DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1. Claims 1-21 are currently pending in this application.
Claim 21 is amended as filed on 04/21/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 11-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siglock (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2019/0139379 A1), in view of Gauvreau et al. (CA 2495357A1), hereinafter Gauv, and in further view of Smith et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2024/0106839 A1), hereinafter Smith.
2. With respect to claim 1, Siglock taught an electronic device (0009) comprising: a housing including a removable cover (0008); a radio frequency (claim 6) module to: gather a first and second instantaneous measurement (0068, the voltage values); compute a first and second moving average of the measurements (0068); responsive to a determination that the moving average of the first measurement exceeds a first threshold and the moving average of the second measurement frequency band exceeds a second threshold, set a cover removal variable to indicate that the cover of the housing has been removed (0068, where the moving voltage comparison is the comparison between the different averages and wherein the tampering variable is given with respect to the detection of 0069); and responsive to a determination that the moving average of the first measurement does not exceed the first noise threshold or the moving average of the second measurement does not exceed the second noise threshold, reset the cover removal variable to indicate that the cover of the housing is presently installed (0069, where this is implicitly taught as the claim does not specifically require that it is reset after being triggered. In other words, if the intrusion detection is being constantly monitored, it is being reset to not tampered every time the system makes a check under broadest reasonable interpretation. See also: 0059).
However, Siglock did not explicitly state that the first and second measurements were to measure, at a first time, a first instantaneous RF noise level in a first frequency band and a first instantaneous RF noise level in a second frequency band; measure, at a second time, a second instantaneous RF noise level in the first frequency band and a second instantaneous RF noise level in the second frequency band; wherein the computing the moving averages included computing moving averages of the RF noise levels in the first frequency band and a moving average of the RF noise levels in the second frequency band. On the other hand, Gauv did teach that the first and second measurements were to measure, at a first time, a first instantaneous RF noise level in a first frequency band and a first instantaneous RF noise level in a second frequency band (00791); measure, at a second time, a second instantaneous RF noise level in the first frequency band and a second instantaneous RF noise level in the second frequency band (00801); wherein the computing the moving averages included computing moving averages of the RF noise levels in the first frequency band and a moving average of the RF noise levels in the second frequency band (00381). Both of the systems of Siglock and Gauv are directed towards tamper detection using moving averages and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effectively filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of SIglock, to utilize RF frequency moving averages, as taught by Gauv, in order to utilize effective detection methods that were contemporary to the time of the invention.
However, Siglock did not explicitly state that the noise was ambient noise and the first instantaneous ambient RF noise levels corresponding to the RF noise in an ambient environment outside of the electronic device and second instantaneous ambient RF noise levels corresponding to the RF noise in an ambient environment outside of the electronic device. On the other hand, Smith did teach that the noise was ambient noise and the first instantaneous ambient RF noise levels corresponding to the RF noise in an ambient environment outside of the electronic device and second instantaneous ambient RF noise levels corresponding to the RF noise in an ambient environment outside of the electronic device (0082-0083 & Table US-00001, where the ambient noise is detected). Both of the systems of Siglock and Smith are directed towards tamper detection and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effectively filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of SIglock, to utilize ambient noise detection, as taught by Smith, in order to utilize effective detection methods that were contemporary to the time of the invention
3. As for claim 2, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Gauv taught iteratively measuring instantaneous Ambient RF noise levels in the first frequency band and in the second frequency band at a noise sampling frequency (00801); and iteratively computing the moving average of the Ambient RF noise levels in the first frequency band and the moving average of the Ambient RF noise levels in the second frequency band based on a plurality of instantaneous Ambient RF noise level measurements recently sampled within a noise profiling duration (00381).
4. As for claim 3, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 2. In addition, Gauv taught wherein the noise profiling duration is greater than a period of the noise sampling frequency (00791).
5. As for claim 4, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 2. In addition, Gauv taught iteratively computing the moving average of the Ambient RF noise levels in the first frequency band based on a plurality of instantaneous Ambient RF noise level measurements in the first frequency band recently sampled within a first noise profiling duration; and iteratively computing the moving average of the Ambient RF noise levels in the second frequency band based on a plurality of instantaneous Ambient RF noise level measurements in the second frequency band recently sampled within a second noise profiling duration (00791 & 00801).
6. As for claim 5, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 4. In addition, Gauv taught wherein the first frequency band is a low frequency band and the second frequency band is a high frequency band, and wherein the first noise profiling duration is less than the second noise profiling duration (0004, where the different band types can be seen in 0011-0012).
7. As for claim 6, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 4. In addition, Gauv taught wherein the first frequency band and the second frequency band comprise a subset of Long-Term Evolution frequency bands, 5G New Radio frequency bands, Wi-Fi frequency bands, and/or Bluetooth Low Energy frequency bands (0007, where 2.4GHz ISM is a Bluetooth low energy band).
8. As for claim 8, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Siglock taught wherein a network interface of the device is to transmit a notification to a remote monitoring system responsive to the cover removal variable indicating that the cover of the housing has been removed (0058, where the receiver is remote in accordance with claim 5).
9. As for claim 9, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 8. In addition, Siglock taught wherein transmitting the notification to the remote monitoring system comprises: determining a connectivity status of the network interface; responsive to a determination that the network interface is offline, queuing the notification until network connectivity can be reestablished; and transmitting, by the network interface, the notification to the remote monitoring system (0064, the retransmission).
10. With respect to claim 11, Siglock taught a method comprising: determining that the first moving average and the second moving average both exceed the noise threshold at the electronic device; and setting a detection variable to indicate that tampering has occurred at the electronic device (0069, where this is implicitly taught as the claim does not specifically require that it is reset after being triggered. In other words, if the intrusion detection is being constantly monitored, it is being reset to not tampered every time the system makes a check under broadest reasonable interpretation. See also: 0059)
However, Siglock did not explicitly state iteratively sampling an instantaneous RF noise level in a first frequency band and iteratively sample an instantaneous RF noise level in a second frequency band to acquire a plurality of RF noise samples of the first frequency band and the second frequency band at an electronic device; averaging the plurality of RF noise samples of the first frequency band to determine a first moving average; averaging the plurality of RF noise samples of the second frequency band to determine a second moving average; comparing the first moving average and the second moving average to a noise threshold at the electronic device. On the other hand, Gauv did teach iteratively sampling an instantaneous RF noise level in a first frequency band and iteratively sample an instantaneous RF noise level in a second frequency band to acquire a plurality of RF noise samples of the first frequency band and the second frequency band at an electronic device (00791); averaging the plurality of RF noise samples of the first frequency band to determine a first moving average; averaging the plurality of RF noise samples of the second frequency band to determine a second moving average (00801); comparing the first moving average and the second moving average to a noise threshold at the electronic device (00381). Both of the systems of Siglock and Gauv are directed towards tamper detection using moving averages and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effectively filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of SIglock, to utilize RF frequency moving averages, as taught by Gauv, in order to utilize effective detection methods that were contemporary to the time of the invention.
However, Siglock did not explicitly state that the noise was ambient noise and the ambient RF noise samples indicating RF noise levels in an ambient environment outside the electronic device. On the other hand, Smith did teach that the noise was ambient noise and the ambient RF noise samples indicating RF noise levels in an ambient environment outside the electronic device (0082-0083 & Table US-00001, where the ambient noise is detected).
11. As for claim 12, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 11. In addition, Gauv taught acquiring, over a sampling duration, a plurality of instantaneous RF noise level measurements in the first frequency band at the electronic device; and acquiring, over the sampling duration, a plurality of instantaneous RF noise level measurements in the second frequency band at the electronic device (00791 & 00801).
12. As for claim 13, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 12. In addition, Gauv taught determining that the plurality of Ambient RF noise samples of the first frequency band and the plurality of Ambient RF noise samples of the second frequency band meet a minimum sample size; computing a first moving average based on a subset of the plurality Ambient RF noise samples in the first frequency band recently sampled within a first noise profiling duration; and computing a second moving average based on a subset of the plurality Ambient RF noise samples in the second frequency band recently sampled within a second noise profiling duration (00791 & 00801).
13. As for claim 14, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 13. In addition, Gauv taught wherein the first frequency band is a low frequency band and the second frequency band is a high frequency band, and wherein the first noise profiling duration is less than the second noise profiling duration (00791 & 00801).
14. As for claim 15, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 13. In addition, Siglock taught wherein the first frequency band and the second frequency band comprise a subset of Long-Term Evolution frequency bands, 5G New Radio frequency bands, Wi-Fi frequency bands, and/or Bluetooth Low Energy frequency bands (0007, where 2.4GHz ISM is a Bluetooth low energy band).
15. With respect to claim 16, Siglock taught radio frequency cover removal detector (0008 & claim 6), comprising: a housing including a removable cover (0008); and a controller communicatively connected to a radio frequency module to: set a detection variable to indicate that the cover of the housing has been removed; and transmit a notification responsive to the detection variable indicating that the cover has been removed (0069, where this is implicitly taught as the claim does not specifically require that it is reset after being triggered. In other words, if the intrusion detection is being constantly monitored, it is being reset to not tampered every time the system makes a check under broadest reasonable interpretation. See also: 0059).
However, Siglock did not explicitly state to iteratively measure instantaneous RF noise levels in a first frequency band and in a second frequency band at a noise sampling frequency; iteratively compute a moving average of the RF noise levels in the first frequency band and a moving average of the RF noise levels in the second frequency band based on a plurality of instantaneous RF noise level measurements recently sampled within a noise profiling duration; determine that the moving average of the RF noise levels in the first frequency band and the moving average of the RF noise levels in the second frequency band exceed a noise threshold. On the other hand, Gauv did teach to iteratively measure instantaneous RF noise levels in a first frequency band and in a second frequency band at a noise sampling frequency (00791); iteratively compute a moving average of the RF noise levels in the first frequency band and a moving average of the RF noise levels in the second frequency band based on a plurality of instantaneous RF noise level measurements recently sampled within a noise profiling duration (00801); determine that the moving average of the RF noise levels in the first frequency band and the moving average of the RF noise levels in the second frequency band exceed a noise threshold (00381). Both of the systems of Siglock and Gauv are directed towards tamper detection using moving averages and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effectively filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of SIglock, to utilize RF frequency moving averages, as taught by Gauv, in order to utilize effective detection methods that were contemporary to the time of the invention.
However, Siglock did not explicitly state that the noise was ambient noise and that the ambient RF noise levels were in an ambient environment outside the housing. On the other hand, Smith did teach that the noise was ambient noise and that the ambient RF noise levels were in an ambient environment outside the housing (0082-0083 & Table US-00001, where the ambient noise is detected).
16. As for claim 18, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 17. In addition, Siglock taught wherein the controller is to queue the notification until network connectivity of the electronic device can be established (0064, the retransmission).
Claim(s) 7, 10, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siglock, in view of Gauv, in view of Smith, and in further view of Grobelny et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2021/0049310 A1), hereinafter Grob.
17. As for claim 7, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. However, Siglock did not explicitly state wherein the processor is to lock a hardware controller or a basic input-output system of the device responsive to the cover removal variable indicating that the cover of the housing has been removed. On the other hand, Grob did teach wherein the processor is to lock a hardware controller or a basic input-output system of the device responsive to the cover removal variable indicating that the cover of the housing has been removed (0020 & 0028). Both of the systems of Siglock and Grob are directed towards tamper resistant electronic devices and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Siglock, to utilize system locking, as taught by Grob, as an obvious and contemporary response to an attempted intrusion.
18. As for claim 10, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 8. However, Siglock taught wherein the processor is to reset, lock, disable, or erase a hardware or a software component of the device responsive to an instruction received by the network interface from the remote monitoring system. On the other hand, Grob did teach wherein the processor is to reset, lock, disable, or erase a hardware or a software component of the device responsive to an instruction received by the network interface from the remote monitoring system (0020 & 0028, where this at least teaches the locking and disabling limitations). Both of the systems of Siglock and Grob are directed towards tamper resistant electronic devices and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Siglock, to utilize system locking, as taught by Grob, as an obvious and contemporary response to an attempted intrusion.
19. As for claim 17, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 16. However, Siglock did not explicitly state wherein the processor is to lock a hardware controller or a basic input-output system of the device responsive to the cover removal variable indicating that the cover of the housing has been removed. On the other hand, Grob did teach wherein the processor is to lock a hardware controller or a basic input-output system of the device responsive to the cover removal variable indicating that the cover of the housing has been removed (0020 & 0028). Both of the systems of Siglock and Grob are directed towards tamper resistant electronic devices and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Siglock, to utilize system locking, as taught by Grob, as an obvious and contemporary response to an attempted intrusion.
20. As for claim 19, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 17. However, Siglock taught wherein the processor is to reset, lock, disable, or erase a hardware or a software component of the device responsive to an instruction received by the network interface from the remote monitoring system. On the other hand, Grob did teach wherein the processor is to reset, lock, disable, or erase a hardware or a software component of the device responsive to an instruction received by the network interface from the remote monitoring system (0020 & 0028, where this at least teaches the locking and disabling limitations). Both of the systems of Siglock and Grob are directed towards tamper resistant electronic devices and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Siglock, to utilize system locking, as taught by Grob, as an obvious and contemporary response to an attempted intrusion.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siglock, in view of Gauv, in view of Smith, and in further view of Ramesh et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2023/0091450 A1), hereinafter Ramesh, and in further view of Iwamura (Patent No. US 6,272,535 B1).
21. As for claim 20, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 17. However, Siglock did not explicitly state to identify a serial number of a hardware component of the electronic device; identify a version number of a second component of the electronic device; compare the serial number and the version number to validate a correspondence; and responsive to an invalid correspondence, set the detection variable to indicate that the cover of the housing has been removed. On the other hand, Ramesh did teach to identify a serial number of a hardware component of the electronic device; identify a version number of a second component of the electronic device; compare the serial number and the version number to validate a correspondence; and responsive to an invalid correspondence, set the detection variable to indicate that the cover of the housing has been removed (0032). Both of the systems of Siglock and Ramesh are directed towards tamper/intrusion resistant systems and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Siglock, to utilize comparing serial numbers, as taught by Ramesh, in order to add another layer of tamper detection security.
However, Ramesh did not explicitly state that the second serial number was a software identifier to be compared to the hardware serial number. On the other hand, Iwamura did teach that the second serial number was a software identifier to be compared to the hardware serial number (1:29-39). Both of the systems of Ramesh and Iwamura are directed towards provided electronic security and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Ramesh, to utilize comparing software serial numbers to hardware serial numbers, as this was an alternative way to verify the lack of tampering that was contemporary to the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siglock, in view of Gauv, in view of Smith, and in further view of Reynolds (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2025/0056198 A1).
22. As for claim 21, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 16. However, while Gauv did teach the use of a first and second frequency (00351 & 00361), for a more compact prosecution, it is contended that the combination of Siglock and Gauv did not explicitly state wherein the first frequency band is distinct from the second frequency band. On the other hand, Reynolds did teach wherein the first frequency band is distinct from the second frequency band (0103-0104). Both of the systems of the combination of Siglock & Gauv, and Reynolds contain techniques for tamper detection and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effectively filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of SIglock, to utilize dual-frequency bands, as taught by Gauv, in order to utilize operate across a range of popular frequencies that contemporary to the time of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
23. The applicant argues on page 9 that “the Office alleges that Claim 6 of Siglock teaches a radio frequency module. See Office Action, page 3. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 6 of Siglock simply discloses a transmitter that communicates with a receiver over a radio-frequency connection. Siglock makes no mention of an RF module that is measuring ambient RF noise. Indeed, rather than sensing radio frequencies, Siglock teaches sensing voltages. See Siglock, para. [0058]. That is, the voltage measurements of Siglock would be what is communicated over a RF connection. There is nothing in Siglock to suggest that the transmitter of Siglock is equipped to measure ambient RF noise”.
However, as the applicant stated above, claim 6 of Siglock wasn’t meant to teach a radio frequency module (given by the use of radio frequency communication). Siglock wasn’t utilized to teach an RF module measuring ambient RF noise. Gauv was utilize to teach the aforementioned in, at least, 00791 & 00801. Likewise, 0091 of Siglock further shows the use radio-frequency communication. Even if Siglock’s system is primarily focused on intrusion/tamper detection based on voltage differentials, Siglock and Gauv are both solving the same problem utilizing different techniques (Gauv’s radio frequency detection) and are thus, in the same field of endeavor when combined under 35 U.S.C. 103.
24. The applicant argues on page 10 that “Gauvreau's repeated emphasis on a single frequency is not incidental but fundamental to its disclosed algorithm. The single-frequency teachings of Gauvreau thus would lead one skilled in the art away from the claimed dual-band measurement.” However, Gauvreau does not claim/require a dual-band detection. Gauvreau claims detection on a first band and detection on a second band. A dual-band detection implicitly teaches a connection between the two. A first band and second band does not contain said requirement. Accordingly, the cited portions of Gauvreau (00791, 00801, 00381) and for further emphasis, 00351 & 00361, Gauvreau teaches a system that selects different frequency bands and performs the claimed moving average determinations accordingly.
25. The applicant argues on page 10 that “Smith includes a table that lists several approaches for tamper detection, including: "chassis accelerometers, induction loops or ambient noise/light/temperature sensors." There is no mention of measuring ambient RF noise anywhere in the disclosure of Smith. Instead, it appears that the Office has used hindsight to merely find the word "ambient" in the Smith specification.”
However, 1) Smith’s system, also directed towards tamper/intrusion detection, checks for cover removal by measuring the ambient noise in the environment. While technically this could be noise other than radio frequency noise, the technique of specifically measuring radio frequency noise was previously shown by Gauv (00791 & 00801). All three of the primary references are utilizing systems that are directed towards tamper/intrusion detection of computer systems and thus, the different techniques were obvious (and combinable) under 35 U.S.C. 103. Furthermore, Table 00001 does also mentioned the use of both frequency detection as a technique for the tamper resistant clock, as well as EMI & RF detection as part of the power glitch detection system.
26. The applicant argues on page 11 that the “Applicant further asserts that one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to combine Siglock with Gauvreau or Smith. If the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959). As discussed above, Siglock describes a system that measures voltage. Even if Gauvreau in view of Smith taught measuring ambient RF noise, which Applicant has clearly shown that it does not, one skilled in the art would not be motivated to change the entire system of Siglock to measure ambient RF noise. In doing so, it would change the principle of operation from measuring voltage to measuring ambient RF noise. Therefore, one would not be motivated to alter Siglock in view of Gauvreau and Smith.”
However, the three of the aforementioned references are all directed towards tamper/intrusion detection and thus, it would’ve been obvious for Siglock to look at the teachings of other (contemporary) inventors solving the same and/or similar problems, and perform adaptions that would lead to a more robust and secure system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(a) Brubacher et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2024/0357754 A1), 0040.
(b) Landauer et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2018/0040220 A1), 0033, 0030.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights