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 .
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.
Claim 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) in view of Dongare et al. (US 20220317236 A1 dated 2022-10-06), Perkins et al. (US 20200337162 A1 dated 2020-10-22), hereinafter Baxley-Dongare-Perkins
As to claim 1, Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses An apparatus, comprising: a memory, configured to store: a baseline radio-frequency (RF) signature corresponding to an electric component located in an area (Paragraph [0008] – “The radio frequency signatures may be monitored over time to detect variations from the baseline electromagnetic environment.”); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to: monitor a first plurality of electronic operations of the electric component over a first amount of time (Paragraph [0070] – “It should be appreciated that, according to certain embodiments, the sensors 120 presented herein as part of an electromagnetic monitoring and detection network may share hardware and/or software resources with production networks used by wireless devices 110 associated with end users.”);
track a first RF signature associated with the electric component over the first amount of time, the first RF signature corresponding to the first plurality of electronic operations of the electric component over the first amount of time (Paragraph [0008] – “Radio frequency signatures may be identified from one or more of the radio frequency signals. A baseline electromagnetic environment may be established from the radio frequency signatures.”);
detect a new device is in the area within the first amount of time (Paragraph [0120] – “If an unauthorized wireless device 110 is identified to be within in a restricted area, then the wireless device 110 may be flagged as malicious or potentially malicious”);
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses monitor a second plurality of electronic operations of the new device over a second amount of time (Paragraph [0120] – “The device classification module 370 can classify wireless devices 110 as being either benign or malicious (also referred to as unauthorized or rogue)” [0121] – “The device classification module 370 can identify attacking (malicious) wireless devices by comparing content of the received feature vectors against signatures of known attack signal.” Here it talks about a device classification module which classifies benign or malicious based on features associated with the feature vector, and compares to known attackers. This classifying and comparing could be “monitoring” );
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses track a second RF signature associated with the new device over the second amount of time , the second RF signature corresponding to the second plurality of electronic operations of the new device over the second amount of time (Paragraph [0041] – “According to one aspect, a dynamic persona management process executing in the EM persona engine 120 is operative to persist a specific EM persona for a particular device, during a detection episode, so long as at least one RF/EM signature from the device 10 is received within a predetermined time period, e.g. one hour.”);
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses determine that the first RF signature comprises an anomaly during the second amount of time based at least in part upon the first RF signature being different from the baseline RF signature corresponding to the electric component (Paragraph [0120] – “The device classification module 370 can perform signature matching, which attempts to match the signal and link features of each data throughput feature vector to known examples of benign and malicious devices in the signal signature database. The device classification module 370 can further perform anomaly analysis, which compares the features associated with each data throughput feature vector into an aggregate metric. If the aggregate metric exceeds one or more established anomaly thresholds the associated wireless device 110 may be flagged as malicious or potentially malicious.”);
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses determine that the anomaly is caused by an electronic attack in the area, the anomaly being an interference caused by erratic operations performed in the area (Paragraph [0120] – “The device classification module 370 can further perform anomaly analysis, which compares the features associated with each data throughput feature vector into an aggregate metric. If the aggregate metric exceeds one or more established anomaly thresholds the associated wireless device 110 may be flagged as malicious or potentially malicious.”);
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses identify the new device as a source of the electronic attack (Paragraph [0120] – “The device classification module 370 can further perform anomaly analysis, which compares the features associated with each data throughput feature vector into an aggregate metric. If the aggregate metric exceeds one or more established anomaly thresholds the associated wireless device 110 may be flagged as malicious or potentially malicious.” [0121] – “The device classification module 370 can identify attacking (malicious) wireless devices by comparing content of the received feature vectors against signatures of known attack signal.”);
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) does not explicitly recite but in an analogous art, Dongare et al. (US 20220317236 A1 dated 2022-10-06) discloses triangulate a location of the new device in the area (Paragraph [0074] – “One way to determine the location of the electronic device 404 us to determine the ranges to each of the transmitting devices 406, 410 based on the differences in time of arrival and then use the ranges to triangulate a location.” Please note that Baxley et al. does teach in [0120] location analysis and geofencing to locate the malicious device but Baxley does not specifically teach the claimed triangulation); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location analysis of Baxley et al. to include the means to location triangulation analysis of the new device as taught by wireless network of Dongare et al. in order to more accurately survey large tracts of land where precise distance measurement is difficult.
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses output the location of the new device in the area to a secure component, wherein: the secure component configured to display one or more simulated directions to the location of the electronic attacker in the area (Paragraph [0120] – “The device classification module 370 can also perform location analysis or geo-fencing, which evaluates the geolocation features associated with each feature vector.”).
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses the one or more simulated directions to the location are displayed as an overlay in an augmented reality display; (Paragraph [0182] – “Security personnel may be provided, as part of the console 140 functionality, with an augmented reality device such as a virtual reality head mount display with an overlay providing information of the identity of a person within a field of view of the personnel.”) and
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) does not explicitly recite but in an analogous art, Perkins et al. (US 20200337162 A1 dated 2020-10-22) discloses the one or more simulated directions are updated with movement of the new device and the secure component (Paragraph [0877] – “Thus, for example, as the user moves and/or reorients the device 14100 while viewing the AR interface 14104, the directional indicators may be continuously updated to point the user towards one or more tags.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location analysis of Baxley et al. to include the means to updated directions with movement of the device as taught by Perkins et al. in order to get to the malicious device.
As to claim 2, Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive the second RF signature in the area within the second amount of time, wherein the second RF signature in the area within the first amount of time by an RF sensor; relate the second RF signature to the new device; and in response to relating the second RF signature to the new device, detect that the new device is in the area within the first amount of time (Paragraph [0141] – “According to one aspect, a dynamic persona management process executing in the EM persona engine 120 is operative to persist a specific EM persona for a particular device, during a detection episode, so long as at least one RF/EM signature from the device 10 is received within a predetermined time period, e.g. one hour.”).
As to claim 8, Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses A system, comprising: a plurality of radio-frequency (RF) sensors (sensors) located in a area; and a server communicatively coupled to the plurality of radio-frequency (RF) sensors, comprising: a memory, configured to store: a baseline radio-frequency (RF) signature corresponding to an electric component located in the area (Paragraph [0008] – “The radio frequency signatures may be monitored over time to detect variations from the baseline electromagnetic environment.”); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to: monitor a first plurality of electronic operations of the electric component over a first amount of time (Paragraph [0070] – “It should be appreciated that, according to certain embodiments, the sensors 120 presented herein as part of an electromagnetic monitoring and detection network may share hardware and/or software resources with production networks used by wireless devices 110 associated with end users.”);
track a first RF signature associated with the electric component over the first amount of time, the first RF signature corresponding to the first plurality of electronic operations of the electric component over the first amount of time (Paragraph [0008] – “Radio frequency signatures may be identified from one or more of the radio frequency signals. A baseline electromagnetic environment may be established from the radio frequency signatures.”);
detect a new device is in the area within the first amount of time (Paragraph [0120] – “If an unauthorized wireless device 110 is identified to be within in a restricted area, then the wireless device 110 may be flagged as malicious or potentially malicious”);
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses monitor a second plurality of electronic operations of the new device over a second amount of time (Paragraph [0120] – “The device classification module 370 can classify wireless devices 110 as being either benign or malicious (also referred to as unauthorized or rogue)” [0121] – “The device classification module 370 can identify attacking (malicious) wireless devices by comparing content of the received feature vectors against signatures of known attack signal.” Here it talks about a device classification module which classifies benign or malicious based on features associated with the feature vector, and compares to known attackers. This classifying and comparing could be “monitoring”);
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses track a second RF signature associated with the new device over the second amount of time, the second RF signature corresponding to the second plurality of electronic operations of the new device over the second amount of time (Paragraph [0041] – “According to one aspect, a dynamic persona management process executing in the EM persona engine 120 is operative to persist a specific EM persona for a particular device, during a detection episode, so long as at least one RF/EM signature from the device 10 is received within a predetermined time period, e.g. one hour.”);
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses determine that the first RF signature comprises an anomaly during the second predetermined amount of time based at least in part upon the first RF signature being different from the baseline RF signature corresponding to the electric component (Paragraph [0120] – “The device classification module 370 can perform signature matching, which attempts to match the signal and link features of each data throughput feature vector to known examples of benign and malicious devices in the signal signature database. The device classification module 370 can further perform anomaly analysis, which compares the features associated with each data throughput feature vector into an aggregate metric. If the aggregate metric exceeds one or more established anomaly thresholds the associated wireless device 110 may be flagged as malicious or potentially malicious.”);
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses determine that the anomaly is caused by an electronic attack in the area, the anomaly being an interference caused by erratic operations performed in the area (Paragraph [0120] – “The device classification module 370 can further perform anomaly analysis, which compares the features associated with each data throughput feature vector into an aggregate metric. If the aggregate metric exceeds one or more established anomaly thresholds the associated wireless device 110 may be flagged as malicious or potentially malicious.”);
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses identify the new device as a source of the electronic attack (Paragraph [0120] – “The device classification module 370 can further perform anomaly analysis, which compares the features associated with each data throughput feature vector into an aggregate metric. If the aggregate metric exceeds one or more established anomaly thresholds the associated wireless device 110 may be flagged as malicious or potentially malicious.” [0121] – “The device classification module 370 can identify attacking (malicious) wireless devices by comparing content of the received feature vectors against signatures of known attack signal.”);
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) does not explicitly recite but in an analogous art, Dongare et al. (US 20220317236 A1 dated 2022-10-06) discloses triangulate a location of the new device in the area (Paragraph [0074] – “One way to determine the location of the electronic device 404 us to determine the ranges to each of the transmitting devices 406, 410 based on the differences in time of arrival and then use the ranges to triangulate a location.” Please note that Baxley et al. does teach in [0120] location analysis and geofencing to locate the malicious device but Baxley does not specifically teach the claimed triangulation); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless network of Baxley et al. to include the means to location triangulation of the new device as taught by wireless network of Dongare et al. in order to more accurately survey large tracts of land where precise distance measurement is difficult.
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses output the location of the new device in the area to a secure component, wherein: the secure component configured to display one or more simulated directions to the location of the electronic attacker in the area (Paragraph [0120] – “The device classification module 370 can also perform location analysis or geo-fencing, which evaluates the geolocation features associated with each feature vector.”).
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses the one or more simulated directions to the location are displayed as an overlay in an augmented reality display; (Paragraph [0182] – “Security personnel may be provided, as part of the console 140 functionality, with an augmented reality device such as a virtual reality head mount display with an overlay providing information of the identity of a person within a field of view of the personnel.”) and
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) does not explicitly recite but in an analogous art, Perkins et al. (US 20200337162 A1 dated 2020-10-22) discloses the one or more simulated directions are updated with movement of the new device and the secure component (Paragraph [0877] – “Thus, for example, as the user moves and/or reorients the device 14100 while viewing the AR interface 14104, the directional indicators may be continuously updated to point the user towards one or more tags.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location analysis of Baxley et al. to include the means to updated directions with movement of the device as taught by Perkins et al. in order to get to the malicious device.
As to claim 9, Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses The system of claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive the second RF signature in the area within the second amount of time, wherein the second RF signature in the area within the first amount of time by an RF sensor of the plurality of sensors; relate the second RF signature to the new device; and in response to relating the second RF signature to the new device, detect that the new device is in the area within the first amount of time (Paragraph [0141] – “According to one aspect, a dynamic persona management process executing in the EM persona engine 120 is operative to persist a specific EM persona for a particular device, during a detection episode, so long as at least one RF/EM signature from the device 10 is received within a predetermined time period, e.g. one hour.”).
As to claim 15, Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses A method to detect an electronic attacker in an area, comprising: monitoring, by a server, a first plurality of electronic operations of an electric component over a first amount of time, the electric component being located in the area (Paragraph [0008] – “The radio frequency signatures may be monitored over time to detect variations from the baseline electromagnetic environment.” Paragraph [0070] – “It should be appreciated that, according to certain embodiments, the sensors 120 presented herein as part of an electromagnetic monitoring and detection network may share hardware and/or software resources with production networks used by wireless devices 110 associated with end users.” );
tracking, by the server, a first radio-frequency (RF) signature associated with the electric component over the first amount of time, the first RF signature corresponding to the first plurality of electronic operations of the electric component over the first amount of time (Paragraph [0008] – “Radio frequency signatures may be identified from one or more of the radio frequency signals. A baseline electromagnetic environment may be established from the radio frequency signatures.”);
detecting, by the server, that a new device is in the area within the first amount of time (Paragraph [0120] – “If an unauthorized wireless device 110 is identified to be within in a restricted area, then the wireless device 110 may be flagged as malicious or potentially malicious”);
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses monitoring, by the server, a second plurality of electronic operations of the new device over a second amount of time (Paragraph [0120] – “The device classification module 370 can classify wireless devices 110 as being either benign or malicious (also referred to as unauthorized or rogue)” [0121] – “The device classification module 370 can identify attacking (malicious) wireless devices by comparing content of the received feature vectors against signatures of known attack signal.” Here it talks about a device classification module which classifies benign or malicious based on features associated with the feature vector, and compares to known attackers. This classifying and comparing could be “monitoring”);
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses tracking, by the server, a second RF signature associated with the new device over the second amount of time, the second RF signature corresponding to the second plurality of electronic operations of the new device over the second amount of time (Paragraph [0041] – “According to one aspect, a dynamic persona management process executing in the EM persona engine 120 is operative to persist a specific EM persona for a particular device, during a detection episode, so long as at least one RF/EM signature from the device 10 is received within a predetermined time period, e.g. one hour.”);
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses determining, by the server, that the first RF signature comprises an anomaly during the second amount of time based at least in part upon the first RF signature being different from a baseline RF signature corresponding to the electric component (Paragraph [0120] – “The device classification module 370 can perform signature matching, which attempts to match the signal and link features of each data throughput feature vector to known examples of benign and malicious devices in the signal signature database. The device classification module 370 can further perform anomaly analysis, which compares the features associated with each data throughput feature vector into an aggregate metric. If the aggregate metric exceeds one or more established anomaly thresholds the associated wireless device 110 may be flagged as malicious or potentially malicious.”);
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses determining, by the server, that the anomaly is caused by an electronic attack in the area, the anomaly being an interference caused by erratic operations performed in the area (Paragraph [0120] – “The device classification module 370 can further perform anomaly analysis, which compares the features associated with each data throughput feature vector into an aggregate metric. If the aggregate metric exceeds one or more established anomaly thresholds the associated wireless device 110 may be flagged as malicious or potentially malicious.”);
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses identifying, by the server, the new device as a source of the electronic attack (Paragraph [0120] – “The device classification module 370 can further perform anomaly analysis, which compares the features associated with each data throughput feature vector into an aggregate metric. If the aggregate metric exceeds one or more established anomaly thresholds the associated wireless device 110 may be flagged as malicious or potentially malicious.” [0121] – “The device classification module 370 can identify attacking (malicious) wireless devices by comparing content of the received feature vectors against signatures of known attack signal.”);
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) does not explicitly recite but in an analogous art, Dongare et al. (US 20220317236 A1 dated 2022-10-06) discloses triangulating, by the server, a location of the new device in the area (Paragraph [0074] – “One way to determine the location of the electronic device 404 us to determine the ranges to each of the transmitting devices 406, 410 based on the differences in time of arrival and then use the ranges to triangulate a location.” Please note that Baxley et al. does teach in [0120] location analysis and geofencing to locate the malicious device but Baxley does not specifically teach the claimed triangulation); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless network of Baxley et al. to include the means to location triangulation of the new device as taught by wireless network of Dongare et al. in order to more accurately survey large tracts of land where precise distance measurement is difficult.
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) does not explicitly recite but in an analogous art, Housch (US 20220053290 A1 dated 2022-02-17) discloses outputting, by the server, the location of the new device in the area to a secure component, wherein: the secure component is configured to display one or more simulated directions to the location of the electronic attacker in the area (Paragraph [0120] – “The device classification module 370 can also perform location analysis or geo-fencing, which evaluates the geolocation features associated with each feature vector.”).
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses the one or more simulated directions to the location are displayed as an overlay in an augmented reality display; (Paragraph [0182] – “Security personnel may be provided, as part of the console 140 functionality, with an augmented reality device such as a virtual reality head mount display with an overlay providing information of the identity of a person within a field of view of the personnel.”) and
Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) does not explicitly recite but in an analogous art, Perkins et al. (US 20200337162 A1 dated 2020-10-22) discloses the one or more simulated directions are updated with movement of the new device and the secure component (Paragraph [0877] – “Thus, for example, as the user moves and/or reorients the device 14100 while viewing the AR interface 14104, the directional indicators may be continuously updated to point the user towards one or more tags.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location analysis of Baxley et al. to include the means to updated directions with movement of the device as taught by Perkins et al. in order to get to the malicious device.
As to claim 16, Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses The method of claim 15, further comprising: identifying, by an RF sensor, the second RF signature in the area within the first amount of time; relating, by the server, the second RF signature to the new device; and in response to relating the second RF signature to the new device, by the server, that the new device is in the area within the first amount of time (Paragraph [0141] – “According to one aspect, a dynamic persona management process executing in the EM persona engine 120 is operative to persist a specific EM persona for a particular device, during a detection episode, so long as at least one RF/EM signature from the device 10 is received within a predetermined time period, e.g. one hour.”).
Claim 3, 10, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baxley-Dongare-Perkins as applied in claim 1, 8, 15 and further in view of Kuan et al. (US 20150092574 A1 dated 2015-04-02), hereinafter Baxley-Dongare-Perkins-Kuan
As to claim 3, The combination of Baxley-Dongare-Perkins does not explicitly recite but in an analogous art, Kuan et al. (US 20150092574 A1 dated 2015-04-02) discloses The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to: in conjunction with tracking the first RF signature associated with the electric component, compare, by the server, the first RF signature and the baseline RF signature; and in response to the first RF signature and the baseline RF signature being different to one another, determine that the first RF signature comprises the anomaly during the second amount of time (Paragraph [0035] – “the network security analyzer program 120 preferably compares the RF signature of the detected RF signal with the plurality of RF signatures contained within the baseline sample.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless network of Baxley-Dongare-Perkins to include the means to comparing the first RF signature with the baseline RF signature as taught by wireless network of Kuan et al. in order to find anomaly in the first RF signature.
As to claim 10, The combination of Baxley-Dongare-Perkins does not explicitly recite but in an analogous art, Kuan et al. (US 20150092574 A1 dated 2015-04-02) discloses The system of claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to: in conjunction with tracking the first RF signature associated with the electric component, compare, by the server, the first RF signature and the baseline RF signature; and in response to the first RF signature and the baseline RF signature being different to one another, determine that the first RF signature comprises the anomaly during the second amount of time (Paragraph [0035] – “the network security analyzer program 120 preferably compares the RF signature of the detected RF signal with the plurality of RF signatures contained within the baseline sample.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless network of Baxley-Dongare-Perkins to include the means to comparing the first RF signature with the baseline RF signature as taught by wireless network of Kuan et al. in order to find anomaly in the first RF signature.
As to claim 17, The combination of Baxley-Dongare-Perkins does not explicitly recite but in an analogous art, Kuan et al. (US 20150092574 A1 dated 2015-04-02) discloses The method of claim 15, further comprising: storing, by the server, the baseline RF signature corresponding the electric component, the baseline RF signature comprising an expected RF signature tracked from the electric component during a third amount of time, the third amount of time being prior the first amount of time; in conjunction with tracking the first RF signature associated with the electric component, comparing, by the server, the first RF signature and the baseline RF signature; and in response to the first RF signature and the baseline RF signature being different to one another, determining that the first RF signature comprises the anomaly during the second amount of time (Paragraph [0035] – “the network security analyzer program 120 preferably compares the RF signature of the detected RF signal with the plurality of RF signatures contained within the baseline sample.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless network of Baxley-Dongare-Perkins to include the means to comparing the first RF signature with the baseline RF signature as taught by wireless network of Kuan et al. in order to find anomaly in the first RF signature.
Claim 4, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baxley-Dongare-Perkins-Kuan as applied in claim 3, 10, 17 and further in view of Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03)
As to claim 4, Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to: in conjunction with comparing the first RF signature and the baseline RF signature, determine an anomaly score indicating differences between the first RF signature and the baseline RF signature, wherein a higher anomaly score indicates fewer similarities between the first RF signature and the baseline RF signature and a lower anomaly score indicates more similarities between the first RF signature and the baseline RF signature (Paragraph [0164] – “A score or other metric may be assigned to any given pairing of a particular unknown radio frequency fingerprint and particular access credentials. Each score may be a measure of, for example, a temporal relationship between a particular unknown radio frequency fingerprint and particular access credentials, and thus, a measure of the potential association between the unknown radio frequency fingerprint and the super-persona with which the access credentials are associated.” Paragraph [0165] – “According to certain embodiments, for any given pairing of a particular unknown radio frequency fingerprint and particular access credentials, the corresponding score associated therewith may be first initialized, for example to zero. Various heuristics may then be applied to increment or decrement the score based on the presence or absence of various conditions. For example, if an unknown radio frequency fingerprint is detected during a particular time period (e.g., on a particular day) and an access control event for the access credentials is not detected during that time period, the score representative of the temporal relationship between the unknown radio frequency fingerprint and the access credentials may be decremented by a first value. Similarly, if an access control event for the access credentials is detected during a particular time period but the unknown radio frequency fingerprint is not detected during that time period, the score may be decremented by a second value. If, on the other hand, both the unknown radio frequency fingerprint and an access control event for the access credentials are not detected during the same time period, the score may be incremented by a third value.”).
As to claim 11, Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses The system of claim 10, wherein the processor is further configured to: in conjunction with comparing the first RF signature and the baseline RF signature, determine an anomaly score indicating differences between the first RF signature and the baseline RF signature, wherein a higher anomaly score indicates fewer similarities between the first RF signature and the baseline RF signature and a lower anomaly score indicates more similarities between the first RF signature and the baseline RF signature (Paragraph [0164] – “A score or other metric may be assigned to any given pairing of a particular unknown radio frequency fingerprint and particular access credentials. Each score may be a measure of, for example, a temporal relationship between a particular unknown radio frequency fingerprint and particular access credentials, and thus, a measure of the potential association between the unknown radio frequency fingerprint and the super-persona with which the access credentials are associated.” Paragraph [0165] – “According to certain embodiments, for any given pairing of a particular unknown radio frequency fingerprint and particular access credentials, the corresponding score associated therewith may be first initialized, for example to zero. Various heuristics may then be applied to increment or decrement the score based on the presence or absence of various conditions. For example, if an unknown radio frequency fingerprint is detected during a particular time period (e.g., on a particular day) and an access control event for the access credentials is not detected during that time period, the score representative of the temporal relationship between the unknown radio frequency fingerprint and the access credentials may be decremented by a first value. Similarly, if an access control event for the access credentials is detected during a particular time period but the unknown radio frequency fingerprint is not detected during that time period, the score may be decremented by a second value. If, on the other hand, both the unknown radio frequency fingerprint and an access control event for the access credentials are not detected during the same time period, the score may be incremented by a third value.”).
As to claim 18, Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses The method of claim 17, further comprising: in conjunction with comparing the first RF signature and the baseline RF signature, determining an anomaly score indicating differences between the first RF signature and the baseline RF signature, wherein a higher anomaly score indicates fewer similarities between the first RF signature and the baseline RF signature and a lower anomaly score indicates more similarities between the first RF signature and the baseline RF signature (Paragraph [0164] – “A score or other metric may be assigned to any given pairing of a particular unknown radio frequency fingerprint and particular access credentials. Each score may be a measure of, for example, a temporal relationship between a particular unknown radio frequency fingerprint and particular access credentials, and thus, a measure of the potential association between the unknown radio frequency fingerprint and the super-persona with which the access credentials are associated.” Paragraph [0165] – “According to certain embodiments, for any given pairing of a particular unknown radio frequency fingerprint and particular access credentials, the corresponding score associated therewith may be first initialized, for example to zero. Various heuristics may then be applied to increment or decrement the score based on the presence or absence of various conditions. For example, if an unknown radio frequency fingerprint is detected during a particular time period (e.g., on a particular day) and an access control event for the access credentials is not detected during that time period, the score representative of the temporal relationship between the unknown radio frequency fingerprint and the access credentials may be decremented by a first value. Similarly, if an access control event for the access credentials is detected during a particular time period but the unknown radio frequency fingerprint is not detected during that time period, the score may be decremented by a second value. If, on the other hand, both the unknown radio frequency fingerprint and an access control event for the access credentials are not detected during the same time period, the score may be incremented by a third value.”).
Claim 5, 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baxley-Dongare-Perkins as applied in claim 1, 8, 15 and further in view of KLETSOV et al. (US 20220196817 A1 dated 2022-06-23), hereinafter Baxley-Dongare-Perkins-Kletsov
As to claim 5, The combination of Baxley-Dongare-Perkins does not explicitly recite but in an analogous art, KLETSOV et al. (US 20220196817 A1 dated 2022-06-23) discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: in conjunction with identifying the new device as the source of the electronic attack, receive a first information vector associated with a first possible location signal from a first RF sensor, wherein the first RF sensor: broadcasts a first plurality of sensing signals in the area; and determines the first information vector associated with a first feedback from the first plurality of sensing signals that indicates a first possible location of the new device in the area; and triangulate the location of the new device in the area based at least in part upon the first information vector (Paragraph [0111] – “In another embodiment, to detect a low-profile object by using an RF sensor, the processor 140 may calculate a location of an object with respect to the movable device 100 by using the velocity of the movable device 100 and an angle between a direction of the object and the moving direction of the movable device 100.”). Dongare et al. (US 20220317236 A1 dated 2022-10-06) discloses triangulate the location of the new device in the predetermined area based at least in part upon the first information vector (Paragraph [0074] – “One way to determine the location of the electronic device 404 us to determine the ranges to each of the transmitting devices 406, 410 based on the differences in time of arrival and then use the ranges to triangulate a location.” Please note that Baxley et al. does teach in [0120] location analysis and geofencing to locate the malicious device but Baxley does not specifically teach the claimed triangulation). Please note that Bexley in [0120 -0121] discusses comparing vectors to find the location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless network of Baxley-Dongare-Perkins to include the means to finding the location of the new device via RF sensors as taught by wireless network of KLETSOV et al. and Dongare et al. in order to more accurately survey large tracts of land where precise distance measurement is difficult and give the location of the new device to the secured component for tracking it.
As to claim 12, The combination of Baxley-Dongare-Perkins does not explicitly recite but in an analogous art, KLETSOV et al. (US 20220196817 A1 dated 2022-06-23) discloses The system of claim 8, wherein a first RF sensor is configured to: broadcasts a first plurality of sensing signals in the area; and determines a first information vector associated with a first feedback from the first plurality of sensing signals that indicates a first possible location of the new device in the area; and wherein the processor is further configured to: in conjunction with identifying the new device as the source of the electronic attack, receive the first information vector associated with the first possible location signal from the first RF sensor; and triangulate the location of the new device in the area based at least in part upon the first information vector (Paragraph [0111] – “In another embodiment, to detect a low-profile object by using an RF sensor, the processor 140 may calculate a location of an object with respect to the movable device 100 by using the velocity of the movable device 100 and an angle between a direction of the object and the moving direction of the movable device 100.”). Dongare et al. (US 20220317236 A1 dated 2022-10-06) discloses triangulate the location of the new device in the predetermined area based at least in part upon the first information vector (Paragraph [0074] – “One way to determine the location of the electronic device 404 us to determine the ranges to each of the transmitting devices 406, 410 based on the differences in time of arrival and then use the ranges to triangulate a location.” Please note that Baxley et al. does teach in [0120] location analysis and geofencing to locate the malicious device but Baxley does not specifically teach the claimed triangulation). Please note that Bexley in [0120 -0121] discusses comparing vectors to find the location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless network of Baxley-Dongare-Perkins to include the means to finding the location of the new device via RF sensors as taught by wireless network of KLETSOV et al. and Dongare et al. in order to give the location of the new device to the secured component for tracking it.
As to claim 19, The combination of Baxley-Dongare-Perkins does not explicitly recite but in an analogous art, KLETSOV et al. (US 20220196817 A1 dated 2022-06-23) discloses The method of claim 15, further comprising: broadcasting, by a first RF sensor, a first plurality of sensing signals in the area; determining, by the first RF sensor, a first information vector associated with a first feedback from the first plurality of sensing signals that indicates a first possible location of the new device in the area; transmitting, by the first RF sensor, the first information vector to the server; in conjunction with identifying the new device as the source of the electronic attack, receiving, by the server, the first information vector associated with the first location signal; and triangulating, by the server, the location of the new device in the area based at least in part upon the first information vector (Paragraph [0111] – “In another embodiment, to detect a low-profile object by using an RF sensor, the processor 140 may calculate a location of an object with respect to the movable device 100 by using the velocity of the movable device 100 and an angle between a direction of the object and the moving direction of the movable device 100.”). Dongare et al. (US 20220317236 A1 dated 2022-10-06) discloses triangulate the location of the new device in the predetermined area based at least in part upon the first information vector (Paragraph [0074] – “One way to determine the location of the electronic device 404 us to determine the ranges to each of the transmitting devices 406, 410 based on the differences in time of arrival and then use the ranges to triangulate a location.” Please note that Baxley et al. does teach in [0120] location analysis and geofencing to locate the malicious device but Baxley does not specifically teach the claimed triangulation). Please note that Bexley in [0120 -0121] discusses comparing vectors to find the location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless network of Baxley-Dongare-Perkins to include the means to finding the location of the new device via RF sensors as taught by wireless network of KLETSOV et al. and Dongare et al. in order to more accurately survey large tracts of land where precise distance measurement is difficult and give the location of the new device to the secured component for tracking it.
Claim 6, 13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baxley-Dongare-Perkins-Kletsov as applied in claim 5, 12, 19 and further in view of KLETSOV et al. (US 20220196817 A1 dated 2022-06-23)
As to claim 6, The combination of Baxley-Dongare-Perkins does not explicitly recite but in an analogous art, KLETSOV et al. (US 20220196817 A1 dated 2022-06-23) discloses The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to: in conjunction with identifying the new device as the source of the electronic attack, receive a second information vector associated with a second possible location signal from a second RF sensor, wherein the second RF sensor: broadcasts a second plurality of sensing signals in the area; and determines the second information vector associated with a second feedback from the second plurality of sensing signals that indicates a second possible location of the new device in the area; and triangulate the location of the new device in the area based at least in part upon the first information vector and the second information vector (Paragraph [0111] – “In another embodiment, to detect a low-profile object by using an RF sensor, the processor 140 may calculate a location of an object with respect to the movable device 100 by using the velocity of the movable device 100 and an angle between a direction of the object and the moving direction of the movable device 100.” Using the same method here, second possible location can be calculated.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless network of Baxley-Dongare-Perkins to include the means to finding the location of the new device via RF sensors as taught by wireless network of KLETSOV et al. in order to more accurately survey large tracts of land where precise distance measurement is difficult and give the location of the new device to the secured component for tracking it.
As to claim 13, The combination of Baxley-Dongare-Perkins does not explicitly recite but in an analogous art, KLETSOV et al. (US 20220196817 A1 dated 2022-06-23) discloses The system of claim 12, wherein a second RF sensor is configured to: broadcasts a second plurality of sensing signals in the area; and determines a second information vector associated with a second feedback from the second plurality of sensing signals that indicates a second possible location of the new device in the area; and wherein the processor is further configured to: in conjunction with identifying the new device as the source of the electronic attack, receive the second information vector associated with the second possible location signal from the second RF sensor; and triangulate the location of the new device in the predetermined area based at least in part upon the second information vector (Paragraph [0111] – “In another embodiment, to detect a low-profile object by using an RF sensor, the processor 140 may calculate a location of an object with respect to the movable device 100 by using the velocity of the movable device 100 and an angle between a direction of the object and the moving direction of the movable device 100.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless network of Baxley-Dongare-Perkins to include the means to finding the location of the new device via RF sensors as taught by wireless network of KLETSOV et al. in order to more accurately survey large tracts of land where precise distance measurement is difficult and give the location of the new device to the secured component for tracking it.
As to claim 20, The combination of Baxley-Dongare-Perkins does not explicitly recite but in an analogous art, KLETSOV et al. (US 20220196817 A1 dated 2022-06-23) discloses The method of claim 19, further comprising: broadcasting, by a second RF sensor, a second plurality of sensing signals in the area; determining, by the second RF sensor, a second information vector associated with a feedback from the second plurality of sensing signals that indicates a second possible location of the new device in the area; transmitting, by the second RF sensor, the second information vector to the server; in conjunction with identifying the new device as the source of the electronic, receiving, by the server, the second information vector associated with the second location signal; and triangulating, by the server, the location of the new device in the area based at least in part upon the first information vector and the second information vector (Paragraph [0111] – “In another embodiment, to detect a low-profile object by using an RF sensor, the processor 140 may calculate a location of an object with respect to the movable device 100 by using the velocity of the movable device 100 and an angle between a direction of the object and the moving direction of the movable device 100.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless network of Baxley-Dongare-Perkins to include the means to finding the location of the new device via RF sensors as taught by wireless network of KLETSOV et al. in order to more accurately survey large tracts of land where precise distance measurement is difficult and give the location of the new device to the secured component for tracking it.
Claim 7, 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baxley-Dongare-Perkins as applied in claim 1, 8 and further in view of BRONICKI (US 20220374970 A1 dated 2022-11-24)
As to claim 7, The combination of Baxley-Dongare-Perkins does not explicitly recite but in an analogous art, BRONICKI (US 20220374970 A1 dated 2022-11-24) discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the secure component is a simulated reality device configured to: display the simulated directions to the location of the electric component in the area in an augmented visibility field, the augmented visibility field comprising the simulated directions within a sensing range (Paragraph [0491] – “In some embodiments, extended reality device 3010 may display a direction indicator 3048 in the form of an arrow, a set of simulated axes, an angular identifier, or other directional indicator.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless network of Baxley-Dongare-Perkins to include the means to simulated reality device with simulated directions as taught by visualization system of BRONICKI in order to provide the directions to the secured component to find the location of the electric component
As to claim 14, The combination of Baxley-Dongare-Perkins does not explicitly recite but in an analogous art, BRONICKI (US 20220374970 A1 dated 2022-11-24) discloses The system of claim 8, wherein the secure component is a simulated reality device configured to: display the simulated directions to the location of the electric component in the area in an augmented visibility field, the augmented visibility field comprising the simulated directions within a sensing range (Paragraph [0491] – “In some embodiments, extended reality device 3010 may display a direction indicator 3048 in the form of an arrow, a set of simulated axes, an angular identifier, or other directional indicator.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wireless network of Baxley-Dongare-Perkins to include the means to simulated reality device with simulated directions as taught by visualization system of BRONICKI in order to provide the directions to the secured component to find the location of the electric component.
Remarks/Arguments
All the remarks and arguments posted on 12/04/2025 have been reviewed.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments, “Modifying the "geolocation-based tracking", as required by Baxley, with the "reference device-tracking", as taught by Dongare would fundamentally change the principle of operation of Baxley.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please note that Baxley et al. does teach in [0120] location analysis and geofencing to locate the malicious device but Baxley does not specifically teach the claimed triangulation that is taught by Dongare.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments, “For example, since Baxley and Dongare already achieve the same goals/benefits allegedly being achieved by Housch, a skilled person will not be motivated to find alternative techniques to achieve the same goals/benefits.”, the Examiner agrees. However, upon further search and consideration, Paragraph [0120] of Baxley et al. (US 20150350228 A1 dated 2015-12-03) discloses, “The device classification module 370 can also perform location analysis or geo-fencing, which evaluates the geolocation features associated with each feature vector.”
In response to the Applicant’s arguments, “In this regard, the Baxley- Dongare-Housch combination does not describe tracking wireless signatures of any kind of a same device over time for specific operations.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0121] of Baxley discloses, “The device classification module 370 can identify attacking (malicious) wireless devices by comparing content of the received feature vectors against signatures of known attack signal. This comparison can comprise performing a blind determination of multiplexing techniques within the radio frequency signals.” Wireless signals of any kind are being tracked here to determine malicious wireless devices.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments, “In this regard, the Baxley-Dongare-Housch combination does not describe determining any erratic (e.g., irregular, that do not follow an expected pattern) operations caused by new devices in an area.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0008] of Baxley discloses, “The radio frequency signatures may be monitored over time to detect variations from the baseline electromagnetic environment.” Paragraph [0031] of Baxley discloses, “The console 140 can provide visualization features for use by security administrators to monitor the electromagnetic environment for wireless security threats.” Here, over time variations for the baseline electromagnetic environment are detected regardless of new or old devices. In other words, it detects both new and old devices.
Applicant amended adding “the anomaly being an interference caused by erratic operations performed in the area”. Here based on the onelook.com dictionary, ‘anomaly’ means a deviation from a rule or from what is regarded as normal and ‘erratic’ means irregular and unpredictable in behavior. Both words have similar meanings. Thereby, the corresponding limitation did not change and the current rejection by Baxley remains valid.
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 mailing date of this final action
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH AL MAMUN whose telephone number is (703)756-1273. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am to 5:00 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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/ABDULLAH AL MAMUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/MATTHEW D. ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646