DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 06/02/2026. The claim(s) 1- 7 & 9- 10 is/are pending, of which the claim(s) 1, 7, & 9 is/are in independent form.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claimed Elements Definition
“cyber space”: See Spec, para. 014, this element is described as “for example, a database that stores information including identifiers in the cyber space of the object and positional information of the object”. Thus, any computer system is interpreted as cyber space.
“projection”/project: See Spec, para. 014, “corresponds to storage of information in a database constituting the cyber space”. Thus, sending/transmitting data/information about an object for storage or process into one or more computer systems rather than discarding/not further processing is interpreted as “project the object to the cyber space”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/02/2026, with respect to the amended limitations of the independent claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the outstanding rejections thereto have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of discovery of a new prior art and its combination with prior cited art US 20150226858 A1 to Leibner (1para. 036) as set forth below.
Claim Interpretation
In light of the received amendments to the claims (by removing of “positioning means of the object in the physical space”, “means other than the positioning means”, “one or multiple means”), the outstanding claim interpretations accordance to 112(f) are rendered moot and therefore are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1- 4, 7, & 9- 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper et al. ( US 20160282475 A1, reference of record) in view of Leibner et al. (US 20150226858 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Harper teaches a multi-factor collating system [“FIG. 1 shows system 100, which includes wireless communication network 110 and GNSS network 140”] in a cyber-physical system in which a physical space [area around the mobile device 130] and a cyber space [server computer (like MLC 120+ LC 125) that monitors/receives data for the monitored mobile device 130/530] are connected by a network [using wired/wireless data transmission network to provide information of the object to the computer], the multi-factor [using various measuring sources/factors such as GNSS of the mobile device, U-TDOA measurements, receiver 151- 152] collating system comprising: a computer [computer used by the MLC 120 like MLC 420 of fig. 4] including a memory and a processor configured to: (Fig. 1, [017, 039, 059]);
[a] obtain first positional information [Step 214, location determined using GNSS for the mobile device calling 911, e.g., “the mobile device 130 calculates its own location based on the GNSS measurements, and sends the calculated GNSS location to the MLC 120”] that is positional information of an object [“mobile device 130 “] obtained by a positioning sensor [“the GPS measurements” providing sensor of the mobile device] of the object in the physical space, and second positional information [Step 226: determines location of the mobile device calling 911 using other techniques other than GNSS such as with U-TDOA ( “the MLC 120 requests the UTDOA measurements from the LMUs 116-119”)] that is positional information of the object obtained by an external sensor or a network equipment ([021, 024, 028, 033-040]);
[b]
[c] determine a reliability [“When the selected location is determined to be accurate (step 234: yes)”] of the first positional information
[d] determine whether to project the object onto the cyberspace, based on the determined reliability of the first positional information; and [e] project [“geographic location may also be provided to entities tasked with responding to the initial location request”. Providing the location information to the requesting parties rather than dropping the location information not being accurate enough is interpreted as project the object to the cyberspace] the object onto the cyberspace, based on the determined [Fig. 2, Yes in S324, the location prediction is accurate for the mobile device ] reliability of the first positional information ([016, 040-041], Fig. 2).
Harper fails to teach the limitations shown with strikethrough emphasis but are cured by Leibner. That is, Harper fails to teach:
[b] calculate a positional difference between the first positional information and the second positional information;
[c] the above determining of reliability of the first positional information (of the mobile device 130) is by determining whether the calculated positional difference is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value, in order to detect an intentional position disguise by the object as claimed.
Leibner relates to a multi-factor collecting system [error detection system 106+ display 108] with a computer using anti-spoofing techniques by one or more navigation devices 802s for a plurality of threat situations (“like (GNSS) spoofing attack… to use fake signals”), wherein the computer including a memory and a processor configured to: obtain first positional information [“reported position of GPS 304”, analogous to location reported (using GNSS) by mobile device 130 of Harper] that is positional information of an object [stationary or mobile device] obtained by a positioning sensor of the object in the physical space, and second positional information [“surveyed-in position of the GPS receiver 304”, analogous to Harper’s location obtained by U-TDOA or other means except using the GPS from the mobile device] that is positional information of the object (Abstract, [035] Fig. 8). Specifically, Leibner teaches the computer to:
calculate a positional difference [“difference between the reported position of GPS receiver 304 and the surveyed in position”] between the first positional information and the second positional information; determine a reliability [“compromised by a spoofer” or not is determining] of the first positional information by determining [“the first navigation device is compromised” or not determination] whether the calculated positional difference is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value [“difference is outside an acceptable positional range”], in order to detect an intentional position disguise by the object ([035-036, 078-079]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have (1) combined Leibner and Harper because they both related to determining reliability of the received location information of a monitored object using GNSS sensor and receiving location data from multiple location determination means (2) modified the processor of MLC 120 of Harper to include calculate a position difference between the first and second position information and determining whether the calculated positional difference is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value, in order to detect an intentional position disguise by the object as part of determining reliability of the first positional information as in Leibner. PHOSITA would have clearly understood Harper’s reported two different locations (from GNSS and “terrestrial positioning system”) as reference values for accurateness determination. Furthermore, doing so would allow to determine whether the location reported by the mobile device 130 of Harper is spoofed location or accurate location thereby avoid providing tricked/spoofed location to the emergency services (911) (Harper, [024] & Leibner [079]). Accordingly, Harper in view of Leibner teaches each element of the claim and renders invention thereof obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 2, Harper in view of Leibner teaches the multi-factor collating system according to claim 1, wherein the processor determines a reliability of the first positional information by comparing [checking “mismatch between” different location data for the mobile device] the first positional information with the second positional information, and determines whether to project [determining whether to forward the accurate location information of the mobile device to the 911 service or other applications and sending the location information to the 911 services] the object to the cyberspace based on the reliability (Harper, fig. 2 [024] & Leibner [036, 079, 090]).
Regarding claim 3, Harper in view of Leibner teaches the multi-factor collating system according to claim 1, wherein the second positional information includes one or multiple items of positional information obtained by one or multiple external sensors or network equipment [“retrieves measurements from location measurement units (LMU s) 116-119 of a terrestrial positioning system” or “GNSS receivers 151 and 152”] ([019, 022]), and
the processor performs projection (the MLC provides location data to the requesting parties like 911 responders) to the cyber space, using most probable positional information [“calculated location having the smallest uncertainty at a given confidence is selected” among via the GPS calculated location or via U-TDOA measured location] among the first positional information and the one or multiple items of positional information or positional information estimated based on at least one positional information among the first positional information or the one or multiple items of positional information (Harper, [022, 040]).
Regarding claim 4, Harper teaches the multi-factor collating system according to claim 1, wherein the processor determines whether to project [accurate or not in S324] the object to the cyber space, based on continuity of position transition of the object, continuity of base station connection [continue reading all U-TDOA measurements in S224 and S216] of the object, or continuity of projection of the object, in addition to a comparison result [“the uncertainties associated with the calculated GPS location, UTDOA location and hybrid location are compared with one another”. The claim covers every possible comparison including comparison of error/uncertainties] between the first positional information and the second positional information ([018, 036, 040]).
Regarding claims 7 & 9, Harper in view of Leibner teaches inventions of these method and computer-readable medium claims for the similar reasons set forth above in system claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Harper in view of Leibner teaches the multi-factor collating system according to claim 1, wherein the computer is further configured to:
determine the reliability of the first positional information further based on a continuity of a base station [one of the station of “base stations 111-114” being connected to the mobile device so that “terrestrial measurements” can be sensed at MLC 120] connection of the object in the network (Harper, [018, 036, 040], fig. 1).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper in view of Leibner, and further in view of Young et al. (US 20200309533 A1, reference of record).
