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 .
This Office Action is in response to Application No. 19/009,600 filed on 01/03/2025.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending in this application. As per the Preliminary Amendment filed on 01/27/2025, claims 1-18 were amended, and claims 19-20 were added.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to parent Application No. CN201910028742.8 filed on 01/11/2019, and parent Application No. PCT/CN2020/070443, filed on 01/06/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/03/2025 and 07/31/2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13, 15, 17-19, and 21-26 of U.S. Application No. 17/372,958. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations recited in claims 1-20 of the instant U.S. Application No. 19/009,600 are encompassed by limitations recited in claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13, 15, 17-19, and 21-26 of U.S. Application No. 17/372,958, respectively (see example table below for claim 1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant U.S. Application No.19/009,600
U.S. Application No. 17/372,958
Claim 1
Claim 1 and 4
A wireless network communication method performed by a first communication apparatus and comprising:
A wireless network communication method comprising:
sending am authorization request requesting authorization to pair the first communication apparatus with an uncrewed aerial vehicle controller,
receiving, by an uncrewed aerial vehicle traffic management entity and from a session management function (SMF) network element, a protocol data unit (PDU) session modification message comprising an authorization request, wherein the authorization request requests authorization to pair a terminal with an uncrewed aerial vehicle controller; and
wherein the authorization request comprises first information about the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller; and
Claim 4
wherein the authorization request comprises an identifier of the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller that the terminal requests to be paired with.
receiving, in response to the authorization request, an authorization response indicating whether the first communication apparatus is allowed to be paired with the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller.
sending, by the uncrewed aerial vehicle traffic management entity, to the SMF network element, in response to the authorization request, a PDU session modification accept message comprising an authorization response, wherein the authorization response indicates whether the terminal is allowed to be paired with the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-10, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Hong (U.S. 2022/0070949 A1; Hereinafter “Hong”), in view of Hu et al. (W.O. 2019085676 A1; Hereinafter “Hu”).
As per claims 1, 7, and 13, Liao teaches a wireless network communication method performed by a first communication apparatus and comprising:
sending an authorization request requesting authorization to pair the first communication apparatus with an uncrewed aerial vehicle controller (Hong: [0086-0088], [0093], [0101]-[0105], [0136-0137], and Figs. 2-3, “At operation 101, a pairing request message that is sent from a first user device and carries a first identity is received. The first user device includes a UAV or a UAV controller. At operation 102, a query request message carrying the first identity is sent to a UTM.”); and
receiving, in response to the authorization request, an authorization response indicating whether the first communication apparatus is allowed to be paired with the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller (Hong: [0086-0088], [0093], [0101]-[0105], [0136-0137] “At operation 103, a query response message that is fed back by the UTM and contains a query result is received. At operation 104, when the query result includes a second identity of a second user device in a correspondence between the UAV and the UAV controller, a pairing response message carrying the second identity is sent to the first user device. When the first user device is the UAV, the second user device is the UAV controller”).
Hong does not explicitly teach wherein the authorization request comprises first information about the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller. Hong’s pairing request carries the “first identity” of the first user device (UAV’s identity) not information about the target UAV controller.
However, Hu teaches wherein the authorization request comprises first information about the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller (Hu: 1.1, fig. 1, S11-S15, “The processing flow of the serving base station side in the pairing process is as shown in FIG. 1 . The embodiment of the present disclosure provides a communication method between a UAV and a controller, which is applied to a first base station,… Here, the first terminal is one of the UAV and the controller, the second terminal is another device of the UAV and the controller, and the first base station is the first terminal…S11. The first base station receives a first pairing request sent by the first terminal, where the first pairing request carries identity information of the first terminal and the second terminal…. Specifically, the identity information may be an International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) or an International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) of the terminal”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hong, to include identification information of the UAV controller as taught by Hu in the UAV’s pairing request, because doing so would enable the cellular network to identify the particular controller with which the UAV seeks to pair and accurately determine and communicate the pairing status (Hu, page 1).
Furthermore, Hong also teaches the hardware components of claims 7 and 13 such as at least one processor configured to execute instructions to cause the first communication apparatus to: (Hong: para [58], “a device for pairing user devices is provided, which may include a processor; and a memory configured to store a processor-executable instruction.”),
a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a first communication apparatus to (Hong: para [64], “a computer-readable storage medium is provided, on which a computer instruction is stored”).
As per claims 3, 9, and 15, Hong in view of Hu teaches the independent claims. Hong teaches wherein the authorization request further comprises second information about the first communication apparatus (Hong: fig. 1 and 5, Para [136-137], “At operation 501, a first user device sends a pairing request message carrying a first identity to a core network. At operation 502, the core network sends a pairing request message carrying the first identity to a UTM.” Para[148], “the pairing request message is contained in attach request signaling”
As per claims 4, 10, and 16, Hong in view of Hu teaches the independent claims. Hu teaches wherein the first information comprises an identifier of the uncrewed aerial vehicle controller that the terminal requests to be paired with (Hu: 1.1, fig. 1, S11-S15, “The processing flow of the serving base station side in the pairing process is as shown in FIG. 1 . The embodiment of the present disclosure provides a communication method between a UAV and a controller, which is applied to a first base station,… Here, the first terminal is one of the UAV and the controller, the second terminal is another device of the UAV and the controller, and the first base station is the first terminal…S11. The first base station receives a first pairing request sent by the first terminal, where the first pairing request carries identity information of the first terminal and the second terminal…. Specifically, the identity information may be an International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) or an International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) of the terminal”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hong, to include identification information of the UAV controller as taught by Hu in the UAV’s pairing request, because doing so would enable the cellular network to identify the particular controller with which the UAV seeks to pair and accurately determine and communicate the pairing status (Hu, page 1)
Claims 2, 5-6, 8, 11-12, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Hong (U.S. 2022/0070949 A1; Hereinafter “Hong”), in view of Hu et al. (W.O. 2019085676 A1A1; Hereinafter “Hu”) and further in view of Liao (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0329460 A1, Hereinafter “Liao”).
As per claims 2, 8 and 14, Hong in view of HuI teaches the independent claims.
Hong in view of Hu does not specifically teaches the network element as an SMF.
However, in the related art, Liao teaches sending the authorization request to a second communication apparatus that is a session management function (SMF) network element (Liao: para[0070-0072], “the UAV controller sends PDU session establishment request message, including the UAS-ID, PDU session ID #1, to the SMF-1 via AMF-1; the SMF-1 generates a traffic token #1 for the traffic to be sent to the UTM” see also para[0101-106]); and
further receiving the authorization response from the second communication apparatus (Liao: para[0070-0074], “the UTM sends the packets indicating UAS-ID and the target device type, e.g. UAV, UAV controller, or both, to the SMF-1 and/or SMF-2; if the SMF-1 and SMF-2 checks the UAS context and then forwards the packets to the corresponding UPF-1/UPF-2; and the UPF-1/UPF-2 routes the traffic via the corresponding PDU session.”, para [0101-0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Hong as taught by Liao, to carry the pairing-authorization request and corresponding pairing response in a PDU Session Establishment Request and PDU Session Establishment Accept processed by an SMF, because Liao teaches using those messages to exchange UAS specific identifiers, traffic tokens, and UTM connectivity information between UAV or UAV controller UEs and the 5G core network. Such a modification would integrate Hong’s pairing procedure into the UAS PDU session setup and reduce the need for a separate signaling procedure (Liao: para [0176]).
As per claims 5, 11, and 17, Hong in view of Hu teaches the independent claims.
Hong in view of Hu does not specifically teaches that the pairing-authorization request is carried in a PDU Session Establishment message.
However, in the related art, Liao teaches wherein the authorization request is carried in a protocol data unit (PDU) session establishment message (Liao: para [0071], [0078], [0104], “In a PDU Session Establishment procedure 520 with UTM-DNN (data network name), the UEs in the UAV 502 and UAV-C 504 request to establish PDU session for a specific UAS-DNN.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Hong as taught by Liao, to carry the pairing-authorization request and corresponding pairing response in a PDU Session Establishment Request and PDU Session Establishment Accept processed by an SMF, because Liao teaches using those messages to exchange UAS specific identifiers, traffic tokens, and UTM connectivity information between UAV or UAV controller UEs and the 5G core network. Such a modification would integrate Hong’s pairing procedure into the UAS PDU session setup and reduce the need for a separate signaling procedure (Liao: para [0176]).
As per claims 6, 12, and 18, Hong in view of Hu teaches the independent claims.
Hong teaches carrying the pairing response in attach accept signaling but does not expressly disclose a PDU Session Establishment Accept message.
However, in the related art, Liao teaches wherein authorization response is carried in a protocol data unit (PDU) session establishment accept message (Liao: para [0070-0074], [0079], [0104], “the SMF-1 sends PDU session accept message including the UAS-ID, traffic token #1, and the PDU session ID #1. The UAV performs the above procedure with its generated PDU session ID #2 and obtains the PDU session accept message from the SMF #2, including the UAS-ID, traffic token #2 allocated by the SMF #2, and the PDU session ID #2.”, “In a PDU Session Establishment procedure 520 with UTM-DNN (data network name), the UEs in the UAV 502 and UAV-C 504 request to establish PDU session for a specific UAS-DNN.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Hong, as taught by Liao, to carry the pairing authorization request and corresponding pairing response in a PDU Session Establishment Request and PDU Session Establishment Accept processed by an SMF, because Liao teaches using those messages to exchange UAS specific identifiers, traffic tokens, and UTM connectivity information between UAV or UAV controller UEs and the 5G core network. Such a modification would integrate Hong’s pairing procedure into the UAS PDU session setup and reduce the need for a separate signaling procedure (Liao: para [0176]).
As per claims 19 and 20, Hong in view of Hu teaches the independent claims. Liao teaches wherein the authorization response is based on a type of the first information (Liao: para [0032], “The UTM 116 performs UAS authorization based on discovery information which may contain identity information of the UAV 106 and location information retrieved from the global positioning system (GPS). The UTM 116 may obtain location information from the CN 112 and/or the CN 114 as part of the UAS discovery request or initiate a location service to obtain the location information of the UAV controller 104 and UAV 10”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Hong as taught by Liao, to generate the pairing authorization response based on the type of information about the UAV controller, such as controller identity information or controller location information, because evaluating the applicable information type would enable the network to apply the corresponding authorization criterion and more reliably verify that the intended UAV controller is eligible to be associated with the UAV, thereby improving the accuracy and security of the pairing determination (Liao, para [0062])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
5G; Procedures for the 5G System (3GPP TS 23.502 version 15.3.0 Release 15)
US 20220022154 A1: 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.
US 20140267934 A1, Systems, apparatus, and methods for pairing information appliance devices, such as set-top boxes and/or set-back boxes (the "set-top/back boxes"), to wireless remote control devices.
US 20200186238 A1, provides a UAV control method, a UAV control apparatus, a UAV, a remote control device, and a computer readable storage medium to solve the deficiencies in the related art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYDIA L NOEL whose telephone number is (571)272-1628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached on (571)-270-5143. 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.
/L.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights