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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3 October 2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 57 recites “means for obtaining” (in line 2) coupled with functional language neither reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function nor is it preceded by a structural modifier. The corresponding structure can be found on figure 3A, item 342 and ¶¶75, 88, and 134-135.
Claim 57 recites “means for determining” (in line 5) coupled with functional language neither reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function nor is it preceded by a structural modifier. The corresponding structure can be found on figure 3A, item 332 and ¶¶74, 134, and 136.
Claim 57 recites “means for determining” (in line 6) coupled with functional language neither reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function nor is it preceded by a structural modifier. The corresponding structure can be found on figure 3A, item 332 and ¶¶74, 134, and 137.
Claim 58 recites “means for determining” (in line 2) coupled with functional language neither reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function nor is it preceded by a structural modifier. The corresponding structure can be found on figure 3A, item 332 and ¶¶74 and 141-142.
Claim 58 recites “means for sending” (in line 4) coupled with functional language neither reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function nor is it preceded by a structural modifier. The corresponding structure can be found on figure 3A, item 310 and ¶¶68-69, 141, and 143.
Claim 58 recites “means for receiving” (in line 5) coupled with functional language neither reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function nor is it preceded by a structural modifier. The corresponding structure can be found on figure 3A, item 310 and ¶¶68-69, 141, and 144.
Claim 59 recites “means for obtaining” (in line 2) coupled with functional language neither reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function nor is it preceded by a structural modifier. The corresponding structure can be found on figure 3C, items 390, 396, and 394 and ¶¶71, 74-75, and 148-149.
Claim 59 recites “means for receiving” (in line 5) coupled with functional language neither reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function nor is it preceded by a structural modifier. The corresponding structure can be found on figure 3C, item 390 and ¶¶71, 148, and 150.
Claim 59 recites “means for determining” (in line 7) coupled with functional language neither reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function nor is it preceded by a structural modifier. The corresponding structure can be found on figure 3C, items 396 and 394 and ¶¶74-75, 148, and 151.
Claim 59 recites “means for sending” (in line 10) coupled with functional language neither reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function nor is it preceded by a structural modifier. The corresponding structure can be found on figure 3C, item 390 and ¶¶71, 148, and 152.
Claim 60 recites “means for obtaining” (in line 2) coupled with functional language neither reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function nor is it preceded by a structural modifier. The corresponding structure can be found on figure 3C, items 390, 396, and 394 and ¶¶71, 74-75, and 155-156.
Claim 60 recites “means for receiving” (in line 5) coupled with functional language neither reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function nor is it preceded by a structural modifier. The corresponding structure can be found on figure 3C, item 390 and ¶¶71, 155, and 157.
Claim 60 recites “means for determining” (in line 7) coupled with functional language neither reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function nor is it preceded by a structural modifier. The corresponding structure can be found on figure 3C, items 396 and 394 and ¶¶74-75, 155, and 158.
Claim 60 recites “means for determining” (in line 9) coupled with functional language neither reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function nor is it preceded by a structural modifier. The corresponding structure can be found on figure 3C, items 396 and 394 and ¶¶74-75, 155, and 159.
Claim 60 recites “means for sending” (in line 12) coupled with functional language neither reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function nor is it preceded by a structural modifier. The corresponding structure can be found on figure 3C, item 390 and ¶¶71, 155, and 160.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 29-37, 57, and 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jaeckle US 2015/0116147 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Jaeckle”). Note Jaeckle was cited by the applicant in the IDS received 3 October 2023.
As to claim 1, Jaeckle teaches a method of wireless communication, performed by a user equipment (UE) (¶¶4 and 28; figure 3), the method comprising:
obtaining a set of one or more beam profiles, wherein each beam profile in the set of one or more beam profiles comprises the beam profile of a legitimate positioning reference signal (PRS) beam (¶¶1, 5, and 31; figure 3: calculate expected angle of arrival each satellite’s signal (i.e. profile) for determining positioning/location information (i.e. PRS) the satellite signals necessarily being directional (i.e. beams));
determining a beam profile of a received PRS beam (¶29; figure 3: steps 31-34 receive signal, perform calculations, and determine azimuth and elevation of signal source (i.e. profile)); and
determining a legitimacy of the received PRS beam based on a comparison of the beam profile of the received PRS beam to the set of one or more beam profiles from legitimate PRS beams (¶¶30 and 32: compare calculated expected angle with the measured angle to determine if the received signal is from a legitimate satellite).
As to claim 2, Jaeckle teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising using the received PRS beam if it is determined to be legitimate and not using the received PRS beam if it is not determined to be legitimate (¶¶11 and 32; figure 3).
As to claim 3, Jaeckle teaches the method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the set of one or more beam profiles comprises receiving the set of one or more beam profiles from a network entity (¶¶18 and 31).
As to claim 4, Jaeckle teaches the method of claim 3, wherein receiving the set of one or more beam profiles from the network entity comprises receiving the set of one or more beam profiles from a location server or a base station (¶¶18 and 31).
As to claim 5, Jaeckle teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the beam profile of the received PRS beam comprises measuring the received PRS beam to calculating the beam profile of the received PRS beam based on a measurement of the received PRS beam (¶29; figure 3).
As to claim 6, Jaeckle teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the legitimacy of the received PRS beam comprises determining that the received PRS beam is legitimate if the beam profile of the received PRS beam matches a beam profile from the set of one or more beam profiles and determining that the received PRS beam is not legitimate if the beam profile of the received PRS beam does not match a beam profile from the set of one or more beam profiles (¶¶29-30 and 32; figure 3).
As to claim 7, Jaeckle teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the beam profile comprises determining a beam width, a beam angle, a beam elevation, a beam azimuth, a beam power, a number and size of beam sidelobes, or combinations thereof (¶29; figure 3).
As to claim 8, Jaeckle teaches the method of claim 7, wherein determining the legitimacy of the received PRS beam based on a comparison of the beam profile to beam profiles from legitimate PRS beams comprises determining the legitimacy of the received PRS beam based on a comparison of the beam width, the beam angle, the beam elevation, the beam azimuth, the beam power, or the number and size of beam sidelobes of the received PRS beam and the legitimate PRS beams (¶¶29-30 and 32; figure 3).
As to claim 9, Jaeckle teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising issuing a spoof detection report identifying the received PRS beam as being spoofed and comprising a PRS ID of the received PRS beam, a direction from which the received PRS beam was transmitted, or both (¶11; figure 3).
As to claim 29, Jaeckle teaches a user equipment (UE) (¶¶4, 24-25, and 28; figures 1-3), comprising:
a memory (¶25; figure 2);
at least one transceiver (¶¶24-25; figure 2); and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory and the at least one transceiver, the at least one processor (¶25; figure 2) configured to:
obtain a set of one or more beam profiles, wherein each beam profile in the set of one or more beam profiles comprises the beam profile of a legitimate positioning reference signal (PRS) beam (¶¶1, 5, and 31; figure 3: calculate expected angle of arrival each satellite’s signal (i.e. profile) for determining positioning/location information (i.e. PRS) the satellite signals necessarily being directional (i.e. beams));
determine a beam profile of a received PRS beam (¶29; figure 3: steps 31-34 receive signal, perform calculations, and determine azimuth and elevation of signal source (i.e. profile)); and
determine a legitimacy of the received PRS beam based on a comparison of the beam profile of the received PRS beam to the set of one or more beam profiles from legitimate PRS beams (¶¶30 and 32: compare calculated expected angle with the measured angle to determine if the received signal is from a legitimate satellite).
As to claim 30, claim 30 is rejected the same way as claim 2.
As to claim 31, claim 31 is rejected the same way as claim 3.
As to claim 32, claim 32 is rejected the same way as claim 4.
As to claim 33, claim 33 is rejected the same way as claim 5.
As to claim 34, claim 34 is rejected the same way as claim 6.
As to claim 35, claim 35 is rejected the same way as claim 7.
As to claim 36, claim 36 is rejected the same way as claim 8.
As to claim 37, claim 37 is rejected the same way as claim 9.
As to claim 57, Jaeckle teaches a user equipment (UE) (¶¶4, 24-25, and 28; figures 1-3), comprising:
means for obtaining a set of one or more beam profiles, wherein each beam profile in the set of one or more beam profiles comprises the beam profile of a legitimate positioning reference signal (PRS) beam (¶¶1, 5, 24-25, and 31; figures 2-3: calculate expected angle of arrival each satellite’s signal (i.e. profile) for determining positioning/location information (i.e. PRS) the satellite signals necessarily being directional (i.e. beams));
means for determining a beam profile of a received PRS beam (¶24-25 and 29; figures 2-3: steps 31-34 receive signal, perform calculations, and determine azimuth and elevation of signal source (i.e. profile)); and
means for determining a legitimacy of the received PRS beam based on a comparison of the beam profile of the received PRS beam to the set of one or more beam profiles from legitimate PRS beams (¶¶24-25, 30, and 32; figure 2: compare calculated expected angle with the measured angle to determine if the received signal is from a legitimate satellite).
As to claim 61, Jaeckle teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a user equipment (UE), cause the UE to (¶¶4, 24-25, and 28; figures 1-3):
obtain a set of one or more beam profiles, wherein each beam profile in the set of one or more beam profiles comprises the beam profile of a legitimate positioning reference signal (PRS) beam (¶¶1, 5, 24-25, and 31; figures 2-3: calculate expected angle of arrival each satellite’s signal (i.e. profile) for determining positioning/location information (i.e. PRS) the satellite signals necessarily being directional (i.e. beams));
determine a beam profile of a received PRS beam (¶24-25 and 29; figures 2-3: steps 31-34 receive signal, perform calculations, and determine azimuth and elevation of signal source (i.e. profile)); and
determine a legitimacy of the received PRS beam based on a comparison of the beam profile of the received PRS beam to the set of one or more beam profiles from legitimate PRS beams (¶¶24-25, 30, and 32; figure 2: compare calculated expected angle with the measured angle to determine if the received signal is from a legitimate satellite).
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) 10-28, 38-56, 58-58-60, and 62-64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaeckle in view of Zangvil et al. US 2021/0041572 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Zangvil”). Note: Zangvil was cited by the applicant in the IDS received 3 October 2023.
As to claim 10, Jaeckle teaches a method of wireless communication, performed by a user equipment (UE) (¶¶4 and 28; figure 3), the method comprising:
determining a beam profile of a received positioning reference signal (PRS) beam (¶¶1, 5, 29; figure 3: steps 31-34 receive signal, perform calculations, and determine azimuth and elevation of signal source (i.e. profile) for determining positioning/location information (i.e. PRS) the satellite signals necessarily being directional (i.e. beams)).
Although Jaeckle teaches “A method…(PRS) beam,” Jaeckle does not explicitly disclose “sending…not legitimate”.
However, Zangvil teaches sending the beam profile to a network entity (¶¶18, 28, and 37; figures 1-2: transmit profile data (SNR, location data, etc.) of received GNSS signals to processing circuitry 120 via network 110); and
receiving, from the network entity, an indication that the PRS beam is legitimate or not legitimate (¶¶24, 30, and 34; figures 1-2: receive spoofing notification from processing circuitry 120 via network 110 and transmission module 160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Jaeckle by including “sending…not legitimate” as taught by Zangvil because it provides Jaeckle’s method with the enhanced capability of offloading processing from the receiving to a network device thereby reducing complexity and cost at the receiver (Zangvil, ¶¶3-7).
As to claim 11, Jaeckle in view of Zangvil teaches the method of claim 10. Jaeckle further teaches further comprising using the PRS beam if it is legitimate and not using the PRS beam if it is not legitimate (¶¶11 and 32; figure 3).
As to claim 12, Jaeckle in view of Zangvil teaches the method of claim 10. Jaeckle further teaches wherein determining the beam profile comprises determining a beam width, a beam angle, a beam elevation, a beam azimuth, a beam power, a number and size of beam sidelobes, or combinations thereof (¶29; figure 3).
As to claim 13, Jaeckle in view of Zangvil teaches the method of claim 10.
Zangvil further teaches wherein sending the beam profile to the network entity comprises sending the beam profile to a location server or a base station (¶¶17, 27-28, 30, 35; figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Jaeckle in view of Zangvil by including “wherein sending the beam profile to the network entity comprises sending the beam profile to a location server or a base station” as further taught by Zangvil for the same rationale as set forth in claim 10 (Zangvil, ¶¶3-7).
As to claim 14, Jaeckle in view of Zangvil teaches the method of claim 10.
Zangvil further teaches further comprising issuing a spoof detection report identifying the received PRS beam as being spoofed and comprising a PRS ID of the received PRS beam, a direction from which the received PRS beam was transmitted, or both (¶¶24, 30, and 34; figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Jaeckle in view of Zangvil by including “further comprising issuing…or both” as further taught by Zangvil for the same rationale as set forth in claim 10 (Zangvil, ¶¶3-7).
As to claim 15, Jaeckle teaches a method of wireless communication, the method comprising:
obtaining a set of one or more beam profiles, wherein each beam profile in the set of one or more beam profiles comprises the beam profile of a legitimate positioning reference signal (PRS) beam (¶¶1, 5, and 31; figure 3: calculate expected angle of arrival each satellite’s signal (i.e. profile) for determining positioning/location information (i.e. PRS) the satellite signals necessarily being directional (i.e. beams));
determining a legitimacy of the first PRS beam based on a comparison of the beam profile of the first PRS beam to the set of one or more beam profiles from legitimate PRS beams (¶¶30 and 32: compare calculated expected angle with the measured angle to determine if the received signal is from a legitimate satellite).
Although Jaeckle teaches “A method of wireless communication, the method comprising: obtaining…(PRS) beam; determining a…legitimate PRS beams,” Jaeckle does not explicitly disclose “performed by a network entity,” “receiving, from a…by the UE,” and “sending, to the UE…PRS beam”.
However, Zangvil teaches a method of wireless communication, performed by a network entity (¶¶21 and 37; figures 1-2), the method comprising:
receiving, from a first user equipment (UE), a beam profile of a first PRS beam that was received by the UE (¶¶18, 22-23, 28, and 37; figures 1-2: receive profile data (SNR, location data, etc.) of received GNSS signals from receiver 140 via network 110);
determining a legitimacy of the first PRS beam based on a comparison of the beam profile of the first PRS beam to the set of one or more beam profiles from legitimate PRS beams (¶¶29-31 and 41; figures 1-2: compare received characteristics with expected characteristics to determine the presence of a spoofed signal); and
sending, to the UE, an indication of the legitimacy of the first PRS beam (¶¶22-24, 30, and 34; figures 1-2: send spoofing notification to receiver 140 via network 110 and transmission module 160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Jaeckle by including “performed by a network entity,” “receiving, from a…by the UE,” and “sending, to the UE…PRS beam” as taught by Zangvil because it provides Jaeckle’s method with the enhanced capability of offloading processing from the receiving to a network device thereby reducing complexity and cost at the receiver (Zangvil, ¶¶3-7).
As to claim 16, Jaeckle in view of Zangvil teaches the method of claim 15. Jaeckle further teaches wherein obtaining the set of one or more beam profiles comprises obtaining one or more beam profiles from one or more transmission / reception points (TRPs) (¶¶18 and 31).
As to claim 17, Jaeckle in view of Zangvil teaches the method of claim 15. Jaeckle further teaches wherein determining the legitimacy of the first PRS beam based on the comparison of the beam profile of the first PRS beam comprises determining the legitimacy of the first PRS beam based on a comparison of a beam width, a beam angle, a beam elevation, a beam azimuth, a beam power, a number and size of beam sidelobes, or combinations thereof (¶29; figure 3).
As to claim 18, Jaeckle in view of Zangvil teaches the method of claim 15.
Zangvil further teaches wherein sending the indication of the legitimacy of the first PRS beam comprises sending an indication that the first PRS beam is legitimate (¶¶24, 30, and 34; figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Jaeckle in view of Zangvil by including “wherein sending the indication of the legitimacy of the first PRS beam comprises sending an indication that the first PRS beam is legitimate” as further taught by Zangvil for the same rationale as set forth in claim 15 (Zangvil, ¶¶3-7).
As to claim 19, Jaeckle in view of Zangvil teaches the method of claim 15.
Zangvil further teaches wherein sending the indication of the legitimacy of the first PRS beam comprises sending an indication that the first PRS beam is not legitimate (¶¶24, 30, and 34; figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Jaeckle in view of Zangvil by including “wherein sending the indication of the legitimacy of the first PRS beam comprises sending an indication that the first PRS beam is not legitimate” as further taught by Zangvil for the same rationale as set forth in claim 15 (Zangvil, ¶¶3-7).
As to claim 20, Jaeckle in view of Zangvil teaches the method of claim 15.
Zangvil further teaches wherein the network entity comprises a location server or a base station (¶¶17, 27-28, 30, 35; figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Jaeckle in view of Zangvil by including “wherein the network entity comprises a location server or a base station” as further taught by Zangvil for the same rationale as set forth in claim 15 (Zangvil, ¶¶3-7).
As to claim 21, Jaeckle in view of Zangvil teaches the method of claim 15.
Zangvil further teaches further comprising issuing a spoof detection report identifying the first PRS beam as being spoofed and comprising a PRS ID of the first PRS beam, a location from which the first PRS beam was transmitted, or both (¶¶24, 30, and 34; figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Jaeckle in view of Zangvil by including “further comprising issuing a spoof detection report identifying the first PRS beam as being spoofed and comprising a PRS ID of the first PRS beam, a location from which the first PRS beam was transmitted, or both” as further taught by Zangvil for the same rationale as set forth in claim 15 (Zangvil, ¶¶3-7).
As to claim 22, Jaeckle teaches a method of wireless communication, the method comprising:
obtaining a set of one or more beam profiles, wherein each beam profile in the set of one or more beam profiles comprises the beam profile of a legitimate positioning reference signal (PRS) beam (¶¶1, 5, and 31; figure 3: calculate expected angle of arrival each satellite’s signal (i.e. profile) for determining positioning/location information (i.e. PRS) the satellite signals necessarily being directional (i.e. beams));
determining a legitimacy of the first PRS beam based on a comparison of the beam profile of the first PRS beam to the set of one or more beam profiles from legitimate PRS beams (¶¶30 and 32: compare calculated expected angle with the measured angle to determine if the received signal is from a legitimate satellite).
Although Jaeckle teaches “A method of wireless communication, the method comprising: obtaining…(PRS) beam; determining a…legitimate PRS beams,” Jaeckle does not explicitly disclose “performed by a network entity,” “receiving, from a…first PRS beam,” and “sending, to the UE…PRS beam”.
However, Zangvil teaches a method of wireless communication, performed by a network entity (¶¶21 and 37; figures 1-2), the method comprising:
receiving, from a first user equipment (UE), a measurement of a first PRS beam that was received by the UE (¶¶18, 22-23, 28, and 37; figures 1-2: receive profile data (SNR, location data, etc.) of received GNSS signals from receiver 140 via network 110);
determining a beam profile of the first PRS beam based on the measurement of the first PRS beam (¶¶29 and 38; figures 1-2: determine and analyze characteristics (profile) of the received GNSS signals (directional satellite beams for position/location determination));
determining a legitimacy of the first PRS beam based on a comparison of the beam profile of the first PRS beam to the set of one or more beam profiles from legitimate PRS beams (¶¶29-31 and 41; figures 1-2: compare received characteristics with expected characteristics to determine the presence of a spoofed signal); and
sending, to the UE, an indication of the legitimacy of the first PRS beam (¶¶22-24, 30, and 34; figures 1-2: send spoofing notification to receiver 140 via network 110 and transmission module 160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Jaeckle by including “performed by a network entity,” “receiving, from a…first PRS beam,” and “sending, to the UE…PRS beam” as taught by Zangvil because it provides Jaeckle’s method with the enhanced capability of offloading processing from the receiving to a network device thereby reducing complexity and cost at the receiver (Zangvil, ¶¶3-7).
As to claim 23, Jaeckle in view of Zangvil teaches the method of claim 22. Jaeckle further teaches wherein obtaining the set of one or more beam profiles comprises obtaining one or more beam profiles from one or more transmission / reception points (TRPs) (¶¶18 and 31).
As to claim 24, Jaeckle in view of Zangvil teaches the method of claim 22. Jaeckle further teaches wherein determining the legitimacy of the first PRS beam based on the comparison of the beam profile of the first PRS beam comprises determining the legitimacy of the first PRS beam based on a comparison of a beam width, a beam angle, a beam elevation, a beam azimuth, a beam power, a number and size of beam sidelobes, or combinations thereof (¶29; figure 3).
As to claim 25, Jaeckle in view of Zangvil teaches the method of claim 22.
Zangvil further teaches wherein sending the indication of the legitimacy of the first PRS beam comprises sending an indication that the first PRS beam is legitimate (¶¶24, 30, and 34; figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Jaeckle in view of Zangvil by including “wherein sending the indication of the legitimacy of the first PRS beam comprises sending an indication that the first PRS beam is legitimate” as further taught by Zangvil for the same rationale as set forth in claim 22 (Zangvil, ¶¶3-7).
As to claim 26, Jaeckle in view of Zangvil teaches the method of claim 22.
Zangvil further teaches wherein sending the indication of the legitimacy of the first PRS beam comprises sending an indication that the first PRS beam is not legitimate (¶¶24, 30, and 34; figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Jaeckle in view of Zangvil by including “wherein sending the indication of the legitimacy of the first PRS beam comprises sending an indication that the first PRS beam is not legitimate” as further taught by Zangvil for the same rationale as set forth in claim 22 (Zangvil, ¶¶3-7).
As to claim 27, Jaeckle in view of Zangvil teaches the method of claim 22.
Zangvil further teaches wherein the network entity comprises a location server or a base station (¶¶17, 27-28, 30, 35; figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Jaeckle in view of Zangvil by including “wherein the network entity comprises a location server or a base station” as further taught by Zangvil for the same rationale as set forth in claim 22 (Zangvil, ¶¶3-7).
As to claim 28, Jaeckle in view of Zangvil teaches the method of claim 22.
Zangvil further teaches further comprising issuing a spoof detection report identifying the first PRS beam as being spoofed and comprising a PRS ID of the first PRS beam, a location from which the first PRS beam was transmitted, or both (¶¶24, 30, and 34; figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Jaeckle in view of Zangvil by including “further comprising issuing a spoof detection report identifying the first PRS beam as being spoofed and comprising a PRS ID of the first PRS beam, a location from which the first PRS beam was transmitted, or both” as further taught by Zangvil for the same rationale as set forth in claim 22 (Zangvil, ¶¶3-7).
As to claim 38, Jaeckle teaches a user equipment (UE) (¶¶4, 24-25, and 28; figures 1-3), comprising:
a memory (¶25; figure 2);
at least one transceiver (¶¶24-25; figure 2); and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory and the at least one transceiver, the at least one processor (¶25; figure 2) configured to:
determine a beam profile of a received positioning reference signal (PRS) beam (¶¶1, 5, 29; figure 3: steps 31-34 receive signal, perform calculations, and determine azimuth and elevation of signal source (i.e. profile) for determining positioning/location information (i.e. PRS) the satellite signals necessarily being directional (i.e. beams)).
Although Jaeckle teaches “A user…(PRS) beam,” Jaeckle does not explicitly disclose “cause the…not legitimate”.
However, Zangvil teaches cause the at least one transceiver to send the beam profile to a network entity (¶¶18, 28, 37, and 43; figures 1-3: transmit profile data (SNR, location data, etc.) of received GNSS signals to processing circuitry 120 via network 110); and
receive, via the at least one transceiver, from the network entity, an indication that the PRS beam is legitimate or not legitimate (¶¶24, 30, 34, and 43; figures 1-3: receive spoofing notification from processing circuitry 120 via network 110 and transmission module 160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Jaeckle by including “cause the…not legitimate” as taught by Zangvil because it provides Jaeckle’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of offloading processing from the receiving to a network device thereby reducing complexity and cost at the receiver (Zangvil, ¶¶3-7).
As to claim 39, claim 39 is rejected the same way as claim 11.
As to claim 40, claim 40 is rejected the same way as claim 12.
As to claim 41, claim 41 is rejected the same way as claim 13.
As to claim 42, claim 42 is rejected the same way as claim 14.
As to claim 43, Jaeckle teaches obtain a set of one or more beam profiles, wherein each beam profile in the set of one or more beam profiles comprises the beam profile of a legitimate positioning reference signal (PRS) beam (¶¶1, 5, and 31; figure 3: calculate expected angle of arrival each satellite’s signal (i.e. profile) for determining positioning/location information (i.e. PRS) the satellite signals necessarily being directional (i.e. beams));
determine a legitimacy of the first PRS beam based on a comparison of the beam profile of the first PRS beam to the set of one or more beam profiles from legitimate PRS beams (¶¶30 and 32: compare calculated expected angle with the measured angle to determine if the received signal is from a legitimate satellite).
Although Jaeckle teaches “obtaining…(PRS) beam; determining a…legitimate PRS beams,” Jaeckle does not explicitly disclose “A network entity…processor configured to,” “receive, via…by the UE,” and “cause the at…PRS beam”.
However, Zangvil teaches a network entity (¶18; figure 1), comprising:
a memory (¶18; figure 1);
at least one transceiver (¶23; figure 1); and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory and the at least one transceiver (¶18; figure 1), the at least one processor configured to:
receive, via the at least one transceiver, from a first user equipment (UE), a beam profile of a first PRS beam that was received by the UE (¶¶18, 22-23, 28, and 37; figures 1-2: receive profile data (SNR, location data, etc.) of received GNSS signals from receiver 140 via network 110);
determine a legitimacy of the first PRS beam based on a comparison of the beam profile of the first PRS beam to the set of one or more beam profiles from legitimate PRS beams (¶¶29-31 and 41; figures 1-2: compare received characteristics with expected characteristics to determine the presence of a spoofed signal); and
cause the at least one transceiver to send, to the UE, an indication of the legitimacy of the first PRS beam (¶¶22-24, 30, and 34; figures 1-2: send spoofing notification to receiver 140 via network 110 and transmission module 160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Jaeckle by including “A network entity…processor configured to,” “receive, via…by the UE,” and “cause the at…PRS beam” as taught by Zangvil because it provides Jaeckle’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of offloading processing from the receiving to a network device thereby reducing complexity and cost at the receiver (Zangvil, ¶¶3-7).
As to claim 44, claim 44 is rejected the same way as claim 16.
As to claim 45, claim 45 is rejected the same way as claim 17.
As to claim 46, claim 46 is rejected the same way as claim 18.
As to claim 47, claim 47 is rejected the same way as claim 19.
As to claim 48, claim 48 is rejected the same way as claim 20.
As to claim 49, claim 49 is rejected the same way as claim 21.
As to claim 50, Jaeckle teaches obtain a set of one or more beam profiles, wherein each beam profile in the set of one or more beam profiles comprises the beam profile of a legitimate positioning reference signal (PRS) beam (¶¶1, 5, and 31; figure 3: calculate expected angle of arrival each satellite’s signal (i.e. profile) for determining positioning/location information (i.e. PRS) the satellite signals necessarily being directional (i.e. beams));
determine a legitimacy of the first PRS beam based on a comparison of the beam profile of the first PRS beam to the set of one or more beam profiles from legitimate PRS beams (¶¶30 and 32: compare calculated expected angle with the measured angle to determine if the received signal is from a legitimate satellite).
Although Jaeckle teaches “obtain…(PRS) beam; determine a…legitimate PRS beams,” Jaeckle does not explicitly disclose “A network entity…processor configured to,” “receive, via the…first PRS beam,” and “cause the…PRS beam”.
However, Zangvil teaches a network entity (¶18; figure 1), comprising:
a memory (¶18; figure 1);
at least one transceiver (¶23; figure 1); and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory and the at least one transceiver (¶18; figure 1), the at least one processor configured to:
receive, via the at least one transceiver, from a first user equipment (UE), a measurement of a first PRS beam that was received by the UE (¶¶18, 22-23, 28, and 37; figures 1-2: receive profile data (SNR, location data, etc.) of received GNSS signals from receiver 140 via network 110);
determine a beam profile of the first PRS beam based on the measurement of the first PRS beam (¶¶29 and 38; figures 1-2: determine and analyze characteristics (profile) of the received GNSS signals (directional satellite beams for position/location determination));
determine a legitimacy of the first PRS beam based on a comparison of the beam profile of the first PRS beam to the set of one or more beam profiles from legitimate PRS beams (¶¶29-31 and 41; figures 1-2: compare received characteristics with expected characteristics to determine the presence of a spoofed signal); and
cause the at least one transceiver to send, to the UE, an indication of the legitimacy of the first PRS beam (¶¶22-24, 30, and 34; figures 1-2: send spoofing notification to receiver 140 via network 110 and transmission module 160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Jaeckle by including “A network entity…processor configured to,” “receive, via the…first PRS beam,” and “cause the…PRS beam” as taught by Zangvil because it provides Jaeckle’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of offloading processing from the receiving to a network device thereby reducing complexity and cost at the receiver (Zangvil, ¶¶3-7).
As to claim 51, claim 51 is rejected the same way as claim 23.
As to claim 52, claim 52 is rejected the same way as claim 24.
As to claim 53, claim 53 is rejected the same way as claim 25.
As to claim 54, claim 54 is rejected the same way as claim 26.
As to claim 55, claim 55 is rejected the same way as claim 27.
As to claim 56, claim 56 is rejected the same way as claim 28.
As to claim 58, Jaeckle teaches a user equipment (UE) (¶¶4, 24-25, and 28; figures 1-3), comprising:
means for determining a beam profile of a received positioning reference signal (PRS) beam (¶¶1, 5, 24-25, and 29; figures 2-3: steps 31-34 receive signal, perform calculations, and determine azimuth and elevation of signal source (i.e. profile) for determining positioning/location information (i.e. PRS) the satellite signals necessarily being directional (i.e. beams)).
Although Jaeckle teaches “A user…(PRS) beam,” Jaeckle does not explicitly disclose “means for sending…not legitimate”.
However, Zangvil teaches means for sending the beam profile to a network entity (¶¶18, 28, 37, and 43; figures 1-3: transmit profile data (SNR, location data, etc.) of received GNSS signals to processing circuitry 120 via network 110); and
means for receiving, via the at least one transceiver, from the network entity, an indication that the PRS beam is legitimate or not legitimate (¶¶24, 30, 34, and 43; figures 1-3: receive spoofing notification from processing circuitry 120 via network 110 and transmission module 160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Jaeckle by including “means for sending…not legitimate” as taught by Zangvil because it provides Jaeckle’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of offloading processing from the receiving to a network device thereby reducing complexity and cost at the receiver (Zangvil, ¶¶3-7).
As to claim 59, Jaeckle teaches means for obtaining a set of one or more beam profiles, wherein each beam profile in the set of one or more beam profiles comprises the beam profile of a legitimate positioning reference signal (PRS) beam (¶¶1, 5, 24-25, and 31; figures 2-3: calculate expected angle of arrival each satellite’s signal (i.e. profile) for determining positioning/location information (i.e. PRS) the satellite signals necessarily being directional (i.e. beams));
means for determining a legitimacy of the first PRS beam based on a comparison of the beam profile of the first PRS beam to the set of one or more beam profiles from legitimate PRS beams (¶¶24-25, 30, and 32; figure 2: compare calculated expected angle with the measured angle to determine if the received signal is from a legitimate satellite).
Although Jaeckle teaches “means for obtaining…(PRS) beam; means for determining a…legitimate PRS beams,” Jaeckle does not explicitly disclose “A network entity comprising: means for receiving…by the UE,” and “means for sending…PRS beam”.
However, Zangvil teaches a network entity (¶18; figure 1), comprising:
means for receiving, from a first user equipment (UE), a beam profile of a first PRS beam that was received by the UE (¶¶18, 22-23, 28, and 37; figures 1-2: receive profile data (SNR, location data, etc.) of received GNSS signals from receiver 140 via network 110);
means for determining a legitimacy of the first PRS beam based on a comparison of the beam profile of the first PRS beam to the set of one or more beam profiles from legitimate PRS beams (¶¶29-31 and 41; figures 1-2: compare received characteristics with expected characteristics to determine the presence of a spoofed signal); and
means for sending, to the UE, an indication of the legitimacy of the first PRS beam (¶¶22-24, 30, and 34; figures 1-2: send spoofing notification to receiver 140 via network 110 and transmission module 160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Jaeckle by including “A network entity comprising: means for receiving…by the UE,” and “means for sending…PRS beam” as taught by Zangvil because it provides Jaeckle’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of offloading processing from the receiving to a network device thereby reducing complexity and cost at the receiver (Zangvil, ¶¶3-7).
As to claim 60, Jaeckle teaches means for obtaining a set of one or more beam profiles, wherein each beam profile in the set of one or more beam profiles comprises the beam profile of a legitimate positioning reference signal (PRS) beam (¶¶1, 5, 24-25, and 31; figures 2-3: calculate expected angle of arrival each satellite’s signal (i.e. profile) for determining positioning/location information (i.e. PRS) the satellite signals necessarily being directional (i.e. beams));
Means for determining a legitimacy of the first PRS beam based on a comparison of the beam profile of the first PRS beam to the set of one or more beam profiles from legitimate PRS beams (¶¶30 and 32: compare calculated expected angle with the measured angle to determine if the received signal is from a legitimate satellite).
Although Jaeckle teaches “means for obtaining…(PRS) beam; means for determining a…legitimate PRS beams,” Jaeckle does not explicitly disclose “A network entity, comprising: means for receiving…first PRS beam” and “means for sending…PRS beam”.
However, Zangvil teaches a network entity (¶18; figure 1), comprising:
means for receiving, from a first user equipment (UE), a measurement of a first PRS beam that was received by the UE (¶¶18, 22-23, 28, and 37; figures 1-2: receive profile data (SNR, location data, etc.) of received GNSS signals from receiver 140 via network 110);
means for determining a beam profile of the first PRS beam based on the measurement of the first PRS beam (¶¶29 and 38; figures 1-2: determine and analyze characteristics (profile) of the received GNSS signals (directional satellite beams for position/location determination));
means for determining a legitimacy of the first PRS beam based on a comparison of the beam profile of the first PRS beam to the set of one or more beam profiles from legitimate PRS beams (¶¶29-31 and 41; figures 1-2: compare received characteristics with expected characteristics to determine the presence of a spoofed signal); and
means for sending, to the UE, an indication of the legitimacy of the first PRS beam (¶¶22-24, 30, and 34; figures 1-2: send spoofing notification to receiver 140 via network 110 and transmission module 160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Jaeckle by including “A network entity, comprising: means for receiving…first PRS beam” and “means for sending…PRS beam” as taught by Zangvil because it provides Jaeckle’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of offloading processing from the receiving to a network device thereby reducing complexity and cost at the receiver (Zangvil, ¶¶3-7).
As to claim 62, Jaeckle teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a UE (¶¶4, 24-25, and 28; figures 1-3), cause the UE to:
determine a beam profile of a received positioning reference signal (PRS) beam (¶¶1, 5, 24-25, and 29; figures 2-3: steps 31-34 receive signal, perform calculations, and determine azimuth and elevation of signal source (i.e. profile) for determining positioning/location information (i.e. PRS) the satellite signals necessarily being directional (i.e. beams)).
Although Jaeckle teaches “A non-transitory…(PRS) beam,” Jaeckle does not explicitly disclose “send the beam…not legitimate”.
However, Zangvil teaches send the beam profile to a network entity (¶¶18, 28, 37, and 43; figures 1-3: transmit profile data (SNR, location data, etc.) of received GNSS signals