DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted claiming the benefit of Application No. CN202210232230.5, filed on 03/09/2022, which papers have been placed of record in the file required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/28/2024, 06/24/2025, and 05/30/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. 112
Claims 2-3, 6-7, and 11-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
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 2, 3, 7, 11 and 12 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claims are replete with indefinite language. It is unclear what many of the variables are in terms of their mathematical definition. The term “indicate” or “indicates” does not provide sufficient support for explaining the mathematical definition of the variables.
Claim 5 (not indefinite) refers to K and M in mathematical terms. “K ³ 2” makes it clear that K is a number. The limitation “wherein M is a positive integer” makes it clear that M is a number. However, other claims talk about these terms in not-exactly mathematical terms. Based on a theory of claim differentiation, Claim 2’s definition of M must be treated as different than the definition in Claim 5 as it uses different language. Here claim 2 states: M indicates a quantity of user equipments…”. “Indicates” therefore has a different meaning than “is”. It is unclear what type of information “indicates” a quantity. That could be many things. “large” and “many” can indicate quantities.
Examiner notes that this application claims foreign priority. It might be a translation issue with respect to the word “indicates”. It is possible, that a proper translation of the Chinese applications might yield a different result than the word indicates, and could resolve the indefiniteness. Examiner, encourages Applicant to double check their translation in the US filed claims.
“Indicates” is also used with the following variables: a, b, xi, yi, FalseBtsRsrpi, and no definitions are provided for n or m in the claims. Applicant’s specification states that : “It may be understood that a value of m may be set to be greater than or equal to 4.” This is exemplary language and not an explicit definition. The use of “may” means that “m” could be that number but it could also be something else. Effectively, per Applicant’s disclosure “m” can be any number. There are no metes and bounds for the value of n and m, explicitly. Implicitly there are no limit to the values of a, b, xi, yi, and FalseBtsRsrpi because those variables just need to contain information indicative of a number. It is unclear what it takes to be indicative of a number.
MPEP 2173.06 states in part: "... where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”
Regarding the equations in the scope of claims 2, 3, 7, 11 and 12 those equations are indefinite because the variables that make up those equations are indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2 and 11 recite the following similar features:
PNG
media_image1.png
463
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2 and 11 Language
Indefiniteness
the p and A indicate a transmit power of the target false base station
The term “indicate” makes it unclear if the variables p and A are supposed to be the transmit power in numerical form, or if p and A are simply associated with the transmit power.
the d indicates a propagation distance between the target false base station and the user equipment
The term “indicates” makes it unclear what the variable d is supposed to be. The examiner is unsure if the variable d is the propagation distance, or if d is simply associated with the propagation distance.
the M indicates a quantity of user equipments that report the K pieces of measurement data
The term “indicates” makes it unclear what the variable M is supposed to be. The examiner is unsure if the variable M is a specified integer, or if M is simply associated with the quantity of user equipments.
the (a,b) indicates the location information of the target false base station,
The term “indicates” makes it unclear what the variables a and b are supposed to be. The examiner is unsure if the variables a and b are supposed to be coordinates, or how they may indicate location information.
the (xi,yi) indicates location information of an ith user equipment
The term “indicates” makes it unclear what the variables xi and yi are supposed to be. The examiner is unsure if the variables xi and yi are supposed to be coordinates, or how they may indicate location information.
the FalseBtsRsrpi indicates a quantization level value that is of the reference signal received power of the target false base station and that is measured by the ith user equipment
The claim language “indicates a quantization level value” creates a deficiency of language. It is unclear what “indicates a quantization level value” is referring to.
PNG
media_image2.png
31
270
media_image2.png
Greyscale
No definitions are provided for the variables n and m at all, making the variables n and m indefinite.
Claims 3 and 12 recite the following similar features:
PNG
media_image3.png
376
617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 3 and 12 Language
Indefiniteness
the RSRP_predict indicates the predicted value
The claim language “indicates the predicted value” creates a deficiency of language. It is unclear what “indicates the predicted value” is referring to.
