DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action on the Merits and is directed towards claims 27-52 as originally amended and filed on 07/01/2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Priority is claimed as set forth below, accordingly the earliest effective filing date is 12/30/2021 (20211230).
The present application, effectively filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
This application is a 371 of PCT/IL2022/051393 filed on 12/27/2022 (20221227) which claims priority to ISRAEL patent application number 290028 filed on 12/30/2021 (20211230).
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609 [R-07.2022], Applicant's 09/13/2024, 01/29/2024 and 03/18/2025 submission(s) of Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)(s) is/are acknowledged by the Examiner and the reference(s) cited therein has/have been considered in the examination of the claim(s) now pending. A copy of the submitted IDS(s) initialed and dated by the Examiner is/are attached to the instant Office action.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors.
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any ADDITIONAL errors of which applicant may become aware of within in the specification during resolution of the following contentions.
The disclosure is objected to because it is replete with embedded hyperlinks and/or other form of browser-executable codes. For a limited example only, see
page 1 lines 14+,
page 2 lines 1-5 and 25,
page 3 lines 7-8,
page 16 lines 19 and 24, etc.
This list is not exhaustive and Applicant is required to review the entire specification to find any other instances that may exist therein.
Further, Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlinks and/or other form of browser-executable codes; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code.
See MPEP § 608.01.
The use of the terms SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO in the list provided below:
GLONASS, Galileo and Beidou on page 1 line 28,
Apache Thrift and Avro on page 11, line 27,
Bluetooth, Zigbee on page 34, line 25,
AMD on page 35, line 14, etc.,
are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification is replete with abbreviations that are not spelled out the first time they are used. For a limited example only, see:
GNSS on page 1, line 14,
GLONASS on page 1, line 28,
API on page 11, line 24,
HTTP, MQTT, JSON, XML on page 11, lines 28+
Appropriate correction is required.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: it is missing section (b.) above, i.e. (b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 27-52 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 claims 27, 30, 31, 49, 51 and 52 the phrase "for example" or “e.g.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim(s) 27, 51 and 52, the term “using at least” makes the claim vague, indefinite and incomplete in setting forth what all is and is not encompassed and fails to address “what else” is used or could be used.
Regarding claim 28, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 28, the limitations “such as but not limited to” renders the claim vague, indefinite and incomplete as to what exactly the claim is “limited to”.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the platform avionics computer.". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 is vague, indefinite and incomplete because it does not close the ( in the last limitation. For examination purposes it is considered ended at the period after the last limitation “computer”.
Claim(s) 30, 31, 32 recite the limitation “and/or” which renders the claim(s) vague, indefinite and incomplete of what is and/or is not considered part of the claim(s).
Claims 31 and 32 recite the limitation "the method". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
The term “reliable” in claim 32, 49 and 50 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reliable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “unreliable” in claims 45 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “unreliable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Those claims not cited above are rejected for depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 27-32, 51 and 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140002302 A1 to Robinson; Ian S. (cited in the 09/13/2024 IDS) in view of Lee, Dong-Kyeong et. al. “Analysis of raw GNSS measurements derived navigation solutions from mobile devices with inertial sensors” (hereinafter Lee, cited in the 09/13/2024 IDS) and further in view of US 20210286086 A1 to Savoy, JR.; John D. et al. (hereinafter Savoy, cited in the 03/18/2025 IDS).
Regarding claim 27 Robinson teaches in for example the Figure(s) reproduced immediately below:
PNG
media_image1.png
475
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
462
479
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
664
518
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
286
298
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
472
483
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
638
504
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
212
304
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
341
487
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
297
484
media_image9.png
Greyscale
and associated descriptive texts a system for identifying spoofers affecting a platform e.g., vehicle, including (it is considered that a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art (POSITA) would recognize “a system” capable of the intended use of identifying spoofers affecting a vehicle (120) in for example Figures 1-4, 6 and 7 above wherein it is understood that the “platform” connotes “receiver/GER 120” which is for example a “vehicle” as taught and explained in for example only para:
“[0056] In another example, the GER 120 can include a GPS receiver (not shown) to provide a dual global positioning in an end receiver using GSP and GROUNDLINGS. The GPS receiver can include a GPS signal receiver and a GPS signal processor for obtaining a global positioning of the GER using standard GPS processing. The GER position determined by GPS can be compared to the GER position determined by the GROUNDLINGS module, which can be used to verify that the GPS has not been spoofed.
[0066] FIG. 9 illustrates a positional accuracy estimate showing three-dimensional (3-D) one sigma position errors per axis for North, East, and down positions for a non-accelerating receiver and a known altitude using downlink signals from a single GRS at 1075 km polar orbit without initial position information. The position can be measured in meters 104 is determined over time (e.g., seconds 102). A vertical position, such as a down position (e.g., PosDown 166), can be constant since the altitude is known and constant in the example. In the example, a North-South position (e.g., PosNorth 162) (i.e., a horizontal position) can converge faster than an East-West position (e.g., PosEast 164) (i.e., a horizontal position). Unconstrained motion, such as an accelerating GER, can increase the time to converge on a position determination of the GER if the GER does not include sensor data or other information (e.g., additional GRS) to compensate for the unconstrained motion of the GER. Each constraint on motion such as motion at a known height, such as a ground vehicle, can reduce the time to converge on a position determination of the GER or reduce the number of GRS used to make the GER position determination. In an example, the covariance modeling of positional accuracy can show errors under 2.5 m for static receivers. The GER can provide high fidelity, especially for stationary and non-accelerating receivers.”):
a hardware processor configured for, at least once, providing a time-specific spoof indication (as taught in para [0066] above “The position can be measured in meters 104 is determined over time (e.g., seconds 102).”)
including using at least plural GNSS drift indications to compute plural drift-indication specific possible spoof alerts respectively (given the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) it is considered that the GER is three (3) dimensional (3-D), hence it would have plural “scalers” as explained in for example only para [0056] “dual global positioning in an end receiver using GSP and GROUNDLINGS.” And para:
“[0055] In another example, the receiver location estimator can include an altimeter, a barometer sensor, or an altitude sensor for determining an altitude of the GER. The receiver location estimator can include an inertial measurement unit (IMU), an inertial navigation system (INS), a motion sensor, a velocity sensor, an accelerometer, a magnetometer, a barometer, a rotation sensor, a gyroscope, a wheel counter, an odometer, or a pedometer for determining movement of the GER.”),
and combining said drift-indication specific possible spoof alerts to yield the time-specific spoof indication (it is considered that given the BRI each of the different drift indications and possible spoof alerts are combined such as in “dual global positioning” as taught in paras:
“[0054] A GER using a more accurate oscillator can have less clock error. The GER clock error can be substantial (e.g., 1 microsecond [.mu.sec] can corresponds to a 300 meter error) and can adversely affect an estimated volume in which the GER is located. The estimated volume can be a long, thin cylinder whose long dimension is centered on the line between the GRS and GER. As the GRS moves rapidly across the sky, a series of "error cylinders" can be generated with a long axis of each error cylinder pointing towards the GRS. The GER can compute the intersections of the long cylinders to determine a 3-D position of the GER. Once a 3-D position of the GER is known, the GER can correct clock errors and update its position very precisely in 3-D coordinates. Alternatively, signals from two or more GRS may be received in parallel or sequentially to refine the position estimate and reduce and/or remove the effects of clock bias. A trend in the Doppler shift of the downlink signals combined with range measurements can be used to precisely determine the location of the GER (within a small circular error) at a known altitude or with a stable altitude. When a prior knowledge of the GER's altitude is not known, an altimeter can be used to provide an altitude of the GER. The altimeter can be used to initialize the altitude of the GER. The altimeter can be a pressure altimeter or a barometric altimeter, but other types of altimeters can also be used, such as a sonic altimeter or a RADAR (radio detection and ranging) altimeter. When altitude is not known, the GER may occupy a cylindrical region of uncertainty.
[0056] In another example, the GER 120 can include a GPS receiver (not shown) to provide a dual global positioning in an end receiver using GSP and GROUNDLINGS. The GPS receiver can include a GPS signal receiver and a GPS signal processor for obtaining a global positioning of the GER using standard GPS processing. The GER position determined by GPS can be compared to the GER position determined by the GROUNDLINGS module, which can be used to verify that the GPS has not been spoofed.“.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are NOT imported into the claims. The Examiner must give the claim language the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) the claims allow.
See MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-10.2019], which states
II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Inter US-20100280751-A1 1pretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims."); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). See also subsection IV., below. When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
In Zletz, supra, the examiner and the Board had interpreted claims reading "normally solid polypropylene" and "normally solid polypropylene having a crystalline polypropylene content" as being limited to "normally solid linear high homopolymers of propylene which have a crystalline polypropylene content." The court ruled that limitations, not present in the claims, were improperly imported from the specification. See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'" (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976)). The court looked to the specification to construe "essentially free of alkali metal" as including unavoidable levels of impurities but no more.).”
Although Robinson does not appear to disclose in detail how to compare the GER GPS position and the GER GROUNOLINGS module position as explained in paras [0055]-[0056], a POSITA would immediately consider the Euclidean L2 norm, i.e., the root of the sum of the squares of the differences in X, Y and Z coordinates and to compare this norm to a threshold. By doing this, one actually implicitly calculates three separate respective drift-indication specific possible spoof alerts, which are then combined. However and while it is considered that given the BRI Robinson teaches in the invention as claimed and explained above, if Applicant is of the opinion that Robinson does not expressly disclose using at least plural GNSS drift indications to compute plural drift-indication specific possible spoof alerts respectively, and combining said drift-indication specific possible spoof alerts to yield the time-specific spoof indication then resort may be had to the analogous art of Lee which teaches in for example the figures below:
PNG
media_image10.png
570
937
media_image10.png
Greyscale
And associated descriptive texts (references within parentheses referring to this
document, see in particular the title, fig. 4 and section 2; p. 3816):
a system for identifying spoofers (" spoofing detection") affecting a platform
(title: "mobile device") e.g., vehicle, including:
a hardware processor (of the mobile device) configured for, at least once,
providing a time-specific spoof indication (equation 10 applies to time windows)
including using at least plural GNSS drift indications (fig. 4: "Heading Rate",
"Acceleration", "Altitude Rate") to compute plural drift-indication specific
possible spoof alerts respectively (each compared with a respective inertial
sensor values), and
combining said drift-indication specific possible spoof alerts to yield the time-specific spoof indication (in document 02, different thresholds are used for
different indications).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the drift indications disclosed in Lee with the drift indications taught in Robinson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have improved the ability to detect spoofers as taught by Lee.
PNG
media_image11.png
136
903
media_image11.png
Greyscale
While it is considered that the combination of Robinson and Lee teach the invention as claimed and explained above, if Applicant is of the opinion that the combination does not expressly teach a “spoof alert” then resort may be had to the teachings of Savoy:
PNG
media_image12.png
589
768
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
722
470
media_image13.png
Greyscale
To show it was known in the art to issue an alert in step 212 of Fig. 2 above when spoofing is detected.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the alert disclosed in Savoy with the indications taught in the combination of Robinson and Lee with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “prevented a crash” as taught by Savoy Para(s):
“[0002] A GNSS receiver is susceptible to GNSS spoofing, which can cause a GNSS receiver to determine an incorrect three dimensional location and/or time; time means time of day and date. GNSS Spoofing means manipulation of GNSS data received by a GNSS receiver so that the GNSS receiver determines an incorrect three dimensional location and/or time. GNSS data may be manipulated by a transmitter broadcasting data used for position and/or time determination, which mimics data broadcast from one or more GNSS satellites. This manipulated data is then detected by the GNSS receiver instead of the data from the one or more corresponding GNSS satellites, and is used by the GNSS receiver to determine location and time. GNSS spoofing attacks can cause a grave risk to a vehicle, personnel aboard the vehicle (if any), and objective(s) of the vehicle. For example, if altitude is incorrectly determined due to GNSS spoofing, an aircraft could take a landing trajectory that is too steep and may crash.
[0026] In the case where GNSS spoofing is detected, system 100 may respond in a variety of ways depending upon the embodiment. For example, in one embodiment, system 100 optionally includes internal alert circuitry 118 for issuing an alert of a potential GNSS spoofing event, e.g. to system(s) in, and/or to a crew of, the vehicle 101. Internal alert circuitry 118 can be configured to provide an alert: e.g., alert signal(s) (e.g. to system(s) of the vehicle 101), a visual alert (e.g. a message on a display and/or flashing light(s) (e.g. using light emitting diodes)), and/or provide an audible alert (e.g. using an audio amplifier and speaker system). The alert signal(s) may be, e.g., an electrical signal that notifies other systems or circuitry that GNSS spoofing has been detected. Further for example, the alert signal may be sent to a vehicle system that is the GNSS receiver 102. As a result of receiving the alert signal, the GNSS receiver issues an invalidation signal to all systems configured to receive position data from the GNSS receiver 102 warning, and/or the GNSS receiver 102 is configured to cease sending position data; upon receipt of the invalidation signal, a vehicle systems cease using position data from the GNSS receiver 102, and optionally may commence using position data from alternate circuitry to determine position data 104.
[0027] Alternatively or additionally, system 100 may be configured to provide an alert (that GNSS spoofing has been detected) to external systems (which are external to the vehicle 101) and/or personnel (e.g. on other vehicle(s) or located terrestrially or in outer space) through the external communications systems 120. Such external system(s) and/or personnel may be associated with control center(s) (e.g. air traffic control center(s)) or operations center(s) (e.g. airline operations center(s)).”.
Regarding claim 28 and the limitation the system according to claim 27 and also comprising alerting for presence of a spoofer affecting the platform, if at least one sequence of time-specific spoof indications (or of drift-indication specific possible spoof alerts) occurs which answers to a criterion of consecutiveness (such as but not limited to a run of 10 consecutive time-specific spoof indications occurring in 10 respective consecutive time-units) (given the BRI appears to connote the verification process of Robinson not being spoofed as the accuracy improves “over time” wherein it is understood that a POSITA would understand that since the position and spoofing detection is occurring over time that this includes and at least 10 consecutive time periods “over time” as taught in for example, Robinson paras [0055-56 and 66] above. See also MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions [R-01.2024] I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS:
“In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%); In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946) (prior art showed an angle in a groove of up to 90° and an applicant claimed an angle of no less than 120°); In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937) ("Where the component elements of alloys are the same, and where they approach so closely the same range of quantities as is here the case, it seems that there ought to be some noticeable difference in the qualities of the respective alloys."); In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)(the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical); In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924, 20 USPQ 53, 57 (CCPA 1933)(the prior art teaching an alkali cellulose containing minimal amounts of water, found by the Examiner to be in the 5-8% range, the claims sought to be patented were to an alkali cellulose with varying higher ranges of water (e.g., "not substantially less than 13%," "not substantially below 17%," and "between about 13[%] and 20%"); K-Swiss Inc. v. Glide N Lock GmbH, 567 Fed. App'x 906 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(reversing the Board's decision, in an appeal of an inter partes reexamination proceeding, that certain claims were not prima facie obvious due to non-overlapping ranges); In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(the court found a prima facie case of obviousness had been made in a predictable art wherein the claimed range of "less than 6 pounds per cubic feet" and the prior art range of "between 6 lbs./ft3 and 25 lbs./ft3" were so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.).
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claimed alloy held obvious over prior art alloy that taught ranges of weight percentages overlapping, and in most instances completely encompassing, claimed ranges; furthermore, narrower ranges taught by reference overlapped all but one range in claimed invention). However, if the reference’s disclosed range is so broad as to encompass a very large number of possible distinct compositions, this might present a situation analogous to the obviousness of a species when the prior art broadly discloses a genus. Id. See also In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 383, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("[a] disclosure of millions of compounds does not render obvious a claim to three compounds, particularly when that disclosure indicates a preference leading away from the claimed compounds."); MPEP § 2144.08; and subsection III.D below for an additional discussion on consideration of prior art disclosures of a broad range.“).
As is here, it is the Examiners position that Robinson AT LEAST discloses a range encompassing the range claimed and as such would have been obvious to a POSITA.
Regarding claim 29 and the limitation the system according to claim 27 wherein the computing of a time-specific spoof indication occurs repeatedly (see Robinson paras:
“[0028] The downlink signal 132A-E and 134 can be a repeated signal a transponded signal, or an augmented signal. A repeated signal can be a copy of the original signal repeated from the different location. A transponded signal can be frequency shifted copy of an original signal transponded from a different location. An augmented signal can be a repeated signal or a transponded signal with additional information added by a relay (e.g., GRS). In an example, the first uplink signal can be repeated in a first downlink signal on a same common frequency carrier (or carrier frequency). In another example, the first uplink signal transmitted on a first uplink frequency carrier can be transponded in a first downlink signal on a first downlink frequency carrier different from the first uplink frequency carrier, and the second uplink signal transmitted on a second uplink frequency carrier can be transponded in a second downlink signal on a second downlink frequency carrier different from the second uplink frequency carrier. The first uplink frequency carrier, the first downlink frequency carrier, the second uplink frequency carrier, and the second downlink frequency carrier can use a different frequency carrier from each other. In another example, the uplink signal can include PRN signal generated by the GLT and the downlink signal can be augmented with a tone signal generated by the GRS, so the downlink signal includes both the PRN signal and the tone signal. The tone signal can be a sinusoidal wave or other periodic wave form.
[0029] When a repeated signal is used in the downlink transmission, a delay may be applied at the GRS to separate the downlink transmissions from the uplink transmissions to allow for time-division duplexing (TDD). TDD is an application of time-division multiplexing (TDM) to separate transmission signals and received signals on a same carrier frequency. In TDD, the transmission signals and the received signals (e.g., the transmitted signals and the transponded signals) may be carried on the same frequency carrier (or carrier frequency) where the transmission signals use a different time interval from the received signals, so the transmission signals and the received signals do not generate interference for each other. TDM is a type of digital multiplexing in which two or more bit streams or signals, such as transmission signals and received signals, are transferred sequentially as sub-channels in one communication channel, and physically taking turns on the channel. When a transponded signal is used in the downlink transmission, the GRS may use a frequency shifter to shift the downlink transmission to a different frequency carrier from the uplink transmission using frequency-division duplexing (FDD). In FDD, a transmitter and a receiver can operate using different frequency carriers (or carrier frequencies). In FDD, interference can be avoided because the transmission signals use a different carrier frequency from the received signals.”)
and Lee Section 2.6:
PNG
media_image14.png
148
930
media_image14.png
Greyscale
).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the drift indications disclosed in Lee with the drift indications taught in Robinson with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have improved the ability to detect spoofers as taught by Lee
PNG
media_image11.png
136
903
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 30 and the limitation the system according to claim 27 wherein each drift-indication specific possible spoof alert is computed each time a periodically occurring signal (e.g. a 1pps signal which is generated by the GNSS) is raised: (given the BRI see Robinson para [0054] “[0054] A GER using a more accurate oscillator can have less clock error. The GER clock error can be substantial (e.g., 1 microsecond [.mu.sec] can corresponds to a 300 meter error) “ and the teachings of MPEP 2144.05 in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 2 above incorporated herein by reference.):
and/or wherein each GNSS drift indication used to compute each drift-indication specific possible spoof alert, is time-tagged, thereby to ensure synchronization of all drift indications used
and/or all drift-indication specific possible spoof alerts computed (e.g. by a processor in data communication with the platform avionics computer) (given the BRI see Robinson para [0055-56, 66] wherein it is connotes the navionics computer in the GER of the ground vehicle of Robinson).
Regarding claim 31 and the limitation the system according to claim 27 and wherein said time-specific spoof indication includes reporting time-specific spoof indication via an aerial network to other platforms,
and/or reporting said time-specific spoof indication to an operator e.g. a pilot of a platform performing the method (see the teachings of Savoy in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 27 above incorporated herein by reference as well as para:
“[0032] If GNSS spoofing is determined to occur, then in block 212, issue an alert, e.g. as discussed elsewhere herein. If an alert is sent to other vehicle system(s) (e.g. a flight navigation system and/or a TAWS), the alert may optionally cause the other vehicle system(s) to cease using the position data received from the GNSS receiver, and further optionally may cause some or all of the other vehicle system(s) to commence use position data from alternate circuitry to determine position data in lieu of position data from the GNSS receiver. Alternatively or additionally, the alert may also be sent to the GNSS receiver, which then may send an invalid signal to some or all of the other vehicle system(s); other vehicle system(s) receiving the invalid signal cease using position data from the GNSS receiver and/or some or all of the other vehicle system(s) receiving the invalid signal commence using position data from alternate circuitry to determine position data. Optionally, the alert can include the location at which GNSS signals spoofing was detected, and the time of such detection.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the alerts disclosed in Savoy with the indications taught in the combination of Robinson and Lee with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed the vehicle systems to stop using position data from the GNSS receiver to determine its position as taught by Savoy Para(s) [0026]:
“As a result of receiving the alert signal, the GNSS receiver issues an invalidation signal to all systems configured to receive position data from the GNSS receiver 102 warning, and/or the GNSS receiver 102 is configured to cease sending position data; upon receipt of the invalidation signal, a vehicle systems cease using position data from the GNSS receiver 102, and optionally may commence using position data from alternate circuitry to determine position data 104.”.
Regarding claim 32 and the limitation the system according to claim 31 wherein said reporting includes providing, to other platforms (see the motivation to combine Savoy and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 27 above incorporated herein by reference)
and/or to the operator of the platform performing the method, a last reliable position of the platform (see the motivation to combine the teachings of Savoy in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 27 above incorporated herein by reference. See especially Savoy para:
“[0032] If GNSS spoofing is determined to occur, then in block 212, issue an alert, e.g. as discussed elsewhere herein. If an alert is sent to other vehicle system(s) (e.g. a flight navigation system and/or a TAWS), the alert may optionally cause the other vehicle system(s) to cease using the position data received from the GNSS receiver, and further optionally may cause some or all of the other vehicle system(s) to commence use position data from alternate circuitry to determine position data in lieu of position data from the GNSS receiver. Alternatively or additionally, the alert may also be sent to the GNSS receiver, which then may send an invalid signal to some or all of the other vehicle system(s); other vehicle system(s) receiving the invalid signal cease using position data from the GNSS receiver and/or some or all of the other vehicle system(s) receiving the invalid signal commence using position data from alternate circuitry to determine position data. Optionally, the alert can include the location at which GNSS signals spoofing was detected, and the time of such detection.”).
Regarding claim 51 and the limitation a method for identifying spoofers affecting a platform e.g., vehicle, the method including:
providing a time-specific spoof indication including using at least plural GNSS drift indications to compute plural drift-indication specific possible spoof alerts respectively,
and combining said drift-indication specific possible spoof alerts to yield the time-specific spoof indication (see the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 27 above incorporated herein by reference.).
Regarding claim 52 and the limitation a computer program product, comprising a non-transitory tangible computer readable medium having computer readable program code embodied therein, said computer readable program code adapted to be executed to implement a method for identifying spoofers affecting a platform e.g., vehicle, the method including providing a time-specific spoof indication by using at least plural GNSS drift indications to compute plural drift-indication specific possible spoof alerts respectively, and combining said drift-indication specific possible spoof alerts to yield the time-specific spoof indication (see the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 27 above incorporated herein by reference.).
Claims 27-49, 51 and 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140002302 A1 to Robinson; Ian S. (cited in the 09/13/2024 IDS) in view of Lee, Dong-Kyeong et. al. “Analysis of raw GNSS measurements derived navigation solutions from mobile devices with inertial sensors” (hereinafter Lee, cited in the 09/13/2024 IDS) and further in view of US 20210286086 A1 to Savoy, JR.; John D. et al. (hereinafter Savoy, cited in the 03/18/2025 IDS) as applied to the claims above in view of US 20210088672 A1 to Balog; Robert et al. (hereinafter Balog, cited in the 09/13/2024 IDS).
Regarding claims 27-32, 51 and 52 above it is considered that a POSITA would find it obvious to combine the teachings of Balog to the combination of Robinson, Lee and Savoy above for the express benefits of detecting and generating a mitigation solution to spoofing as explained in for example para:
“[0003] The described embodiments are directed to one or more of a method, a device, and a system for detecting and mitigating Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) spoofing by comparing a vehicle state determined by one or more Inertial Navigation Systems (INSs) without GNSS information (INS vehicle state or IVS), to the vehicle state determined by one or more INSs with GNSS Information (GNSS vehicle state or GVS). The described embodiments compare IVS and GVS statistics to detect and mitigate GNSS spoofing. The described embodiments may employ a control system, which may be a processor-based system, hosted either on-board or off-board the vehicle or both, configured to execute a high-level control algorithm to generate the vehicle state statistics, perform the vehicle state comparison, and detect GNSS spoofing, and generate a mitigation solution. As used herein, the term “vehicle state” refers to navigational parameters associated with the vehicle, including, but not limited to, position (e.g., latitude and longitude), velocity, acceleration, altitude and/or elevation, heading, orientation, among others.”
Regarding claim 33 the combination of Robinson, Lee and Savoy do not appear to expressly disclose the limitations wherein said plural GNSS drift indications include a GNSS time drift.
In analogous art Balog teaches in for example, the figures below:
PNG
media_image15.png
490
670
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
648
558
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
484
704
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
478
522
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
384
684
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
458
685
media_image20.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image21.png
481
516
media_image21.png
Greyscale
And associated descriptive texts wherein plural GNSS drift indications include a GNSS time drift (in for example paras:
“[0034] The described embodiments are directed to one or more of a method, a device, and a system for detecting and mitigating Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) spoofing by comparing a vehicle state determined by one or more Inertial Navigation Systems (INSs) without GNSS information (INS vehicle state or IVS), to the vehicle state determined by one or more INSs with GNSS Information (GNSS vehicle state or GVS). The described embodiments compare IVS and GVS statistics to detect and mitigate GNSS spoofing. The described embodiments may employ a control system, which may be a processor-based system, hosted either on-board or off-board the vehicle or both, configured to execute a high-level control algorithm to generate the vehicle state statistics, perform the vehicle state comparison, and detect GNSS spoofing, and generate a mitigation solution. As used herein, the term “vehicle state” refers to navigational parameters associated with the vehicle, including, but not limited to, position (e.g., latitude and longitude), velocity, acceleration, altitude and/or elevation, heading, orientation, among others.
[0046] FIG. 2 illustrates an example GNSS spoofing mitigation sequence that the control system may employ to generate a detection and mitigation solution, according to at least one embodiment. For this example, the GNSS input is initially valid at time=0, i.e., the GNSS is not spoofed. The control system may acquire both GNSS and sensor data simultaneously from t=0 to t=dt, where dt is an arbitrary time interval. The control system determines the vehicle state both with GNSS used in the state computation 202 and without GNSS used in the state computation 204. Because GNSS is assumed to be valid in this example during the time interval 0≥t≥dt, the INS navigation solution relies 206 on the computed vehicle state with GNSS during that time interval. State statistics are computed continuously during the time interval.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the spoofing detection disclosed in Balog with the spoofing detection taught in the combination of Robinson, Lee and Savoy with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have improved the ability to detect and mitigate the effects of spoofing as taught by Balog Para(s):
“[0018] In another aspect, the invention may be a non-transitory computer-readable medium with computer code instruction stored thereon. The computer code instructions, when executed by a processor, cause an apparatus to determine a first vehicle state based on information from an Inertial Navigation System (INS) without GNSS input, determine a second vehicle state based on information from an INS with GNSS input, and compare the first vehicle state and the second vehicle state. When a difference between the first vehicle state and the second vehicle state exceeds a predetermined threshold, the computer code instructions, when executed by the processor, may cause the apparatus to conclude that GNSS spoofing is present and utilize only the first vehicle state as a correct vehicle state.”.
Further, per MPEP 2144.06. 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose [R-01.2024] II. SUBSTITUTING EQUIVALENTS KNOWN FOR THE SAME PURPOSE
“An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).”
As is here, the Examiner posits that a POSITA recognizes that “time drift” is one “equivalent” method known in the art of Spoofing that would be obvious to try and a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 34 the combination of Robinson, Lee and Savoy do not appear to expressly disclose however in analogous art Balog teaches in the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 33 above incorporated herein by reference the limitations wherein said plural GNSS drift indications include a GNSS barometric altitude drift (see Balog para [0034] “altitude” and “As used herein, the term “vehicle state” refers to navigational parameters associated with the vehicle, including, but not limited to, position (e.g., latitude and longitude), velocity, acceleration, altitude and/or elevation, heading, orientation, among others.”).
Regarding claim 35 the combination of Robinson, Lee and Savoy do not appear to expressly disclose however in analogous art Balog teaches in the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 33 above incorporated herein by reference the limitations wherein said plural GNSS drift indications include a GNSS computed altitude drift (see Balog para [0034] “altitude” and “As used herein, the term “vehicle state” refers to navigational parameters associated with the vehicle, including, but not limited to, position (e.g., latitude and longitude), velocity, acceleration, altitude and/or elevation, heading, orientation, among others.”).
Regarding claim 36 the combination of Robinson, Lee and Savoy do not appear to expressly disclose however in analogous art Balog teaches in the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 33 above incorporated herein by reference the limitations wherein said plural GNSS drift indications include a GNSS position drift (see Balog para [0034] “position” and “As used herein, the term “vehicle state” refers to navigational parameters associated with the vehicle, including, but not limited to, position (e.g., latitude and longitude), velocity, acceleration, altitude and/or elevation, heading, orientation, among others.”).
Regarding claim 37 the combination of Robinson, Lee and Savoy do not appear to expressly disclose however in analogous art Balog teaches in the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 33 above incorporated herein by reference the limitations wherein the GNSS position drift is determined relative to an inertial navigation subsystem aka INS (which may be GNSS aided) (see Balog para [0034] “As used herein, the term “vehicle state” refers to navigational parameters associated with the vehicle, including, but not limited to, position (e.g., latitude and longitude), velocity, acceleration, altitude and/or elevation, heading, orientation, among others.”).
Regarding claim 38 the combination of Robinson, Lee and Savoy do not appear to expressly disclose however in analogous art Balog teaches in the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 33 above incorporated herein by reference the limitations the system according to claim 36 wherein the GNSS position drift is determined relative to an anchoring system (see Balog para [0034] “As used herein, the term “vehicle state” refers to navigational parameters associated with the vehicle, including, but not limited to, position (e.g., latitude and longitude), velocity, acceleration, altitude and/or elevation, heading, orientation, among others.”).
Regarding claim 39 the combination of Robinson, Lee and Savoy do not appear to expressly disclose however in analogous art Balog teaches in the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 33 above incorporated herein by reference the limitations wherein the GNSS position drift is determined relative to a network member position (see Balog para [0034] “As used herein, the term “vehicle state” refers to navigational parameters associated with the vehicle, including, but not limited to, position (e.g., latitude and longitude), velocity, acceleration, altitude and/or elevation, heading, orientation, among others.”).
Regarding claim 40 the combination of Robinson, Lee and Savoy do not appear to expressly disclose however in analogous art Balog teaches in the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 33 above incorporated herein by reference the limitations wherein the GNSS position drift is determined relative to at least one ground station whose position is known (see Balog para [0034] “As used herein, the term “vehicle state” refers to navigational parameters associated with the vehicle, including, but not limited to, position (e.g., latitude and longitude), velocity, acceleration, altitude and/or elevation, heading, orientation, among others.”).
Regarding claim 41 the combination of Robinson, Lee and Savoy do not appear to expressly disclose however in analogous art Balog teaches wherein said time-specific spoof indication is used to navigate the platform (given the BRI see the teachings of Balog paras:
“[0037] In an embodiment, where the processor-based control system is arranged in an off-board hosting scenario, the sensor and GNSS states may be transmitted from the vehicle to an off-board control subsystem component. The off-board control subsystem component may (i) determine GNSS and INS vehicle state statistics based on the sensor and GNSS states received from the vehicle, (ii) generate a detection and mitigation solution based on the GNSS and INS vehicle states statistics, and (iii) transmit the detection and mitigation solution back to the vehicle. This embodiment is simple, robust, and does not require complex nulling antennas or any reliance on interpreting the quality of the GNSS signal based on its characteristics.
[0054] As described herein, GNSS spoofing corrupts vehicle state information that was determined using GNSS as an input. To mitigate the effect of the GNSS spoofing on the GNSS-based state computation, upon detection of GNSS spoofing the control system may “rewind” the GNSS-based vehicle state back to the actual time of the spoofing detection. The control system may then propagate the computed vehicle state forward in time, without GNSS input, from the detection point forward (or from some predefined point in time prior to the detection point forward). Sensor data for an arbitrary number of time intervals, n, may be held in control system memory to accommodate the predefined point in time prior to spoofing detection.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the spoofing detection disclosed in Balog with the spoofing detection taught in the combination of Robinson, Lee and Savoy with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have improved the ability to detect and mitigate the effects of spoofing as taught by Balog Para(s):
“[0018] In another aspect, the invention may be a non-transitory computer-readable medium with computer code instruction stored thereon. The computer code instructions, when executed by a processor, cause an apparatus to determine a first vehicle state based on information from an Inertial Navigation System (INS) without GNSS input, determine a second vehicle state based on information from an INS with GNSS input, and compare the first vehicle state and the second vehicle state. When a difference between the first vehicle state and the second vehicle state exceeds a predetermined threshold, the computer code instructions, when executed by the processor, may cause the apparatus to conclude that GNSS spoofing is present and utilize only the first vehicle state as a correct vehicle state.”.
Regarding claim 42 the combination of Robinson, Lee and Savoy do not appear to expressly disclose however in analogous art Balog teaches and also comprising a platform having navigation apparatus and wherein said time-specific spoof indication is used by said navigation apparatus to navigate the platform (in Balog para:
“[0046] FIG. 2 illustrates an example GNSS spoofing mitigation sequence that the control system may employ to generate a detection and mitigation solution, according to at least one embodiment. For this example, the GNSS input is initially valid at time=0, i.e., the GNSS is not spoofed. The control system may acquire both GNSS and sensor data simultaneously from t=0 to t=dt, where dt is an arbitrary time interval. The control system determines the vehicle state both with GNSS used in the state computation 202 and without GNSS used in the state computation 204. Because GNSS is assumed to be valid in this example during the time interval 0≥t≥dt, the INS navigation solution relies 206 on the computed vehicle state with GNSS during that time interval. State statistics are computed continuously during the time interval.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the spoofing detection disclosed in Balog with the spoofing detection taught in the combination of Robinson, Lee and Savoy with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have improved the ability to detect and mitigate the effects of spoofing as taught by Balog Para(s):
“[0018] In another aspect, the invention may be a non-transitory computer-readable medium with computer code instruction stored thereon. The computer code instructions, when executed by a processor, cause an apparatus to determine a first vehicle state based on information from an Inertial Navigation System (INS) without GNSS input, determine a second vehicle state based on information from an INS with GNSS input, and compare the first vehicle state and the second vehicle state. When a difference between the first vehicle state and the second vehicle state exceeds a predetermined threshold, the computer code instructions, when executed by the processor, may cause the apparatus to conclude that GNSS spoofing is present and utilize only the first vehicle state as a correct vehicle state.”.
Regarding claim 43 the combination of Robinson, Lee and Savoy do not appear to expressly disclose however in analogous art Balog teaches in the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 33 above incorporated herein by reference the limitation the system according to claim 36 wherein said GNSS position drift comprises GNSS Latitude drift (see Balog para [0034] “As used herein, the term “vehicle state” refers to navigational parameters associated with the vehicle, including, but not limited to, position (e.g., latitude and longitude), velocity, acceleration, altitude and/or elevation, heading, orientation, among others.”).
Regarding claim 44 the combination of Robinson, Lee and Savoy do not appear to expressly disclose however in analogous art Balog teaches in the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 33 above incorporated herein by reference the limitation the system according to claim 36 wherein said GNSS position drift comprises GNSS Longitude drift (see Balog para [0034] “As used herein, the term “vehicle state” refers to navigational parameters associated with the vehicle, including, but not limited to, position (e.g., latitude and longitude), velocity, acceleration, altitude and/or elevation, heading, orientation, among others.”).
Regarding claim 45 the combination of Robinson, Lee and Savoy do not appear to expressly disclose however in analogous art Balog teaches in the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 33 above incorporated herein by reference the limitation the system according to claim 27 where at least one unreliable input is filtered out (see the teachings of Balog “to filter such wheel slip events from the spoofing detection analysis” in para:
“[0053] FIGS. 6A-6F show results from the second spoofing simulation using real-world vehicle sensor and GNSS data. A vehicle (a van in this case) that was outfitted with a GNSS antenna, odometer, accelerometers, and an INS, was driven on two paved road courses, a short loop and a long loop. The vehicle route is shown in FIG. 6G. The short loop consists of A to B to C to B to A, and the long loop consists of A to B to C to A. Thus the first and last portions of each road course loop overlapped. GNSS and all sensor and INS data were recorded during both loops. Spoofing data was simulated by combining measured odometer data from the short loop with measured GNSS data from the first overlapped portion of the short loop with GNSS data from the long loop at loop trajectory deviation. The mean vehicle velocity on the road courses was 1 m/s. The injection time for simulated spoofing was 200 s. FIG. 6A shows raw data with no spoofing (velocity with respect to time), and FIG. 6B shows velocity statistical distribution of velocity for the no spoofing data. FIG. 6C shows raw data with spoofing, and FIG. 6D shows velocity statistical distribution of velocity for the no spoofing data. As can been seen in FIGS. 6B and 6D, the velocity statistical distributions for the spoofing and no spoofing cases are clearly distinct. FIG. 6E shows the mean acceleration comparison (comparing GNSS-based acceleration and odometer-based acceleration), and FIG. 6F plots the mean acceleration difference between GNSS-based acceleration and odometer-based acceleration. FIG. 6F shows that by establishing a spoofing threshold (in this simulation example, about 0.0025 m/s.sup.2), spoofing was detected in approximately 16 seconds. FIG. 7 shows the mean velocity comparison for no spoofing and spoofing over time. Note that a wheel slip on ice occurred during the long loop, but the described embodiments differentiated this ice slip from spoofing based on its large amplitude and transient nature. Embodiments may utilize on-board accelerometers to distinguish between apparent acceleration due to wheel slip and actual acceleration, to filter such wheel slip events from the spoofing detection analysis.”).
Regarding claim 46 the combination of Robinson, Lee and Savoy do not appear to expressly disclose however in analogous art Balog teaches in the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 33 above incorporated herein by reference the limitation the system according to claim 36 wherein the GNSS position drift is determined relative to a network member spoofing indication (see Balog para [0034] “As used herein, the term “vehicle state” refers to navigational parameters associated with the vehicle, including, but not limited to, position (e.g., latitude and longitude), velocity, acceleration, altitude and/or elevation, heading, orientation, among others.”).
Regarding claim 47 and the limitation the system according to claim 27 wherein said time-specific spoof indication triggers an alert, to a platform operator, of presence of a spoofer affecting the platform (see the motivation to combine the teachings of Savoy in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 27 above incorporated herein by reference. See especially Savoy para:
“[0032] If GNSS spoofing is determined to occur, then in block 212, issue an alert, e.g. as discussed elsewhere herein. If an alert is sent to other vehicle system(s) (e.g. a flight navigation system and/or a TAWS), the alert may optionally cause the other vehicle system(s) to cease using the position data received from the GNSS receiver, and further optionally may cause some or all of the other vehicle system(s) to commence use position data from alternate circuitry to determine position data in lieu of position data from the GNSS receiver. Alternatively or additionally, the alert may also be sent to the GNSS receiver, which then may send an invalid signal to some or all of the other vehicle system(s); other vehicle system(s) receiving the invalid signal cease using position data from the GNSS receiver and/or some or all of the other vehicle system(s) receiving the invalid signal commence using position data from alternate circuitry to determine position data. Optionally, the alert can include the location at which GNSS signals spoofing was detected, and the time of such detection.”).
Regarding claim 48 and the limitation the system according to claim 27 wherein said time-specific spoof indication triggers an alert, sent to network members, of presence of a spoofer affecting the platform (see the motivation to combine the teachings of Savoy in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 27 above incorporated herein by reference. See especially Savoy para:
“[0032] If GNSS spoofing is determined to occur, then in block 212, issue an alert, e.g. as discussed elsewhere herein. If an alert is sent to other vehicle system(s) (e.g. a flight navigation system and/or a TAWS), the alert may optionally cause the other vehicle system(s) to cease using the position data received from the GNSS receiver, and further optionally may cause some or all of the other vehicle system(s) to commence use position data from alternate circuitry to determine position data in lieu of position data from the GNSS receiver. Alternatively or additionally, the alert may also be sent to the GNSS receiver, which then may send an invalid signal to some or all of the other vehicle system(s); other vehicle system(s) receiving the invalid signal cease using position data from the GNSS receiver and/or some or all of the other vehicle system(s) receiving the invalid signal commence using position data from alternate circuitry to determine position data. Optionally, the alert can include the location at which GNSS signals spoofing was detected, and the time of such detection.”).
Regarding claim 49 and the limitation the system according to claim 47 wherein the alert comprises a report of the platform's last known reliable position e.g. the last position of the platform which is known to be unaffected by the spoofer (see the motivation to combine the teachings of Savoy in the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 27 above incorporated herein by reference. See especially Savoy para:
“[0031] In block 208, receive HAT, e.g. from HAT circuitry. In block 210, determine if GNSS spoofing has occurred (e.g. has been detected), e.g. as described elsewhere herein. If no GNSS spoofing has been determined to occur, then optionally proceed back to block 202. In the case where no GNSS spoofing has been determined to occur, the position data received by a GNSS receiver is deemed to be sufficiently reliable and is continued to be sent to and/or used by, e.g. vehicle crew, other vehicle system(s), external entit(ies), and/or other vehicle(s)—for example for vehicle navigation. External entit(ies), may include, e.g., traffic control center(s), operations center(s), and/or other vehicle(s).
[0032] If GNSS spoofing is determined to occur, then in block 212, issue an alert, e.g. as discussed elsewhere herein. If an alert is sent to other vehicle system(s) (e.g. a flight navigation system and/or a TAWS), the alert may optionally cause the other vehicle system(s) to cease using the position data received from the GNSS receiver, and further optionally may cause some or all of the other vehicle system(s) to commence use position data from alternate circuitry to determine position data in lieu of position data from the GNSS receiver. Alternatively or additionally, the alert may also be sent to the GNSS receiver, which then may send an invalid signal to some or all of the other vehicle system(s); other vehicle system(s) receiving the invalid signal cease using position data from the GNSS receiver and/or some or all of the other vehicle system(s) receiving the invalid signal commence using position data from alternate circuitry to determine position data. Optionally, the alert can include the location at which GNSS signals spoofing was detected, and the time of such detection.”
As well as the teachings and reasons to combine Balog).
Claim 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140002302 A1 to Robinson; Ian S. (cited in the 09/13/2024 IDS) in view of Lee, Dong-Kyeong et. al. “Analysis of raw GNSS measurements derived navigation solutions from mobile devices with inertial sensors” (hereinafter Lee, cited in the 09/13/2024 IDS) and further in view of US 20210286086 A1 to Savoy, JR.; John D. et al. (hereinafter Savoy, cited in the 03/18/2025 IDS) as applied to the claims above in view of US 20210088672 A1 to Balog; Robert et al. (hereinafter Balog, cited in the 09/13/2024 IDS) as applied to the claims above in view of US 9332434 B1 to Dotan; Yedidya et al. (Dotan).
Regarding claim 50 the combination of Robinson, Lee, Savoy and Balog do not appear to expressly disclose however in analogous art Dotan teaches the limitation the wherein the alert comprises a report of the platform's last reliable position radius (in for example
PNG
media_image22.png
703
537
media_image22.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image23.png
641
528
media_image23.png
Greyscale
“(21) In operation, a policy must be negotiated and established as an initial matter. In one embodiment, the user 40 operates the policy negotiation module 58 on mobile client device 32 to send a proposed policy 80 to the server 36. The proposed policy 80 may be either explicit or implicit. When implicit, proposed policy 80 includes one or more allowable positions 82 as well as a radius 84 around each allowable position 82 from which the mobile client device 32 is permitted to access the resource 38. When the proposed policy 80 is explicit, it also contains a freshness interval 86, and, in some embodiments, a set of method types 88. Policy creation module 72 of the server 36 receives the proposed policy 80 and saves it locally as implicit policy 74 (if the proposed policy 80 is implicit) or explicit policy 76 (if the proposed policy 80 is explicit). (29) FIG. 2D indicates a hierarchy 130 of different types of types 96 of methods that could be found within the method types 88 that may be specified in the policy 80. The most precise method type 96 is GPS location determination 132, which is often accurate to within about 10 feet, depending on the quality of the GPS receiver 44. Less precise is cellular triangulation location determination 134, in which cellular transceiver 46 is used to measure signal delays from nearby cell towers with known locations to allow triangulation to be performed. The accuracy of cellular triangulation 134 may vary depending on the structure of the cellular network, but it is generally far less accurate than GPS 132. Less precise is WiFi Service Set Identifier (SSID) availability location determination 136, in which the WiFi transceiver 48 is used to obtain a list of broadcast wireless network names (e.g., SSIDs) within range of the WiFi transceiver 48. If the set of SSIDs within range includes all (or, in some embodiments, most) of an expected set of SSIDs that are predetermined to be in range of the allowable position 82 (and its associated radius 84), then WiFi SSID availability location determination 136 will return an indication that the mobile client device 32 is within the radius 84 of the allowable position 82; otherwise it will not. The precision of WiFi SSID availability location determination 136 is difficult to assign definitively, but is typically on the order of a few hundred feet. However, it is susceptible to spoofing in that a fraudulent user 40 may fool the system into reporting a false location 92 by setting up wireless access points in the vicinity of the mobile client device with the proper SSIDs. This susceptibility to spoofing may be avoided if a secure version of WiFi SSID availability location determination 136 is used in which each wireless access point broadcasts an encrypted time-dependent signature. The least precise method type 96 is radio station availability location determination 138, in which the radio receiver 50 is used to obtain a list of broadcast radio stations (e.g., AM or FM or both) within range of the radio receiver 50. If the set of radio stations within range includes all (or, in some embodiments, most) of an expected set of radio stations that are predetermined to be in range of the allowable position 82 (and its associated radius 84), then radio station availability location determination 138 will return an indication that the mobile client device 32 is within the radius 84 of the allowable position 82; otherwise it will not. Due to the shorter broadcast range, FM-based radio station availability location determination 138 is more accurate than AM-based radio station availability location determination 138, but even FM-based radio station availability location determination 138 is typically only accurate to within about 10-20 miles.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the position radius disclosed in Dotan with the spoofing information used to determine spoofing taught in the combination of Robinson, Lee, Savoy and Balog with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “improved the techniques” as taught by Dotan:
“(7) Embodiments are directed to improved techniques for allowing an authentication process to use earlier-acquired location information from a mobile device as long as the mobile device acquired the location information within a designated freshness interval. Improved techniques are also directed to using location determination methods aside from Global Positioning System (GPS) when GPS signals are weak. In some embodiments, improved techniques are presented for automatically determining the required freshness interval and/or permissible location determination methods based on additional factors.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as teaching, inter alia, the state of the art of spoofing at the time of the invention. For example:
US 20130251150 A1 to Chassagne; Olivier teaches, inter alia a METHOD OF PROVIDING AN AUTHENTICABLE TIME-AND-LOCATION INDICATION in for example the ABSTRACT below:
“A method of providing an authenticable time-and-location indication using a radio-navigation signal receiver comprises receiving radio-navigation signals broadcast from a plurality of radio-navigation signal sources, at least some of the radio-navigation signals containing one or more cryptographic tokens protected by encryption, the cryptographic tokens being updated from time to time. The receiver retrieves, by decryption, the cryptographic tokens from the radio-navigation signals containing them. The receiver then determines positioning data, representing its geographical position and time, based on the radio-navigation signals received. The receiver generates a digital authentication code using a cryptographic function taking as inputs at least the positioning data and the retrieved cryptographic tokens, and produces a data package including a first part containing the positioning data and a second part containing the digital authentication code.”.
US 20170041822 A1 to Thommana; John et al. teaches, inter alia Disruption Tolerance in Contested Environments in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“A method includes determining that a first receiver of a node of a mobile ad-hoc network (MANET) is in an electromagnetic contested environment for a first frequency. The method also includes scanning a frequency coverage range of a second receiver of the node for unused frequencies. The method additionally includes selecting a frequency from the unused frequencies, the selected frequency to be used for communication of messages from another node of the MANET to the node via the second receiver. The method further includes transmitting, to the other node, a message including information of the selected frequency via the transmitter.”.
US 20240219577 A1 to AVERIN; SERGEY V. et al. teaches, inter alia Method And Apparatus for Detecting GNSS Spoofing in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
PNG
media_image24.png
472
632
media_image24.png
Greyscale
“An apparatus for detecting global navigation satellite system (GNSS) spoofing, including a GNSS receiver that includes a first radio-frequency front-end (RF1) connected to antenna 1; a second radio-frequency front-end (RF2) connected to antenna 2; a digital section connected to both RF1 and RF2 and controlled with a single frequency oscillator. The digital section generates a first set of GNSS raw measurements based on signals received from antenna 1; generates a second set of GNSS raw measurements based on signals received from antenna 2; computes single differences between simultaneous raw measurements, generated with the signals received from the antenna 1 and the antenna 2 for the same GNSS satellite; compares the single differences with a threshold; and issues a spoofing alert when more than one of the single differences is below a threshold.”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LAWSON GREENE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6876. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-THUR 7-5:30PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 20260109