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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Argument: Applicant argued (Remarks 1/15/2026, page 2, 2nd last paragraph):“Salajegheh does not teach communicating an indication of the anomaly to one or more receiving device, where the receiving devices communicated to are based on a type of the RF emissions triggering the predetermined threshold. …”
Response: Examine respectfully disagrees. Salajegheh [0068] discloses “.. receiver device to diagnose the cause of the anomaly, and potentially inform the user or a service vendor (e.g., via an email) about the cause of the anomaly”; [0024], last sentence discloses “In some aspects, the receiving device (different from Applicant’s receiving device) may take an action such as issue a notification to the user (e.g., visual audio, vibration, or a similar alert) in response to determining that the difference meets the at least one anomaly threshold.“ i.e. the user is selected after the anomaly is detected). It is also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an appropriate user will be chosen i.e. if a medical event, emergency personal will be notified, if a fire event, fire personnel will be notified, etc. Under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E), this is obvious to do.
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (US 9562962 B2) in view of Salajegheh et al. (US 20160327596 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Keller discloses a method for detecting anomalies in RF emissions (Abstract; column 4, lines 48 – 51; Fig. 1), the method comprising:
detecting one or more RF emissions within a predetermined geographical area (Fig. 1, element 20; column 6, lines 63 – column 7, line 3; column 4, lines 48 – 51; column 10, lines 12 – 14);
determining that the one or more RF emissions trigger a predetermined threshold (Fig. 1, element 28; column 9, lines 32 - 37, 41 - 43);
based on the one or more RF emissions triggering the predetermined threshold, identifying an anomaly in the one or more RF emissions (column 4, lines 30 – 33, 64 – 67; claim 9; Fig. 1, element 28 “Template matching ..”; Fig. 4 shows different template parameters; mismatch will indicate anomaly);
type of the one or more RF emissions triggering the predetermined threshold (Fig. 5, steps 5 & 6. Also see previous limitation).
Keller does not disclose communicating an indication of the anomaly to one or more receiving devices, wherein the one or more receiving devices are identified based on a type of the one or more RF emissions triggering the predetermined threshold.
Keller discloses “Information stored, databased or sent to user as needed”, though an anomaly being sent is not explicitly disclosed.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Salajegheh discloses communicating an indication of the anomaly to one or more receiving devices, wherein the one or more receiving devices are identified based on a type of the one or more RF emissions triggering the predetermined threshold (Fig. 3, blocks 310 - 312; [0068] discloses “.. receiver device to diagnose the cause of the anomaly, and potentially inform the user or a service vendor (e.g., via an email) about the cause of the anomaly”; [0024], last sentence discloses “In some aspects, the receiving device may take an action such as issue a notification to the user (e.g., visual audio, vibration, or a similar alert) in response to determining that the difference meets the at least one anomaly threshold.“ i.e. the user is selected after the anomaly is detected. It is also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an appropriate user will be chosen i.e. if a medical event, emergency personal will be notified, if a fire event, fire personnel will be notified, etc. Under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E), this is obvious to do).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to use the method, as taught by Salajegheh in the system of Keller because communicating an indication of the anomaly would allow for action to be taken by the appropriate user, as disclosed by Salajegheh.
Regarding claim 2, Keller discloses receiving an identification of a user device associated with the at least one of the one or more RF emissions (column 6, lines 23 – 29 discloses identification can be found by reconstructing characteristics; column 10, lines 4 – 11).
Regarding claim 3, Keller discloses based on the identification of the user device, determining an identity of a user associated with the user device (column 21, line 65 – column 22, line 5; column 15, lines 41 – 43 discloses detected devices stored in a database).
Regarding claim 4, Keller discloses the one or more RF emissions are produced by one or more user devices (Fig. 1, user device 2, “emissions from device” picked up by antenna; column 6, line 4 discloses “…user of the electronic device 2.., ).
Regarding claim 5, Keller discloses the predetermined threshold comprises one or more rules established by a monitoring party (column 9, lines 62- 64 discloses “The thresholds are defined by the probability of detection that is admissible by a particular application or user.”; wherein the monitoring party is interpreted as the user).
Regarding claim 6, Keller discloses the predetermined threshold comprises an absence of an expected spectrum range of RF detected in the one or more RF emissions (inherent in Fig. 4 and Fig. 2, block 28. Templates stored are shown in Fig. 4, elements 68, 70, 72, … and expected spectrum shown. A mismatch would mean absence of an expected spectrum).
Regarding claim 7, Keller discloses the absence of the expected spectrum range of RF (inherent in Fig. 4 and Fig. 2, block 28. Templates stored are shown in Fig. 4, elements 68, 70, 72, … and expected spectrum shown. A mismatch would mean absence of an expected spectrum) is over a predetermined period of time (column 13, lines 51 – 56 disclose “ … a time correlation algorithm …”; wherein time correlation would imply two time sequences being correlated, hence a period of time).
Regarding claim 8, Keller does not disclose the indication of the anomaly is communicated to emergency personnel.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Salajegheh discloses the indication of the anomaly is communicated to emergency personnel ([0068]; Fig. 3, element 310- 312).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to use the method, as taught by Salajegheh in the system of Keller because communicating an indication of the anomaly would allow for action to be taken by emergency personnel, as disclosed by Salajegheh.
Claim 9 is similarly analyzed as in claims 1 and 8. Claims 1 and 8 recite indication of anomaly is communicated (claim 1) and indication of anomaly is communicated to emergency personnel (claim 8). Claim 9 merely recites sending the indication to someone else (i.e. monitoring party). This is an obvious variation of what Salajegheh discloses in claims 1, 9 (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale F)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to send the indication of anomaly to a monitoring party, as this would allow someone else to also obtain the anomaly information.
Regarding claim 10, Keller discloses the detecting the one or more RF emissions comprises a unidirectional communication between a first device emitting RF and a second device detecting the RF being emitted by the first device (Fig. 1, wherein the 1st device emitting the RF is the “device connected to the network” and the 2nd device detecting the RF is device 20 with antenna 12; “device connected to the network” transmits emissions to antenna 22, which is unidirectional communication; Abstract, lines 4+ discloses “… an emissions collections device connected to an antenna receiving emission of an electromagnetic energy emitted from the electronic device…”; antenna doesn’t perform any transmit function based on what is described).
Regarding claim 11, Keller discloses the second device that is detecting the RF being emitted by the first device comprises a transmitter and a receiver (Fig. 1, receiver is antenna 22 and element 24; transmitter is not shown but is inherent after “storage and display” since Fig.5, block 9 discloses “sent to user as needed”).
Regarding claim 12, Keller discloses the second device that is detecting the RF being emitted by the first device does not transmit any communications to the first device (Fig. 1, 2nd device is antenna 22 and element 20; antenna 22 merely receives as in Abstract, lines 4+; Fig. 5, block 9 discloses “sent to user as needed” but this sending is done after the detection is complete i.e. the sending and receiving don’t appear simultaneously).
Claim 13 is similarly analyzed as claim 1, with claim 13 reciting equivalent apparatus limitations. Keller discloses processor (column 6, lines 46 - 48) and memory (Fig. 2, storage 30).
Claim 14 is similarly analyzed as claim 5.
Claim 15 is similarly analyzed as claim 6.
Claim 16 is similarly analyzed as claim 7.
Claim 17 is similarly analyzed as claim 10.
Claim 18 is similarly analyzed as claim 12.
Claim 19 is similarly analyzed as claims 1, 2.
Claim 20 is similarly analyzed as claim 12.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to detecting anomalies in RF emissions:
Keller et al. (US 20120226463 A1) discloses determining Condition Defining Emission of Radio Frequency (RF) Energy of Electrically Powered Device.
Keller (US 8063813) discloses Radio Frequency Emission Measurement Device.
Brant et al. (US 11029347) discloses Electronics Equipment Testing Apparatus and Method Utilizing Unintended RF Emission Features.
Weigmann et al. (US 20140084133) discloses electromagnetic interference identification.
Keller et al. (US 20120223403 A1) discloses Integrated Circuit Mounted in Electrical Device, Has Output Unit Which Is Configured for Operative Communication by Radio Frequency (RF) Energy Collection and Processing Unit.
Seguin et al. (US 20090216498 A1) discloses Electromagnetic Emissions Stimulation and Detection System.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632