PNG
media_image4.png
29
232
media_image4.png
Greyscale
No definitions are provided for the variable n at all, making the variable n indefinite.
the A indicates the transmit power of the target false base station
The term “indicates” makes it unclear if the variable A is supposed to be the transmit power in numerical form, or if A is simply associated with the transmit power.
the (x,y) indicates the location information of the user equipment
The term “indicates” makes it unclear what the variables x and y are supposed to be. The examiner is unsure if the variables x and y are supposed to be coordinates, or how they may indicate location information.
the (a,b) indicates the location information of the target false base station
The term “indicates” makes it unclear what the variables a and b are supposed to be. The examiner is unsure if the variables a and b are supposed to be coordinates, or how they may indicate location information.
the error indicates a difference between the level value and the predicted value
The claim language “indicates a difference…” creates a deficiency of language. It is unclear what “indicates a difference…” is referring to.
the FalseBtsRsrp indicates the quantization level value that is of the reference signal received power of the target false base station and that is measured by the user equipment
The claim language “indicates a quantization level value” creates a deficiency of language. It is unclear what “indicates a quantization level value” is referring to.
Claim 7 recites the following:
PNG
media_image5.png
304
637
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 Language
Indefiniteness
the FalseBtsRsrp indicates a quantization level value that is of the reference signal received power of the target false base station and that is measured by the user equipment
The claim language “indicates a quantization level value” creates a deficiency of language. It is unclear what “indicates a quantization level value” is referring to.
the quantifyrsrp indicates a value obtained by rounding the level value
The claim language “indicates a value obtained by rounding the level value” creates a deficiency of language. It is unclear what “indicates a value obtained by rounding the level value” is referring to. The examiner is unsure if the “value” is supposed to be an integer, or what it is indicating.
the False_Bts_Quantify_Rsrp indicates an output quantization level
The claim language “indicates an output quantization level” creates a deficiency of language. It is unclear what “indicates an output quantization level” is referring to.
The lack of clarity on the variables in these equations causes a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim. This is a great deal of uncertainty. Accordingly, per the MPEP a prior art search and rejection cannot be conducted at this time. Applicants are encouraged to clean up the claims. Examiner invites Applicants to participate in a telephone interview with proposed amendments to solve these problems so that the next office action will be able to address the claims on prior art merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsiatsis et al. (US 2022/0394477 A1, hereinafter Tsiatsis).
Regarding claim 1, Tsiatsis teaches a method, comprising: obtaining K pieces of measurement data for a target false base station ([Figure 5, 510a] and [0056] describes "at operations 510a-c, the UE 110 performs measurements and collects among other radio channel characteristics between itself and three nodes illustrated as false RAN node 140, RAN node 122a, and RAN node 122b," i.e. obtaining a plurality of measurements for a target false base station) and location information of user equipments that report the K pieces of measurement data ([0059] describes "the unfiltered data collected so far as well as other data (e.g. all other filtered data collected so far, any mobility related data (e.g. a location of UE 110 or inertial sensor data) can be dispatched to a CN node 132," i.e. the location information of the UE is also measured prior to the report being transmitted in operation 550a), each piece of measurement data comprising an identifier of the target false base station ([0105] describes "determining (1224) an identifier of each of the plurality of nodes to which each radio signal strength measurement is associated," i.e. the UE is capable of comprising an identifier of each target base station, wherein each radio signal strength measurement contains an associated identifier) and a reference signal received power of the target false base station ([0077] describes "at block 1426, processing circuitry 803 measures reference signal received quality between the UE and nodes," i.e. the UE is capable of measuring a reference signal received power of a target false base station prior to the report being transmitted in operation 550a), and K≥2 (there are multiple K pieces of measurements as shown in FIG. 5/6); and determining location information of the target false base station based on the location information of the user equipments and the reference signal received power of the target false base station ([0065] referring to FIG. 6 operation 695, "the CN node 132 (or another CN node in the CN) can perform a false base station detection based on unfiltered data," wherein the CN or BS may determine the area, area read as location, the false base station resides, see [0047] - [0048], i.e. determining the location of the false base station based on the location information of the UEs and reference signal received power measurements as described above and depicted in FIG. 5 operations 510a-510c, which correspond to FIG. 6 operations 610a-610c, see [0056] - [0059] and [0063]).
Regarding claim 4, Tsiatsis teaches the location information of the user equipments are determined by using a minimization of drive tests positioning manner that is based on a global positioning system (GPS); or the location information of the user equipments are determined by using a triangular positioning manner or a cell identity enhanced positioning manner ([0265] describes the UEs or the BSs may include "the use of the global positioning system (GPS) to determine a location," i.e. the UE location measurements may include GPS capabilities).
Regarding claim 10, the claimed limitations of claim follow the mapping set forth in claim 1, further in view of Tsiatsis teaches an apparatus, comprising: a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor in communication with the memory, the at least one processor configured, upon execution of the instructions, to perform- ([0036] describes the wireless device may contain a memory storing instructions coupled with a processor to perform the operations described in claim 1. Also see FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 13, the claimed limitations of claim follow the mapping set forth in claim 4.
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.
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 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsiatsis et al. (US 2022/0394477 A1, hereinafter Tsiatsis) in view of AGARWAL et al. (US 2021/0153158 A1, hereinafter Agarwal).
Regarding claim 5, Tsiatsis teaches a method, comprising: obtaining K pieces of measurement data for a target false base station ([Figure 5, 510a] and [0056] describes "at operations 510a-c, the UE 110 performs measurements and collects among other radio channel characteristics between itself and three nodes illustrated as false RAN node 140, RAN node 122a, and RAN node 122b," i.e. obtaining a plurality of measurements for a target false base station), each piece of measurement data comprising an identifier of the target false base station ([0105] describes "determining (1224) an identifier of each of the plurality of nodes to which each radio signal strength measurement is associated," i.e. the UE is capable of comprising an identifier of each target base station, wherein each radio signal strength measurement contains an associated identifier), a reference signal received power of the target false base station ([0077] describes "at block 1426, processing circuitry 803 measures reference signal received quality between the UE and nodes," i.e. the UE is capable of measuring a reference signal received power of a target false base station prior to the report being transmitted in operation 550a), location information of a serving base station accessed by user equipments that report the K pieces of measurement data ([0047] describes "a network may be able to detect an imposter node since the network has the knowledge of the network topology (e.g., where each legitimate base station resides) and the network inventory (e.g., number of base stations, base station identities including PCI or Cell IDs, and base station locations)," i.e. the location of information of the serving base stations accessed by the UEs are available to be used in reporting measurement data), and K≥2 (there are multiple k pieces of measurements as shown in FIG. 5/6); using measurement data with a same reference signal received power as one dataset to obtain M datasets, wherein M is a positive integer ([0018] and [0067] describe the measurements may include data with a same reference signal received power as shown in FIG. 7, wherein each dataset will be included in the unfiltered measurement report, wherein a location in a dataset would be a positive integer); for each dataset, obtaining M locations through calculation based on measurement data comprised in the dataset ([0070] - [0071] describe the UE may collect location information from additional UEs/IoTs in order to aid in improving reliability of radio signal strength measurements, wherein additional UEs/IoTs are instructed to perform the operations of FIG. 5/6, i.e. collect a plurality of M locations to be included within the unfiltered measurement report); and determining location information of the target false base station based on the M locations ([0072] describes based on the process above "UEs can use unfiltered versions of certain measured quantities to generate an indication of a false base station in the vicinity of the UE," i.e. use M locations of other UEs/IoTs to determine the location of the false base station).
Tsiatsis is not relied on for the claim language and a timing advance between the serving base station and the user equipments. However, Agarwal teaches [abstract] a method wherein a base station is able to detect false base stations based on a window of time for arrival of uplink signals. Agarwal also teaches and a timing advance between the serving base station and the user equipments ([0048] describes "the UE 104 may include a false base station detection component 199 configured to detect a false base station based on a timing advance received from the base station 102/180, such as if the timing advance is greater than a timing advance threshold. The timing advance threshold may be received from the base station 102/180. In response to detecting the false base station, the UE 104 may report the detected false base station or may perform another mitigation operation," i.e. the ability to use a timing advance between the serving base station and the UEs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsiatsis to include a timing advance between the serving base station and the user equipments, as taught by Agarwal, in order to [0112] reduce a delay in reception of uplink communication between the UE and base station, and therefore aid in [0111] enabling the UE to detect a false base station.
Regarding claim 6, Tsiatsis teaches quantizing the reference signal received power of the target false base station in each piece of measurement data to obtain a quantization level ([0062] the UEs are instructed to "configured to collect unfiltered measurements of a subset of measured quantities according to operations 510a-c of FIG. 5 and dispatch them to the CN periodically for a limited time or until instructed by the CN to stop this false base station detection campaign," i.e. the collection of M locations may be limited, limited read as quantizing the reference signal received power of the target base station, in order to correctly provide a threshold value, threshold read as quantization level, see [0069]); and using the measurement data with the same quantization level as the one dataset to obtain the M datasets (the threshold described above may be calculated for each UE, i.e. each UE is associated with a different dataset of locations, see [0072]).
Regarding claim 8, Tsiatsis is not relied upon for the claim language for each dataset, determining, using a time difference positioning method or a least square positioning algorithm and based on the location information of the serving base station and the timing advance that are comprised in the dataset, a location that is of the target false base station and that corresponds to the each dataset, to obtain the M locations corresponding to the M datasets. However, Agarwal teaches as such ([0101] describes using time differences to aid in determining time advance for the UE's location, wherein the information may correspond to measurement data comprised in a report/dataset to determine the location of a false base station, see [0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsiatsis to include a timing advance between the serving base station and the user equipments, as taught by Agarwal, in order to [0112] reduce a delay in reception of uplink communication between the UE and base station, and therefore aid in [0111] enabling the UE to detect a false base station.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsiatsis et al. (US 2022/0394477 A1, hereinafter Tsiatsis) and AGARWAL et al. (US 2021/0153158 A1, hereinafter Agarwal) as applied in claims above, and further in view of NORRMAN et al. (US 2016/0309332 A1, hereinafter Norrman).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Tsiatsis and Agarwal is not relied on for the claim limitation averaging the M locations to obtain the location information of the target false base station.
However, Norrman teaches [abstract] a method performed by a network node for detecting a false base station in a communications network, wherein a network device is configured to perform measurements in order to collect information from network nodes. Norrman also teaches averaging the M locations to obtain the location information of the target false base station ([0141] describes "the collected information and the target information may be averaged over a plurality of network devices," i.e. the received location measurements may be averaged to aid in obtaining the location of a false base station, see [0092] for location measurements and [0059] for collecting information to indicate the presence of a false base station).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tsiatsis and Agarwal to include the ability to average M location measurements, as taught by Norrman, in order to [0028] allow a collection of measurements over a large coverage area and [0029] allow the operator to gradually collect detailed data in narrowed down areas to enhance detection of false base stations.
References Cited
Tsiatsis, Vlasios et al. (2022). False base station detection (US 2022/0394477 A1). Filed 2020-11-06.
Agarwal, Ravi et al. (2021). False base station detection based on time of arrival or timing advance (US 2021/0153158 A1). Filed 2020-10-30.
Norrman, Karl et al. (2016). Network node and method for detecting false base stations (US 2016/0309332 A1). Filed 2015-12-12.
Other Pertinent References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Walby, James et al. (2011). Apparatus and method for detecting a cloned base station (US 2011/0151796 A1). Filed 2009-12-21. Discloses comparing validation information between a first and second base station to determine the validity of a base station. (abstract)
Miao, Qiang et al. (2020). Fake base station detection (US 2020/0162925 A1). Filed 2017-05-31. Discloses collecting received information about a base station to determine if said base station is legitimate. (abstract)
Rajendran, Rohini et al. (2022). Source base station, ue, method in wireless communication system (US 2022/0060901 A1). Filed 2019-12-10. Discloses a method and base station for preventing a User Equipment (UE) from attaching to a false base station. (abstract)
Wang, Zhibi et al. (2016). System and method for faked base station detection (US 2016/0381545 A1). Filed 2016-06-21. Discloses a method of detecting fake base stations. (abstract)
Agarwal, Ravi et al. (2021). Using positioning techniques to detect false base stations (US 2021/0185536 A1). Filed 2020-10-30. Discloses a method for detecting a potential false base station (FBS). (abstract)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JAMES DWYER whose telephone number is (571)272-5121. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6 a.m. - 3 p.m. EST.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at (571) 272-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW JAMES DWYER/Examiner, Art Unit 2649
/JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights