DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/8/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-20, Examiner agrees in part. The rejection of claim 1 lines 7-14 and corresponding portions of claims 8 and 15, the rejection of claims 5, 6, 13, 14, and 20 related to types of expected satellite parameters, and the rejection of claims 5, 13, and 20 related to “a time window of active use”, do not appear to have been addressed by the amendments and have therefore been maintained. Further, new rejections have been made, necessitated by the amendments. Please see the rejections below for details.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Achanta’s Table 1 is not a “satellite tracking table” but a historical dataset used for anomaly detection – not a dynamically created table for the AP reflecting per-satellite visibility windows, Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that Achanta teaches the following claim limitations:
determining a time stamp associated with the received GNSS signal (para. [0041] “time at which the particular GNSS satellite entered view”),
determining a satellite identifier associated with the received GNSS signal (“Satellite PRN”, para. [0042] and Table 1), and
determining that the satellite identifier matches a corresponding satellite identifier in the satellite tracking table in a time window seen that includes the time stamp (para. [0041] “compare the time at which the particular GNSS satellite entered view of the antenna 106 with the history”, where the history is shown in Table 1 in terms of Satellite PRN and time windows seen, where the time spanning “Time In” to “Time Out” comprises a time window); and
determining an interference event in response to determining that the time stamp associated with the received GNSS signal is outside of the time window seen for a GNSS satellite matching the satellite identifier in the received GNSS signal (para. [0041] “If the particular GNSS satellite came into view at an unexpected time according to the history, the GNSS receiver may determine that the signal not reliable, may be manipulated, and/or may be from a source other than the particular GNSS satellite”).
The claims do not recite a “dynamically created table”, and the specification does not appear to describe the table in this way. However, Achanta’s table is generated over time (see Table 1 Time In, Time Out and para. [0042] “Table 1 illustrates ... times each satellite enters view, times each satellite leaves view, and calculated times of the next expected event for each satellite. The GNSS receiver may then record the time the next expected event happens), and therefore appears to be “dynamically created”. Further, the “Time In” and “Time Out” columns in the table clearly comprise windows of satellite visibility for individual satellites having PRN 1-6.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Lavi, Fisher, and Achanta do not teach “comparing, in response determining the inference event comparing the first derived satellite parameter with the corresponding first expected satellite parameter, a second derived satellite parameter with a corresponding second expected satellite parameter to confirm the interference event”, this language has been rejected as indefinite. As best understood, however, the concept of confirming an interference event is well-known. A new reference, Carmack, has been cited as evidence of such.
Examiner notes that the Claim Interpretation section below discussion of conditional limitations below has been updated in view of the claim amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The broadest reasonable interpretation of method claims 1-7 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 are not met.
In claim 1 lines 16-18 the step “determining an interference event” is not required to be performed unless it has been determined that “the time stamp associated with the received GNSS signal is outside of the time window seen for a GNSS satellite matching the satellite identifier in the received GNSS signal”, and no such determination has been recited. Instead, lines 13-14 recite the opposite, “determining that the satellite identifier matches a corresponding satellite identifier in the satellite tracking table in a time window seen that includes the time stamp”. It therefore appears that the interference can never be determined.
In claim 1 lines 20-23, the step “in response to determining the inference event, comparing the first derived satellite parameter with the corresponding first expected satellite parameter, a second derived satellite parameter with a corresponding second expected satellite parameter to confirm the interference event” is not required to be performed unless the interference event is determined.
In claims 2 and 3, the steps “determining, in response to determining the interference event, a location of a source of the received GNSS signal’ and “displaying the determined location” are not required to be performed unless an interference event has been determined in claim 1.
In claim 4, the step “rnerging the interference event determined al the first AP with another interference event determined at a second AP, the second AP located in a neighborhood of the first AP” is not required to be performed unless an interference event has been determined in claim 1.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 1-7 therefore do not require these steps. See MPEP 2111.04 land Ex parte Schulhauser.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 lines 7-14 and corresponding portions of claims 8 and 15, comparing the first derived satellite parameter and the first expected satellite parameter is described as comprising determining a time stamp, determining a satellite ID, and determining that the satellite ID matches a corresponding satellite ID in a satellite tracking table in a time window seen that includes the time stamp.
However, determining a time stamp, determining a satellite ID, and determining that the satellite ID matches a corresponding satellite ID in a satellite tracking table in a time window seen that includes the time stamp, does not appear to result in a comparison of first and second derived satellite parameters, making it unclear how the comparison is performed, as the first derived satellite parameter and the first expected satellite parameter are not used in the determining steps.
If any of the time stamp, satellite ID, satellite tracking table, and time window seen correspond to the derived and expected satellite parameters, Examiner recommends amending the claim to include this correspondence. If none correspond, it is unclear how lines 11-15 provide for a comparison of the derived and expected satellite parameters as claimed.
Regarding claim 1 lines 15-17 and corresponding portions of claims 8 and 15, it is unclear how the step “determining an interference event in response to determining that the time stamp associated with the received GNSS signal is outside of the time window seen for a GNSS satellite matching the satellite identifier in the received GNSS signal” (emphasis added) can be performed, as lines 13-14 “determining that the satellite identifier matches a corresponding satellite identifier in the satellite tracking table in a time window seen that includes the time stamp” (emphasis added) appear to specify that the time stamp has already been determine to be inside the time window.
Regarding claim 1 lines 20-23 and corresponding portions of claims 8 and 15, the language “comparing, in response determining the inference event comparing the first derived satellite parameter with the corresponding first expected satellite parameter, a second derived satellite parameter with a corresponding second expected satellite parameter to confirm the interference event” in ungrammatical and its meaning cannot be clearly determined.
Regarding claim 5 lines 1-2 and claim 13 lines 1-2, “the corresponding first expected satellite parameters” lack clear antecedent basis in the claim. There appears to be basis for only a single first expected satellite parameter, for example in claim 1 lines 7-8 “a corresponding first expected satellite parameter”.
Regarding claim 6 lines 1-2 and claim 14 lines 1-2, “the corresponding second expected satellite parameters” lack clear antecedent basis in the claim. There appears to be basis for only a single second expected satellite parameter, for example in claim 1 line 22 “a corresponding second expected satellite parameter”.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 13, 14, and 20, a plurality of types of expected satellite parameters are listed in the alternative. The scope of the claims includes any combination of one or more of the listed parameters. However, amended claims 1, 8, and 15 appear to require the expected satellite parameters to include at least the satellite identifier and the time window seen (see claim 1 lines 12-15 and corresponding portions of claims 8 and 15, and claim 5 lines 3 and 5 and corresponding portions of claim 13). It is unclear how an interference event can be determined as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 if the expected satellite parameters do not include the satellite identifier, but instead include, for example, only a constellation type. Examiner recommends amending claims 5, 6, 13, 14, and 20 for consistency with what is required by the independent claims.
Regarding claim 5 line 6, claim 13 line 6, and claim 20 line 6, the scope of “a time window of active use” cannot be clearly determined. It is unclear what it means for a satellite to be in “active use”, how its “active use” is determined, and how “active use” differs from “the time window seen” as recited in line 5 of each claim. The specification does not appear to provide any description.
