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 application filed on 3/24/2026, in which, claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9, 12-17 and 20-30 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 2, 8, 10-11, 18-19 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 25-30 is/are newly added.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 25-30 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Original claims 1-24 is a using RSSI signal to determined signal authentication, which relied on signal strength.
Newly claims 25-27 is using SNR signal to determined signal authentication, which relied on signal power to noise power.
Newly claims 28-30 is using bandwidth time to determined signal authentication.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 25-30 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9, 12-17 and 20-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 3-7, 9, 12-17 and 20-24 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).
Regarding claim 1, 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; 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 [Snider; 19-27; 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]).
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 7, Zivkovic-Kuchler-Snider combination discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the reference signal comprises a predetermined sequence of bits, and wherein the first signal comprises the predetermined sequence of bits (waveform may respectively represent four two-bit values 00, 01, 10, and 11. By using the leading edges to encode additional data values effective bandwidth of the communication can be increased. Similarly, in some implementations trailing edges of waveform may be modified to represent additional data values [Zivkovic; ¶31], the frames are in bit sequence [Kuchler; ¶67-69, 75-76]). The motivation to improve carrier recovery with high signal noise [Kuchler; ¶78].
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]).
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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