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 – 20 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1-2, 4, 11-13, and 16 are amended as filed on 11/18/2025.
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).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(a) Lynch et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2022/0070574 A1), 0025, 0039.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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