring mobile terminal”. The phrase “performing a collision avoidance” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what specific action or set of actions constitutes “performing” collision avoidance. The Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s specification to find an interpretation of this limitation, but found there was lacking written description support. While the specification discloses that drone communicates with another drone, and that such communication allows the drones to avoid collision, the specification does not describe the drone itself performing a collision avoidance maneuver or otherwise taking affirmative avoidance action. It particular, it is unclear
What structural or operational steps are required for the drone to “perform” the collision avoidance
Whether mere communication between drones satisfies the limitation
At what point collision avoidance is considered to have been “performed”
The metes and bounds of the claims therefore cannot be determined with reasonable clarity. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets mere communication between drones satisfies the limitation.
Claims 2-7 are similarly rejected, because of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites “the information related to the flight indicates a plurality of zones capable of identifying a three-dimensional space in common among a plurality of mobile communication carrier networks”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear how a “zone” is “capable of identifying” a 3D space. A zone is ordinarily understood to be a spatial region, and it is unclear how such a region performs an identifying function. The metes and bounds of the claims therefore cannot be determined with reasonable clarity. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets this limitation as information relating to a spatial region.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites a mobile terminal “perform a collision avoidance with the neighbouring mobile terminal”. The phrase “perform a collision avoidance” renders the claim indefinite for the same reasons as presented above for the rejection of claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Canover et al. (US-20160280370-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Canover.
Regarding claim 9, Canavor teaches a method for a network node comprising:
receiving, from a mobile terminal, a message for inter-terminal communication with a neighbouring mobile terminal, and ([0093] In various embodiments, as illustrated FIG. 10, when unmanned aerial vehicles detect an ability to communicate with one another, the unmanned aerial vehicles may exchange a log of messages that each has received. For instance, each of the pair of unmanned aerial vehicles may transmit a request for the others' message log and the unmanned aerial vehicles in the pair may respond accordingly)
sending, to the mobile terminal, a message including authorization information for the inter-terminal communication ([0092] Detecting an ability to communicate with another unmanned aerial vehicle may also include other operations, such as authentication of the other unmanned aerial vehicle and/or performance of a handshake process to establish a communications session (e.g., a cryptographically protected communications session) with the other unmanned aerial vehicle; [0093] In some examples, transmission of a message log (or, generally, a message) to another unmanned aerial vehicle may be contingent on authenticating the other unmanned aerial vehicle, such as by transmitting a timestamp or nonce (or other replay-avoiding value) to the other unmanned aerial vehicle, receiving a digital signature and digital certificate from the other unmanned aerial vehicle, and using the timestamp or nonce or other value and a digital certificate to validate the digital signature. As another example, the two unmanned aerial vehicles may mutually authenticate one another in a handshake process to establish a cryptographically protected communications session (e.g., an encrypted communications session) and, the handshake process may fail unless both unmanned aerial vehicles do not successfully authenticate to one another).
Regarding claim 10, Canavor teaches a network node comprising (FIG. 10 UAV 1002; FIG. 13 UAV 1301):
a memory; and (FIG. 13 memory subsystem 1308)
at least one processor configured to access the memory, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to (FIG. 13 processor(s) 1302):
receive, from a mobile terminal, a message for inter-terminal communication with a neighbouring mobile terminal, and ([0093] In various embodiments, as illustrated FIG. 10, when unmanned aerial vehicles detect an ability to communicate with one another, the unmanned aerial vehicles may exchange a log of messages that each has received. For instance, each of the pair of unmanned aerial vehicles may transmit a request for the others' message log and the unmanned aerial vehicles in the pair may respond accordingly)
send, to the mobile terminal, a message including authorization information for the inter-terminal communication ([0092] Detecting an ability to communicate with another unmanned aerial vehicle may also include other operations, such as authentication of the other unmanned aerial vehicle and/or performance of a handshake process to establish a communications session (e.g., a cryptographically protected communications session) with the other unmanned aerial vehicle; [0093] In some examples, transmission of a message log (or, generally, a message) to another unmanned aerial vehicle may be contingent on authenticating the other unmanned aerial vehicle, such as by transmitting a timestamp or nonce (or other replay-avoiding value) to the other unmanned aerial vehicle, receiving a digital signature and digital certificate from the other unmanned aerial vehicle, and using the timestamp or nonce or other value and a digital certificate to validate the digital signature. As another example, the two unmanned aerial vehicles may mutually authenticate one another in a handshake process to establish a cryptographically protected communications session (e.g., an encrypted communications session) and, the handshake process may fail unless both unmanned aerial vehicles do not successfully authenticate to one another).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 1-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. (US-20180068567-A1), in view of Canover, and herein after will be referred to as Gong.
Regarding claim 1, Gong teaches a method for a mobile terminal comprising (FIG. 32 UAV 3210a; [0890] FIG. 32 shows an example of mobile geo-fencing devices in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. The mobile geo-fencing devices may be UAVs 3210 a, 3210 b):
sending, to a network node (FIG. 22 flight controller 2234; FIG. 32 the flight controller of UAV 3210b), a message for inter-terminal communication with a neighbouring mobile terminal ([0892] The mobile geo-fencing devices may send out a wireless communication; [0893] When the mobile geo-fencing devices are UAVs, the messages may be sent out and received by one another);
[…] receiving, from the neighbouring mobile terminal, a message including position information; and ([0892] The message may include location information for the mobile geo-fencing device. For example, the message may include global coordinates for the geo-fencing device; [0893] For example, when a first mobile geo-fencing device 3210 a nears a second mobile geo-fencing device 3210 b, each may send out a message having any of the information described herein)
performing a collision avoidance with the neighbouring mobile terminal, based on the message including position information ([0898] When both UAVs broadcast the information, both UAVs may detect the possibility of collision and provide a course correction. In some instances, one of the UAVs may continue on its course while the other UAV takes evasive action to avoid a possible collision. In other instances, both UAVs may take some form of evasive action to avoid possible collision).
Gong does not explicitly teach receiving, from the network node, a message including authorization information for the inter-terminal communication.
However, Canavor teaches receiving, from the network node, a message including authorization information for the inter-terminal communication ([0092] Detecting an ability to communicate with another unmanned aerial vehicle may also include other operations, such as authentication of the other unmanned aerial vehicle and/or performance of a handshake process to establish a communications session (e.g., a cryptographically protected communications session) with the other unmanned aerial vehicle; [0093] In some examples, transmission of a message log (or, generally, a message) to another unmanned aerial vehicle may be contingent on authenticating the other unmanned aerial vehicle, such as by transmitting a timestamp or nonce (or other replay-avoiding value) to the other unmanned aerial vehicle, receiving a digital signature and digital certificate from the other unmanned aerial vehicle, and using the timestamp or nonce or other value and a digital certificate to validate the digital signature. As another example, the two unmanned aerial vehicles may mutually authenticate one another in a handshake process to establish a cryptographically protected communications session (e.g., an encrypted communications session) and, the handshake process may fail unless both unmanned aerial vehicles do not successfully authenticate to one another).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Gong to incorporate the teachings of Canavor to include receiving, from the network node, a message including authorization information for the inter-terminal communication, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of “securing communications between unmanned aerial vehicles” (Canavor [0032]).
Regarding claim 2, Gong, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 1,
Gong also teaches wherein the mobile terminal is an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) (FIG. 32 UAV 3210a; [0890] FIG. 32 shows an example of mobile geo-fencing devices in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. The mobile geo-fencing devices may be UAVs 3210 a, 3210 b).
Regarding claim 3, Gong, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 1.
Gong also teaches wherein the message for inter-terminal communication with the neighbouring mobile terminal includes identification information of the neighbouring mobile terminal ([0892] The wireless communication may be a message which may include information about the mobile geo-fencing devices. Identifying information, such as geo-fencing device identifier or geo-fencing device type may be sent; [0893] For example, when a first mobile geo-fencing device 3210 a nears a second mobile geo-fencing device 3210 b, each may send out a message having any of the information described herein. The UAVs may identify and/or detect one another based on the sent message).
Regarding claim 4, Gong, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 1.
Gong also teaches wherein the message for inter-terminal communication with the neighbouring mobile terminal includes information on flight path information ([0892] The message may include information about a flight plan or course for the geo-fencing device; [0893] For example, when a first mobile geo-fencing device 3210 a nears a second mobile geo-fencing device 3210 b, each may send out a message having any of the information described herein. The UAVs may identify and/or detect one another based on the sent message).
Regarding claim 6, Gong, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 1.
Gong also teaches wherein the network node sends, to the mobile terminal, information related to a flight ([0892] The message may include flight control information. For example, the message may include information about flight command received and/or flight command being executed; [0893] For example, when a first mobile geo-fencing device 3210 a nears a second mobile geo-fencing device 3210 b, each may send out a message having any of the information described herein. The UAVs may identify and/or detect one another based on the sent message).
Regarding claim 8, Gong teaches a mobile terminal comprising (FIG. 32 UAV 3210a; [0890] FIG. 32 shows an example of mobile geo-fencing devices in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. The mobile geo-fencing devices may be UAVs 3210 a, 3210 b):
a memory; and at least one processor configured to access the memory, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to (FIG. 22 flight controller 2234, memory 2330; FIG. 32 the flight controller of UAV 3210a):
send, to a network node (FIG. 32 the flight controller of UAV 3210b), a message for inter-terminal communication with a neighbouring mobile terminal ([0892] The mobile geo-fencing devices may send out a wireless communication; [0893] When the mobile geo-fencing devices are UAVs, the messages may be sent out and received by one another),
[…] receive, from the neighbouring mobile terminal, a message including position information, and ([0892] The message may include location information for the mobile geo-fencing device. For example, the message may include global coordinates for the geo-fencing device; [0893] For example, when a first mobile geo-fencing device 3210 a nears a second mobile geo-fencing device 3210 b, each may send out a message having any of the information described herein)
perform a collision avoidance with the neighbouring mobile terminal based on the message including position information ([0898] When both UAVs broadcast the information, both UAVs may detect the possibility of collision and provide a course correction. In some instances, one of the UAVs may continue on its course while the other UAV takes evasive action to avoid a possible collision. In other instances, both UAVs may take some form of evasive action to avoid possible collision).
Gong does not explicitly teach receive, from the network node, a message including authorization information for the inter-terminal communication.
However, Canavor teaches receive, from the network node, a message including authorization information for the inter-terminal communication ([0092] Detecting an ability to communicate with another unmanned aerial vehicle may also include other operations, such as authentication of the other unmanned aerial vehicle and/or performance of a handshake process to establish a communications session (e.g., a cryptographically protected communications session) with the other unmanned aerial vehicle; [0093] In some examples, transmission of a message log (or, generally, a message) to another unmanned aerial vehicle may be contingent on authenticating the other unmanned aerial vehicle, such as by transmitting a timestamp or nonce (or other replay-avoiding value) to the other unmanned aerial vehicle, receiving a digital signature and digital certificate from the other unmanned aerial vehicle, and using the timestamp or nonce or other value and a digital certificate to validate the digital signature. As another example, the two unmanned aerial vehicles may mutually authenticate one another in a handshake process to establish a cryptographically protected communications session (e.g., an encrypted communications session) and, the handshake process may fail unless both unmanned aerial vehicles do not successfully authenticate to one another).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Gong to incorporate the teachings of Canavor to include receive, from the network node, a message including authorization information for the inter-terminal communication, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of “securing communications between unmanned aerial vehicles” (Canavor [0032]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong, in view of Canover, in further view of Casey et al. (US-20200027360-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Casey.
Regarding claim 5, Gong, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 1.
Gong also teaches wherein the mobile terminal performs the inter-terminal communication ([0894] The messages from the UAVs may be sent out on a periodic basis (e.g., regular or irregular time intervals)).
Gong does not explicitly teach the mobile terminal performs the inter-terminal communication “during landing in a same tracking area”.
However, Casey teaches the mobile terminal performs the inter-terminal communication “during landing in a same tracking area” (FIG. 1 UAVs 101, 103, 105 performs landing on same landing strip 107 shown with trajectories 102, 104, 106 respectively, and also performs peer-to-peer communication via wireless network 108; [0006] Each of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles includes a communication interface, a memory, and an electronic processor communicatively connected to the communication interface and the memory. The electronic processor is configured to control the communication interface to establish a wireless communication link with one or more unmanned aerial vehicles, and autonomously coordinate landings at a landing strip with the one or more unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent collisions. To autonomously coordinate the landings at the landing strip with the some or all of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent collisions, the electronic processor is configured to exchange messages with the some or all of the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles according to a collision avoidance protocol and via the wireless communication link, and the autonomous coordination occurs without a central coordination entity).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Gong, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Casey to include the mobile terminal performs the inter-terminal communication “during landing in a same tracking area”, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of “coordinating the landings to prevent collisions” (Casey [0006]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong, in view of Canover, in further view of Yamada et al. (US-20200283128-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Yamada.
Regarding claim 7, Gong, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 6.
Gong does not explicitly teach wherein the information related to the flight indicates a plurality of zones capable of identifying a three-dimensional space in common among a plurality of mobile communication carrier networks.
However, Yamada teaches wherein the information related to the flight indicates a plurality of zones capable of identifying a three-dimensional space in common among a plurality of mobile communication carrier networks ([0033] Network 2 is a communication system including a mobile communication network, the Internet, and the like, and relays the exchange of data between devices accessing that system; [0035] Server apparatus 10 allocates airspaces and permitted flight periods to drones 30 based on the received flight schedule; [0059] In the present embodiment, the permitted airspace is expressed as cubic spaces laid out without gaps therebetween (called “cells” hereinafter), and each cell is assigned a cell ID for identifying that cell).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Gong, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Yamada to include wherein the information related to the flight indicates a plurality of zones capable of identifying a three-dimensional space in common among a plurality of mobile communication carrier networks, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of “safely and effectively using airspace even when it is expected that aerial vehicles that fly in the same direction will approach each other” (Yamada [0013]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Inter-terminal communication is well known in the art as also evidenced by:
US-20190045348-A1: Li teaches aircraft-to-aircraft communication link
US-20170242431-A1: Dowlatkhah teaches drone broadcasting discovery information to communicate with another drone
US-20170238234-A1: Dowlatkhah teaches receiving peer UAV connection request
US-20200074866-A1: Delaney teaches drones broadcasting each other’s information to avoid collision and performing re-routing to avoid collision
Below are prior arts that are relevant to the state of the art
US-20240080671-A1: Zhu is relevant to authentication processes of UAVs
WO-2019064329-A1: teaches a server in communication with 2 drones to assist in landing to avoid collision
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571) 270-3969. 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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662