Regarding claim 5, Harper in view of Leibner teaches the multi-factor collating system according to claim 1, wherein the processor determines [calculated location is accurate enough to report determination in S324] whether to project the object to the cyber space, based on MLC itself predicting (“MLC 120 is then able to calculate the location of the mobile device 130 using at least the GNSS measurements”) the location of the mobile device 130 since it has more processing power] of the object, in addition to a comparison result [“uncertainties associated with the calculated GPS location, UTDOA location and hybrid location are compared with one another”] between the first positional information and the second positional information (Harper, [021, 040]).
Harper in view of Leibner fails to teach determines whether to project the object to the cyberspace, based on a difference between real-time positional information of the object and positional information obtained by position prediction of the object as claimed.
Young teaches a multi-factor collating system comprising a processor to determines whether [sensor quality index is high] to project the object to the cyber space, based on a difference [“whether the difference between the location indicated by the captured GNSS information/data and the ground truth location of the vehicle 5 satisfies a threshold requirement”] between real-time positional information [“the ground truth location”] of the object and positional information obtained [“the captured GNSS information”] by position prediction ([072]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Young and Harper in view of Leibner because they both related to a computer/cyberspace recording of the predicted location of an object placed onto a physical space to be notified to other requesting parties and (2) modify the computer of Harper in view of Leibner to determine whether to project the object (forward the location information to the emergency services) to the cyber space also based on a difference between real-time positional information of the object and positional information obtained by position prediction of the object as in Young. Doing so would allow to identify whether the GNSS sensor is clearly poor so that the location predicted using the information from the poor GNSS sensor will not be forwarded to the 911 services (Young [072] & Harper [024]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper (US 20160282475 A1) in view of Leibner, and further in view of 2Egawa et al., (JP 2010182007 A, the cited paragraphs are from machine translated FOR document).
Regarding claim 6, Harper in view of Leibner teaches the multi-factor collating system according to claim 1, wherein the processor determines whether to project the object to the cyber space,
Harper in view of Leibner fails to teach the processor determines whether to project the object to the cyber space based on a collation history indicating whether to permit projection with respect to the object.
Egawa relates to a computer (cyberspace) configured to collection position of an object located in a physical space ([001, 029]). Specifically, Egawa teaches a multi-factor collating system comprising a processor to determine [“included in the black list (S201: YES), the frame is discarded in S202”] whether to project the object [“vehicle”] to the cyber space, based on a collation history [“vehicle that has transmitted an incorrect position has its vehicle ID registered in the black list”] indicating whether to permit projection with respect to the object ([044, 077, 0126-0127]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have (1) combined Egawa and Harper in view of Leibner because they both related to a multi-factor collecting system to receive position/location information from the physical object and (2) modified the computer of Harper to incorporate missing limitations (consider collection history of the location of the past to determine whether to project the object to the cyberspace) as in Egawa. Doing so would allow the MLC of the Harper in view of Leibner to be extra careful or discard the request about reporting the location of the black-listed mobile device(s) known to intentionally provide incorrect location to avoid damaging the reputation of the MLC with emergency services (Egawa [044, 077] & Harper [024]).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Moakley (US 20160379165 A1 ) teaches when the difference between a reported location of the sensor(s) associated with the asset and the location of the stateful gateway differs by a threshold amount, the stateful gateway may determine that the asset is not present on the vehicle, and may report that absence to a CIS and/or an operator of the vehicle ([035]).
2) Murphy (US 20140327581 A1 ) teaches any difference in the measured verses the reported position is applied as test statistic in the classical hypothesis test to detect spoofing of the airborne target ([049]).
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 “position validator 308 is configured to determine if there is a difference or mismatch between the reported position of GPS receiver 304 and the surveyed-in position of GPS receiver 304. If a mismatch has been determined or the difference is outside an acceptable positional range, then a threat-alert is generated by position validator”
2 Reference of record.
Prosecution Insights