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 .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on April 13, 2026. Claims 1-26 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
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.
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.
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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu Twardokus et al “Vehicle-to-Nothing? Securing c-V2X Against Protocol-Aware DoS Attacks” IEEE INFOCOM 2022, XP034137012 (hereinafter Twardokus et al) in view of Xu (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0082359).
Regarding claim 1, Twardokus et al disclose a method for wireless communications by a device (vehicle use for communication), the method comprising: transmitting, by the device, a number of fake inter-UE coordination (IUC) messages (SCI message) to reserve one or more resources (column 5 [lines 41-42] chosen CSR) for initial transmissions by the device (column 5 [lines 2-4, 37-56] and fig. 1(a) and 1(b) discloses transmission of SCI); receiving, by the device, one or more packets on at least one of the one or more resources (column 7 [lines 9-11] and column 8 [lines 25-27] discloses Eve transmits a short SCI message to collide with Alice’s); and determining, by the device, whether at least one of the one or more packets were transmitted by an attacker based on a jamming threshold (column 8 [lines 30-40] discloses monitor to detect a DoS attack; detect the attack based on PDR).
Twardokus et al specifically does not disclose wherein the jamming threshold is based on the number of fake IUC messages.
However, Xu from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches wherein the jamming threshold is based on the number of fake IUC messages (see at least paragraph 56 discloses jamming threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Xu into the system of Twardokus for purpose of determining jamming threshold; as to defend against DDoS attacks.
Regarding claim 2, Twardokus et al discloses the number of fake IUC messages is based on a channel busy ratio (CBR) (column 8 [lines 40-41]).
Regarding claim 3, Twardokus et al discloses the jamming threshold is associated with a channel busy ratio (CBR) (column 8 [lines 40-41]).
Regarding claim 4, Twardokus et al discloses listening, by the device, on slots corresponding to the one or more resources (column 5 [lines 37-56]).
Regarding claim 5, Twardokus et al discloses the device is one of a user equipment, a vehicle, a base station, or a server (column 5 [lines 15-19]).
Regarding claim 6, Twardokus et al discloses the number is equal to a minimum number of IUC messages that the device can transmit (column 5 [lines 37-56]).
Regarding claim 7, Twardokus et al discloses transmitting, by the device based on the at least one of the one or more packets not being determined to be transmitted by the attacker, an additional fake IUC message to reserve an additional one or more resources for initial transmissions by the device (column 5 [lines 37-56]).
Regarding claim 8, Twardokus et al discloses determining, by the device based on a ratio associated with a number of the one or more packets received by the device being greater than or equal to the jamming threshold, that the at least one of the one or more packets are transmitted by the attacker (column 8 [lines 44-45]).
Regarding claim 9, Twardokus et al discloses determining, by the device based on a ratio associated with a number of the one or more packets received by the device being less than the jamming threshold, that the at least one of the one or more packets are not transmitted by the attacker (column 8 [lines 44-45]).
Regarding claim 10, Twardokus et al discloses transmitting, by the device based on the at least one of the one or more packets being determined to be transmitted by the attacker, a vehicular-based message (column 5 [lines 37-56]).
Regarding claim 11, Twardokus et al discloses the vehicular-based message comprises at least one of a Layer 2 (L2) address for the device, an L2 address for the attacker, or a position of the attacker (column 5 [lines 2-4, 37-56] and fig. 1(a) and 1(b)).
Regarding claim 12, Twardokus et al discloses the vehicular-based message is a Sensor Data Sharing Message (SDSM) (column 5 [lines 2-4, 37-56] and fig. 1(a) and 1(b)).
Regarding claim 13, Twardokus et al discloses at least one of the number of fake IUC messages further comprises an indication of a reservation of one or more resources for initial transmissions of one or more other devices (column 5 [lines 2-4, 37-56] and fig. 1(a) and 1(b)).
Regarding claim 14, Twardokus et al discloses an apparatus for wireless communications, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory (V2V communication; inherent in vehicle); and at least one processor (V2V communication; inherent in vehicle) coupled to the at least one memory and configured to: output for transmission a number of fake inter-UE coordination (IUC) messages (SCI message) to reserve one or more resources (column 5 [lines 41-42] chosen CSR) for initial transmissions by the apparatus (column 5 [lines 2-4, 37-56] and fig. 1(a) and 1(b) discloses transmission of SCI); receive one or more packets on at least one of the one or more resources (column 7 [lines 9-11] and column 8 [lines 25-27] discloses Eve transmits a short SCI message to collide with Alice’s); and determine whether at least one of the one or more packets were transmitted by an attacker based on a jamming threshold (column 8 [lines 30-40] discloses monitor to detect a DoS attack; detect the attack based on PDR).
Twardokus et al specifically does not disclose wherein the jamming threshold is based on the number of fake IUC messages.
However, Xu from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches wherein the jamming threshold is based on the number of fake IUC messages (see at least paragraph 56 discloses jamming threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Xu into the system of Twardokus for purpose of determining jamming threshold; as to defend against DDoS attacks.
Regarding claims 15-26, see above rejection of claims 2-13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on April 13, 2026, with respect to claims 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, necessitated by applicant’s amendment. See the above rejection of claims 1-26 for the relevant citations found in Twardokus et al and Xu disclosing the limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LITON MIAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3124. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am -5:00pm.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. 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.
/LITON MIAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights