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 .
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “localization system” in claims 1-11 and 14. The generic placeholder is “system” and the functional language is “localization” The claims recite the localization system comprising a GNSS receiver (claim 1 line 2), but a GNSS receiver alone appears to be insufficient for performing the following claimed functions:
b) measuring the frequency difference between the frequency of the GNSS signal emitted by a GNSS satellite and the frequency of the GNSS signal received by the antenna,
c) determining the rate of change of the frequency difference by using motion change information relating to the GNSS receiver,
d) checking if the determined rate of change corresponds to a rate of change characteristic of satellite signal reception, and
e) detecting GNSS spoofing if the determined rate of change does not match satellite signal reception.
The specification describes additional structure comprising a computer executing a program stored on a machine-readable data medium (paras. [0049]-[0050]). The structure corresponding to the “localization system” is therefore understood to comprise a GNSS receiver and a computer executing a program stored on a machine-readable data medium.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear what “an average rate of change” and “a variance” refer to. That is, what is the “average rate of change” a rate of change of? What is the “variance” a variance of? The claim previously refers to a “rate of change of the frequency difference” (claim 1 step c) but it is unclear if this is the rate of change referred to in claim 8. The claim does not previously refer to any variances.
The remaining claims are dependent on claim 8 and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 12 recites a computer program for performing a method according to claim 1. A computer program has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03.
Claim 13 recites a machine-readable storage medium on which the computer program according to claim 12 is stored. Para. [0050] of the specification describes the machine-readable storage medium as “a computer-readable data medium”. A computer-readable data medium includes within its scope transitory media, which do not fall within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co.v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Papadimitratos (US 20100117899 A1, cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Papadimitratos (US 20100117899 A1, cited on IDS) teaches a method for detecting GNSS spoofing by way of GNSS receiver of a localization system (abstract “detect at a GNSS receiver whether the received GNSS signals and navigation messages are the product of an attack”), wherein the GNSS receiver comprises an antenna for receiving GNSS signals (inherent), and wherein the GNSS signals are emitted by at least one GNSS satellite and are received by the GNSS receiver in such a way that each GNSS signal is shifted by a frequency difference (para. [0042] “The Doppler Shift Test (DST) relies on the received GNSS signal Doppler shift, with respect to the nominal transmitter frequency (f.sub.t=1.575 GHz). The Doppler shift is produced due to the relative motion of the satellite with respect to the receiver”), the method comprising:
a) receiving a GNSS signal by way of the antenna (abstract “received GNSS signals”, where receiving by an antenna is inherent),
b) measuring the frequency difference between the frequency of the GNSS signal emitted by a GNSS satellite and the frequency of the GNSS signal received by the antenna (para. [0042] “The Doppler Shift Test (DST) relies on the received GNSS signal Doppler shift, with respect to the nominal transmitter frequency (f.sub.t=1.575 GHz)” and “The measured values, M, for Doppler shift are obtained by the GNSS receiver for each received signal and thus for each navigation message. The estimated/predicted values, V, can be calculated easily, for example, by the Doppler equation and the prior knowledge (measurements) of the GNSS receiver. Then, if M differs from V more than a threshold T.sub.1 (for example, few tenths of Hz per second), then the signal and the navigation messages are deemed to originate from an adversary”),
c) determining the rate of change of the frequency difference by using motion change information relating to the GNSS receiver (para. [0045] “the Doppler shift variation can be estimated knowing the velocity of the receiver”; para. [0046] “the rate of change of the frequency shift, Di(t), is computed for each satellite”; para. [0098] “Velocity was varied from 30 km/h to 300 km/h. Assuming the vehicles are in the same area, relative velocity between the satellites and the vehicles is computed, depending on the direction of vehicle's movement each second.”),
d) checking if the determined rate of change corresponds to a rate of change characteristic of satellite signal reception (para. [0046] “the maximum change in rate is within +/- 20HZ around a linear curve fitted to the data”; “the rate of change of the frequency shift, Di(t), is computed for each satellite”; para. [0044] “or estimated Doppler shift from navigation history differs for more than the estimated shift, knowing the rate (r)”), and
e) detecting GNSS spoofing if the determined rate of change does not match satellite signal reception (para. [0044] “deemed adversarial and rejected” and “the receiver can deem the received signal as product of attack”; para. [0049] “a difference that allows detection of the attack”).
Regarding claim 3, Papadimitratos teaches wherein: in step b) the frequency difference is measured taking into account the clock error of the GNSS receiver and/or the motion of the at least one GNSS satellite (para. [0044] “Doppler shift is produced due to the relative motion of the satellite with respect to the receiver” and “satellite velocity”).
Regarding claim 4, Papadimitratos teaches wherein: in step c) the rate of change of the frequency difference is measured based on an accelerated and/or on a direction-changing motion of the GNSS receiver (paras. [0098]-[0099] “Velocity was varied from 30 km/h to 300 km/h”, “randomly chosen velocity in each moment” and “velocity... varied adding or subtracting smaller ranges” imply acceleration).
Regarding claim 5, Papadimitratos teaches wherein: in step c) the rate of change of the frequency difference is measured at a point in time (para. [0046] “50sec of samples, with one sample per second” implies measurement at points in time) and/or averaged over a time interval.
Regarding claim 6, Papadimitratos teaches wherein the time corresponds to a time before or after the motion change of the GNSS receiver (paras. [0098]-[0099] “Velocity was varied from 30 km/h to 300 km/h”, “randomly chosen velocity in each moment” and “the velocity is chosen just in the first moment randomly in some range, and then varied adding or subtracting smaller ranges (we used (-5, 5)km/h and (-10, 10)km/h)” imply a plurality of motion changes such that the time at which the frequency difference is measured will necessarily correspond to a time before or after a motion change) and/or the time interval corresponds to the duration of the motion change of the GNSS receiver.
Regarding claim 7, Papadimitratos teaches wherein:
step a) through step c) are carried out repeatedly several times before step d), at least partially in parallel or successively, and wherein in step a) GNSS signals are received from at least two GNSS satellites (implied by para. [0042] “The measured values, M, for Doppler shift are obtained by the GNSS receiver for each received signal”, where each satellite would require performance of “a) receiving a GNSS signal..., b) measuring the frequency difference..., and c) determining the rate of change of the frequency difference...”).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Papadimitratos teaches wherein: in step d) the GNSS spoofing is detected based on an average rate of change (para. [0046] “linear curve fitted to the data” provides an average rate of change via the slope of the linear fit; also see “the rate of change of the frequency shift, Di(t) is computed for each satellite as: ri = dDi(t)/dt”) and/or on a variance (para. [0046] “variance... can serve to determine an acceptable interval around the predicted values”).
Regarding claim 9, Papadimitratos teaches wherein: in step d) GNSS spoofing is detected if the average rate of change exceeds a predeterminable first reference value (para. [0044] “If...estimated Doppler shift from navigation history differs for more than the estimated shift, knowing the rate (r), the receiver can deem the received signal as product of attack” in view of para. [0046] “the maximum change in rate is within +/- 20HZ around a linear curve fitted to the data” and “the rate of change of the frequency shift, Di(t), is computed for each satellite”).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Papadimitratos teaches a processing means and memory in para. [0007], where the memory meets the claimed “machine-readable storage medium” and a computer program stored thereon is considered inherent.
Regarding claim 14, Papadimitratos teaches a localization system for a vehicle which is configured to perform a method according to one of claim 1 (para. [0002] “GNSS receiver”, para. [0007] processing means and memory).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papadimitratos (US 20100117899 A1) in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Regarding claim 2, Papadimitratos does not teach wherein: at least one step of steps b) through step e) is determined using an algorithm based on artificial intelligence. However Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is well-known to use algorithms based on artificial intelligence. It would have been obvious to apply an artificial intelligence algorithm to at least one step of steps b) through e) in order to provide for learning and adaptation of the spoofing detection over time.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papadimitratos (US 20100117899 A1) in view of [Colli-Vignarelli (US 20210072401 A1) or Dickerson (US 20180196141 A1)].
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Papadimitratos does not teach wherein: in step d) the GNSS spoofing is detected if a variance does not exceed a predeterminable second reference value. Examiner notes that this language has been rejected as indefinite because the claims do not specify what the variance of a variance of.
For purposes of this rejection, Colli-Vignarelli teaches determining GNSS spoofing if a variance does not exceed a reference value (para. [0039] “the step of determining whether said PPS signal is genuine or spoofed may comprise comparing the jitter variance, or a statistical spread of the jitter variance, with a predetermined threshold value”; para. [0112] “if the result is between (1-m) and (1+m) of the threshold, there is a suspicion of spoofing”, where 1+m of the threshold is the reference value the variance does not exceed). Alternatively, Dickerson teaches determining GNSS spoofing if a variance does not exceed a reference value (para. [0047] “If the variance is smaller than or equal to the threshold value, the receiver unit determines that the signals are spoofed”).
It would have been obvious to modify Papadimitratos in view of Colli-Vignarelli or Dickerson in order to provide an additional indication of spoofing. This is a matter of using a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kober (US 20030218568 A1) teaches diminishing spoofing based on Doppler rate (abstract, para. [0136], claims 4 and 16)
Gum (US 20210333411 A1) teaches detecting spoofing based on a sudden change in signal frequency (para. [0097]) or a change in frequency beyond a threshold change in frequency (para. [0127]).
Marmet (US 20200371247 A1) teaches analyzing Doppler shifts to detect spoofing (abstract) by detecting “when the variation speed of the Doppler shift between said acquisitions exceeds a threshold for at least one cross-correlation peak” (para. [0030]).
Stayton (US 20120041620 A1) teaches spoof detection (abstract) based on Doppler frequency change (paras. [0049], [0059]).
EP 3 502 745 A1 (cited on IDS) teaches a method for detecting GNSS spoofing by way of GNSS receiver of a localization system (para. [0074] “GNSS receiver”), wherein the GNSS receiver comprises an antenna for receiving GNSS signals (101, Fig. 2), and wherein the GNSS signals are emitted by at least one GNSS satellite and are received by the GNSS receiver in such a way that each GNSS signal is shifted by a frequency difference (para. [0073] “Doppler shift”), the method comprising:
a) receiving a GNSS signal by way of the antenna (inherent),
b) measuring the frequency difference between the frequency of the GNSS signal emitted by a GNSS satellite and the frequency of the GNSS signal received by the antenna (para. [0074] “Doppler shift”),
c) determining the rate of change of the frequency difference by using motion change information relating to the GNSS receiver (para. [0074] “Doppler shift variations over time”),
d) checking if the determined rate of change corresponds to a rate of change characteristic of satellite signal reception (para. [0074] “when the absolute value of the Doppler shift variations over time... is above a threshold”), and
e) detecting GNSS spoofing if the determined rate of change does not match satellite signal reception (para. [0074] “high probability that the associated signal comes from a spoofing device”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, WILLIAM KELLEHER can be reached at (571)272-7753. 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648