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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites the steps of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites the limitations of performing a consistency check on ranging results output by ranging operations and detecting at least one attack on a distance between one or more UWB nodes using an output of the consistency check. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers limitations that can be performed by the human mind. The concepts of performing and detecting, as recited in the claim, are observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions, which fall into the mental process group of abstract ideas (e.g., outputted ranging results are analyzed by a user/person, reviewing them to see if they are consistent, and if the numbers are not consistent, deciding that that there is at least one attack on an estimated distance). Nothing in the claim precludes them from being performed in the human mind, with or without the aid of a physical aid such as a pen and paper (See MPEP 2016.04(a) and 2019 PEG)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites the additional element of “performing ranging operations between at least two ultra-wideband UWB, nodes comprised in a network.” The ranging step is a routine step, and is discussed at a high level of generality that it may be as basic as transmitting the signal from one UWB node and observing if a response or reflection is received at the transmitting UWB node. This amounts to mere data gathering, and does not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The particular type of data/information output by the ranging result does not make the performance of a consistency check and detection of at least one attack other than abstract. These limitations simply link the use of the abstract idea to the environment of ranging operations between UWB nodes. For at least the above reasons, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not provide an inventive concept because as recited in the previous paragraphs above, the claim recites the additional element of “performing ranging operations between at least two ultra-wideband UWB, nodes comprised in a network,” an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept. See 2015.06. The particular type of data/information output by the ranging result does not make the performance of a consistency check and detection of at least one attack other than abstract. Moreover, the additional elements do not reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field, or include the use of a particular machine or particular transformation. The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than an abstract idea itself (See MPEP 2106.05). Therefore, the claim is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 14
Step 1: The claim recites a machine
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 14 recites the limitations of an attack detection system performing a consistency check on ranging results output by ranging operations and detecting at least one attack on a distance between one or more UWB nodes using an output of the consistency check. These limitations, as drafted, is a machine that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers limitations that can be performed by the human mind. The concepts of performing and detecting, as recited in the claim, are observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions, which fall into the mental process group of abstract ideas (e.g., outputted ranging results are analyzed by a user/person, reviewing them to see if they are consistent, and if the numbers are not consistent, deciding that that there is at least one attack on an estimated distance). Nothing in the claim precludes them from being performed in the human mind, with or without the aid of a physical aid such as a pen and paper (See MPEP 2016.04(a) and 2019 PEG)
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 14 recites the additional element of “performing ranging operations between at least two ultra-wideband UWB, nodes comprised in a network.” The ranging step is a routine step, and is discussed at a high level of generality that it may be as basic as transmitting the signal from one UWB node and observing if a response or reflection is received at the transmitting UWB node. This amounts to mere data gathering, and does not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The particular type of data/information output by the ranging result does not make the performance of a consistency check and detection of at least one attack other than abstract. These limitations simply link the use of the abstract idea to the environment of ranging operations between UWB nodes. For at least the above reasons, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not provide an inventive concept because as recited in the previous paragraphs above, the claim recites the additional element of “performing ranging operations between at least two ultra-wideband UWB, nodes comprised in a network,” an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept. See 2015.06. The particular type of data/information output by the ranging result does not make the performance of a consistency check and detection of at least one attack other than abstract. Moreover, the additional elements do not reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field, or include the use of a particular machine or particular transformation. The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than an abstract idea itself (See MPEP 2106.05). Therefore, the claim is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeong (KR 20210007781 A) [cited from attached pdf].
Regarding claim 1 Jeong discloses
An attack detection method, comprising: performing ranging operations between at least two ultra-wideband, UWB, nodes comprised in a communication network, wherein said ranging operations output ranging results (Abstract, “The present invention relates to a safe ranging method capable of blocking access of an improper user by preventing an attack by the improper user in using an ultra-wideband (UWB) to perform ranging”; Abstract, “an electronic device for performing ranging through the UWB in a wireless communication system comprises: a step of transceiving at least one frame for ranging with at least one other electronic device; a step of acquiring a first ranging value and a second ranging value based on the at least one frame; and a step of performing an integrity test based on a result of comparing the first ranging value and the second ranging value”); performing at least one consistency check on the ranging results output by the ranging operations (Page 15 lines 10-13, “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, it is possible to determine whether an attack has occurred by comparing two ranging values calculated by performing two SS-TWRs and performing an integrity check”); detecting at least one attack on an estimated distance between one or more of said UWB nodes using an output of the consistency check (Page 15 lines 10-13, “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, it is possible to determine whether an attack has occurred by comparing two ranging values calculated by performing two SS-TWRs and performing an integrity check”).
Regarding claim 6 Jeong further discloses
The method of claim 1. Jeong discloses wherein the consistency check comprises: performing, by a first UWB node, a first single-sided two-way ranging operation with a second UWB node (Page 15 lines 10-13, “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, it is possible to determine whether an attack has occurred by comparing two ranging values calculated by performing two SS-TWRs and performing an integrity check”); performing, by the second UWB node, a second single-sided two-way ranging operation with the first UWB node (Page 15 lines 10-13, “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, it is possible to determine whether an attack has occurred by comparing two ranging values calculated by performing two SS-TWRs and performing an integrity check”); performing, by the first UWB node and the second UWB node, a double-sided two-way ranging operation (Page 5 lines 40-42, "through single-sided two-way (SS-TWR) ranging and/or double-sided two-way (DS-TWR) ranging. The distance between two ERDEVs can be measured."); concluding that an inconsistency exists if an output of the first single-sided two-way ranging operation does not correspond to an output of the second single-sided two-way ranging operation (Page 15 lines 10-13, “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, it is possible to determine whether an attack has occurred by comparing two ranging values calculated by performing two SS-TWRs and performing an integrity check”), the output of the first single-sided two-way ranging operation does not correspond to an output of the double-sided two-way ranging operation, and/or the output of the second single-sided two-way ranging operation does not correspond to the output of the double-sided two-way ranging operation (Page 5 lines 40-42, "through single-sided two-way (SS-TWR) ranging and/or double-sided two-way (DS-TWR) ranging. The distance between two ERDEVs can be measured"; Abstract, “and a step of performing an integrity test based on a result of comparing the first ranging value and the second ranging value”).
Regarding claim 7 Jeong further discloses
The method of claim 6, further comprising concluding that an attack is carried out on an estimated distance between the first UWB node and the second UWB node if said inconsistency exists (Abstract, “an electronic device for performing ranging through the UWB in a wireless communication system comprises: a step of transceiving at least one frame for ranging with at least one other electronic device; a step of acquiring a first ranging value and a second ranging value based on the at least one frame; and a step of performing an integrity test based on a result of comparing the first ranging value and the second ranging value”).
Regarding claim 8 Jeong further discloses
The method of claim 6, wherein one of the first UWB node and the second UWB node acts as an initiator node, and the other one of the first UWB node and the second UWB node acts as a responder node (Page 5 lines 43-45, "In FIG. 6,the first electronic device 210 may be referred to as an initiator device, and the second electronic device 220 may be referred to as a responder device").
Regarding claim 10 Jeong further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the consistency check comprises: performing, by a first UWB node, at least one first single-sided two-way ranging operation with a second UWB node (Page 15 lines 10-13, “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, it is possible to determine whether an attack has occurred by comparing two ranging values calculated by performing two SS-TWRs and performing an integrity check”); performing, by the first UWB node, at least one second single-sided two-way ranging operation with the second UWB node (Page 15 lines 10-13, “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, it is possible to determine whether an attack has occurred by comparing two ranging values calculated by performing two SS-TWRs and performing an integrity check”); performing, by the first UWB node, a first double-sided two-way ranging operation (Page 5 lines 40-42, "through single-sided two-way (SS-TWR) ranging and/or double-sided two-way (DS-TWR) ranging. The distance between two ERDEVs can be measured"); performing, by the second UWB node, a second double-sided two-way ranging operation (Page 5 lines 40-42, "through single-sided two-way (SS-TWR) ranging and/or double-sided two-way (DS-TWR) ranging. The distance between two ERDEVs can be measured"; Page 10 lines 39-40, "Meanwhile, the electronic device according to an embodiment may continuously acquire a plurality of ranging values including a first ranging value and a second ranging value" where the other device of the pair can get a ‘second’ DS-TWR measurement of a plurality of measurements); concluding that an inconsistency exists if an output of the first double-sided two-way ranging operation does not correspond to an output of the second double-sided two-way ranging operation, and/or an output of the first single-sided two-way ranging operation does not correspond to an output of the second single-sided two-way ranging operation (Page 5 lines 40-42, "through single-sided two-way (SS-TWR) ranging and/or double-sided two-way (DS-TWR) ranging. The distance between two ERDEVs can be measured"; Abstract, “and a step of performing an integrity test based on a result of comparing the first ranging value and the second ranging value”).
Regarding claim 11 Jeong further discloses
The method of claim 10, further comprising concluding that an inconsistency exists if: the output of the first double-sided two-way ranging operation does not correspond to the output of the first single-sided two-way ranging operation (Page 5 lines 40-42, "through single-sided two-way (SS-TWR) ranging and/or double-sided two-way (DS-TWR) ranging. The distance between two ERDEVs can be measured"; Abstract, “and a step of performing an integrity test based on a result of comparing the first ranging value and the second ranging value”; Page 10 lines 39-40, "Meanwhile, the electronic device according to an embodiment may continuously acquire a plurality of ranging values including a first ranging value and a second ranging value"); the output of the first double-sided two-way ranging operation does not correspond to the output of the second single-sided two-way ranging operation (Page 5 lines 40-42, "through single-sided two-way (SS-TWR) ranging and/or double-sided two-way (DS-TWR) ranging. The distance between two ERDEVs can be measured"; Abstract, “and a step of performing an integrity test based on a result of comparing the first ranging value and the second ranging value”; Page 10 lines 39-40, "Meanwhile, the electronic device according to an embodiment may continuously acquire a plurality of ranging values including a first ranging value and a second ranging value"); the output of the second double-sided two-way ranging operation does not correspond to the output of the first single-sided two-way ranging operation (Page 5 lines 40-42, "through single-sided two-way (SS-TWR) ranging and/or double-sided two-way (DS-TWR) ranging. The distance between two ERDEVs can be measured"; Abstract, “and a step of performing an integrity test based on a result of comparing the first ranging value and the second ranging value”; Page 10 lines 39-40, "Meanwhile, the electronic device according to an embodiment may continuously acquire a plurality of ranging values including a first ranging value and a second ranging value"); and/or the output of the second double-sided two-way ranging operation does not correspond to the output of the second single-sided two-way ranging operation (Page 5 lines 40-42, "through single-sided two-way (SS-TWR) ranging and/or double-sided two-way (DS-TWR) ranging. The distance between two ERDEVs can be measured"; Abstract, “and a step of performing an integrity test based on a result of comparing the first ranging value and the second ranging value”; Page 10 lines 39-40, "Meanwhile, the electronic device according to an embodiment may continuously acquire a plurality of ranging values including a first ranging value and a second ranging value").
Regarding claim 12 Jeong further discloses
The method of claim 10, wherein one of the first UWB node and the second UWB node acts as an initiator node, and the other one of the first UWB node and the second UWB node acts as a responder node (Page 5 lines 43-45, "In FIG. 6,the first electronic device 210 may be referred to as an initiator device, and the second electronic device 220 may be referred to as a responder device").
Regarding claim 14 Jeong discloses
An attack detection system, comprising: at least two ultra-wideband, UWB, nodes comprised in a communication network, wherein said UWB nodes are configured to perform ranging operations, and wherein said ranging operations output ranging results (Abstract, “The present invention relates to a safe ranging method capable of blocking access of an improper user by preventing an attack by the improper user in using an ultra-wideband (UWB) to perform ranging”; Abstract, “an electronic device for performing ranging through the UWB in a wireless communication system comprises: a step of transceiving at least one frame for ranging with at least one other electronic device; a step of acquiring a first ranging value and a second ranging value based on the at least one frame; and a step of performing an integrity test based on a result of comparing the first ranging value and the second ranging value”); an attack detection unit configured to perform at least one consistency check on the ranging results output by the ranging operations (Page 23 lines 25-28, "The processor140 according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure obtains a first ranging value and a second ranging value, and compares the first ranging value and the second ranging value based on at least one frame. Based on the result, integrity check or ranging calibration may be performed" where the processor is tantamount to an attack detection unit); wherein the attack detection unit is further configured to detect at least one attack on an estimated distance between one or more of said UWB nodes using an output of the consistency check (Page 15 lines 10-13, “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, it is possible to determine whether an attack has occurred by comparing two ranging values calculated by performing two SS-TWRs and performing an integrity check”).
Regarding claim 17 Jeong further discloses
The system of claim 14. Jeong discloses wherein the consistency check comprises: performing, by a first UWB node, a first single-sided two-way ranging operation with a second UWB node (Page 15 lines 10-13, “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, it is possible to determine whether an attack has occurred by comparing two ranging values calculated by performing two SS-TWRs and performing an integrity check”); performing, by the second UWB node, a second single-sided two-way ranging operation with the first UWB node (Page 15 lines 10-13, “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, it is possible to determine whether an attack has occurred by comparing two ranging values calculated by performing two SS-TWRs and performing an integrity check”); performing, by the first UWB node and the second UWB node, a double-sided two-way ranging operation (Page 5 lines 40-42, "through single-sided two-way (SS-TWR) ranging and/or double-sided two-way (DS-TWR) ranging. The distance between two ERDEVs can be measured."); concluding that an inconsistency exists if an output of the first single-sided two-way ranging operation does not correspond to an output of the second single-sided two-way ranging operation (Page 15 lines 10-13, “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, it is possible to determine whether an attack has occurred by comparing two ranging values calculated by performing two SS-TWRs and performing an integrity check”), the output of the first single-sided two-way ranging operation does not correspond to an output of the double-sided two-way ranging operation, and/or the output of the second single-sided two-way ranging operation does not correspond to the output of the double-sided two-way ranging operation (Page 5 lines 40-42, "through single-sided two-way (SS-TWR) ranging and/or double-sided two-way (DS-TWR) ranging. The distance between two ERDEVs can be measured"; Abstract, “and a step of performing an integrity test based on a result of comparing the first ranging value and the second ranging value”).
Regarding claim 18 Jeong further discloses
The system of claim 14, wherein the consistency check comprises: performing, by a first UWB node, at least one first single-sided two-way ranging operation with a second UWB node (Page 15 lines 10-13, “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, it is possible to determine whether an attack has occurred by comparing two ranging values calculated by performing two SS-TWRs and performing an integrity check”); performing, by the first UWB node, at least one second single-sided two-way ranging operation with the second UWB node (Page 15 lines 10-13, “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, it is possible to determine whether an attack has occurred by comparing two ranging values calculated by performing two SS-TWRs and performing an integrity check”); performing, by the first UWB node, a first double-sided two-way ranging operation (Page 5 lines 40-42, "through single-sided two-way (SS-TWR) ranging and/or double-sided two-way (DS-TWR) ranging. The distance between two ERDEVs can be measured"); performing, by the second UWB node, a second double-sided two-way ranging operation (Page 5 lines 40-42, "through single-sided two-way (SS-TWR) ranging and/or double-sided two-way (DS-TWR) ranging. The distance between two ERDEVs can be measured"; Page 10 lines 39-40, "Meanwhile, the electronic device according to an embodiment may continuously acquire a plurality of ranging values including a first ranging value and a second ranging value" where the other device of the pair can get a ‘second’ DS-TWR measurement of a plurality of measurements); concluding that an inconsistency exists if an output of the first double-sided two-way ranging operation does not correspond to an output of the second double-sided two-way ranging operation, and/or an output of the first single-sided two-way ranging operation does not correspond to an output of the second single-sided two-way ranging operation (Page 5 lines 40-42, "through single-sided two-way (SS-TWR) ranging and/or double-sided two-way (DS-TWR) ranging. The distance between two ERDEVs can be measured"; Abstract, “and a step of performing an integrity test based on a result of comparing the first ranging value and the second ranging value”).
Regarding claim 19 Jeong further discloses
The system of claim 18, further comprising concluding that an inconsistency exists if: the output of the first double-sided two-way ranging operation does not correspond to the output of the first single-sided two-way ranging operation (Page 5 lines 40-42, "through single-sided two-way (SS-TWR) ranging and/or double-sided two-way (DS-TWR) ranging. The distance between two ERDEVs can be measured"; Abstract, “and a step of performing an integrity test based on a result of comparing the first ranging value and the second ranging value”; Page 10 lines 39-40, "Meanwhile, the electronic device according to an embodiment may continuously acquire a plurality of ranging values including a first ranging value and a second ranging value"); the output of the first double-sided two-way ranging operation does not correspond to the output of the second single-sided two-way ranging operation (Page 5 lines 40-42, "through single-sided two-way (SS-TWR) ranging and/or double-sided two-way (DS-TWR) ranging. The distance between two ERDEVs can be measured"; Abstract, “and a step of performing an integrity test based on a result of comparing the first ranging value and the second ranging value”; Page 10 lines 39-40, "Meanwhile, the electronic device according to an embodiment may continuously acquire a plurality of ranging values including a first ranging value and a second ranging value"); the output of the second double-sided two-way ranging operation does not correspond to the output of the first single-sided two-way ranging operation (Page 5 lines 40-42, "through single-sided two-way (SS-TWR) ranging and/or double-sided two-way (DS-TWR) ranging. The distance between two ERDEVs can be measured"; Abstract, “and a step of performing an integrity test based on a result of comparing the first ranging value and the second ranging value”; Page 10 lines 39-40, "Meanwhile, the electronic device according to an embodiment may continuously acquire a plurality of ranging values including a first ranging value and a second ranging value"); and/or the output of the second double-sided two-way ranging operation does not correspond to the output of the second single-sided two-way ranging operation (Page 5 lines 40-42, "through single-sided two-way (SS-TWR) ranging and/or double-sided two-way (DS-TWR) ranging. The distance between two ERDEVs can be measured"; Abstract, “and a step of performing an integrity test based on a result of comparing the first ranging value and the second ranging value”; Page 10 lines 39-40, "Meanwhile, the electronic device according to an embodiment may continuously acquire a plurality of ranging values including a first ranging value and a second ranging value").
Regarding claim 20 Jeong further discloses
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions which, when executed by the attack detection system of claim 14, carry out the method of claim 1 (Page 26 lines 13-14, "The computer, as a device capable of calling a command stored from a storage medium and performing operations according to the disclosed embodiments according to the called command"; Page 23 lines 25-28, "The processor140 according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure obtains a first ranging value and a second ranging value, and compares the first ranging value and the second ranging value based on at least one frame. Based on the result, integrity check or ranging calibration may be performed" where the computer contains the processor which is tantamount to an attack detection unit).
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.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (KR 20210007781 A) in view of Leu (2021) [Leu, P., “Ghost Peak: Practical Distance Reduction Attacks Against HRP UWB Ranging”, <i>arXiv e-prints</i>, Art. no. arXiv:2111.05313, 2021. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2111.05313.].
Regarding claim 2 Jeong discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the consistency check (Page 15 lines 10-13, “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, it is possible to determine whether an attack has occurred by comparing two ranging values calculated by performing two SS-TWRs and performing an integrity check”) comprises: performing, single-sided two-way ranging operations while said UWB nodes are performing one or more further ranging operations with a mobile UWB node (Page 5 lines 40-42, "through single-sided two-way (SS-TWR) ranging and/or double-sided two-way (DS-TWR) ranging. The distance between two ERDEVs can be measured."; Page 3 lines 31-32, "Electronic devices according to embodiments of the present disclosure include a mobile phone, a smart phone, a mobile terminal, a laptop computer, a digital broadcasting terminal");
Jeong discloses comparing an output of the single-sided two-way ranging operations (Page 15 lines 12-14, "it is possible to determine whether an attack has occurred by comparing two ranging values calculated by performing two SS-TWRs and performing an integrity check.") but Jeong does not disclose that the comparison is with said predefined, fixed distance;
Jeong discloses concluding that an inconsistency exists if the output of the single-sided two-way ranging operations does not correspond (Page 15 lines 12-14, "it is possible to determine whether an attack has occurred by comparing two ranging values calculated by performing two SS-TWRs and performing an integrity check.") but Jeong does not disclose that the comparison is with the predefined, fixed distance. Jeong does not disclose a consistency check performing, between UWB nodes located at a predefined, fixed distance of each other.
Leu discloses
A consistency check performing, between UWB nodes located at a predefined, fixed distance of each other, and using a predefined distance (Abstract Left Column lines 3-5, "we demonstrate a practical distance reduction attack against pairs of Apple U1 chips"; Abstract Left Column lines 10-12, "Our attack operates without any knowledge of cryptographic material, results in distance reductions from 12 m (actual distance) to 0 m"; Section 5.3 Countermeasures Right Column lines 8-9, "The receiver must apply advanced statistics on the incoming signal to detect attacks while still performing well" where the UWB transmitters are at a predefined distance of 12m and the reference is checking for attacks).
Jeong and Leu are both considered analogous art as they both concern detecting attacks. Jeong discloses comparing distances to check for an attack but it does not disclose using a predetermined distance for that comparison. Using a predetermined distance would be useful in that one is comparing a measurement to a value that one knows is true. Whereas, one could compare one measurement to another without truly knowing the distance and both measurements can be wrong for multiple different reasons. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong with Leu so that Jeong can perform a distance check with a trusted true value.
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Jeong and Leu discloses
The method of claim 2. Jeong discloses further comprising concluding that an attack is carried out on an estimated distance between said UWB nodes and the mobile UWB node if said inconsistency exists, wherein the further UWB node mobile UWB node has a variable distance to each of the UWB nodes (Page 15 lines 12-14, "it is possible to determine whether an attack has occurred by comparing two ranging values calculated by performing two SS-TWRs and performing an integrity check."; Page 3 lines 31-32, "Electronic devices according to embodiments of the present disclosure include a mobile phone, a smart phone, a mobile terminal, a laptop computer, a digital broadcasting terminal" where the devices can be mobile and will have variable distances) but Jeong does not disclose that the distances are located at the predefined, fixed distance of each other.
Leu discloses
That the distances are located at the predefined, fixed distance of each other. (Abstract Left Column lines 3-5, "we demonstrate a practical distance reduction attack against pairs of Apple U1 chips"; Abstract Left Column lines 10-12, "Our attack operates without any knowledge of cryptographic material, results in distance reductions from 12 m (actual distance) to 0 m"; Section 5.3 Countermeasures Right Column lines 8-9, "The receiver must apply advanced statistics on the incoming signal to detect attacks while still performing well" where the UWB transmitters are at a predefined distance of 12m and the reference is checking for attacks).
Jeong and Leu are both considered analogous art as they both concern detecting attacks. Jeong discloses comparing distances to check for an attack but it does not disclose using a predetermined distance for that comparison. Using a predetermined distance would be useful in that one is comparing a measurement to a value that one knows is true. Whereas, one could compare one measurement to another without truly knowing the distance and both measurements can be wrong for multiple different reasons. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong with Leu so that Jeong can perform a distance check with a trusted true value.
Regarding claim 4 the combination of Jeong and Leu discloses
The method of claim 3. Jeong discloses wherein: the UWB nodes act as responder nodes and the mobile UWB node acts as an initiator node (Page 3 lines 31-32, "Electronic devices according to embodiments of the present disclosure include a mobile phone, a smart phone, a mobile terminal, a laptop computer, a digital broadcasting terminal" where the UWB node can be mobile or at a fixed location; Page 5 lines 43-45, "In FIG. 6,the first electronic device 210 may be referred to as an initiator device, and the second electronic device 220 may be referred to as a responder device" where any one of the devices can be the responder or initiator); or one of the UWB nodes located at a fixed location acts as an initiator node, the other UWB nodes located at the predefined, fixed distance of each other act as responder nodes, and the mobile UWB node acts as a responder node (Page 3 lines 31-32, "Electronic devices according to embodiments of the present disclosure include a mobile phone, a smart phone, a mobile terminal, a laptop computer, a digital broadcasting terminal" where the UWB node can be mobile or at a fixed location; Page 5 lines 43-45, "In FIG. 6,the first electronic device 210 may be referred to as an initiator device, and the second electronic device 220 may be referred to as a responder device" where any one of the devices can be the responder or initiator). Jeong does not disclose wherein: the UWB nodes located at the predefined, fixed distance of each other.
Leu discloses
Wherein: the UWB nodes located at the predefined, fixed distance of each other (Abstract Left Column lines 3-5, "we demonstrate a practical distance reduction attack against pairs of Apple U1 chips"; Abstract Left Column lines 10-12, "Our attack operates without any knowledge of cryptographic material, results in distance reductions from 12 m (actual distance) to 0 m"; Section 5.3 Countermeasures Right Column lines 8-9, "The receiver must apply advanced statistics on the incoming signal to detect attacks while still performing well" where the UWB transmitters are at a predefined distance of 12m and the reference is checking for attacks).
Jeong and Leu are both considered analogous art as they both concern detecting attacks. Jeong discloses comparing distances to check for an attack but it does not disclose using a predetermined distance for that comparison. Using a predetermined distance would be useful in that one is comparing a measurement to a value that one knows is true. Whereas, one could compare one measurement to another without truly knowing the distance and both measurements can be wrong for multiple different reasons. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong with Leu so that Jeong can perform a distance check with a trusted true value.
Regarding claim 16 Jeong discloses
The system of claim 14, wherein the consistency check (Page 15 lines 10-13, “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, it is possible to determine whether an attack has occurred by comparing two ranging values calculated by performing two SS-TWRs and performing an integrity check”) comprises: performing, single-sided two-way ranging operations while said UWB nodes are performing one or more further ranging operations with a mobile UWB node (Page 5 lines 40-42, "through single-sided two-way (SS-TWR) ranging and/or double-sided two-way (DS-TWR) ranging. The distance between two ERDEVs can be measured."; Page 3 lines 31-32, "Electronic devices according to embodiments of the present disclosure include a mobile phone, a smart phone, a mobile terminal, a laptop computer, a digital broadcasting terminal");
Jeong discloses comparing an output of the single-sided two-way ranging operations (Page 15 lines 12-14, "it is possible to determine whether an attack has occurred by comparing two ranging values calculated by performing two SS-TWRs and performing an integrity check.") but Jeong does not disclose that the comparison is with said predefined, fixed distance;
Jeong discloses concluding that an inconsistency exists if the output of the single-sided two-way ranging operations does not correspond (Page 15 lines 12-14, "it is possible to determine whether an attack has occurred by comparing two ranging values calculated by performing two SS-TWRs and performing an integrity check.") but Jeong does not disclose that the comparison is with the predefined, fixed distance. Jeong does not disclose a consistency check performing, between UWB nodes located at a predefined, fixed distance of each other.
Leu discloses
A consistency check performing, between UWB nodes located at a predefined, fixed distance of each other, and using a predefined distance (Abstract Left Column lines 3-5, "we demonstrate a practical distance reduction attack against pairs of Apple U1 chips"; Abstract Left Column lines 10-12, "Our attack operates without any knowledge of cryptographic material, results in distance reductions from 12 m (actual distance) to 0 m"; Section 5.3 Countermeasures Right Column lines 8-9, "The receiver must apply advanced statistics on the incoming signal to detect attacks while still performing well" where the UWB transmitters are at a predefined distance of 12m and the reference is checking for attacks).
Jeong and Leu are both considered analogous art as they both concern detecting attacks. Jeong discloses comparing distances to check for an attack but it does not disclose using a predetermined distance for that comparison. Using a predetermined distance would be useful in that one is comparing a measurement to a value that one knows is true. Whereas, one could compare one measurement to another without truly knowing the distance and both measurements can be wrong for multiple different reasons. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong with Leu so that Jeong can perform a distance check with a trusted true value.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (KR 20210007781 A) in view of Leu (2021) [Leu, P., “Ghost Peak: Practical Distance Reduction Attacks Against HRP UWB Ranging”, <i>arXiv e-prints</i>, Art. no. arXiv:2111.05313, 2021. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2111.05313.] further in view of Elangovan (US 20190241154 A1).
Regarding claim 5 the combination of Jeong and Leu discloses
The method of any one of claim 2. Jeong does not disclose wherein it is concluded that the inconsistency exists after a predefined margin of tolerance has been taken into account.
Elangovan discloses
Wherein it is concluded that the inconsistency exists after a predefined margin of tolerance has been taken into account (Paragraph 0084, "the signal controller 128 determines whether the calculated distances to the mobile device 102 match each other…For example, the first distance corresponds to a range (e.g., a first range) that is determined based on the first distance and a margin-of-error (e.g., a first margin-of-error) that corresponds to determining a distance based upon an RSSI of BLE communication, the second distance corresponds to a range (e.g., a second range) that is determined based on the second distance and a margin-of-error"; Abstract, "Method and apparatus are disclosed for mobile device relay attack detection…The controller also is to prevent entry when the second distance does not match the first distance").
Jeong and Elangovan are both considered analogous art as they both concern detecting attacks. Jeong discloses comparing distances to check for an attack but it does not disclose using a tolerance. Using a tolerance would be useful in accurately determining if a distance difference is actually an attack. For example, normal interference can affect the distance measurement; and if the system labeled normal interference as an attack that would be inaccurate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong with Elangovan by adding the use of tolerances so that the system can differentiate between normal interference and an attack.
Claims 9, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (KR 20210007781 A) in view of Elangovan (US 20190241154 A1).
Regarding claim 9 Jeong discloses
The method of claim 6. Jeong does not disclose wherein it is concluded that the inconsistency exists after a predefined margin of tolerance has been taken into account.
Elangovan discloses
Wherein it is concluded that the inconsistency exists after a predefined margin of tolerance has been taken into account (Paragraph 0084, "the signal controller 128 determines whether the calculated distances to the mobile device 102 match each other…For example, the first distance corresponds to a range (e.g., a first range) that is determined based on the first distance and a margin-of-error (e.g., a first margin-of-error) that corresponds to determining a distance based upon an RSSI of BLE communication, the second distance corresponds to a range (e.g., a second range) that is determined based on the second distance and a margin-of-error"; Abstract, "Method and apparatus are disclosed for mobile device relay attack detection…The controller also is to prevent entry when the second distance does not match the first distance").
Jeong and Elangovan are both considered analogous art as they both concern detecting attacks. Jeong discloses comparing distances to check for an attack but it does not disclose using a tolerance. Using a tolerance would be useful in accurately determining if a distance difference is actually an attack. For example, normal interference can affect the distance measurement; and if the system labeled normal interference as an attack that would be inaccurate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong with Elangovan by adding the use of tolerances so that the system can differentiate between normal interference and an attack.
Regarding claim 13 Jeong discloses
The method of claim 10. Jeong does not disclose wherein it is concluded that the inconsistency exists after a predefined margin of tolerance has been taken into account.
Elangovan discloses
Wherein it is concluded that the inconsistency exists after a predefined margin of tolerance has been taken into account (Paragraph 0084, "the signal controller 128 determines whether the calculated distances to the mobile device 102 match each other…For example, the first distance corresponds to a range (e.g., a first range) that is determined based on the first distance and a margin-of-error (e.g., a first margin-of-error) that corresponds to determining a distance based upon an RSSI of BLE communication, the second distance corresponds to a range (e.g., a second range) that is determined based on the second distance and a margin-of-error"; Abstract, "Method and apparatus are disclosed for mobile device relay attack detection…The controller also is to prevent entry when the second distance does not match the first distance").
Jeong and Elangovan are both considered analogous art as they both concern detecting attacks. Jeong discloses comparing distances to check for an attack but it does not disclose using a tolerance. Using a tolerance would be useful in accurately determining if a distance difference is actually an attack. For example, normal interference can affect the distance measurement; and if the system labeled normal interference as an attack that would be inaccurate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeong with Elangovan by adding the use of tolerances so that the system can differentiate between normal interference and an attack.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D DOZE whose telephone number is (571)272-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:40am - 5:40pm ET.
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, Vladimir Magloire 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.
/PETER DAVON DOZE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648