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 action is in response to application filed 08/08/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Priority
This application is a continuation of PCT/EP2024/055503 filed on 03/01/2024, which claims foreign priority to 2302021, filed on 03/03/2023.
Acknowledgement is made of a claim for foreign priority, however, none of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/08/2025 and 11/20/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-11 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulmeau et al. (hereinafter Coulmeau, US 8,751,061 B2) in view of Lemaster et al. (hereinafter Lemaster, US 9,729,514 B2).
As per claim 1, Coulmeau discloses an apparatus (fig. 1) for providing communications between remote pilots of unmanned aircraft and air traffic controllers, the apparatus comprising a gateway (fig. 1) having a processor configured to:
receive a user message from a software application corresponding to a remote pilot (col. 3 L29-57: first device P1 for transmission of data of digital format between operator of the drone and the drone, col. 5 L26-41 and col. 4 L31-67: All functional means C2-C5 are disposed at operators ground station which generates event messages based on context, col. 5 L41-57: M1 generates the content of a message to be transmitted to the ATC),
parse the user message and to convert it into a Controller Pilot Data Link Communications compliant format (col. 3 L58 to col. 4 L4: the CPDLC communication relay p4 implements a CPDLC conversion function, i.e. extraction of the payload of the message of the ground operator according to private communication protocol used between the ground operator and his Drone, encapsulation of this payload in the CPDLC protocol format, col. 5 L41 to col. 6 L10: the means M4 is function implemented by a computer that is able to generate a CPDLC message on the basis of the content of a message formulated by the means M1); and
push the converted user message col. 6 L1-10: Formulating the CPDLC message is transmitted to the communication device P5, which is able to send CPDLC messages to the ATC);
wherein the gateway is further configured to receive a message from the air traffic controller communications network and the processor is further configured to communicate the message to the software application (fig. 1, col. 6 L55 to col. 7 L8: The messages from the ATC can be sent back to the drone operator station).
However, Coulmeau does not teach receive a user message from a software application and configured to authenticate the remote pilot (user) based on the user message or the corresponding data connection; generate an access token if the remote pilot (user) is authenticated, and to make a call to an application programming interface endpoint of an air traffic controller communications network; and push the converted user message and the access token to the application programming interface endpoint of the air traffic controller communications network via a ground network.
Lemaster, from same field of endeavor, teaches receiving a user message from a software application and configured to authenticate the remote pilot (user) based on the user message or the corresponding data connection (fig. 1: secure access gateway 102, col. 6 L38-67: authenticate user using 3rd party databases, col. 8 L59 to col. 9 L12: session registration based on user input/request which goes through authentication, col. 9 L58-67: when remote user connects to SAG, SAG verifies remote user’s IP address against ACL); generate an access token if the remote pilot (user) is authenticated (fig. 3 step #302: tokens generated, col. 7 L9-31: tokens are generated, col. 9 L21-24), and to make a call to an application programming interface endpoint of an air traffic controller communications network (fig. 3 step #306: connection to destination device in secure destination network established, col. 3 L45-49, col. 10 L4-19: the SAG establishes proxy connection between the destination device 108 and the remote user 116); and push a user message and the access token to the application programming interface endpoint of the air traffic controller communications network via a ground network (col. 11 L6-52: Destination device interface module 206 can receive requests from the remote user and pass said requests to a destination device. Likewise, responses then are passed back to the remote user, col. 6 L42-57: the system uses username and passwords (token) used on the destination device 108, which means that the token is passed along with user requests to the destination device for access; col. 7 L20: In some cases, the SAG may be configured not to authenticate to the destination device on behalf of the remote user and implement the remote user to authenticate directly to the destination device 108 using public keys for authentication using HTTP/HTTPS, col. 10 L4-15: SAG 102 can log into the destination device 108 using the information stored in the device profile).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date o the claimed invention to modify Coulmeau in view of Lemaster in order to authenticate the remote pilot (user) based on user message or request, generate an access token, open a connection to an API endpoint of an air traffic controller communications network and send user messages and access token to the endpoint of the air traffic controller communications network via a ground network.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have provided secure on-demand remote access to the protected computer systems such as ATC controller systems, which also facilitates ease of use by remote users (Lemaster: col. 1 L15-19, col. 5 L39-65, col. 12 L15-20).
As per claim 6, Coulmeau-Lemaster discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the user message is a request to insert a data item into, or retrieve a data item from, the air traffic control communications network (Coulmeau: col. 5 L41-57: Messages which includes drone related data events are provided to the ATC controller).
As per claim 7, Coulmeau-Lemaster discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to convert the message received from the air traffic controller communications network into a format compliant with the remote pilot software application (Coulmeau: fig. 1, col. 3 L60-67, col. 5 L65 to col. 6 L10).
As per claim 8, Coulmeau-Lemaster discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to authenticate the remote pilot based on the use of a dedicated virtual private network channel or a private physical connection (Lemaster: col. 4 L58-67, col. 5 L20-65). Same rationale as in claim 1 applies.
As per claim 9, Coulmeau-Lemaster discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the remote pilot software application is a web application, and the gateway is configured to communicate with the web application (Lemaster: col. 13 L5-49, fig. 1: user can request access from any web-based application to the destination device using HTTP/HTTPS protocol and the secure gateway, col. 5 L39-65). Same rationale as in claim 1 applies.
As per claim 10, Coulmeau discloses the apparatus of claim 1,
Coulmeau does not teach connecting to a webserver of an aviation authority and forwarding copies of all data passing through the gateway to the webserver.
Lemaster teaches connecting a webserver and forwarding copies of all data passing through the gateway to the webserver (col. 10 L44-55: SAG generates reports on data traffic through gateway and sends back to central location/server, col. 10 L16-19: the system logs the commands and replies from destination device, col. 7 L43-61: As SAG acts as a proxy, it has the ability to view all commands entered by the remote user and responses returned by the destination device and store them in SAG. The logs can be automatically emailed after session is complete).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coulmeau in view of Lemaster in order to connect to the webserver of the aviation authority of the ATC network and forward copies of all data passing through the gateway to the webserver.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled an administrator to review the logs (Lemaster: col. 7 L42-61).
As per claims 11 and 16-20, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 1, 6-10. Therefore, claims 11 and 16-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1 and 6-10.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coulmeau et al. (hereinafter Coulmeau, US 8,751,061 B2) in view of Lemaster et al. (hereinafter Lemaster, US 9,729,514 B2) and further in view of Priest (US 10,312,994 B2).
As per claim 2, Coulmeau-Lemaster discloses the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above., further configured to receive unmanned aircraft data ((col. 3 L29-57: first device P1 for transmission of data of digital format between operator of the drone and the drone, col. 5 L26-41 and col. 4 L31-67: All functional means C2-C5 are disposed at operators ground station which generates event messages based on context, col. 5 L41-57: M1 generates the content of a message to be transmitted to the ATC).
However, Coulmeau-Lemaster do not teach determining the air traffic controller network, of a plurality of air traffic controller networks, that the user message relates to, based on the unmanned aircraft data.
Priest teaches determining the air traffic controller network, of a plurality of air traffic controller networks, that the user message relates to, based on the unmanned aircraft data (fig. 30, col. 39 L55 to col. 40 L3: UAV communicates with the ATC via a primary wireless network and in case of disruption on primary wireless network, switching to a backup wireless network to continue communications between UAV and ATC. The communication to ATC includes providing flight information (speed, altitude, location, direction, etc.) to the ATC system, see col. 40 L25-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Coulmeau-Lemaster in view of Priest in order to determine the air traffic controller network of a plurality of air traffic controller networks that the user message relates to, based on the unmanned aircraft data.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled UAV to reestablish communications with the ATC using backup wireless network based on communication disruption on the primary wireless network in order to communicate the flight information to the ATC system (Priest: col. 39 to col. 40 L62).
As per claim 3, Coulmeau-Lemaster-Priest discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the unmanned aircraft data comprises one or more of location data of the unmanned aircraft, flight plan data corresponding to the unmanned aircraft, and application programming interface call data (Coulmeau: col. 4 L31 to col. 5 L67).
As per claim 4, Coulmeau-Lemaster-Priest discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the processor processes the unmanned aircraft data to verify whether the unmanned aircraft data corresponds to a valid state of a datalink state machine (Coulmeau: col. 4 L54 to col. 5 L67).
As per claim 5, Coulmeau-Lemaster-Priest discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the processor verifies the unmanned aircraft data by rules based validation of location data of the unmanned aircraft (Coulmeau: col. 4 L54 to col. 5 L67).
As per claims 12-15, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 2-5. Therefore, claims 12-15 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 2-5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
X et al., US 2019/0019420 A1: Automatic Dependent Surveillance-broadcast for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.
Rakes, US 10,971,019 B2: Vehicle communication and Navigation system.
Selander et al., US 2019/0012922 A1: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle in Controlled Airspace
Erb, US 10,498,734 B2: Policy Service Authorization and Authentication
Satyavolu et al., US 7,225,464 B2: Method for verifying the identity of a user for session authentication.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL B DIVECHA whose telephone number is (571)272-5863. The examiner can normally be reached IFP Normal Hours M-F: 8am-4.30pm EST.
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, COLLEEN FAUZ can be reached at 5712721667. 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.
KAMAL B. DIVECHA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2453
/KAMAL B DIVECHA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights