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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is a reply to the request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 6/8/2026, in which claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9, 12-17, 20-24 and 31-37 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 2, 7-8, 10-11, 18-19 and 25-30 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 31-37 is/are newly added.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/8/2026 has been entered.
Response to Argument
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s argues Zivkovic-Kuchler-Snider combination does not teaches “wherein the detection metric is indicative of a deviation between the first signal and the reference signal, and wherein the reference signal comprises a sequence of bits known by the first device.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Snider teaches the comparing of RSSI value to the RSSI threshold value in the register and determined if it exceed threshold value to determined if the signal is malicious or not. Although RSSI value is a product of the multiple RSSI measurements and not a single signal as suggested; however, the practice of taking incoming signal and compared it to the RSSI threshold is common practice among V2X communication in 5G. Elshafie teaches taking active transmissions received from the one or more network entities having a measured received signal strength indicator (RSSI) meeting an RSSI threshold, a measured reference signal received power (RSRP) meeting an RSRP threshold, a measured reference signal received quality (RSRQ) meeting an RSRQ threshold, a measured angle of arrival (AoA) meeting an AoA threshold, or 6) any combination thereof. In an aspect, any of the foregoing measurements (RSSI, RSRP, RSRQ, AoA, or any combination thereof) may be compared to one or more measurements of the active transmissions.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims rejected under prior art have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9, 12-17, 20-24 and 31-37 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9, 12-17, 20-24, 31 and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zivkovic et al. (US 20160323246 A1; hereinafter Zivkovic) in view of Kuchler et al. (US 20190074930 A1; hereinafter Kuchler) further in view of Snider (US 20250016566 A1) further in view of Elshafie et al. (US 20250185055 A1; hereinafter Elshafie).
Regarding claims 1 and 35, Zivkovic discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a first device, a first signal (remote device receiving a message signal from the local device [Zivkovic; ¶34-37, 40-41; Figs. 1, 3 and associated text]);
determining, by the first device, a detection metric based on a comparison [between the first signal and a reference signal] (a circuit that carries out one or more of these or related operations/activities (e.g., transmitting TOF signals or generate TOF responses, obscuring a leading edge, signal generation, comparing received data with stored data or otherwise involving encryption for authentication) and a response message is generated from challenge data included in the communication signal [Zivkovic; ¶34-37, 40-41; Figs. 1, 3 and associated text]). Zivkovic does not explicilty discloses determining, by the first device, a detection metric indicative of a comparison between the first signal and a reference signal; however, Kuchler teaches this feature.
In particular, Kuchler teaches verify the authenticity of the transmitter by comparing the STS that is received with a reference pattern. The comparison may be performed by a correlator that generates the reference value, or expected STS, based on an encryption key and a security-sequence-counter-value, and further comparing an input signal to a reference signal [Kuchler; 67-76]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to modify Zivkovic in view of Kuchler with the motivation to improve carrier recovery with high signal noise [Kuchler; ¶78].
determining, by the first device, that the first signal is not authentic in response to the detection metric exceeding a detection threshold [[and the RSSI exceeding an RSSI threshold]] (determined when the range exceed threshold, the signal may be from an attack [Zivkovic; ¶38-41][Kuchler; ¶65, 74-76]);
Zivkovic-Kuchler combination does not explicilty discloses determining, by the first device, a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) associated with the first signal and determining, by the first device, that the first signal is not authentic in response to the RSSI exceeding an RSSI threshold and stop communication between devices; however, in a related and analogous art, Snider teaches this feature.
In particular, Snider teaches read the RSSI from the signal received and calculate the differences between the signal, determine if it exceed the threshold and initiate countermeasures to overcome the jamming transmitter detected by the sudden and unexpected increase in average RSSI values [Snider; 19-27, 40-42; Figs. 3-4 and associated tests]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to modify Zivkovic-Kuchler combination in view of Snider RSSI signal detection with the motivation to help detects car thief’s jamming method [Snider; ¶26];
performing, by the first device, an action based on the detection metric and a detection threshold level (generated by modulating a signal using waveforms, communicated to an RF device. Because the leading edges of both waveforms are indicative of the same waveform. In some embodiments, the example processes shown in FIGS. 2 and 3 may be adapted to perform additional verification processes. For example, in some implementations, authentication may be repeated using another set of challenge-response messages or using another verification technique [Zivkovic; ¶34-37, 40-41; Figs. 1, 3 and associated text]).
Zivkovic-Kuchler-Snider combination does not elaborate wherein the detection metric is indicative of a deviation between the first signal and the reference signal, and wherein the reference signal comprises a sequence of bits known by the first device; however, in a related and analogous art, Elshafie teaches this feature.
In particular, Elshafie teaches taking active transmissions received from the one or more network entities having a measured received signal strength indicator (RSSI) meeting an RSSI threshold, a measured reference signal received power (RSRP) meeting an RSRP threshold, a measured reference signal received quality (RSRQ) meeting an RSRQ threshold, a measured angle of arrival (AoA) meeting an AoA threshold, or 6) any combination thereof. In an aspect, any of the foregoing measurements (RSSI, RSRP, RSRQ, AoA, or any combination thereof) may be compared to one or more measurements of the active transmissions [Elshafie; ¶159-164]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zivkovic-Kuchler-Snider combination in view of Elshafie various active signal to reference stored threshold value with the motivation to better identifier malicious signal.
Regarding claim 3, Zivkovic-Kuchler-Snider combination discloses the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the first signal comprises receiving the first signal during an authentication phase (the first message is the auth message, and the response is with respect to the authentication [Zivkovic; ¶34-37; Fig. 1 and associated text]).
Regarding claim 4, Zivkovic-Kuchler-Snider combination discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising detecion an anomaly based on the detecting metric and the detection threshold, wherein performing the action is furhter in response to detecting the anomaly (an EDLC attack, a leading edge of a transmitted waveform may be examined by an attacker to provide an early prediction of what waveform is transmitted within threshold range [Zivkovic; ¶18-23; Fig. 1 and associated text]).
Regarding claim 5, Zivkovic-Kuchler-Snider combination discloses the method of claim 4, wherein receiving the first signal comprises receiving the first signal from a second device, and wherein performing the action comprises stopping communication between the first device and the second device (when authentication failed or attack detected, response will fail [Zivkovic; ¶28]).
Regarding claim 6, Zivkovic-Kuchler-Snider combination discloses the method of claim 4, wherein detecting the anomaly comprises detecting the anomaly when the detection metric is higher than the detection threshold (when authentication failed or attack detected, response will fail [Zivkovic; ¶28]).
Regarding claim 9, Zivkovic-Kuchler-Snider combination discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting, by a second device, the first signal (local device transmit a message signal [Zivkovic; ¶34-37, 40-41; Figs. 1, 3 and associated text]).
Regarding claim 12, Zivkovic-Kuchler-Snider combination discloses the method of claim 9, wherein transmitting, by the second device, the first signal comprises transmitting, by the second device, the first signal using a Bandwidth Time (BT) value of 2.0 (waveform may respectively represent four two-bit values 00, 01, 10, and 11, communications may be limited to a specific bandwidth of frequencies. However, in some applications, the small pulse forming the leading edge of waveform 440, may add a high-frequency component that exceeds bandwidth limitations of the application [Zivkovic; ¶25-27, 45; Figs. 1, 3 and associated text]).
Regarding claim 13, Zivkovic-Kuchler-Snider combination discloses the method of claim 12, wherein transmitting, by the second device, the first signal comprises transmitting the first signal during a first communication phase, the method further comprising transmitting, by the second device during a second communication phase, a second signal using a BT value of 0.5 (waveform may respectively represent four two-bit values 00, 01, 10, and 11, communications may be limited to a specific bandwidth of frequencies. However, in some applications, the small pulse forming the leading edge of waveform 440, may add a high-frequency component that exceeds bandwidth limitations of the application [Zivkovic; ¶25-27, 45; Figs. 1, 3 and associated text]).
Regarding claim 14, Zivkovic-Kuchler-Snider combination discloses the method of claim 9, wherein transmitting, by the second device, the first signal comprises transmitting the first signal using a Bluetooth LE2M mode (wireless, bluetooth, etc., [Zivkovic; ¶32, 50]).
Regarding claim 15, Zivkovic-Kuchler-Snider combination discloses the method of claim 9, wherein transmitting, by the second device, the first signal comprises transmitting the first signal using Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) (wireless, bluetooth, etc., [Zivkovic; ¶32, 50]).
Regarding claim 16, Zivkovic-Kuchler-Snider combination discloses the method of claim 9, wherein transmitting, by the second device, the first signal comprises transmitting the first signal using Gaussian Frequency Shift Keying (GFSK) modulation (wireless, bluetooth, etc., [Zivkovic; ¶32, 50]).
Regarding claim 17, Zivkovic-Kuchler-Snider combination discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising determining a distance between the first device and the second device based on the first signal (threshold range defined (e.g., 10 cm, 2meters, etc.,) [Zivkovic; ¶22-28]).
Regarding claim 20, Zivkovic-Kuchler-Snider combination discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the first signal comprises a round trip time (RTT) packet, the method further comprising: determining a distance between the first and second devices based on the received RTT packet, wherein determining that the first signal is not authentic is further based on the distance (key fob to open door with distance threshold [Zivkovic; ¶22-28]).
Regarding claim 21, Zivkovic-Kuchler-Snider combination discloses the method of claim 20, wherein determining the distance comprises determining the distance based on a phase of a symbol of the RTT packet (distance between a smart card and a reader (e.g., employing near field communications (NFC)), key fob to open door with distance threshold [Zivkovic; ¶22-28]).
Regarding claim 22, Zivkovic-Kuchler-Snider combination discloses the method of claim 20, wherein performing the action comprises detecting, by the first device, an attack based on distortion of the first signal and refusing, by the first device, to perform an unlock action based on detecting the attack (open door only if signal is verified [Zivkovic; ¶22-28]).
Regarding claim 23, Zivkovic-Kuchler-Snider combination discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the detection metric comprises determining differences between the first signal and the reference signal and accumulating the differences (distinguish between different waveforms based on differences in one or more transmission characteristics including, for example, amplitude, frequency, and/or phase of a waveform [Zivkovic; ¶22-24]).
Regarding claim 24, Zivkovic-Kuchler-Snider combination discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the detection metric comprises determining a mean square error of the first signal relative to the reference signal (distinguish between different waveforms based on differences in one or more transmission characteristics including, for example, amplitude, frequency, and/or phase of a waveform [Zivkovic; ¶22-24]).
Regarding claim 31, Zivkovic-Kuchler-Snider-Elsharie combination discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the detection threshold is based on the RSSI threshold (taking active transmissions received from the one or more network entities having a measured received signal strength indicator (RSSI) meeting an RSSI threshold, a measured reference signal received power (RSRP) meeting an RSRP threshold, a measured reference signal received quality (RSRQ) meeting an RSRQ threshold, a measured angle of arrival (AoA) meeting an AoA threshold, or 6) any combination thereof. In an aspect, any of the foregoing measurements (RSSI, RSRP, RSRQ, AoA, or any combination thereof) may be compared to one or more measurements of the active transmissions [Elshafie; ¶159-164]. The motivation to better identifier malicious signal.
Regarding claim 34, Zivkovic-Kuchler-Snider-Elsharie combination discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, by a second device, the first signal; and determining a distance between the first device and the second device, wherein the determining that the first signal is not authentic is further in response to the distance being greater than a threshold distance (distance between the two entities [Elshafie; ¶139]). The motivation to better identifier malicious signal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 32-33 and 36-37 is/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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
These claims are allowable over prior arts since the prior arts taken individually or in combination fails to particular discloses, fairly suggest or render obvious the following italic limitations:
In claim(s) 32-33 and 36-37:
“further comprising: determining a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the first signal, wherein the determining that the first signal is not authentic is further in response to the SNR exceeding an SNR threshold…” in combination with other limitations recited as specified in the independent claim(s).
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http:ljwww.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAO Q HO whose telephone number is (571)270-5998. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached on (469) 295-9235. 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.
/DAO Q HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights