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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 03/22/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/22/2024, 09/17/2025 and 11/25/2025 have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS are hereby attached.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 20 recites, “A program product comprising: a processor readable medium having instructions stored thereon, executable by at least one processor”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a processor-readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of processor-readable media, particularly when the specification (see paragraph [0071], it does not limit the processor-readable medium to non-transitory embodiments only). See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.
A claim drawn to such a processor-readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only the statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schipper (US20160377726A1)
Regarding claim 1 Schipper discloses: A system comprising: a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver in a vehicle (Figure 1, element 40), the GNSS receiver operative to receive a plurality of satellite signals from multiple GNSS satellites and produce multiple satellite measurements (Figure 1, element 110); an inertial navigation system (INS) in the vehicle and in operative communication with the GNSS receiver (Figure 1, elements 225-228; Para 0027: “The system 10 includes a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver 110, a satellite-motion-and-receiver-clock-correction module 210, inertial sensors 120, a compute-predicted-range-and-delta-range module 220, delta-range-difference-detection logic 230, a subtractor 225, and a processor 215. The satellite-motion-and-receiver-clock-correction module 210, the compute-predicted-range-and-delta-range module 220, and the delta-range-difference-detection logic 230 include algorithms and memory caches. In one implementation of this embodiment, the satellite-motion-and-receiver-clock-correction module 210, the compute-predicted-range-and-delta-range module 220, and the delta-range-difference-detection logic 230 also include internal processors to execute the algorithms. In another implementation of this embodiment, the algorithms in the satellite-motion-and-receiver-clock-correction module 210, the compute-predicted-range-and-delta-range module 220, and the delta-range-difference-detection logic 230 are executed by one or more processors 215, which are external to the satellite-motion-and-receiver-clock-correction module 210, the compute-predicted-range-and-delta-range module 220, and the delta-range-difference-detection logic 230. The estimated vehicle state 40 is input to the compute-predicted-range-and-delta-range module 220. The estimated vehicle state 40 is the navigation solution calculated by the larger navigation system that includes the system 10.”), the INS including one or more inertial sensors operative to produce inertial measurements for the vehicle (Figure 1, elements 120-122); and at least one processor in operative communication with the GNSS receiver and the INS (Para 0063: “FIG. 7 illustrates an embodiment of a system 12 to detect GNSS spoofing in accordance with the present application. FIG. 8 illustrates an embodiment of a method 800 to detect GNSS spoofing using the system of FIG. 7 in accordance with the present application. The system 12 is configured with the combined components of system 10 of FIG. 1 and system 11 of FIG. 4. System 12 includes a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver 110, a satellite-motion-and-receiver-clock-correction module 210, inertial sensors 120, a compute-predicted-range-and-delta-range module 220, delta-range-difference-detection logic 230, a subtractor 225, a first curve-fit module 211, a second curve-fit module 212, a curve-fit-detection logic 240, and a processor 215. The global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver 110, the satellite-motion-and-receiver-clock-correction module 210, the inertial sensors 120, the compute-predicted-range-and-delta-range module 220, the delta-range-difference-detection logic 230, the subtractor 225, the first curve-fit module 211, the second curve-fit module 212, the curve-fit-detection logic 240, and the processor 215 have structures and functions similar to the structures and functions described above with reference to the systems 10 and 11 in respective FIGS. 1 and 4.”), the at least one processor hosting a navigation filter and a spoof detector module in operative communication with the navigation filter , wherein the spoof detector module includes at least a first spoof detection monitor comprising a delta range monitor (Para 0019: “The embodiments of the system and methods described below are capable of detecting spoofing using a single, fixed antenna attached to a vehicle. In implementations of embodiments described herein, the difference between the GNSS carrier phase observables (i.e., a corrected-delta-carrier-phase range) and inertial-based predicted delta range are determined on an epoch-by-epoch basis using logic processing techniques to detect small changes and unexpected differences that indicate a spoofing occurred in the current epoch. One such implementation is described below with reference to FIGS. 1 and 3. The epoch-by-epoch technique detects spoofs that cause the GNSS receiver to jump in position.”); wherein the at least one processor is operative to process the satellite measurements from the GNSS receiver and the inertial measurements from the inertial sensors in the navigation filter to produce a navigation solution for the vehicle (Para 0027: “The system 10 includes a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver 110, a satellite-motion-and-receiver-clock-correction module 210, inertial sensors 120, a compute-predicted-range-and-delta-range module 220, delta-range-difference-detection logic 230, a subtractor 225, and a processor 215. The satellite-motion-and-receiver-clock-correction module 210, the compute-predicted-range-and-delta-range module 220, and the delta-range-difference-detection logic 230 include algorithms and memory caches. In one implementation of this embodiment, the satellite-motion-and-receiver-clock-correction module 210, the compute-predicted-range-and-delta-range module 220, and the delta-range-difference-detection logic 230 also include internal processors to execute the algorithms. In another implementation of this embodiment, the algorithms in the satellite-motion-and-receiver-clock-correction module 210, the compute-predicted-range-and-delta-range module 220, and the delta-range-difference-detection logic 230 are executed by one or more processors 215, which are external to the satellite-motion-and-receiver-clock-correction module 210, the compute-predicted-range-and-delta-range module 220, and the delta-range-difference-detection logic 230. The estimated vehicle state 40 is input to the compute-predicted-range-and-delta-range module 220. The estimated vehicle state 40 is the navigation solution calculated by the larger navigation system that includes the system 10.” ); wherein the delta range monitor is operative to receive and process the satellite measurements from the GNSS receiver to detect whether there is a spoof event of the satellite signals received by the GNSS receiver (Para 0019: “The embodiments of the system and methods described below are capable of detecting spoofing using a single, fixed antenna attached to a vehicle. In implementations of embodiments described herein, the difference between the GNSS carrier phase observables (i.e., a corrected-delta-carrier-phase range) and inertial-based predicted delta range are determined on an epoch-by-epoch basis using logic processing techniques to detect small changes and unexpected differences that indicate a spoofing occurred in the current epoch. One such implementation is described below with reference to FIGS. 1 and 3. The epoch-by-epoch technique detects spoofs that cause the GNSS receiver to jump in position.”); wherein when a spoof event is detected, GNSS aiding of the INS is disabled and the spoof event is announced (Para 0026: “FIG. 1 illustrates an embodiment of a system 10 to detect GNSS spoofing in accordance with the present application. FIG. 2B shows an exemplary GNSS spoofing attack on a vehicle 50 that houses the system 10 of FIG. 1 to detect GNSS spoofing in accordance with the present application. FIG. 2B differs from FIG. 2A in that the vehicle 51 in FIG. 2A is unprotected from a spoofing attack while the vehicle 50 of FIG. 2B includes a system 10 to protect the vehicle 50. System 10 is configured to detect and prevent a spoofing attach on a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver 110 (FIG. 1) that is communicatively coupled to a GNSS system. The GNSS system includes a plurality of satellites 351, 352, and 353 that are communicatively coupled, via respective wireless links 311-313, to the GNSS receiver 110 in the vehicle 51 shown in FIG. 2B. The system 10 on the vehicle 50 detects a spoofing event and takes remedial action to prevent modified data from the spoofer-electronics-and-logic 305 from being used in the calculation of the position of the vehicle 50. FIG. 3 illustrates an embodiment of a method 300 to detect GNSS spoofing using the system 10 of FIG. 1 in accordance with the present application. If GNSS spoofing is detected method 300 prevents the spoofing attack on the GNSS receiver 110 in the vehicle 51 (FIG. 2B).”).
Regarding claim 7 Schipper discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Schipper further teaches: wherein the vehicle is a crewed aircraft (Para 0002: “The aviation industry and the marine industry desire anti-spoofing capability to protect high-value assets (e.g., aircraft and water-based vehicles) from a spoofing attack. Currently available techniques to detect a spoofing attack require multiple antennas on the vehicle that may also be articulated and move. This is not a desirable solution since it adds significant cost to a GNSS installation.”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Schipper (US20160377726A1) in view of Sharma (US11536850B2).
Regarding claim 6 Schipper discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Schipper does not teach “wherein the one or more inertial sensors comprises an inertial measurement unit (IMU) “.
However, Sharma in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the one or more inertial sensors comprises an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (Para 5: “In some embodiments, the sensor data of the mobile device may include sensor data of at least one of a RAdio Detection And Ranging (RADAR) sensor, a camera, a LIght Detection And Ranging (LIDAR) sensor, a motion sensor, an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), a wheel sensor, or an ultrasonic sensor. In some embodiments, the computer-implemented method may include, upon determining that the GNSS signal is a spoofing signal, determining the location of the mobile device based on the sensor data of the mobile device other than the GNSS signal.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schipper with Sharma to incorporate the feature of: wherein the one or more inertial sensors comprises an inertial measurement unit (IMU). Schipper and Sharma are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose methods for detecting navigation signal spoofing. However, Schipper fails to disclose a feature of a vehicle with an inertial measurement unit (IMU). This feature is disclosed by Sharma. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Schipper with Sharma to incorporate the feature of: wherein the one or more inertial sensors comprises an inertial measurement unit (IMU) as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 8 Schipper discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Schipper does not teach “wherein the vehicle is an uncrewed aircraft “.
However, Sharma in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the vehicle is an uncrewed aircraft (Para 37: “In this example, FIG. 1 illustrates UE 105 as a smartphone device. However, UEs may be any suitable device that includes GNSS capabilities, or may be a device or machine with such GNSS functionality integrated into it. For example, UE 105 may include personal devices such as a smartphone, smartwatch, tablet, laptop, and the like. UEs may include a larger class of devices as well and may include vehicles with integrated GNSS receivers and positioning systems, such as boats, ships, cars, trucks, aircraft, drones, and the like.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schipper with Sharma to incorporate the feature of: wherein the vehicle is an uncrewed aircraft. Schipper and Sharma are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose methods for detecting navigation signal spoofing. However, Schipper fails to disclose a feature of a vehicle with an inertial measurement unit (IMU). This feature is disclosed by Sharma. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Schipper with Sharma to incorporate the feature of: wherein the vehicle is an uncrewed aircraft as such a feature would broaden the system’s application scope thereby increasing its efficiency.
Regarding claim 9 Schipper discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Schipper does not teach “wherein the vehicle comprises an unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) vehicle, or an urban air mobility (UAM) vehicle “.
However, Sharma in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the vehicle comprises an unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) vehicle (Para 37: “In this example, FIG. 1 illustrates UE 105 as a smartphone device. However, UEs may be any suitable device that includes GNSS capabilities, or may be a device or machine with such GNSS functionality integrated into it. For example, UE 105 may include personal devices such as a smartphone, smartwatch, tablet, laptop, and the like. UEs may include a larger class of devices as well and may include vehicles with integrated GNSS receivers and positioning systems, such as boats, ships, cars, trucks, aircraft, drones, and the like.”), or an urban air mobility (UAM) vehicle.
The reason for combining Schipper with Sharma is similar to one given in claim 8 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2 Schipper discloses all the limitations of claim 1,wherein the spoof detector module further comprises a second spoof detection monitor that is different from the delta range monitor; wherein when a spoof event is detected by the second spoof detection monitor, and the spoof event persists for at least a predefined number of periods, the delta range monitor is activated; wherein the delta range monitor is deactivated when the spoof event is no longer detected by the second spoof detection monitor, and at least one condition occurs comprising: an outage of delta ranges because of reacquisition of a GNSS signal after the spoof event; a step in the delta ranges on at least two GNSS satellites; or expiration of a timer of the delta range monitor.
In reference to depend/independent claim 2, the prior arts made of record individually or in any combination, failed to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 2. Specifically, the prior arts made of record fail to disclose the limitation: “wherein the spoof detector module further comprises a second spoof detection monitor that is different from the delta range monitor; wherein when a spoof event is detected by the second spoof detection monitor, and the spoof event persists for at least a predefined number of periods, the delta range monitor is activated; wherein the delta range monitor is deactivated when the spoof event is no longer detected by the second spoof detection monitor, and at least one condition occurs comprising: an outage of delta ranges because of reacquisition of a GNSS signal after the spoof event; a step in the delta ranges on at least two GNSS satellites; or expiration of a timer of the delta range monitor”.
Claim 3 is allowable because it depends on allowable claim 2.
Regarding claim 4. Schipper discloses all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the delta range monitor is operative to perform a method comprising: sequentially processing each satellite measurement from the GNSS receiver by a process comprising: determining whether a current delta range for a given satellite is valid; if the current delta range for the given satellite is valid, then incrementing a counter valid function; determining whether a previous delta range for the given satellite is valid; 2if the previous delta range for the given satellite is valid, then determining whether a difference between the current delta range and the previous delta range is greater than a delta range threshold; and if the difference between the current delta range and the previous delta range is greater than the delta range threshold, then incrementing a counter excess function.
In reference to depend/independent claim 4, the prior arts made of record individually or in any combination, failed to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 4. Specifically, the prior arts made of record fail to disclose the limitation: “wherein the delta range monitor is operative to perform a method comprising: sequentially processing each satellite measurement from the GNSS receiver by a process comprising: determining whether a current delta range for a given satellite is valid; if the current delta range for the given satellite is valid, then incrementing a counter valid function; determining whether a previous delta range for the given satellite is valid; 2if the previous delta range for the given satellite is valid, then determining whether a difference between the current delta range and the previous delta range is greater than a delta range threshold; and if the difference between the current delta range and the previous delta range is greater than the delta range threshold, then incrementing a counter excess function”.
Claim 5 is allowable because it depends on allowable claim 4.
Regarding claim 10 Schipper discloses: A method comprising: receiving a plurality of satellite signals in a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver onboard a vehicle(Figure 1, element 40), from multiple GNSS satellites, the GNSS receiver operative to produce multiple satellite measurements based on the received satellite signals(Figure 1, element 110), the GNSS receiver in communication with an onboard inertial navigation system (INS) and at least one onboard processor that hosts a Kalman filter(Figure 1, elements 225-228; Para 0025: “The corrected-carrier-phase range for a current epoch is obtained by computing the satellite position at a current epoch and a last epoch using the orbit ephemeris data as provided by the satellites and correcting for the known satellite motion, receiver clock error and error rate. Although the orbit information as computed using broadcast ephemeris is not accurate to better than a few millimeters, the epoch-to-epoch error is very small. The difference between the corrected-carrier-phase range for the current epoch and the corrected-carrier-phase range for the last epoch is computed to obtain the corrected-delta-carrier-phase range from one epoch to the next sequential epoch. In a typical embodiment the corrected carrier phase and delta carrier phase may be computed in support of a Kalman filter using those measurements along with inertial sensor data.”; processing the satellite measurements in the Kalman filter to produce a navigation solution and a plurality of sub-solutions (Para 0025: ““The corrected-carrier-phase range for a current epoch is obtained by computing the satellite position at a current epoch and a last epoch using the orbit ephemeris data as provided by the satellites and correcting for the known satellite motion, receiver clock error and error rate. Although the orbit information as computed using broadcast ephemeris is not accurate to better than a few millimeters, the epoch-to-epoch error is very small. The difference between the corrected-carrier-phase range for the current epoch and the corrected-carrier-phase range for the last epoch is computed to obtain the corrected-delta-carrier-phase range from one epoch to the next sequential epoch. In a typical embodiment the corrected carrier phase and delta carrier phase may be computed in support of a Kalman filter using those measurements along with inertial sensor data.”); performing a spoof detection process using a Kalman filter based monitor to detect whether a spoof event has occurred; disabling GNSS aiding of the INS when a spoof event is detected (Para 0026: “FIG. 1 illustrates an embodiment of a system 10 to detect GNSS spoofing in accordance with the present application. FIG. 2B shows an exemplary GNSS spoofing attack on a vehicle 50 that houses the system 10 of FIG. 1 to detect GNSS spoofing in accordance with the present application. FIG. 2B differs from FIG. 2A in that the vehicle 51 in FIG. 2A is unprotected from a spoofing attack while the vehicle 50 of FIG. 2B includes a system 10 to protect the vehicle 50. System 10 is configured to detect and prevent a spoofing attach on a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver 110 (FIG. 1) that is communicatively coupled to a GNSS system. The GNSS system includes a plurality of satellites 351, 352, and 353 that are communicatively coupled, via respective wireless links 311-313, to the GNSS receiver 110 in the vehicle 51 shown in FIG. 2B. The system 10 on the vehicle 50 detects a spoofing event and takes remedial action to prevent modified data from the spoofer-electronics-and-logic 305 from being used in the calculation of the position of the vehicle 50. FIG. 3 illustrates an embodiment of a method 300 to detect GNSS spoofing using the system 10 of FIG. 1 in accordance with the present application. If GNSS spoofing is detected method 300 prevents the spoofing attack on the GNSS receiver 110 in the vehicle 51 (FIG. 2B).”); activating a delta range monitor when the spoof event persists for at least a predefined number of periods; and deactivating the delta range monitor when the spoof event is no longer detected by the Kalman filter based monitor, and at least one condition occurs comprising: an outage of delta ranges because of reacquisition of a GNSS signal after the spoof event; a step in delta ranges on at least two GNSS satellites; or expiration of a timer of the delta range monitor.
In reference to depend/independent claim 10, the prior arts made of record individually or in any combination, failed to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 10. Specifically, the prior arts made of record fail to disclose the limitation: “activating a delta range monitor when the spoof event persists for at least a predefined number of periods; and deactivating the delta range monitor when the spoof event is no longer detected by the Kalman filter based monitor, and at least one condition occurs comprising: an outage of delta ranges because of reacquisition of a GNSS signal after the spoof event; a step in delta ranges on at least two GNSS satellites; or expiration of a timer of the delta range monitor “.
Claims 11-19 are allowable because they depend on allowable claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bongani J. Mashele whose telephone number is (703)756-5861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00AM-5:00PM (CT).
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 Robert W. Hodge, can be reached on 571-272-2097. 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.
/BONGANI JABULANI MASHELE/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645