The remaining claims are dependent.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavi (US 11656362 B2) in view of Fischer (US 9185516 B2), Achanta (US 20140247185 A1), and Carmack (US 9725171 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Lavi teaches, as best understood, [NOTE: limitations not taught by Lavi are lined through; language added to explain Lavi’s teachings is italicized; amended language is underlined] a method comprising:
creating a satellite tracking table for a first sensor, the satellite tracking table comprising a listing of a plurality of satellites of a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) observable by the first sensor and expected satellite parameters for each of the plurality of satellites (4:50-55 “GNSS sensors”, “list of received SVID (satellites) for each sensor, and expected SNR of the satellites at certain time of day at the sensors’ location”);
determining a first derived satellite parameter from a GNSS signal received at the first sensor (S310, Fig. 3; 6:41-45 “data from a satellite is collected from a sensor”);
comparing the first derived satellite parameter with a corresponding first expected satellite parameter, the corresponding first expected satellite parameter determined from the satellite tracking table (S320, S340, Fig. 3; 6:56-60 “it is determined if the satellite’s SVID is valid… based on known statistics”; 7:7-16 “the satellite signal SNR is verified versus previous statistics”, where SVID and SNR both meet the claimed first derived satellite parameter),
determining an interference event (S370, Fig. 3 in view of 7:38-53, or any of S320-S350, Fig. 3 resulting in ‘No”)
Lavi does not teach:
(1) the satellite tracking table is for a first Access Point (AP). Instead, Lavi teaches the table is for a GNSS sensor (4:50-55 “GNSS sensors”). However Lavi further teaches “It should be noted that within a modern environment like a city or a highway there are various already deployed devices that may operate as GNSS sensors. For example, cellular base-stations, information kiosks, smart street-lights, digital signage, and more can also operate as GNSS sensors. These devices may be equipped with the required hardware to support the capabilities needed for operation of a GNSS sensor” (4:58 - 5:2), and Fischer teaches, in analogous art (abstract “providing radio frequency interference (RFI) awareness assistance data to … (GNSS) receivers”), that an AP may operate as a GNSS sensor (8:6-21 “including the interference monitoring function in … IEEE 802.11 iFi Access Points (APs)”).
It would have been obvious to modify Lavi according to Fischer by implementing the GNSS sensors as Access Points because they are a known example of the “already deployed devices” taught by Lavi at 4:58 - 5:2 that could be used with predictable results. This is a simple substitution of one known type of already deployed device that may operate as a GNSS sensor for another to obtain predictable results, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
(2) wherein comparing the first derived satellite parameter differs from the corresponding first expected satellite parameter comprises:
determining a time stamp associated with the received GNSS signal,
determining a satellite identifier associated with the received GNSS signal, and
determining that the satellite identifier matches a corresponding satellite identifier in the satellite tracking table in a time window seen that includes the time stamp; and
determining an interference event in response to determining that the time stamp associated with the received GNSS signal is outside of the time window seen for a GNSS satellite matching the satellite identifier in the received GNSS signal.
Lavi merely broadly teaches that the verification of satellite statistics (7:7-16 “the satellite signal SNR is verified versus previous statistics”) comprises verifying “satellite reception time in the area” (6:56-65).
However, Achanta, in analogous art (abstract “detecting manipulation of a GNSS signal”), teaches:
wherein comparing the first derived satellite parameter differs from the corresponding first expected satellite parameter comprises:
determining a time stamp associated with the received GNSS signal (para. [0041] “time at which the particular GNSS satellite entered view”),
determining a satellite identifier associated with the received GNSS signal (“Satellite PRN”, para. [0042] and Table 1), and
determining that the satellite identifier matches a corresponding satellite identifier in the satellite tracking table in a time window seen that includes the time stamp (para. [0041] “compare the time at which the particular GNSS satellite entered view of the antenna 106 with the history”, where the history is shown in Table 1 in terms of Satellite PRN and time windows seen, where the time spanning “Time In” to “Time Out” comprises a time window); and
determining an interference event in response to determining that the time stamp associated with the received GNSS signal is outside of the time window seen for a GNSS satellite matching the satellite identifier in the received GNSS signal (para. [0041] “If the particular GNSS satellite came into view at an unexpected time according to the history, the GNSS receiver may determine that the signal not reliable, may be manipulated, and/or may be from a source other than the particular GNSS satellite”).
Achanta therefore provides details as to how Lavi’s verification of “satellite reception time in the area” (6:56-65) could be implemented. It would have been obvious to further modify Lavi according to Achanta because it is a matter of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. The predictable result is verifying that satellite signals are received at times that are consistent with historical data.
(3) comparing, in response determining the inference event comparing the first derived satellite parameter with the corresponding first expected satellite parameter, a second derived satellite parameter with a corresponding second expected satellite parameter to confirm the interference event. This language has been rejected as indefinite. As best understood, it appears to mean that a second comparison is performed using a second parameter in order to confirm the first comparison. Achanta does not teach this. Achanta’s Fig. 3 shows an interference event determined based on a single comparison, i.e. any of the comparisons performed at S320-S360.
However, it is generally well-known to perform a second determination of an interference even in order to confirm a first determination. For example, see Carmack Fig. 6 steps 602-610, which provide a first determination of interference, and step 612, which provides confirmation of the interference. It would have been obvious to further modify Lavi according to Carmack by confirming the interference, for example by requiring two of S320-350 to result in “No”, in order to increase the reliability of the interference determination.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, in addition to what has already been discussed with respect to claim 1, Lavi teaches the steps of claim 1 performed at a detection server (130, Fig. 1; 4:50-55, 6:37-45), where the detection server comprises a memory storage, a processing unit, and a computer-readable medium storing instructions (710-730, Fig. 7).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Lavi teaches determining, in response to determining the interference event, a location of a source of the received GNSS signal (5:35-38 “The detection server 130 also indicates… coarse location or coverage of the attack”).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Lavi’s Fig. 4, when modified in view of Fischer by implementing the sensors as access points, teaches merging (S430-450 Fig. 4 as described at 8:24-55 “it is validated whether SVID exists in both data sets”, “the relative distance between the two sensors and the respective satellite are compared”, “compare the measured range of the two sensors from the satellite”) the interference event determined at the first AP (Fig. 4 S410 “ground level sensor”) with another interference event determined at a second AP (Fig. 4 S420 “closest above ground level sensor”), the second AP located in a neighborhood of the first AP (S420 “closest”). Similarly, see Fig. 5, which teaches merging interference events determined at a ground level sensor and a neighboring ground level sensor.
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 20 Lavi teaches wherein the expected satellite parameters comprises one or more of the following: a satellite identifier (4:50-55 “list of received SVID (satellites) for each sensor); a constellation type (implied by 8:37-40); a time window seen (4:50-55 “expected SNR of the satellites at certain time of day); and a time window of active use.
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 20 Lavi teaches wherein the expected satellite parameters comprises one or more of the following: an signal-to-noise ratio associated with the received GNSS signal (4:54-55 “expected SNR of the satellites at certain time of day at the sensor’s location”); an carrier-to-noise ratio associated with the received GNSS signal; a satellite pseudorange; a rate of change of the satellite pseudorange; a rate of change of the signal-to-noise ratio; a rate of change of the carrier-to-noise ratio; a power associated with the received GNSS signal; and an in-band power density of the received GNSS signal.
Regarding claims 7, 12, and 19, Lavi teaches creating the satellite tracking table at a detection server (130, Fig. 1), which is connected to the GNSS sensors through a wireless area network (140, Fig. 1) that may include a local area network (4:15-16 “The network 140 may include a local area network”). Lavi does not teach the satellite tracking table created at a Wireless Local Area Network (LAN) Controller (WLC). However a WLC is considered inherent to Lavi’s wireless local area network, and combining the functions of Lavi’s detection server with the functions of the WLC would merely be a matter of “making integral” or a “rearrangement of parts” (MPEP 2144.04 V. B. and VI. C.) with no new or unexpected results. It would have been obvious to further modify Lavi by creating the tracking table at a WLC because it is merely a matter of rearranging the functions of the detection server and WLC, or making the detection server and WLC integral, with no new or unexpected results, and having the advantage of reducing cost by consolidating hardware.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavi (US 11656362 B2) in view of Fischer (US 9185516 B2), Achanta (US 20140247185 A1), and Carmack (US 9725171 B1) as applied to claims 2, 9, and 15 above, and further in view of Bean (US 7912643 B1).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Lavi does not teach displaying the determined location.
Bean, in analogous art (abstract “A spoofer location system… determines a location of a spoofer source”) teaches displaying a determined location of a source of a received interference signal so that it “can be viewed by a human operator” (6:22-25 “Spoofer location… can be provided on a display… so that the location of the source of the spoofer signal can be viewed by a human operator”). It would have been obvious to further modify Lavi in view of Bean in order to provide the location to a human operator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, WILLIAM KELLEHER can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648