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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the communication filed 12/05/2024. Claims 1-30 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “the one or more wireless sensing signals” should read “the one or more spoofed wireless sensing signals” in order to remain consistent in terminology with claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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 1-7, 10-14, 16 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shenoy et al. (Jayanth Shenoy, Zikun Liu, Bill Tao, Zackary Kabelac, and Deepak Vasisht. 2023. “RF-Protect: Wireless Ghosts to Protect Against Device-Free Human Tracking”. GetMobile: Mobile Comp. and Comm. 26, 4 (December 2022), 28–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3583571.3583579; hereinafter Shenoy).
Regarding claim 1, Shenoy discloses:
A user equipment (UE) configured for wireless sensing protection (see at least Abs; “We present RF-Protect, a new framework that enables privacy by injecting fake humans in the sensed data. RF-Protect consists of a novel hardware reflector design that modifies radio waves to create reflections at arbitrary locations in the environment and a new generative mechanism RF-Protect to create realistic human trajectories.”), comprising:
one or more memories (see at least the schematic for RF-Protect in Fig. 5, which shows an RPi MCU, a device known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as a microcomputer having a processor coupled to a memory);
one or more transceivers (see at least Fig. 5, transmit and receive antennas, and antennas in Fig. 4); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories (see at least Fig. 5, RPi MCU, a device known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as a microcomputer having a processor coupled to a memory) and the one or more transceivers (see Fig. 5), the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to:
receive, via the one or more transceivers, one or more wireless sensing signals from a sensing device (see at least Fig. 4, where RF-Protect antennas receive signal from FMCW radar); and
transmit, via the one or more transceivers, based on reception of the one or more wireless sensing signals, one or more spoofed wireless sensing signals indicating a presence of one or more fake target objects, fake movement of the one or more fake target objects (see at least page 592, col. 1, paragraph 4; “We place a switched antenna array along the wall of the protected area (an alternative design could use multiple single antenna reflectors), as shown in Fig. 4. Each antenna acts as a potential reflector and therefore can emulate motion along the lines shown in the figure. We simply switch between the different antennas as needed to spoof the required angle. For example, if we place 𝐾𝑅 antennas along a wall, then we get 𝐾𝑅 possible directions to project a human motion. In practice, this gives us a grid of 2D locations where we can simulate human motion.”), or both.
Regarding claim 2, Shenoy teaches the UE of claim 1. Shenoy further discloses:
wherein the one or more spoofed wireless sensing signals are frequency shifted from the one or more wireless sensing signals (see at least page 591, col. 2, paragraph 2; “Our idea is that we can induce a small frequency shift in the radar reflection using simple hardware, leading to a time-varying Δ𝑓𝑅. In fact, we can just turn the reflector on or off at a switching frequency of 𝑓𝑠𝑤𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ to create a reflected signal at Δ𝑓𝑅+𝑓𝑠𝑤𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ.”).
Regarding claim 3, Shenoy teaches the UE of claim 2. Shenoy further discloses:
wherein the one or more spoofed wireless sensing signals being frequency shifted from the one or more wireless sensing signals comprises the one or more spoofed wireless sensing signals having a different beat frequency than a beat frequency of the one or more wireless sensing signals (see page 591, equation 3 and col. 2, paragraph 1: “Our idea is that we can induce a small frequency shift in the radar reflection using simple hardware, leading to a time-varying Δ𝑓𝑅. In fact, we can just turn the reflector on or off at a switching frequency of 𝑓𝑠𝑤𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ to create a reflected signal at Δ𝑓𝑅+𝑓𝑠𝑤𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ.”).
Regarding claim 4, Shenoy teaches the UE of claim 1. Shenoy further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors configured to transmit the one or more wireless sensing signals comprise the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to:
switch between transmission and non-transmission of the one or more spoofed wireless sensing signals according to a switching frequency (see at least page 591, col. 2, paragraph 1; “Our idea is that we can induce a small frequency shift in the radar reflection using simple hardware, leading to a time-varying Δ𝑓𝑅. In fact, we can just turn the reflector on or off at a switching frequency of 𝑓𝑠𝑤𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ to create a reflected signal at Δ𝑓𝑅+𝑓𝑠𝑤𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ.”).
Regarding claim 5, Shenoy teaches the UE of claim 1. Shenoy further discloses:
wherein the UE includes a plurality of antennas configured to transmit the one or more spoofed wireless sensing signals (see at least page 592, col. 1, paragraph 3; “We place a switched antenna array along the wall of the protected area (an alternative design could use multiple single antenna reflectors), as shown in Fig. 4. Each antenna acts as a potential reflector and therefore can emulate motion along the lines shown in the figure. We simply switch between the different antennas as needed to spoof the required angle.”).
Regarding claim 6, Shenoy teaches the UE of claim 1. Shenoy further discloses:
wherein the plurality of antennas is configured to transmit the one or more spoofed wireless sensing signals at different angles (see at least page 592, col. 1, paragraph 3; “We place a switched antenna array along the wall of the protected area (an alternative design could use multiple single antenna reflectors), as shown in Fig. 4. Each antenna acts as a potential reflector and therefore can emulate motion along the lines shown in the figure. We simply switch between the different antennas as needed to spoof the required angle. For example, if we place 𝐾𝑅 antennas along a wall, then we get 𝐾𝑅 possible directions to project a human motion. In practice, this gives us a grid of 2D locations where we can simulate human motion.”).
Regarding claim 7, Shenoy teaches the UE of claim 1. Shenoy further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to:
transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to a network entity, an indication that the UE is engaged in the wireless sensing protection (see at least page 589, paragraph 2; “Our hardware reflector can communicate the ‘fake’ information injected into the system to a legitimate tracking device authorized by the user.”).
Regarding claim 10, Shenoy teaches the UE of claim 1. Shenoy further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to:
determine a configuration for the one or more spoofed wireless sensing signals (see at least page 589, col. 1, paragraph 1; “RF-Protect consists of: (a) a new hardware reflector, deployed in the environment, that generates fake customizable reflections in the environment, and (b) a new algorithmic framework that controls the reflector to ensure that these fake reflections mimic real humans, i.e. they walk and breathe like humans in different activity settings.”); and
transmit, via the one or more transceivers, the configuration to a network entity (see at least page 589, paragraph 2; “Our hardware reflector can communicate the ‘fake’ information injected into the system to a legitimate tracking device authorized by the user.”).
Regarding claim 11, Shenoy teaches the UE of claim 1. Shenoy further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to:
transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to a network entity, an indication of the one or more fake target objects (see at least page 589, paragraph 2; “Our hardware reflector can communicate the ‘fake’ information injected into the system to a legitimate tracking device authorized by the user.”), an indication of the fake movement of the one or more fake target objects, or both; or
transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to the network entity, an indication of only a subset of the one or more fake target objects, an indication of only a subset of the fake movement of the one or more fake target objects, or both.
Regarding claim 12, Shenoy teaches the UE of claim 1. Shenoy further discloses:
wherein the one or more processors configured to transmit the one or more wireless sensing signals comprise the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to:
reflect the one or more wireless sensing signals as the one or more spoofed wireless sensing signals (see at least page 591, col. 2, paragraph 2; “Our idea is that we can induce a small frequency shift in the radar reflection using simple hardware, leading to a time-varying Δ𝑓𝑅. In fact, we can just turn the reflector on or off at a switching frequency of 𝑓𝑠𝑤𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ to create a reflected signal at Δ𝑓𝑅+𝑓𝑠𝑤𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ.”).
Regarding claim 13, Shenoy teaches the UE of claim 1. Shenoy further discloses:
wherein the one or more spoofed wireless sensing signals are one or more wireless interference signals (see at least page 589, col. 2, paragraph 1; “RF-Protect’s hardware reflector builds on this idea by incorporating an array of switched antennas, allowing us to spoof reflections from different directions and create arbitrary trajectories in a 2-D space.”).
Regarding claim 14, Shenoy teaches the UE of claim 13. Shenoy further discloses:
wherein the one or more wireless interference signals are: one or more random wireless interference signals, or
one or more structured wireless interference signals (see at least page 593, col. 1, paragraph 3; “To generate diverse trajectories that resemble human motion, we propose a conditional Generative Adversarial Network [31] architecture to generate synthetic trajectories.”).
Regarding claim 16, Shenoy teaches the UE of claim 13. Shenoy further discloses:
wherein: the UE is a centralized controller for the wireless sensing protection (see at least Fig. 5 and associated description on page 592, col. 1, paragraph 4; “A schematic of RF-Protect’s design is shown in Fig. 5. The reflector receives the radar signal, amplifies it, and passes it through a switch operating at switching frequency, 𝑓𝑠𝑤𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ. A microcontroller can manipulate 𝑓𝑠𝑤𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ over time to create random variation in distance sensed by the radar signal.”),
a different UE is the centralized controller for the wireless sensing protection, or
a network entity is the centralized controller for the wireless sensing protection.
Regarding claim 29, Shenoy teaches:
A method of wireless sensing protection performed by a user equipment (UE) (see at least Abs; “We present RF-Protect, a new framework that enables privacy by injecting fake humans in the sensed data. RF-Protect consists of a novel hardware reflector design that modifies radio waves to create reflections at arbitrary locations in the environment and a new generative mechanism RF-Protect to create realistic human trajectories.”), comprising:
receiving one or more wireless sensing signals from a sensing device (see at least Fig. 4, where RF-Protect antennas receive signal from FMCW radar); and
transmitting, based on reception of the one or more wireless sensing signals, one or more spoofed wireless sensing signals indicating a presence of one or more fake target objects, fake movement of the one or more fake target objects (see at least page 592, col. 1, paragraph 4; “We place a switched antenna array along the wall of the protected area (an alternative design could use multiple single antenna reflectors), as shown in Fig. 4. Each antenna acts as a potential reflector and therefore can emulate motion along the lines shown in the figure. We simply switch between the different antennas as needed to spoof the required angle. For example, if we place 𝐾𝑅 antennas along a wall, then we get 𝐾𝑅 possible directions to project a human motion. In practice, this gives us a grid of 2D locations where we can simulate human motion.”), or both.
21. Regarding claim 30, Shenoy teaches:
A method of wireless sensing protection performed by a network entity (see at least page 589, paragraph 2; “legitimate tracking device authorized by the user”), comprising:
receiving, from a user equipment (UE), an indication that the UE is transmitting, for the wireless sensing protection, one or more spoofed wireless sensing signals (see at least page 589, paragraph 2; “Our hardware reflector can communicate the ‘fake’ information injected into the system to a legitimate tracking device authorized by the user.” See also page 598, section 11.3, paragraph 1; “In Fig. 13, we demonstrate the ability of a legitimate sensor to successfully decode trajectories in presence of RF-Protect. Specifically, RF-Protect injects a fake trajectory (blue), while a real human motion happens in a different part of the room. A legitimate FMCW sensor observes both trajectories and can filter the blue trajectory out by communicating with RF-Protect tag.”) indicating a presence of one or more fake target objects, fake movement of the one or more fake target objects (see at least page 592, col. 1, paragraph 4; “We place a switched antenna array along the wall of the protected area (an alternative design could use multiple single antenna reflectors), as shown in Fig. 4. Each antenna acts as a potential reflector and therefore can emulate motion along the lines shown in the figure. We simply switch between the different antennas as needed to spoof the required angle. For example, if we place 𝐾𝑅 antennas along a wall, then we get 𝐾𝑅 possible directions to project a human motion. In practice, this gives us a grid of 2D locations where we can simulate human motion.”), or both.
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.
Claims 8, 15, 17-20 and 22-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shenoy in view of Sternowski (US-6697008-B; hereinafter Sternowski).
Regarding claim 8, Shenoy teaches the UE of claim 7. However, Shenoy does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to:
transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to the network entity, a location of the UE, a range of the wireless sensing protection, a zone-based indication of the wireless sensing protection, or any combination thereof.
Shenoy discloses an electronic anti-snooping device, and Sternowski is directed to a central controller for a distributed electronic warfare system. Sternowski teaches:
transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to the network entity, a location of the UE (see at least col. 5, lines 3-11; “A block diagram of the electronics package 205 in pod 20 is shown in FIG. 3. The electronics package 205 contains an IRIDIUM L-band transceiver 250 connected to antenna 215 that provides both a datalink and control circuit to the central control site 25 through the IRIDIUM gateway 35 and associated telephone system. Each pod 20 uses one IRIDIUM channel. Each pod 20 contains a GPS receiver 260 connected to GPS antenna 216 to provide the pod's current location to the central control site 25.”), a range of the wireless sensing protection, a zone-based indication of the wireless sensing protection, or any combination thereof.
Shenoy teaches a device that transmits interference signals that may be used singly or in groups. Sternowski teaches a centrally-controlled system of pods each capable of transmitting jamming signals. 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 group of devices used in Shenoy to be part of a centrally-controlled system and to transmit the location of each device to the central controller, as taught by Sternowski. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include a central controller to provide coordination to the plurality of devices, as shown by Sternowski.
Regarding claim 15, Shenoy teaches the UE of claim 13. However, Shenoy does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to:
receive, via the one or more transceivers, from a network entity, a configuration of the one or more wireless interference signals.
Shenoy discloses an electronic anti-snooping device, and Sternowski is directed to a central controller for a distributed electronic warfare system. Sternowski teaches:
receive, via the one or more transceivers, from a network entity, a configuration of the one or more wireless interference signals (see at least col. 2, lines 33-38; “The pods may perform electronic attack by transmitting a radio signal using the transmitters and antennas to disrupt, deny or deceive an enemy target. The radio signal is transmitted on a selected frequency with a selected modulation under command of the central control site or a control site-initiated autonomous reactive jamming mode.”).
Shenoy teaches a device that transmits interference signals that may be used singly or in groups. Sternowski teaches a centrally-controlled system of pods each capable of transmitting jamming signals. 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 group of devices used in Shenoy to be part of a centrally-controlled system and to receive configurations from the central controller, as taught by Sternowski. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include a central controller to provide coordination to the plurality of devices, as shown by Sternowski.
Regarding claim 17, Shenoy teaches:
A network entity configured for wireless sensing protection (see at least page 589, paragraph 2; “legitimate tracking device authorized by the user”),
receive, (see at least page 589, paragraph 2; “hardware reflector”), an indication that the UE is transmitting, for the wireless sensing protection, one or more spoofed wireless sensing signals (see at least page 589, paragraph 2; “Our hardware reflector can communicate the ‘fake’ information injected into the system to a legitimate tracking device authorized by the user.” See also page 598, section 11.3, paragraph 1; “In Fig. 13, we demonstrate the ability of a legitimate sensor to successfully decode trajectories in presence of RF-Protect. Specifically, RF-Protect injects a fake trajectory (blue), while a real human motion happens in a different part of the room. A legitimate FMCW sensor observes both trajectories and can filter the blue trajectory out by communicating with RF-Protect tag.”) indicating a presence of one or more fake target objects, fake movement of the one or more fake target objects (see at least page 592, col. 1, paragraph 4; “We place a switched antenna array along the wall of the protected area (an alternative design could use multiple single antenna reflectors), as shown in Fig. 4. Each antenna acts as a potential reflector and therefore can emulate motion along the lines shown in the figure. We simply switch between the different antennas as needed to spoof the required angle. For example, if we place 𝐾𝑅 antennas along a wall, then we get 𝐾𝑅 possible directions to project a human motion. In practice, this gives us a grid of 2D locations where we can simulate human motion.”), or both.
However, Shenoy does not teach details of the hardware of the “legitimate tracking device” (i.e., whether it has a memory and an processor), nor the mechanism by which it receives information from the “hardware reflector”.
Shenoy does teach the details of the electronics for the hardware reflector (mapped to the UE of claim 17): in Fig. 5, a Raspberry Pi microcontroller (RPi MCU) is shown controlling the transceiver. It is well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a Raspberry Pi microcontroller comprises a processor coupled to a memory. It would likewise have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the claimed invention to employ a processor coupled to a memory in the device with which the microcontroller communicates.
However, Shenoy does not explicitly teach that devices communicate with each other using transceivers.
Shenoy discloses an electronic anti-snooping device, and Sternowski is directed to a central controller for a distributed electronic warfare system. Sternowski teaches devices in the distributed electronic warfare system communicating using transceivers (see at least col. 1, lines 56-65; “A satellite communications system is utilized for communications between the electronic warfare pods and the central control site. The satellite communications system comprises a satellite communications network with a plurality of satellites, a ground network that supports and controls the satellite communications network, gateways for communicating between the satellites and a telephone network, and satellite system transceivers installed in the electronic warfare pods for communicating with the control site over the satellite communications network.”).
Shenoy teaches a device that transmits interference signals that is in communication with a remote device, the legitimate tracking device. Shenoy does not teach specifically how these devices communicate with each other. Sternowski teaches a system of pods each capable of transmitting jamming signals and that use transceivers to communicate with a central controller. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ transceivers as the communication means between the devices of Shenoy, in light of the teaching of Sternowski. Such a communication mechanism would have a reasonable likelihood of success because Shenoy already uses transceivers in the hardware reflector (see at least Fig. 5, transmit and receive antennas, and antennas in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Shenoy in view of Sternowski teaches the network entity of claim 17. However, Shenoy does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to:
receive, via the one or more transceivers, from the UE, a location of the UE, a range of the wireless sensing protection, a zone-based indication of the wireless sensing protection, or any combination thereof.
Sternowski teaches:
receive, via the one or more transceivers, from the UE, a location of the UE (see at least col. 5, lines 3-11; “A block diagram of the electronics package 205 in pod 20 is shown in FIG. 3. The electronics package 205 contains an IRIDIUM L-band transceiver 250 connected to antenna 215 that provides both a datalink and control circuit to the central control site 25 through the IRIDIUM gateway 35 and associated telephone system. Each pod 20 uses one IRIDIUM channel. Each pod 20 contains a GPS receiver 260 connected to GPS antenna 216 to provide the pod's current location to the central control site 25.”), a range of the wireless sensing protection, a zone-based indication of the wireless sensing protection, or any combination thereof.
Shenoy teaches a device that transmits interference signals that may be used singly or in groups and communicate with remote devices. Sternowski teaches a centrally-controlled system of pods each capable of transmitting jamming signals. 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 group of devices used in Shenoy to be centrally-controlled, as taught by Sternowski. It would furthermore be obvious to transmit the location of each device to the central controller, as taught by Sternowski. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include a central controller to provide coordination to the plurality of devices, as shown by Sternowski.
Regarding claim 19, Shenoy in view of Sternowski teaches the network entity of claim 17. Shenoy further teaches:
filter the sensing results based on the presence of the one or more fake target objects, the fake movement of the one or more fake target objects, or both (see at least page 598, section 11.3, paragraph 1; “In Fig. 13, we demonstrate the ability of a legitimate sensor to successfully decode trajectories in presence of RF-Protect. Specifically, RF-Protect injects a fake trajectory (blue), while a real human motion happens in a different part of the room. A legitimate FMCW sensor observes both trajectories and can filter the blue trajectory out by communicating with RF-Protect tag.”).
However, Shenoy does not explicitly teach the sensing results being received by a transceiver of a network device.
Sternowski teaches:
receive, via the one or more transceivers, from one or more sensing nodes, sensing results of sensing operations performed by the one or more sensing nodes in a sensing area (see at least col 2, lines 24-32; “Geolocation of targets is determined by time difference of arrival of signals at a number of pods simultaneously. The geolocation is performed by transmitting from each pod in the group a precise GPS time-stamped sample file with a GPS location of each aircraft to the central control site. A correlation program at the control site determines the target signal geolocation from the time difference of arrival of the signals at each of the dispersed pods.”).
Shenoy teaches a device that transmits interference signals that may be in communication with remote sensing devices. Sternowski teaches a centrally-controlled system of pods each capable of sensing and of transmitting jamming signals, with all information fed to a central controller. 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 group of devices used in Shenoy to be centrally-controlled, as taught by Sternowski. It would furthermore be obvious to transmit the sensing results to the central controller, as taught by Sternowski. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include a central controller to provide coordination to the plurality of devices, as shown by Sternowski.
Regarding claim 20, Shenoy in view of Sternowski teaches the network entity of claim 17. Shenoy further teaches:
transmit(see at least page 589, paragraph 2; “Our hardware reflector can communicate the ‘fake’ information injected into the system to a legitimate tracking device authorized by the user.”); or
transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to the one or more sensing nodes, a location of the UE, a range of the wireless sensing protection, a zone-based indication of the wireless sensing protection, or any combination thereof.
However, Shenoy does not explicitly teach communicating between devices using transceivers. Furthermore, the “network entity” of claim 17 was mapped to the tracking device, and Shenoy does not teach another network entity separate from the UE (hardware reflector) transmitting this information to the tracking device.
Sternowski teaches a central controller receiving and coordinating all information (see at least Abs; “A distributed electronic warfare system includes a central control site for controlling and receiving data from the system…”).
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 system used in Shenoy to include a central controller to receive and transmit information between various devices, as taught by Sternowski. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include a central controller to provide coordination to the plurality of devices, as shown by Sternowski. It would have been obvious to communicate using transceivers in light of Sternowski for the reasons given regarding claim 17.
Regarding claim 22, Shenoy in view of Sternowski teaches the network entity of claim 17. Shenoy further teaches:
receive, (see at least page 589, paragraph 2; “Our hardware reflector can communicate the ‘fake’ information injected into the system to a legitimate tracking device authorized by the user.”).
It would have been obvious to communicate using transceivers in light of Sternowski for the reasons given regarding claim 17.
Regarding claim 23, Shenoy in view of Sternowski teaches the network entity of claim 17. Shenoy further teaches:
receive, (see at least page 589, paragraph 2; “Our hardware reflector can communicate the ‘fake’ information injected into the system to a legitimate tracking device authorized by the user.”), an indication of the fake movement of the one or more fake target objects, or both; or
receive, via the one or more transceivers, from the UE, an indication of only a subset of the one or more fake target objects, an indication of only a subset of the fake movement of the one or more fake target objects, or both.
It would have been obvious to communicate using transceivers in light of Sternowski for the reasons given regarding claim 17.
Regarding claim 24, Shenoy in view of Sternowski teaches the network entity of claim 17. The remaining limitations of claim 24 are analogous to those of claim 13 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 25, Shenoy in view of Sternowski teaches the network entity of claim 24. The remaining limitations of claim 25 are analogous to those of claim 14 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 26, Shenoy in view of Sternowski teaches the network entity of claim 24. Sternowski further teaches:
transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to the UE, a configuration of the one or more wireless interference signals (see at least col. 2, lines 33-38; “The pods may perform electronic attack by transmitting a radio signal using the transmitters and antennas to disrupt, deny or deceive an enemy target. The radio signal is transmitted on a selected frequency with a selected modulation under command of the central control site or a control site-initiated autonomous reactive jamming mode.”).
Shenoy teaches a device that transmits interference signals that may be in communication with remote sensing devices. Sternowski teaches a centrally-controlled system of pods each capable of sensing and of transmitting jamming signals, with all information fed to a central controller. 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 group of devices used in Shenoy to be centrally-controlled, as taught by Sternowski. It would furthermore be obvious to configure the jamming signals using the central controller, as taught by Sternowski. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include a central controller to provide coordination to the plurality of devices, as shown by Sternowski.
Regarding claim 27, Shenoy in view of Sternowski teaches the network entity of claim 24. Shenoy further teaches:
transmit(see at least page 589, paragraph 2; “Our hardware reflector can communicate the ‘fake’ information injected into the system to a legitimate tracking device authorized by the user.”).
It would have been obvious to communicate using transceivers in light of Sternowski for the reasons given regarding claim 17.
Regarding claim 28, Shenoy in view of Sternowski teaches the network entity of claim 17. Sternowski further teaches:
the UE is a centralized controller for the wireless sensing protection,
a different UE is the centralized controller for the wireless sensing protection, or
the network entity is the centralized controller for the wireless sensing protection (see at least Abs; “A distributed electronic warfare system includes a central control site for controlling and receiving data from the system…”).
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 system used in Shenoy to include a central controller to receive and transmit information between various devices, as taught by Sternowski. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include a central controller to provide coordination to the plurality of devices, as shown by Sternowski.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shenoy in view of Ferm et al. (US-20080136701; hereinafter Ferm).
Regarding claim 9, Shenoy teaches the UE of claim 1. However, Shenoy does not explicitly teach:
transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to a network entity, a request to perform the wireless sensing protection; and
receive, via the one or more transceivers, from the network entity, a configuration for the one or more spoofed wireless sensing signals.
Shenoy discloses an electronic anti-snooping device, and Ferm is directed to coordination of electronic counter measures between multiple vehicles. Ferm teaches:
transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to a network entity, a request to perform the wireless sensing protection (see at least [0034]; “Preferably, the vehicles A and B repeatedly (e.g. at regular intervals) exchange messages during an entire mission, whereby the messages reflect a current status and availability of the electronic warfare resources included in the respective vehicle. As long as no threat has been registered the electronic warfare resources are typically inactivated, and thus the corresponding messages D.sub.statusF indicate that these resources are available. However, at a particular point in time, the first electronic counter measures station deduces that a particular type of jamming signals should be emitted to combat at certain threat, and that the effect of such signals would be improved if they were emitted in coordination with an available electronic warfare resource in the second station. Therefore, the first station includes a request message D.sub.req in a message sent to the second station. Preferably, the request message D.sub.req specifies an absolute point in time t.sub.J, which determines when the transmission of the jamming signals shall begin. The request message D.sub.req may also determine a time synchronizing pattern for the emission of the jamming signals, so that each station knows how often, how long, at which power, and possibly in which direction the signal is to be transmitted.”); and
receive, via the one or more transceivers, from the network entity, a configuration for the one or more spoofed wireless sensing signals (see at least [0036]; “According to an alternative embodiment of the invention, the starting point ti for the transmission is specified in the service accept message D.sub.acc, instead of the request message D.sub.req. Namely, thereby tj may be selected sufficiently far ahead to guarantee that the accepting station is prepared to start the transmission at this point in time. As can be seen in the FIG. 2, in this case, the duty cycle is not entirely balanced between the stations. Instead, the first station emits somewhat more signal energy than the second station. As a result, the false target perceived by a HOJ-operated threat/enemy weapon will appear to be located closer to the first station than to the second station (compare with the FIG. 1).”).
Both Shenoy and Ferm teach creating false targets to be detected by an enemy or snooper. Ferm is directed to coordinating efforts between multiple vehicles, and Shenoy teaches that coordination between multiple devices is an area of future work (see Conclusion). 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 device used in Shenoy to include requesting to begin protection and reception of configuration information, as taught by Ferm. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include these messages in order to coordinate the protection among multiple devices, as taught by Ferm and suggested by Shenoy.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shenoy in view of Sternowski, further in view of Ferm.
Regarding claim 21, Shenoy in view of Sternowski teaches the network entity of claim 17. However, Shenoy does not explicitly teach:
transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to a network entity, a request to perform the wireless sensing protection; and
receive, via the one or more transceivers, from the network entity, a configuration for the one or more spoofed wireless sensing signals.
Shenoy discloses an electronic anti-snooping device, and Ferm is directed to coordination of electronic counter measures between multiple vehicles. Ferm teaches:
transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to a network entity, a request to perform the wireless sensing protection (see at least [0034]; “Preferably, the vehicles A and B repeatedly (e.g. at regular intervals) exchange messages during an entire mission, whereby the messages reflect a current status and availability of the electronic warfare resources included in the respective vehicle. As long as no threat has been registered the electronic warfare resources are typically inactivated, and thus the corresponding messages D.sub.statusF indicate that these resources are available. However, at a particular point in time, the first electronic counter measures station deduces that a particular type of jamming signals should be emitted to combat at certain threat, and that the effect of such signals would be improved if they were emitted in coordination with an available electronic warfare resource in the second station. Therefore, the first station includes a request message D.sub.req in a message sent to the second station. Preferably, the request message D.sub.req specifies an absolute point in time t.sub.J, which determines when the transmission of the jamming signals shall begin. The request message D.sub.req may also determine a time synchronizing pattern for the emission of the jamming signals, so that each station knows how often, how long, at which power, and possibly in which direction the signal is to be transmitted.”); and
receive, via the one or more transceivers, from the network entity, a configuration for the one or more spoofed wireless sensing signals (see at least [0036]; “According to an alternative embodiment of the invention, the starting point ti for the transmission is specified in the service accept message D.sub.acc, instead of the request message D.sub.req. Namely, thereby tj may be selected sufficiently far ahead to guarantee that the accepting station is prepared to start the transmission at this point in time. As can be seen in the FIG. 2, in this case, the duty cycle is not entirely balanced between the stations. Instead, the first station emits somewhat more signal energy than the second station. As a result, the false target perceived by a HOJ-operated threat/enemy weapon will appear to be located closer to the first station than to the second station (compare with the FIG. 1).”).
Both Shenoy and Ferm teach creating false targets to be detected by an enemy or snooper. Ferm is directed to coordinating efforts between multiple vehicles, and Shenoy teaches that coordination between multiple devices is an area of future work (see Conclusion). 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 device used in Shenoy to include requesting to begin protection and reception of configuration information from another one of the protection devices, as taught by Ferm. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include these messages in order to coordinate the protection among multiple devices, as taught by Ferm and suggested by Shenoy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley B. Raynal whose telephone number is (703)756-4546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 AM - 4 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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/ASHLEY BROWN RAYNAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights