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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “claims 1 and 11 call for receiving the data transmission from the transmitting device and determining a location of the transmitting device, not determining a location the geographically closest transmitting device, regardless of whether that device is the actual transmitting device (Remarks pg. 10).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims merely specify what “the transmitting device” is the device that transmits the transmission. The claims do not preclude that the transmission device is the geographically closest device.
Latorre-Costa teaches receiving, at the vehicle, the data transmission from the transmitting device; determining a location of the transmitting device (Paragraph [0025, 0061] teaches the onboard system in the aircraft is configured for reading a data transmission coming from ground unit 10). Whether the ground unit is the closest to the aircraft is not claimed. Therefore even if the closest ground unit to the aircraft sent the transmission and the aircraft determines the location of the transmitting device, as in the case of Latorre-Costa, the claim limitations are taught.
The remaining arguments are similar to the above and are unpersuasive for a similar rationale.
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) 1-3, 6, 11-13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Latorre-Costa (US 2017/0295145)
Regarding Claim 1,
Latorre-Costa (US 2017/0295145) teaches a method for authenticating a data transmission received at a vehicle from a transmitting device associated with a source, the method comprising:
receiving, at the vehicle, the data transmission from the transmitting device;
determining a location of the transmitting device (Paragraph [0025, 0061] teaches the onboard system in the aircraft is configured for reading a data transmission coming from ground unit 10);
accessing a transmitting device database identifying a plurality of transmitting device locations(Paragraphs [0029-0030] teaches GPS coordinates of the ground unit are stored in a database); ascertaining whether the location of the transmitting device corresponds to at least one of the plurality of transmitting device locations identified by the transmitting device database (Paragraph [0032-0033] determining whether the location of the transmitting ground station corresponds to the database of coordinates by decrypting using the public key of the ground unit);
and generating a control action based at least in part on whether the location of the transmitting device corresponds to at least one of the plurality of transmitting device locations (Paragraph [0034] teaches if authenticity is confirmed, transmitting the flight instruction to the flight management system)(Paragraph [0044] if authenticity is not confirmed, instruction is not transmitted)
Regarding Claim 2,
Latorre-Costa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the data transmission comprises control data indicative of the source of the data transmission, and wherein the method further comprises:
determining, by a computing system comprising one or more processors positioned in the vehicle, a source identifier associated with the source based at least in part on the control data (Paragraph [0025, 0061] teaches the onboard system in the aircraft is configured for reading a data transmission coming from ground unit 10);
and determining, by the computing system, whether the transmitting device is associated with the source based at least in part on the source identifier and the location of the transmitting device (Paragraph [0030] teaches a database of the identifier unique to each ground unit) (Paragraph [0032-0033] determining whether the location of the transmitting ground station corresponds to the database of coordinates by decrypting using the public key of the ground unit);
Regarding Claim 3,
Latorre-Costa teaches the method of claim 2, wherein determining, by the computing system, whether the transmitting device is associated with the source based at least in part on the source identifier and the location of the transmitting device comprises: accessing, by the computing system, a database associating one or more authorized transmitting devices with the source (Paragraphs [0029-0030] teaches GPS coordinates of the ground unit are stored in a database);
and determining, by the computing system and based on the location of the transmitting device, whether the transmitting device matches at least one of the one or more authorized transmitting devices associated with the source (Paragraph [0032-0033] determining whether the location of the transmitting ground station corresponds to the database of coordinates by decrypting using the public key of the ground unit);;
wherein the control action is generated based at least in part on whether the transmitting device matches the at least one of the one or more authorized transmitting devices associated with the source (Paragraph [0034] teaches if authenticity is confirmed, transmitting the flight instruction to the flight management system)(Paragraph [0044] if authenticity is not confirmed, instruction is not transmitted).
Regarding Claim 6,
Latorre-Costa teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the computing system comprises a public key associated with a private key of the source, and wherein the computing system is configured to use the public key to decrypt at least a portion of the data transmission encrypted by the source with the private key (Paragraph [0033] teaches decrypting using the public key associated with the private key of the ground unit)
Regarding Claims 11-13, 16,
Claims 11-13, 16 are similar in scope to Claims 1-3, 6 and are rejected for a similar 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.
Claim(s) 4-5, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latorre-Costa in view of Tanioka (US 2013/0156194)
Regarding Claim 4,
Latorre-Costa teaches the method of claim 2, but does not explicitly teach wherein the control data comprises a cryptographic identification of the source identifier, and wherein determining the source identifier associated with the source based at least in part on the control data comprises:
decrypting the cryptographic identification to determine the source identifier, and wherein the data transmission is a voice communication and wherein the cryptographic identification is one of a human inaudible component and a voice distortion component of the voice communication.
Tanioka (US 2013/0156194) teaches a cryptographic identification of the source identifier, and wherein determining the source identifier associated with the source based at least in part on the control data comprises:
decrypting the cryptographic identification to determine the source identifier (Paragraph [0112] teaches decrypting a data signal to obtain device information of the source), and wherein the data transmission is a voice communication and wherein the cryptographic identification is one of a human inaudible component and a voice distortion component of the voice communication (Paragraph [0112] teaches wherein the data signal is an ultrasonic signal (i.e. a frequency that is inaudible to humans))(Paragraph [0098] teaches voice communication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Latorre-Costa to include decrypting a human inaudible component to determine a source identifier as taught by Tanioka and the results would be predictable (i.e. the transmission in Latorre-Costa would be a human inaudible component which would be decrypted to obtain the source identifier)
Regarding Claim 5,
Latorre-Costa and Tanioka teaches the method of claim 4. Tanoioka teaches wherein the human inaudible component is greater than about twenty kilohertz (20 kHz) (Paragraph [0112] teaches wherein the data signal is an ultrasonic signal (i.e. a frequency that is inaudible to humans which is by definition greater than 20 kHz)
Regarding Claims 14-15
Claims 14-15 are similar in scope to Claims 4-5 and are rejected for a similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latorre-Costa in view of Perdew (US 10,178,509)
Regarding Claim 7,
Latorre-Costa teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein determining the location of the transmitting device that transmitted the data transmission to the vehicle comprises: determining, by a computing system positioned onboard the vehicle, a received time of the data transmission indicative of a time the data transmission was received by the vehicle; receiving, by the computing system, a timestamp indicative of a time the data transmission was transmitted by the transmitting device; determining, by the computing system, a time of flight of the data transmission from the transmitting device to the vehicle based at least in part on the timestamp and the received time of the data transmission; and ascertaining, by the computing system, a distance between the vehicle and the transmitting device based at least in part on the time of flight of the data transmission.
Perdew (US 10,178,509) teaches determining the location of the transmitting device that transmitted the data transmission to the vehicle comprises (Fig. 1a, teaches determining the location of the transmitting device to a vehicle): determining, by a computing system positioned onboard the vehicle, a received time of the data transmission indicative of a time the data transmission was received by the vehicle; receiving, by the computing system, a timestamp indicative of a time the data transmission was transmitted by the transmitting device; determining, by the computing system, a time of flight of the data transmission from the transmitting device to the vehicle based at least in part on the timestamp and the received time of the data transmission; and ascertaining, by the computing system, a distance between the vehicle and the transmitting device based at least in part on the time of flight of the data transmission (Col. 9, lines 55-67, Col 10, lines 1-5, teaches determining the distance and relative position using “time of flight…by using timestamps…to determine the relative location”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Latorre-Costa to include determining location by a computing system onboard a vehicle, received time stamps and determining a time of flight, and ascertaining a distance based on the time of flight and the results would be predictable (i.e. location would be determined based on time of flight)
Regarding Claims 17
Claims 17 are similar in scope to Claims 7 and are rejected for a similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10, 18-20 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRIS C WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1462. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, LUU PHAM can be reached at 571-270-5002. 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.
/HARRIS C WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights