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 .
Status of the Claims
In an amendment filed 2025-11-19 (“Remarks”), applicant amended claims 1-2 and 16, canceled claims 13-15, and added new claims 21 and 22. The claims under consideration in this office action are claims 1-12 and 16-22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments/remarks made in an amendment filed 2025-11-19 have been fully considered. In view of the amended claims and upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection, necessitated by the amendments is made in view of different interpretation of the previously applied references and new prior art as presented in this Office action. Applicant' s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 and 16-22 are therefore moot.
Examiner Notes
When multiple claim limitations are connected with “or”, only one of the limitations is required to be given any patentable weight, since all of the limitations are optional.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent is/are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B (see MPEP § 2111.04). Claim 1 contains the following contingent limitations: “…wherein, if the comparison value exceeds the deviation, the relay attack is presumed or an access or a release is denied, or a requested act or action is not performed, or an alarm or locking is performed, or, if the comparison value does not reach the deviation, the relay attack is presumed not to be present or the access or the release is granted or the requested act or action is performed, or the alarm or locking is not performed”. Neither of these limitations are required because the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first condition (“if the comparison value exceeds the deviation”) or second condition (“if the comparison value does not reach the deviation”) happening, i.e., the comparison value could equal the deviation exactly. Thus, these limitations of Claim 1 provide no patentable weight to the invention.
Drawings
Examiner notes that the drawings have been received. The objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
Specification
The specification has been amended. The objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, and 10 have been amended. The previous objections to these claims are withdrawn. Claims 13 and 14 have been canceled. The previous objections to these claims are therefore moot.
Claim 1 is objected to because it appears that, in line 11, “wherein the comparison value is comparted to a deviation” should read “wherein the comparison value is compared to a deviation”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 14 and 15 have been canceled. The previous 112(f) interpretation/discussion is therefore moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 8, and 11 have been amended. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and/or 112(b) rejections to claims 4, 8, and 11 are withdrawn. Claims 13, 14, and 15 have been cancelled. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and/or 112(b) rejections to claims 13, 14, and 15 are therefore moot.
However, as amended, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4: in the amendment filed 2025-11-19, claim 4 was amended to recite “…wherein the second plurality and the third plurality match in number of measurements contained in the respective plurality, or the fourth plurality and the sixth plurality match in number of signals contained in the respective plurality, or the fifth plurality and the seventh plurality match in number of frequencies contained in the respective plurality, or the radio signals contained in the fourth plurality of radio signals are equal to the radio signals contained in the sixth plurality of radio signals, or the frequencies contained in the fifth plurality of frequencies is are equal to the frequencies contained in the seventh plurality of frequencies, or wherein the second plurality of phase measurements and the third plurality of signal time-of-flight measurements are performed on the same signals of the first plurality of radio signals, or wherein the second plurality of phase measurements and the third plurality of signal time-of-flight measurements are performed on the first plurality of radio signals, wherein a group made of a phase difference measurement determined from the second plurality of phase measurements and a signal time-of-flight measurement or signal time-of-flight-change measurement of the or determined from the third plurality is used for determining the comparison value, wherein the frequencies of the radio signals on which the measurements of a group are performed differ among themselves by less than 5%”.
When an amendment is filed in reply to an objection or rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, a study of the entire application is often necessary to determine whether or not “new matter” is involved. Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure, including limitations introduced to the claims in an amendment. See MPEP § 2163. Applicant did not point out where support for the amendment(s) to claim 4 can be found in Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed; additionally, upon a review of Applicant’s disclosure as filed, Examiner could not find support for the amendments to claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim 13 has been cancelled. The previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection to claim 13 is therefore moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim 13 has been cancelled. The previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection to claim 13 is therefore moot.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0270956 to Yoshida et al. (“Yoshida”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0264297 to El Soussi et al. (“El Soussi”) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0158853 to Motos et al. (“Motos”).
As to claim 1, Yoshida discloses a method for detecting a relay attack, wherein radio signals with different frequencies are transmitted between a first object and a second object (Figs. 1-5, device 1 and device 2, e.g. automobile C and key-fob K, respectively [¶0022], transmit signals with different frequencies f1 and f2 [¶0049]); wherein phase measurements are performed on the radio signals with different frequencies (Figs. 4-7, ¶0035-36 and ¶0045-50 disclose distance calculations which include performing phase measurements on the signals with different frequencies).
Yoshida does not disclose: at least one signal time-of-flight measurement is additionally performed on the radio signals, wherein, by comparing a change between phase measurements of different of the frequencies to the at least one signal time-of-flight measurement or a change of the signal time-of-flight measurements of different of the frequencies, a comparison value is determined; wherein the comparison value is compared to a deviation, wherein the deviation is predetermined or is determined from the phase measurements on the radio signals.
However, El Soussi discloses: at least one signal time-of-flight measurement is additionally performed on the radio signals (Figs. 2 and 6, ¶0016-21, ¶0069-77, and ¶0106-7 describe taking two-way phase and round-trip time measurements on signals across a plurality of frequencies and comparing the round-trip-time measurements with two-way phase measurements across the range of signal frequencies).
Additionally, Motos discloses: wherein, by comparing a change between phase measurements of different of the frequencies to the at least one signal time-of-flight measurement or a change of the signal time-of-flight measurements of different of the frequencies, a comparison value is determined; wherein the comparison value is compared to a deviation, wherein the deviation is predetermined or is determined from the phase measurements on the radio signals (¶0032, "…In step 60, processor 7 combines the phase shift measurement and the time-of-flight measurement calculated in step 59 by, for example, calculating an average or weighted average of the measurements depending on which of time-of-flight or phase shift should be accorded more weight. The measurements may also be compared and the discarded if not within a chosen range and/or of the same order of magnitude").
Yoshida, El Soussi, and Motos are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: systems for preventing or indicating unauthorized use or theft of vehicles; systems using reradiation of radio waves and analogous systems; distance determination by phase measurement; and/or electronically operated locks comprising means to detect or avoid relay attacks. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoshida to incorporate the teachings of El Soussi to include: at least one signal time-of-flight measurement is additionally performed on the radio signals. Doing so would "[provide] a fast, yet secure way of evaluating distance" (El Soussi, ¶0031), as well as help prevent or mitigate relay attacks "by performing both a two-way phase measurement and a round-trip time measurement" (El Soussi, ¶0017).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoshida to incorporate the teachings of Motos to include: wherein, by comparing a change between phase measurements of different of the frequencies to the at least one signal time-of-flight measurement or a change of the signal time-of-flight measurements of different of the frequencies, a comparison value is determined; wherein the comparison value is compared to a deviation, wherein the deviation is predetermined or is determined from the phase measurements on the radio signals. Doing so would "provide increased accuracy, range and/or flexibility. Combining phase and time-of-flight measurements provides an improved measurement because one measurement protocol may compensate for the deficiencies of the other. For example, phase shift measurements are less vulnerable to device or propagation variations than are time-of-flight measurements. In contrast, phase shift measurements, unlike time-of-flight measurements, are subject to periodicity and may be reliant on precise oscillators that may be impacted by noise or drift" (Motos, ¶0024).
As to claim 2, Yoshida in view of El Soussi and Motos discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a span of the frequencies of the radio signals on which the at least one signal time-of-flight measurement are performed have an overlap in a frequency interval (El Soussi, Figs. 2 and 6, ¶0016-21, ¶0069-77, and ¶0106-7 describe comparing time-of-flight or round-trip-time measurements with two-way phase measurements across a range of signal frequencies; examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a singular "span of frequencies" would necessarily have an overlap in a frequency interval, since a singular span of frequencies would have a 1:1 overlap with itself; thus, any comparison of measurements on these signals would necessarily take place within the frequency interval in which the span of frequencies overlaps with itself), wherein, in the frequency interval, the change between the phase measurements of different of the frequencies is compared to the at least one signal time-of-flight measurement or to the change of the signal time-of-flight measurements of different of the frequencies for determining the comparison value (Motos, ¶0032, "…In step 60, processor 7 combines the phase shift measurement and the time-of-flight measurement calculated in step 59 by, for example, calculating an average or weighted average of the measurements depending on which of time-of-flight or phase shift should be accorded more weight. The measurements may also be compared and the discarded if not within a chosen range and/or of the same order of magnitude").
As to claim 3, Yoshida in view of El Soussi and Motos discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the radio signals comprise a first plurality of radio signals (Yoshida, Figs. 1-5, device 1 and device 2, e.g. automobile C and key-fob K, respectively [¶0022], transmit signals with different frequencies f1 and f2 [¶0049]) and a second plurality of phase measurements and a third plurality of signal time-of-flight measurements are performed, wherein the second plurality of phase measurements is carried out on a fourth plurality of signals being part of the first plurality of radio signals and with a fifth plurality of frequencies and the third plurality of signal time-of-flight measurements is carried out on a sixth plurality of signals being part of the first plurality of radio signals and with a seventh plurality of frequencies, wherein a span of the fifth plurality of frequencies and a span of the seventh plurality of frequencies have an overlap in a frequency interval (El Soussi, Figs. 2 and 6 and ¶0069-77, two-way phase measurements and round-trip-time measurements are performed on signals over a plurality of frequencies; examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that these pluralities of frequencies and their associated round-trip-time and phase measurements could be grouped into any number of frequency spans with overlapping frequencies), wherein for determining the comparison value, a change between the second plurality of phase measurements in the frequency interval is compared to a change between the third plurality of signal time-of-flight measurements in the frequency interval or to a change of the signal time-of-flight measurements performed on different of the frequencies of the first plurality of radio signals in the frequency interval (Motos, ¶0032, and Figs. 2-3 and ¶0024-29, multiple phase shift and time-of-flight measurements are taken and may be compared).
As to claim 4, Yoshida in view of El Soussi and Motos discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the second plurality and the third plurality match in number of measurements contained in the respective plurality, or the fourth plurality and the sixth plurality match in number of signals contained in the respective plurality, or the fifth plurality and the seventh plurality match in number of frequencies contained in the respective plurality, or the radio signals contained in the fourth plurality of radio signals are equal to the radio signals contained in the sixth plurality of radio signals, or the frequencies contained in the fifth plurality of frequencies is are equal to the frequencies contained in the seventh plurality of frequencies, or wherein the second plurality of phase measurements and the third plurality of signal time-of-flight measurements are performed on the same signals of the first plurality of radio signals (El Soussi, ¶0069), or wherein the second plurality of phase measurements and the third plurality of signal time-of-flight measurements are performed on the first plurality of radio signals, wherein a group made of a phase difference measurement determined from the second plurality of phase measurements and a signal time-of-flight measurement or signal time-of-flight-change measurement of the or determined from the third plurality is used for determining the comparison value, wherein the frequencies of the radio signals on which the measurements of a group are performed differ among themselves by less than 5%.
As to claim 5, Yoshida in view of El Soussi and Motos discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein from two phase measurements in each case at different frequencies a first distance between the first object and the second object, or a first value proportional to the distance between the first object and the second object, is determined (Yoshida, Figs. 1-5 and ¶0035, "device 2 detects a phase difference between the received two carrier signals as the first distance measurement signals"), and from the at least one signal time-of-flight measurement a second distance or a second value proportional to the distance between the first object and the second object, is determined (Yoshida, Figs. 1-5 and ¶0035, "device 1 detects a phase difference between the received two carrier signals as the second distance measurement signals"), wherein the comparison value is determined by a difference between the first distance and the second distance or by a difference between the first value and the second value; wherein the first value and of the second value are of equal proportionality to the distance or the distance between the first object and the second object is ascertained from the first value and the second value by a same arithmetic operation in each case (Yoshida, Figs. 1-5 and ¶0035, "device 1 calculates the distance between the device 1 and the device 2 based on the phase difference detected by the device 1 and the phase difference detected by the device 2 using a predetermined calculation").
As to claim 6, Yoshida in view of El Soussi and Motos discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the phase measurements or the signal time-of-flight measurements are used for distance measurement (Yoshida, Figs. 1-5 and ¶0035-37, phase-based measurements are used for distance measurement), or wherein the signal time-of-flight or signal time-of-flight changes are compared to a change in phase positions or a change in phase position changes.
As to claim 7, Yoshida in view of El Soussi and Motos discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a number of the phase measurements or the signal time-of-flight measurements performed or a number of frequencies on which phase measurements or signal time-of-flight measurements are performed is at least five (El Soussi, Fig. 2 and ¶0069 discloses a plurality of frequencies f0, f1, f2 … f(N-1); examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this set of frequencies, which includes 4 distinct frequencies f0, f1, f2, and f(N-1), can include any number of other frequencies (e.g., f3, f4, etc.), thus accounting for at least five frequencies).
As to claim 9, Yoshida in view of El Soussi and Motos discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein radio signals with a received power below a lower power limit that is predetermined or ascertained or above an upper power limit that is predetermined or ascertained, or the signal time-of-flight measurements or the phase measurements performed on radio signals with a received power below a lower power limit that is predetermined or ascertained or above an upper power limit of received radio signals that is predetermined or ascertained are not taken into consideration (Motos, ¶0032, and Figs. 2-3 and ¶0024-29, "the measurements may…[be] discarded if not within a chosen range and/or of the same order of magnitude).
As to claim 10, Yoshida in view of El Soussi and Motos discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the phase measurements and the signal time-of-flight measurements performed on signals with received power below a predetermined value or proportion of the average or maximum received power are not taken into consideration (Motos, ¶0032, and Figs. 2-3 and ¶0024-29, "the measurements may…[be] discarded if not within a chosen range and/or of the same order of magnitude).
As to claim 11, Yoshida in view of El Soussi and Motos discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a frequency spacing between two consecutive frequencies of the different frequencies is at least 0.1 MHz or a maximum of 10 MHz or both (Yoshida, ¶0028, "the LF signal is a beacon signal as a radio signal in a 130KHz band, for example"; Examiner notes that if the signals are in a 130KHz band, then consecutive frequencies must be within a maximum of 10MHz).
As to claim 16, Yoshida in view of El Soussi and Motos discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, for determining the comparison value, the change between different of the frequencies phase measurements of a pair of the different of the frequencies relative to a difference in frequency between the pair of frequencies is compared to the at least one signal time-of-flight measurement or to the change of the signal time-of-flight measurements of different of the frequencies (El Soussi, Figs. 2 and 6, ¶0016-21, ¶0069-77, and ¶0106-7 describe taking two-way phase and round-trip time measurements on signals across a plurality of frequencies and comparing the round-trip-time measurements with two-way phase measurements across the range of signal frequencies).
As to claim 18, Yoshida in view of El Soussi and Motos discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the signal time- of-flight measurements and the phase measurements are performed simultaneously or within 100 ms, or on the same radio signals (El Soussi, Fig. 2 and ¶0069, "for each frequency f.sub.i in a plurality of frequencies f.sub.0, f.sub.1, f.sub.2 . . . f.sub.N-1, a measurement procedure 204-210 is performed, resulting in a two-way phase measurement and a round-trip-time measurement"), or wherein the radio signals are emitted at the different frequencies successively or consecutively.
As to claim 19, Yoshida in view of El Soussi and Motos discloses the method according to claim 18, wherein the signal time- of-flight measurements and the phase measurements are performed simultaneously or within 10 ms (El Soussi, ¶0071, the phase measurement and time-of-arrival measurements are performed at the same time).
As to claim 20, Yoshida in view of El Soussi and Motos discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the different frequencies are at least five frequencies (El Soussi, Fig. 2 and ¶0069 discloses a plurality of frequencies f0, f1, f2 … f(N-1); examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this set of frequencies, which includes 4 distinct frequencies f0, f1, f2, and f(N-1), can include any number of other frequencies (e.g., f3, f4, etc.), thus accounting for at least five frequencies) or a maximum of two hundred frequencies, or at least five frequencies and a maximum of two hundred frequencies, or wherein at no time does the bandwidth of the radio signals exceed 50 MHz.
As to claim 21, Yoshida in view of El Soussi and Motos discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein a breadth of the frequency interval is at least 0.1 MHz or a maximum of 100 MHz or both (Yoshida, ¶0028, "the LF signal is a beacon signal as a radio signal in a 130KHz band, for example").
As to claim 22, Yoshida in view of El Soussi and Motos discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein a breadth of the frequency interval is at least 0.1 MHz or a maximum of 100 MHz or both (Yoshida, ¶0028, "the LF signal is a beacon signal as a radio signal in a 130KHz band, for example").
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of El Soussi and Motos and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,006,477 to Yost, Jr. et al. (“Yost, Jr.”).
As to claim 8, Yoshida in view of El Soussi and Motos discloses the method according to claim 3.
Yoshida in view of El Soussi and Motos does not disclose: switching between at least two of the fifth plurality of frequencies, or between at least two of the seventh plurality of frequencies, is done phase-coherently, or a phase shift arising upon switching between frequencies is measured and the phase measurements are corrected using the phase shift measured.
However, Yost, Jr. discloses: switching between at least two of the fifth plurality of frequencies, or between at least two of the seventh plurality of frequencies, is done phase-coherently (Fig. 2 and Col. 5: line 61 through Col 6: line 5, "phase coherence is assured by maintaining continuous oscillation during the frequency change"), or a phase shift arising upon switching between frequencies is measured and the phase measurements are corrected using the phase shift measured.
Yoshida, El Soussi, Motos, and Yost, Jr. are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: systems for preventing or indicating unauthorized use or theft of vehicles; systems using reradiation of radio waves and analogous systems; distance determination by phase measurement; and/or electronically operated locks comprising means to detect or avoid relay attacks. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoshida in view of El Soussi and Motos to incorporate the teachings of Yost, Jr. to include: switching between at least two of the fifth plurality of frequencies, or between at least two of the seventh plurality of frequencies, is done phase-coherently, or a phase shift arising upon switching between frequencies is measured and the phase measurements are corrected using the phase shift measured. Doing so would provide more accurate frequency measurements (Yost, Abstract and Col. 5: lines 37-60).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of El Soussi and Motos and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0246693 to Elangovan et al. (“Elangovan”).
As to claim 17, Yoshida in view of El Soussi and Motos discloses the method according to claim 1.
Yoshida in view of El Soussi and Motos does not disclose: wherein the method is carried out with multiple first objects and a common second object.
However, Elangovan discloses: wherein the method is carried out with multiple first objects and a common second object (Fig. 1, ¶0011 and ¶0033 describe using multiple key fobs).
Yoshida, El Soussi, Motos, and Elangovan are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: systems for preventing or indicating unauthorized use or theft of vehicles; systems using reradiation of radio waves and analogous systems; distance determination by phase measurement; and/or electronically operated locks comprising means to detect or avoid relay attacks. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yoshida in view of El Soussi and Motos to incorporate the teachings of Elangovan to include: wherein the method is carried out with multiple first objects and a common second object. Doing so would "provide passive entry passive start (PEPS) systems to a vehicle by communicating with multiple key fobs associated with a vehicle that are all co-located in an operative distance to the particular vehicle to implement a Time-of-Flight (ToF) security system" (Elangovan, ¶0011) as well as "mitigate unauthorized access to a vehicle PEPS system by devices making a relay attack against particular key fobs. Aspects of this disclosure may provide for a system that reduces or eliminates the threat of relay attacks while keeping the system response time within tolerable delay limits that unlock vehicle doors responsive to a user trigger event command (e.g., touching a door handle) without a noticeable delay" (Elangovan, ¶0015).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
References Cited
El Soussi, Mohieddine et al. (2020). Secure ranging (US 2020/0264297 A1). Filed 2020-02-19.
Elangovan, Vivekanandh et al. (2021). Time of flight based security for multiple key fobs (US 2021/0246693 A1). Filed 2020-02-06.
Motos, Tomas et al. (2020). Combined phase and time-of-flight measurement (US 2020/0158853 A1). Filed 2019-11-12.
Yoshida, Hiroshi et al. (2021). Distance measurement apparatus (US 2021/0270956 A1). Filed 2020-08-26.
Yost, Jr., Russell R. et al. (1977). Pulse coherent transponder with precision frequency offset (US 4,006,477 A). Filed 1975-01-06.
Other Pertinent References
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Bevan, David Damian Nicholas et al. (2002). Position location method and apparatus for a mobile telecommunications system (US 6,489,923 B1). Filed 1999-09-16.
Elangovan, Vivekanandh et al. (2021). Relay attack mitigation and prevention (US 11,037,387 B1). Filed 2020-01-24.
Fretenburg, Russell Alan et al. (2012). System and method for real-time locating (US 2012/0019413 A1). Filed 2010-07-26.
Hadaschik, Niels et al. (2021). Method for determining a jitter attack, jitter attack detecting device, and computer program (US 2021/0266747 A1). Filed 2019-06-07.
Heide, Patric et al. (2002). Anti-theft protection system for a motor vehicle, and a method for operating an anti-theft protection system (US 2002/0008615 A1). Filed 2000-11-30.
Lee, Sangrim et al. (2020). Method for measuring distance in wireless communication system and device therefor (US 2020/0099561 A1). Filed 2018-04-03.
Lee, Daniel Joseph et al. (2014). Personal radar (US 2014/0320335 A1). Filed 2014-04-29.
Lee, Daniel Joseph et al. (2016). Measurement accuracy classifier for high-resolution ranging (US 2016/0077204 A1). Filed 2015-09-17.
Markhovsky, Felix et al. (2020). Systems and methods for determining a timing offset of emitter antennas in a wireless network (US 2020/0142023 A1). Filed 2020-01-03.
Meinherz, Carl et al. (2020). Absolute distance measurement for time-of-flight sensors (US 10,677,922 B2). Filed 2017-10-10.
Rudd, Wayne et al. (2012). Measurement method and apparatus (US 2012/0133544 A1). Filed 2011-06-23.
Stitt, Raymond Michael et al. (2020). Passive entry/passive start communication systems with selected antennas having multiple polarized axes (US 2020/0118372 A1). Filed 2019-10-10.
Waheed, Khurram et al. (2022). Method and technique of power-efficient two-way phase based distance estimation using packet synchronized data capture (US 2022/0066019 A1). Filed 2020-08-28.
Weeber, Hendrik A. et al. (2012). Ophthalmic lens, systems and methods having at least one rotationally asymmetric diffractive structure (US 2012/0320335 A1). Filed 2011-12-16.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 SAMUEL H LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)272-5720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 7am – 4pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571)272-7855. 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.
/SAMUEL H. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649