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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on August 08, 2024 and November 21, 2025 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Preliminary Amendment
The present Office Action is based upon the original patent application filed on August 8, 2024 as modified by the preliminary amendment also filed on August 8, 2024. Claims 44-63 are now pending in the present application.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 44-46, 48-49, 51-61 and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boeira et al. (“Vouch: A Secure Proof-of-Location Scheme for VANETs”).
Consider claim 44, Boeira et al. disclose a method at a User Equipment (UE) for
verifying location information from another UE, the method comprising:
receiving, from the other UE, reference location information and updated location information (see Figure 1, in step 4 verifier vehicles receive a beacon which may include a proof (see section 3.1, paragraph 2) including proof position coordinates of the prover vehicle (see section 3.2, paragraph 2). At the same or a higher frequency, verifier vehicles receive a separate set of beacon coordinates interpretable as the updated location information (see section 3.1, paragraph 2));
determining whether the reference location information is valid or not (“Once neighbors receive a beacon, they verify if a proof is included and, if so, verify its signature” (see section 3.1, paragraph 2));
determining whether the updated location information is valid or not at least based on the reference location information in response to determining that the reference location information is valid (see Figure 1, in step 6 “For every beacon that is received, a plausibility check is executed and the beacon is classified as plausible or anomalous” (see section 3.1, paragraph 2). Said plausibility check includes a comparison between the beacon and most recent proof coordinates, which as previously described must first be validated (see section 3.4, paragraph 3)).
Consider claim 45, and as applied to claim 44 above, Boeira et al. further disclose a method wherein the reference location information is signed by a first network node, and the updated location information is not signed by the first network node (the proof “consists of the position coordinates, a timestamp, its confidence on the position accuracy and the digital signature [of the RSU network node]” (see section 3.2, paragraph 2). Beacon transmissions not
comprising a proof lack this digital signature); and/or
the reference location information and the updated location information are received
separately (beacon transmissions without a proof may be compared to previous proof coordinates in the plausibility check (see section 3.4, paragraph 3)).
Consider claim 46, and as applied to claim 44 above, Boeira et al. further disclose a method wherein for each of the reference location information, more than one updated location information is received (see Figure 4, proof acquisition occurs at a lower frequency than beaconing (see section 3.3, paragraph 2)); and/or
the updated location information has a later timestamp than that of the reference location information (proof messages include a timestamp (see section 3.2, paragraph 2). The plausibility check determines proof staleness based on elapsed time between the proof timestamp and beacon reception, necessitating that the updated location has a later timestamp than that of the reference location (see section 3.4, paragraph 3)).
Consider claim 48, and as applied to claim 44 above, Boeira et al. further disclose a method wherein determining whether the updated location information is valid or not comprises:
determining, at least based on geographic information and/or traffic information, a distance between a first location indicated by the reference location information and a second location indicated by the updated location information (see Algorithm 1, the bounds verification algorithm determines the distance between the beacon and proof coordinates in line 5);
determining a possibility that the other UE can travel the distance within a time difference between a first timestamp of the reference location information and a second timestamp of the updated location information (see Figure 6, the “last stored proof and required information from the beacon are used in the presented plausibility model to calculate the position bounds”. Equations 1 and 2 are used to find said plausible position bounds (see section 3.4, paragraphs 4 and 5)); and
determining whether the updated location information is valid or not at least based on the determined possibility (see Figure 6, the output of the verification function is a classification of whether the beacon coordinates are plausible or not).
Consider claim 49, and as applied to claim 48 above, Boeira et al. further disclose a method wherein determining the possibility comprises determining the possibility at least based on at least one of: geographic information, traffic information, and the other UE's capability (see Equations 1 and 2, the position bounds equations are based on the beacon and proof coordinates).
Consider claim 51, and as applied to claim 48 above, Boeira et al. further disclose a method comprising at least one of:
determining that the updated location information is valid in response to determining that the possibility is higher than or equal to a threshold (see Figure 6, the position bounds “are combined with the proof Cpos accuracy coincidence as threshold and compared with the claimed position in the beacon. The output is a classification as plausible or not” (see section 3.4, paragraph 4). Referring to Algorithm 1, the plausibility determination is made base on whether or not the positional output is above or below the positioning accuracy threshold T); or
determining that the updated location information is invalid in response to determining that the possibility is lower than a threshold (see Figure 6, the position bounds “are combined with the proof Cpos accuracy coincidence as threshold and compared with the claimed position in the beacon. The output is a classification as plausible or not” (see section 3.4, paragraph 4). Referring to Algorithm 1, the plausibility determination is made base on whether
or not the positional output is above or below the positioning accuracy threshold T).
Consider claim 52, and as applied to claim 44 above, Boeira et al. further disclose a
method wherein, before determining whether the reference location information is valid or not, the method further includes verifying a public key, which is associated with a first network node that signs the reference location information, with a Certificate Authority (CA) that issues, to the first network node, a certificate comprising the public key (in response to a proof request message, the RSU responds with a request acknowledgement (reqAck) including the certificate of the RSU. Subsequently, “the vehicle is then able to verify the authenticity of the RSU and extract the public key from the certificate in order to validate the signature of reqAck and the succeeding proof messages…the certificate already contains a signature by the Certificate Authority (CA) that can be used to assert its integrity and authenticity” (see section 3.2, paragraphs 2 and 3)).
Consider claim 53, and as applied to claim 52 above, Boeira et al. further disclose a method wherein, after the public key is verified to be a valid public key issued to the first network node, determining whether the reference location information is valid or not comprises determining whether the reference location information is valid or not by using the public key to verify a signature of the reference location information (“the vehicle is then able to verify the authenticity of the RSU and extract the public key from the certificate in order to validate the signature of reqAck and the succeeding proof messages” (see section 3.2, paragraph 3)).
Consider claim 54, and as applied to claim 44 above, Boeira et al. further disclose a method wherein at least one of the UE and the other UE is a vehicle (see Figure 1, both the prover and verifier UEs are vehicles).
Consider claim 55, and as applied to claim 44 above, Boeira et al. further disclose a
method wherein the UE communicates with the other UE via Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) signaling (the protocol is tailored for VANET communications (see section 2, paragraph 7)).
Consider claim 56, Boeira et al. disclose a UE, comprising:
a processor (a processor is inherent in all vehicles for proper functionality); and
a memory storing instructions (a memory is inherent in all vehicles for proper functionality) which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive, from the other UE, reference location information and updated location information (see Figure 1, in step 4 verifier vehicles receive a beacon which may include a proof (see section 3.1, paragraph 2) including proof position coordinates of the prover vehicle (see section 3.2, paragraph 2). At the same or a higher frequency, verifier vehicles receive a separate set of beacon coordinates interpretable as the updated location information (see section 3.1, paragraph 2));
determine whether the reference location information is valid or not (“Once neighbors receive a beacon, they verify if a proof is included and, if so, verify its signature” (see section 3.1, paragraph 2)); and
determine whether the updated location information is valid or not at least based on the reference location information in response to determining that the reference location information is valid (see Figure 1, in step 6 “For every beacon that is received, a plausibility check is executed and the beacon is classified as plausible or anomalous” (see section 3.1, paragraph 2). Said plausibility check includes a comparison between the beacon and most recent proof coordinates, which as previously described must first be validated (see section 3.4, paragraph 3)).
Consider claim 57, Boeira et al. disclose a method at a UE for providing another UE with trusted location information, the method comprising:
transmitting, to a first network node, a request for location information for the UE (see Figure 2, the vehicle transmits a proofReq message to the RSU);
receiving, from the first network node, the location information that is signed by the first network node (“the RSU begins to provide periodic proof messages to the vehicle. A proof consists of the position coordinates, a timestamp, its confidence on the position accuracy and the digital signature” (see section 3.2, paragraph 2)); and
transmitting, to the other UE, the received location information, as reference location information, and updated location information, such that the other UE can verify the updated location information at least based on the reference location information (see Figure 1, in step 4 verifier vehicles receive a beacon which may include a proof (see section 3.1, paragraph 2) including proof position coordinates of the prover vehicle (see section 3.2, paragraph 2). At the same or a higher frequency, verifier vehicles receive a separate set of beacon coordinates interpretable as the updated location information (see section 3.1, paragraph 2)).
Consider claim 58, and as applied to claim 57 above, Boeira et al. further disclose a method wherein the updated location information is not signed by the first network node (the proof “consists of the position coordinates, a timestamp, its confidence on the position accuracy and the digital signature [of the RSU network node]” (see section 3.2, paragraph 2). Beacon transmissions not comprising a proof lack this digital signature).
Consider claim 59, and as applied to claim 57 above, Boeira et al. further disclose a
method wherein the reference location information and the updated location information are transmitted separately (beacon transmissions without a proof may be compared to previous proof coordinates in the plausibility check (see section 3.4, paragraph 3)).
Consider claim 60, and as applied to claim 57 above, Boeira et al. further disclose a method for each of the reference location information, more than one updated location information is transmitted (see Figure 4, proof acquisition occurs at a lower frequency
than beaconing (see section 3.3, paragraph 2)); and/or
the updated location information has a later timestamp than that of the reference location information (proof messages include a timestamp (see section 2, paragraph 2). The plausibility check determines proof staleness based on elapsed time between the proof timestamp and beacon reception, necessitating that the updated location has a later timestamp than that of the reference location (see section 3.4, paragraph 3)).
Consider claim 61, and as applied to claim 57 above, Boeira et al. further disclose a method at least one of the UE and the other UE is a vehicle(see Figure 1, both the prover and verifier UEs are vehicles); and/or
the UE communicates with the other UE via V2V signaling (the protocol is tailored for VANET communications (see section 2, paragraph 7)).
Consider claim 63, Boeira et al. disclose a UE comprising:
a processor (a processor is inherent in all vehicles for proper functionality); and
a memory storing instructions (a memory is inherent in all vehicles for proper functionality) which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
transmit, to a first network node, a request for location information for the UE (see Figure 2, the vehicle transmits a proofReq message to the RSU);
receive, from the first network node, the location information that is signed by the first network node (“the RSU begins to provide periodic proof messages to the vehicle. A proof consists of the position coordinates, a timestamp, its confidence on the position accuracy and the digital signature” (see section 3.2, paragraph 2)); and
transmit, to the other UE, the received location information, as reference location information, and updated location information, such that the other UE can verify the updated location information at least based on the reference location information (see Figure 1, in step 4 verifier vehicles receive a beacon which may include a proof (see section 3.1, paragraph 2) including proof position coordinates of the prover vehicle (see section 3.2, paragraph 2). At the same or a higher frequency, verifier vehicles receive a separate set of beacon coordinates interpretable as the updated location information (see section 3.1, paragraph 2)).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boeira et al.
(“Vouch: A Secure Proof-of-Location Scheme for VANETs”) in view of Alpert et al. (US 20130311764 A1).
Consider claim 47, and as applied to claim 44 above, Boeira et al. further disclose a method wherein determining whether the updated location information is valid or not comprises:
determining a time difference between a first timestamp of the reference location information and a second timestamp of the updated location information (the plausibility check comprises a calculation of proof staleness by comparing proof and beacon timestamps (see section 3.4, paragraph 3)).
However, Boeria et al. fail to disclose determining that the updated location information
is invalid in response to determining that the time difference is greater than or equal to a time threshold that is predetermined or configured.
In the same field of endeavor, Alpert et al. disclose determining that the updated location information is invalid in response to determining that the time difference is greater than or equal to a time threshold that is predetermined or configured (“the SLP 212 may verify that the location determination measurements have been updated within a recent time period, i.e., that they have not expired. The time period for expiration may be a pre-defined or programmable value. If the location determination measurements have expired, the SLP 212 may not transmit the information or may transmit some indication that the location is not authentic since the location may no longer be valid” (see paragraph 0030)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Boeira et al. to determine that the updated location information is invalid in response to determining that the time difference is greater than or equal to a time threshold that is predetermined or configured as taught by Alpert et al. in order to avoid calculating excessively broad positional bounds due to a large time difference.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boeira et al. (“Vouch: A Secure Proof-of-Location Scheme for VANETs”) in view of Liu et al. (CN 111402574 A).
Consider claim 50, and as applied to claim 49 above, Boeira et al. fail to disclose wherein determining the possibility comprises determining whether the other UE can travel from the first location to the second location along a road therebetween at its maximum speed corresponding to a vehicle model of the other UE under a road condition corresponding to a time period between the first and second timestamps.
In the same field, Liu et al. disclose determining whether the other UE can travel from the first location to the second location along a road therebetween at its maximum speed corresponding to a vehicle model of the other UE under a road condition corresponding to a time period between the first and second timestamps (“The data server then determines the maximum distance that the vehicle can travel along the feasible road network based on the second time difference and the preset speed corresponding to the first vehicle data and the second vehicle data. Wherein, the second time difference is the difference between the first corrected detection time included in the first vehicle data and the second corrected detection time included in the second vehicle data, and the preset speed may be a maximum of the vehicle driving on the road” (see Page 6, paragraph 8). This maximum distance is compared to the distance between the detecting devices for verification purposes (see Page 6, paragraph 8)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement the method disclosed by Boeira et al. to determine whether the other UE can travel from the first location to the second location along a road therebetween at its maximum speed corresponding to a vehicle model of the other UE under a road condition corresponding to a time period between the first and second timestamps as taught by Liu et al. in order to provide an additional layer of validation security against location spoofing.
Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boeira et al. (“Vouch: A Secure Proof-of-Location Scheme for VANETs”) in view of Safstrom (“Evaluation of the Proof-of-Location Scheme Vouch”).
Consider claim 62, and as applied to claim 57 above, Boeira et al. fail to disclose a method wherein the updated location information is real-time GPS-based location information.
In the same field of endeavor, Safstrom discloses wherein the updated location information is real-time GPS-based location information (“For the prover node to be able to locate itself, its positioning must be fetched. Within this implementation, this was done using GPS…As default the GPS module uses a position sampling frequency of 1 Hz which had to be increased to its claimed maximum rating of 10 Hz” (see page 10, section 3.1, subsection “Location Technology”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Boeira et al. to use real-time GPS-based location information to supply the updated location information as taught by Safstrom in order to reliably and accurately determine the position of the transmitting vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER WU whose telephone number is (571)272-3360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, RAFAEL PEREZ-GUTIERREZ can be reached at (571)272-7915. 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 httos://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.
/ALEXANDER WU/Examiner, Art Unit 2642
/Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights