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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/22/2024 and 03/15/2024 were filed before the mailing date of this office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 26, 42 and 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by US-PGPUB No. 2023/0057179 A1 to Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”)
Regarding claim 26:
Kim discloses:
(New) An apparatus (see Fig. 1, Base Station 110) comprising:
at least one processor (¶57: “a processor associated with a base station,”); and
at least one memory storing instructions (see claim 8, “a memory for storing executable instructions”) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to (see claim 8, “the processor programmed to execute the instructions to:”):
receive at least one signal which is at least associated with a trick tag signal transmitted from a terminal device (¶15: “… collecting local jamming information from individual vehicles at a base station via an LTE-Uu interface. The local jamming information may include a resource block spectrogram showing observed signal strength in time-frequency space, and GPS coordinate traces corresponding to each resource block.”);
determine a number of attackers of a tag detection session based on the at least one signal (¶45: “… the vehicles reporting the jamming information may be uniquely identified and provide time and location information to the base station 110 that may be usable for generating a global jamming map that identifies an identification of a jamming device or devices,”, Note: a number of attackers is immediately deducible by counting the number of locations on the jamming map); and
transmit, to a network device (see Fig. 1, Base Station Server(s) 170), attacker information at least comprising the number of attackers (¶43: “… submit local jamming information that includes details … usable by the base station server(s) 170 as shown in FIG. 1) to build a global jamming map based on collected reports (e.g., local jamming information 230, 235, and 240) received from the vehicles 215 and 225, respectively.”, Note: a number of attackers is immediately deducible by counting the number of locations on the jamming map).
Regarding claim 42:
Kim discloses:
(New) An apparatus (see Fig. 1, Base Station Server(s) 170) comprising:
at least one processor (¶57: “a processor associated with a base station,”); and
at least one memory storing instructions (see claim 8, “a memory for storing executable instructions”) that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to (see claim8, “the processor programmed to execute the instructions to:”):
receive, from a device (see Fig. 1, base station 110), attacker information at least comprising a number of attackers of a tag detection session device (¶43: “… the vehicles 215 and 225 … may [still] connect with the base station 110 using the Uu interface 108 (as shown in FIG. 1), and submit local jamming information that includes details … usable by the base station server(s) 170 as shown in FIG. 1) to build a global jamming map based on collected reports (e.g., local jamming information 230, 235, and 240) received from the vehicles 215 and 225, respectively.”), wherein the number of attackers is determined based on at least one signal received at the device (¶45: “… the vehicles reporting the jamming information may be uniquely identified and provide time and location information to the base station 110 that may be usable for generating a global jamming map that identifies an identification of a jamming device or devices,”, Note: a number of attackers is immediately deducible by counting the number of locations on the jamming map), and the at least one signal is at least associated with a trick tag signal transmitted from a terminal device (¶57: “collecting, via a processor associated with a base station, local jamming information from a first vehicle,”, ¶19: “the vehicle 105 may include an automotive computer 145, and a Vehicle Controls Unit (VCU) 165”).
Regarding claim 45:
Kim discloses:
(New) The apparatus of claim 42, wherein the apparatus is a network device (see Fig. 1, the base station 170 can be considered a network device),
and the device is a further terminal device or a further network device (see Fig. 1, base station 110 is connected to base station 170 through network 125, and thus station 110 is a further network device).
Regarding claim 46:
Claim 46 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 26 in the form of a method implementing the corresponding functionality. Therefore, it is rejected by the same rationale.
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.
Claims 27-32, 39, 41 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, and further in view of WO 2021/258382 A1 to Baracca et al. (hereinafter “Baracca”)
Regarding claim 27:
Kim discloses:
(New) The apparatus of claim 26, wherein the apparatus is further configured to:
obtain a power profile of the at least one signal (Kim, ¶15: “The local jamming information may include a resource block spectrogram showing observed signal strength”), […]
and determine the number of attackers based on the power profile (¶45: “… generating a global jamming map that identifies an identification of [a] jamming … devices,”, Note: a number of attackers is immediately deducible by counting the number of locations on the jamming map).
However, Kim does not explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Baracca:
[…] the power profile comprising power profile parts in a first quiet period (Baracca, see Fig. 3B, first idle period 0 to 0.7 ms), an active period (Baracca, see Fig. 3B, curve 320), and a second quiet period (Baracca, see Fig. 3B, second idle period 3.4 to 6 ms);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of Kim to incorporate the functionality of the method to present received power in a signal graph, as disclosed in Figs. 3A-3B and 4A-4B by Baracca, such modification would enable the system to identify jammers when the power curve deviates from expected receive power curves based on threshold values.
Regarding claim 28:
The combination of Kim and Baracca discloses:
(New) The apparatus of claim 27, wherein the apparatus is further configured to:
in accordance with a determination that the power profile part in the active period is above a first threshold and substantially flat (Baracca, see Fig. 3A, curve 310, and Fig. 4A, curve 410), and the power profile parts in the first and second quiet periods are below a second threshold (Baracca, see Figs. 3A and 4A, the bottom, no transmission curves at/near -100 dBn ), determine the number of attackers to be zero (Baracca, see Figs. 3A and 4A, curves 310 and 410, respectively, show self-interference (no jamming), compared to Figs. 3B and 4D).
The same motivation which is applied to claim 27 with respect to Baracca applies to claim 28.
Regarding claim 29:
Kim discloses the apparatus of claim 26, but does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught by Baracca:
wherein the apparatus is further configured to:
in accordance with a determination that there is a step in the power profile part in the active period (Baracca, see Fig. 4D, the step indicated as “Jamming”), increment a count of the number of attackers (Baracca, see Fig. 4D, the step shows a transition from no jammer to one jammer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of Kim to incorporate the functionality of the method to present received power in a signal graph, as disclosed in Figs. 3A-3B and 4A-4B by Baracca, such modification would enable the system to identify jammers when the power curve deviates from expected receive power curves based on threshold values.
Regarding claim 30:
The combination of Kim and Baracca discloses:
(New) The apparatus of claim 29, wherein the power profile part in the first quiet period is below a second threshold (Baracca, see Fig. 4D, the no transmission curve on the left,below -99 dBm), and the power profile part in the second quiet period is above the second threshold (Baracca, see Fig. 4D, the no transmission curve on the right, above -99 dBm (variation because of AP 110-2 transmission)).
The same motivation which is applied to claim 29 with respect to Baracca applies to claim 30.
Regarding claim 31:
The combination of Kim and Baracca discloses:
The apparatus of claim 29, wherein the power profile in the active period comprises power levels in a plurality of bins of an active period (Baracca, see Fig. 4D, the three portions (bins) of curve 440), and the apparatus is further configured to:
in accordance with a determination that a difference between a first power level of a first bin (Baracca, see Fig. 4, the left portion of curve 440 at -89 dBm) and a second power level of a second bin (Baracca, see Fig. 4, the jamming portion of curve 440 at -85 dBm) is larger than a third threshold (Baracca, from Fig. 4D, -85—89=4 dBm), determine that there is the step in the power profile part in the active period (Baracca, Fig. 4D shows there is a step (jamming)), the first bin and the second bin being consecutive bins (Baracca, Fig. 4D shows the portions(bins) are consecutive).
The same motivation which is applied to claim 29 with respect to Baracca applies to claim 31.
Regarding claim 32:
The combination of Kim and Baracca discloses:
The apparatus of claim 29, wherein the attacker information further comprises a size of at least one step in the power profile part in the active period (Baracca, see Fig. 4D, the jamming curve comprises one-step with a size of -1 dBm).
The same motivation which is applied to claim 29 with respect to Baracca applies to claim 32.
Regarding claim 39:
Kim discloses the apparatus of claim 26, but does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught by Baracca:
wherein the at least one signal comprises a plurality of signals, and each of the plurality of the signals is received through a respective one of a plurality of antennas of the apparatus (Baracca, ¶79: “when the first AP 110-1 is equipped with multiple additional receive antennas and in that case both reference receiving powers and actual receiving powers are two set of sequences, a spatial characterization of the interfering signals is also possible and must be implemented.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of Kim to incorporate the functionality of the method to present received power in a signal graph, as disclosed in Figs. 3A-3B and 4A-4B by Baracca, such modification would enable the system to identify jammers when the power curve deviates from expected receive power curves based on threshold values.
Regarding claim 41:
Kim discloses the apparatus of claim 26, but does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught by Baracca:
wherein the apparatus is a further terminal device or a further network device (Baracca, ¶57: “… the first AP 110-1 can be equipped with a further antenna or a further antenna array used for reception on the same band/channel.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of Kim to incorporate the functionality of the method to present received power in a signal graph, as disclosed in Figs. 3A-3B and 4A-4B by Baracca, such modification would enable the system to identify jammers when the power curve deviates from expected receive power curves based on threshold values.
Regarding claim 43:
Kim discloses the apparatus of claim 42, but does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught by Baracca:
wherein the attacker information further comprises a size of at least one step in a power profile part in an active period (Baracca, see Fig. 4D, the jamming curve comprises one-step with a size of -1 dBm), and the power profile part is a part of a power profile of the at least one signal (Baracca, see Fig. 4D, the jamming signal is part of the curve 440 (the receiving power at the AP 110-1)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of Kim to incorporate the functionality of the method to present received power in a signal graph, as disclosed in Figs. 3A-3B and 4A-4B by Baracca, such modification would enable the system to identify jammers when the power curve deviates from expected receive power curves based on threshold values.
Claims 40 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, and further in view of US-PGPUB No. 2021/0360530 A1 to Shahidi et al. (hereinafter “Shahidi”)
Regarding claim 40:
Kim discloses the apparatus of claim 26, but does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught by Shahidi:
wherein the apparatus is further configured to:
receive, from the network device, a configuration indicative of a first quiet period, an active period, and a second quiet period of the trick tag signal (Shahidi, ¶174: “… receiving control signaling indicating a configuration for the device, the configuration indicating one or more of a first active duration, a first inactive duration, a second active duration, a second inactive duration, …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of Kim to incorporate the functionality of the method transmit/receive control signals that comprise configuration of a device indicating active and inactive durations, as disclosed by Shahidi, such modification would enable the system to hop to quiet frequencies, adapt, and mask legitimate traffic from smart/reactive jammers, improving signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and reducing retransmissions.
Regarding claim 44:
Kim discloses the apparatus of claim 42, but does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught by Shahidi:
wherein the apparatus is further configured to:
Transmit (Shahidi, ¶77: “… control signals… may be transmitted by a base station 105 multiple times in different directions.”), to the device, a configuration indicative of a first quiet period, an active period, and a second quiet period of the trick tag signal (Shahidi, ¶174: “… control signaling indicating a configuration for the device, the configuration indicating one or more of a first active duration, a first inactive duration, a second active duration, a second inactive duration, …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of Kim to incorporate the functionality of the method transmit/receive control signals that comprise configuration of a device indicating active and inactive durations, as disclosed by Shahidi, such modification would enable the system to hop to quiet frequencies, adapt, and mask legitimate traffic from smart/reactive jammers, improving signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and reducing retransmissions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33 and 36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected independent base claim 26, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The dependent claims 34-35 and 37-38 which further limit claims 33 and 36, respectively, are also objected based on their dependency.
The following is the Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claim 33, Kim fails to disclose: “obtain a channel profile of the at least one signal, the channel profile at least comprising channel profile parts in a plurality of bins of an active period; determine sparsity metrics for the plurality of bins based on the channel profile parts; and determine the number of attackers based on the sparsity metrics.”.
Claims 34-35 are identified as allowable subject matters based on their dependency on claim 33.
With respect to claim 36, Kim fails to disclose: “obtain a power profile of the at least one signal, the power profile comprising power profile parts in a first quiet period, an active period, and a second quiet period; obtain a channel profile of the at least one signal, the channel profile at least comprising channel profile parts in a plurality of bins of the active period; and determine the number of attackers based on the power profile and the channel profile.”.
Claims 37-38 are identified as allowable subject matters based on their dependency on claim 36.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Correnti et al. (US 2019/0199756 A1)- discloses methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on a storage device, for securing a network associated with a property in response to the detection of a hacking drone within a vicinity of the property.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHIAS HABTEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1916. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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 R. Korzuch can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/MATTHIAS HABTEGEORGIS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2491