DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Status of Claims
1. The following is a non-final office action in response to the applicant’s submission received 10/23/2023.
2. Claims 1 – 30 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 03/18/2025 is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Foreign Priority/Domestic benefit
There is no claim to foreign and/or domestic priority according to the application data sheet and filing receipt.
Oath/Declaration
1. The applicant’s oath/declaration filed on 11/07/2023 has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Drawings
1. The applicant’s drawings submitted on 10/23/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim interpretation
1. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily) [MPEP 2106 Sec I, C]. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitation that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). [MPEP 2111.01 Sec II]. Thus, the Examiner interprets Applicant’s claims "in view of the specification" and does not “import into a claim limitation that are not part of the claim”.
2. When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations does not have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 16 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Jaroslaw et al. (GB 2600549 A) in view of what is known to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 1, Jaroslaw discloses: An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (last two lines on page 37: the keyfob and anchor are User equipment that performs the method step that follows), comprising:
at least one memory; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to (see page 18, lines 22 – 23: the device possesses a CRM which must be stored in memory and operated on by a processing device which implies a processor being present):
receive a ranging message; (see claim 1 on the 50th page: the preamble of claim 1 deals with two-way ranging process, in the first receiving step after the preamble of claim 1, the packet is interpreted as a ranging packet/message since the device (second transceiver) will use this message/packet to compute the two way ranging (abstract on the first page))
calculate a carrier frequency offset (CFO) based on the ranging message; and (see the calculating step of claim one on the 50th page: a first CFO (carrier frequency offset) is being computed/estimated. See also abstract on first page)
transmit a response message comprising control information to modify a transmission protocol, (See the sending step of claim 1 on the 50th page, the first CFO estimate is sent to the first transceiver, this is considered control information. In the last three lines of claim 1 an attack is being determined based on the CFO and Claims 2 – 5 on the 50th page uses the first CFO along with the second CFO in order to changes its transmission properties (modify transmission protocol). See also abstract on first page).
Jaroslaw discloses every aspect of claim 1, except: “wherein the transmission of the response message is in response to the calculated CFO being greater than or equal to a threshold value.”, as seen in claim 1 of Jaroslaw on the 50th page, the firs transceiver receives the first CFO, but later compares it to a threshold to see if an attack is likely (last three lines of claim 1 (50th page) of Jaroslaw). ¶ 00105/¶ 0141 of this application (submitted on 10/23/2023) is also solving the same problem of detecting spoofer attack, however, the applicant of this application is comparing the CFO to a threshold then relying it back to the first UE. Such difference of comparing the CFO and then relying it back to the first UE in view of the first UE performing the comparison after receiving the CFO would have easily been conceivable to a person having ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jaroslaw’s as discussed above. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to determine the likelihood of an attack [see last three line of claim 1 on the 50th page of Jaroslaw].
Claim 29 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 1.
Claim 16, Jaroslaw: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the transmission of the response message is further in response to the calculated CFO being greater than or equal to the threshold value a second threshold number of times. [see claim 1 on the 50th page of Jaroslaw: if the comparison is being done once as seen in claim 1, the multiple comparison would have been easily configurable to a person having ordinary skill in the art. For motivation see claim 1].
Claim(s) 13, 17 – 20, 26 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaroslaw et al. (GB 2600549 A) in view of So et al. (US 2024/0014851 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Jaroslaw discloses: An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), (last two lines on page 37: the keyfob and anchor are User equipment that performs the method step that follows) comprising:
at least one memory; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, (see page 18, lines 22 – 23: the device possesses a CRM which must be stored in memory and operated on by a processing device which implies a processor being present): is configured to:
transmit a first ranging message; (see claim 1 on the 50th page: the preamble of claim 1 deals with two-way ranging process, in the transmitting step after the preamble of claim 1, the packet is interpreted as a ranging packet/message since the device will use this message/packet to compute the two way ranging; bstract on the first page)
receive a response message comprising control information to modify a transmission protocol after the transmission of the first ranging message; and (see the last receiving step of claim 1 on the 50th page, that is, the first transceiver will receive the first carrier frequency offset estimate (control information). In the last three lines of claim 1 an attack is being determined based on the CFO and Claims 2 – 5 on the 50th page uses the first CFO along with the second CFO in order to changes its transmission properties (modify transmission protocol). See also abstract on first page).
Jaroslaw discloses every aspect of claim 1 except: transmit a second ranging message based on the control information, however such difference can be seen in the secondary reference of So, see figure 18 (1810 and 1820), that is, after a first round of ranging (1810 = Polling and response) a subsequent ranging message 1820 that consists of P and R is performed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jaroslaw’s system in view of So. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to use a ranging technique for measuring the distance between electronic devices using ultra-wide band (UWB) [see ¶0005 of So].
Claim 30 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 20.
Claim 13, Jaroslaw discloses: The apparatus of claim 1 (See rejected claim 1).
Jaroslaw does not disclose: wherein the control information comprises an indicator to modify the transmission protocol, wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: receive a second ranging message comprising second control information, wherein the second control information comprises a set of code indices; and transmit a second response message based on the set of code indices. However, such difference can be seen in the secondary reference of So, see figure 18 (1810 and 1820), that is, after a first round of ranging (1810 = Polling and response (first control information)) a subsequent ranging message 1820 that consists of P and R (second control information) is performed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jaroslaw’s system in view of So. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to use a ranging technique for measuring the distance between electronic devices using ultra-wide band (UWB) [see ¶0005 of So].
Claim 26 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 13.
Claim 17, Jaroslaw further discloses: The apparatus of claim 1 (See rejected claim 1), further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: transmit, via the transceiver, a first ranging initiation message (RIM) to initiate a positioning session, wherein the ranging message comprises a ranging response message (RRM), wherein the reception of the RRM is in response to the transmission of the RIM. [see claim 1 on the 50th page: the preamble of claim 1 deals with two way ranging using two transceiver, the message being set in either direction of both transceiver is for ranging purposes, one can be refer to as the RIM and the other as the RRM], however, to better account for such difference in the specificity of the RIM and RRM, the reference of So is relied on, see ¶ 0439, 0442 and ¶ 0454 - ¶ 0463. For motivation see claim 20.
Claim 18, So further discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the ranging message comprises at least one of a ranging initiation message (RIM) or a ranging response message (RRM). [see ¶ 0439, 0442 and ¶ 0454 - ¶ 0463].
For motivation see claim 20.
Claim 19, So further discloses: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the response message comprises at least one of a ranging control update message (RCUM) or a ranging response message (RRM). [see ¶ 0439, 0442 and ¶ 0454 - ¶ 0463].
For motivation see claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 2 – 12, 14 – 15, 21 – 25, 27 – 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as overcoming all rejection(s)/objection(s) set forth in this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7909. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nawaz M Asad can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
MAHARISHI V. KHIRODHAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463