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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
This application is a continuation of Application No. 17/534,072, now U.S. Patent No. 12,130,367.
Examiner’s Note
The claims filed 9/27/2024 in this application are identical to the original claims filed in parent application 17/534,072 on 11/23/2021.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The term “reception polygon” in claims 1-23 is interpreted according to specification para. [0041] as comprising the coverage range of a station, irrespective of its shape:
“In some exemplary embodiments, each station may have a reception polygon, circle, or the like, representing a coverage range of the station. It is noted that the disclosed subject matter uses the term "reception polygon" without limiting the shape to that of a polygon. Reception polygon may include an area of any shape in from which signals can be received by the station.”
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,111,405. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,111,405 anticipates instant claim 1.
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,111,405 in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,111,405 teaches the limitations of instant claims 12 and 19 with the exception of the method being performed by a processor executing instructions retained by a non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 12), or by a system comprising a processor and a memory (claim 19). However Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is well-known to implement a method including obtaining, computing, comparing, and determining steps as recited in U.S. Patent No. 12,111,405 claim 10 using the such conventional computer equipment as recited in instant claims 12 and 19. It would have been obvious to modify claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,111,405 to include implementation by conventional computer equipment as recited in instant claims 12 and 19 because it is a well-known implementation that could be used with predictable results.
Claims 1-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,130,367 in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,130,367 anticipate instant claims 1-23 as follows:
Instant
US 12,130,367
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
1
6
5
7
6
8
7
9
8
10
9
11
10
12
11
13
12
14
13
15
11
16
14
17
15
18
16
19
17
20
18
21
19
22
17
23
20
Examiner notes that instant claims 1-23 use the term “reception polygon”, while the US 12,130,367 claims use the term “reception area”. However, as discussed above with respect to claim interpretation, the term “polygon” is understood to include within its scope an area of any shape in view of specification para. [0041] “Reception polygon may include an area of any shape”. The “reception area” recited in the US 12,130,367 claims therefore meets the claimed “reception polygon”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co.v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
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 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stolte (US 20080086267 A1, cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Stolte teaches a method comprising:
obtaining one or more location-reporting signals of a maritime vessel (para. [0041] “AIS broadcast signals”), wherein the one or more location-reporting signals comprise one or more respective sets of geographical coordinates (“latitude and longitude” para. [0041]), each of which having a timestamp ( “other data” para. [0041] is known to include timestamp);
determining that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated (para. [0057] “anti-spoofing application”), wherein said determining that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated comprises:
identifying a station (para. [0057] “satellite”) that received the one or more location-reporting signals, wherein the station having a reception polygon (“footprint” para. [0057] is a reception polygon of a satellite; identifying the satellite that received the AIS signals is considered inherent to the operations described in para. [0057]); and
determining that at least one set of geographical coordinates indicated by the one or more location-reporting signals is fabricated based on the reception polygon of the station (para. [0057] “The AIS processor also may compare the latitude and the longitude reported in the AIS message to the latitude and longitude determined for the satellite 650. If the difference between the two exceeds a footprint or threshold, the message may be flagged 670 as suspect and reported 680”); and
performing a responsive action (para. [0057] “Suspect messages may be noted by the GCC and the information passed on to third parties for monitoring or further investigation).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, in addition to what has already been discussed above with respect to claim 1, Stolte teaches a gateway control center (GCC paras. [0035]-[0037]) comprising a processor for performing the method (para. [0037] “processing devices”).
Regarding claims 2, 13, and 20, when Stolte teaches comparing the reported latitude and longitude to the satellite footprint in para. [0057], Stolte implicitly predicts the location of the maritime vessel at a timeframe associated with a timeframe that comprises the associated timestamps of the at least partially fabricated one or more location-reporting signals as being within said footprint. Stolte’s prediction is therefore based on the reception polygon of the station/satellite as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Stolte’s notification of suspect messages (para. [0057]) is implicitly an alert to disassociate from the maritime vessel.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang (CN110221319, cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang teaches a method comprising:
obtaining one or more location-reporting signals of a maritime vessel, wherein the one or more location-reporting signals comprise one or more respective sets of geographical coordinates, each of which having a timestamp (page 1 “shore station that receives the AIS ship station signal”, where AIS signals comprise geographical coordinates and timestamps);
determining that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated (page 1 “AIS location information spoofing”), wherein said determining that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated comprises:
identifying a station (page 1 “shore station”) that received the one or more location-reporting signals (identification of station is considered inherent), wherein the station having a reception polygon (page 1 “receiving range”); and
determining that at least one set of geographical coordinates indicated by the one or more location-reporting signals is fabricated based on the reception polygon of the station (pages 1 “compare the calculated distance with the receiving range” and pages 1-2 “If the calculation distance dC does not conform to the formula (2), it is considered that the position information reported by the ship station is not true”); and
performing a responsive action (page 2 “the shore station displays the alarm”).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, in addition to what has already been discussed with respect to claim 1, Jiang’s “AIS shore station network center” (page 2) is considered to inherently comprise a processor and memory as claimed.
Regarding claims 2, 13, and 20, when Jiang teaches comparing the calculated distance with the receiving range on pages 1-2, Jiang implicitly predicts the location of the maritime vessel at a timeframe associated with a timeframe that comprises the associated timestamps of the at least partially fabricated one or more location-reporting signals as being within said receiving range. Jiang’s prediction is therefore based on the reception polygon of the station/satellite as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Jiang’s alarm (page 2) is implicitly an alert to disassociate from the maritime vessel.
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.
Claims 3, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stolte (US 20080086267 A1) in view of Joslin (US 8411969 B1, cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 3, Stolte does not teach verifying the predicted location at the timeframe by locating an object depicting the maritime vessel in images taken during the timeframe.
Joslin, in analogous art, teaches verifying a predicted location at a timeframe by locating an object depicting a maritime vessel in images taken during the timeframe (Fig. 2, esp. 202 and 210-222).
It would have been obvious to modify Stolte in view of Joslin in order to verify the predicted location.
Regarding claim 7, Stolte does not teach verifying that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated based on images, wherein the images depict the one or more sets of geographical coordinates during the one or more timestamps, wherein the images are absent of an object depicting the maritime vessel.
Joslin, in analogous art, teaches determining fabricated vessel location reports based on images depicting reported geographical coordinates in which the reporting vessel is absent (abstract last two lines; Fig. 2; 17:35-44 esp. “determine which AIS reports were not matched to an imagery detect and which imagery detects were not matched to AIS position reports in the image area”).
It would have been obvious to modify Stolte in view of Joslin in order to verify that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated.
Regarding claim 11, Stolte’s at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals are associated with a timeframe, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above. However Stolte does not teach wherein the responsive action comprises instructing a sensor to obtain a new reading at a location associated with the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals; and obtaining the new reading to confirm or refute the determination.
Joslin teaches instructing a sensor to obtain a new reading at a location associated with the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals; and obtaining the new reading to confirm or refute a determination of fabricated location signals (abstract last two lines; Fig. 2; 17:35-44 esp. “determine which AIS reports were not matched to an imagery detect and which imagery detects were not matched to AIS position reports in the image area”).
It would have been obvious to modify Stolte in view of Joslin in order to confirm or refute the determination of fabricated location signals.
Claims 4, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stolte (US 20080086267 A1) in view of Levinson (US 5223816 A, cited on IDS).
Regarding claims 4, 14, and 21, Stolte teaches a second station receiving location-reporting signals (abstract “plurality of space vehicles or satellites”; 110, Fig. 1), and the second station necessarily has a second reception polygon.
Stolte does not teach wherein said determining that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated comprises: intersecting the reception polygon and the second reception polygon to determine a potential transmission area; and determining that the location-reporting signal reports a location of the maritime vessel that is not within the potential transmission area.
However it is well-known to determine a potential transmission area based on an intersection of reception polygons. For example, in analogous art, see Levinson Fig. 8 as described at 5:33-59. Levinson’s “sensitivity ranges” comprise reception polygons analogous to Stolte’s satellite “footprint”. Determining an intersection of reception polygons as taught by Levinson reduces the size of the determined potential transmission area.
It would have been obvious to modify Stolte by determining an intersection as taught by Levinson in order to reduce the size of the determined potential transmission area, thereby increasing the likelihood of correctly identifying whether or not the coordinates are fabricated.
Claims 5, 15, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN110221319, cited on IDS) in view of Mazzarella (“AIS Reception Characterisation for AIS on/off Anomaly Detection”, cited on IDS).
Regarding claims 5, 15, and 22, Jiang does not teach that the reception polygon is determined based on historic location-reporting signals that were received by the station.
Mazzarella, in analogous art (abstract “AIS”, “manipulation issues”), teaches determining a reception polygon based on historic location-reporting signals that were received by an AIS station (abstract “coverage patterns extracted from the real historical AIS data”, with examples shown in Figs. 4-6). It would have been obvious to modify Jian in view of Mazzarella in order to accurately determine the reception polygon.
Claims 8-10, 16-18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN110221319, cited on IDS) in view of Iphar (“An experiment based method for the risk assessment of anomalous maritime transportation data”, cited on IDS).
Regarding claims 8, 16, and 23, Jiang does not teach determining based on a set of one or more receiving stations receiving the one or more location-reporting signals that fabricated signals are transmitted by an off-board agent on behalf of the maritime vessel, wherein the off-board agent is located remotely from the maritime vessel.
Iphar, in analogous art (abstract), teaches determining based on a set of one or more receiving stations receiving the one or more location-reporting signals that fabricated signals are transmitted by an off-board agent on behalf of the maritime vessel, wherein the off-board agent is located remotely from the maritime vessel (page 5 lines 131-134 esp. “detection of … falsifications”; section 2.2.3. “falsification cases”, “identity theft”; section 2.2.4 “external actor”, “ghost vessels” indicate off-board agents remotely located from the vessel; Table 2 “falsification scenarios”; page 2 last line “receiving antennas allow a large harvest of AIS messages”; page 5 lines 129-130 “AIS dataset constituted of messages received by our antenna”).
It would have been obvious to modify Jiang in view of Iphar in order to provide a further indication of fabricated messages.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, one would expect the set of one or more receiving stations remains to remain constant during at least a portion of a fraudulent period, and the portions of Iphar sited with respect to claims 8, 16, and 23 above demonstrate that during the fraudulent period fabricated location-reporting signals are transmitted by the off-board agent.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, both Jiang and Iphar teach terrestrial stations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, RESHA DESAI can be reached on (571)270-7792. 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights