DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-9, 11, 16-17, and 20 have been amended.
Response to Amendment
Objections to Claims: Claims 1, 9, and 16
Regarding “integrity of the vehicle-of-interest, applicant has submitted amendments that address the concerns with regards to the specification. The objections to the claims are withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §101: The amendments to claims 4 and 11 overcome the rejections of record. The rejections are therefore withdrawn for claims 4 and 11-14. However, the amendments to claims 1, 9, and 17 do not overcome the other rejections of record. The rejections to claims 1-3, 5-10, and 15-20 are maintained.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103: Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended to change the scope of the claimed invention. Specifically, amended claim 1 recites “determining the integrity of the position received in the data from the at least two neighboring vehicles based on the calculated current position of the vehicle-of-interest and the determined distance to the at least two neighboring vehicles” which changes the scope of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Claim objections: Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 06/25/2026, with respect to claims 1, 9, and 17 and the limitation “and a direction of travel of” and claim 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 1, 6, 9, and 17 have been withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §112(b): Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 06/25/2026, with respect to Claims 1, 9, and 17-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejections of record have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the uncertain relationship as laid out in the claims between the received position integrity and the determined position integrity. Please see 112b section below for details.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §101: Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that, “to meet its object of ensuring safety in GNSS-denied environments, the method must be performed repetitively as ADS-B and radar data are gathered during movement of the vehicle”. However, repetitive method performance is only mentioned in dependent claims 4 and 11, and even then the method only has to be completed a second time to satisfy the claim requirement.
Applicant further argues that the example supplied in the 101 section of the nonfinal rejection filed 03/25/2026, which described drawing a new position of the vehicle of interest, was incorrect because, in contrast, “The method uses data form the ADS-B and the radar to determine the position of the vehicle”. Examiner would like to clarify that stating “draw[s] a new position of the vehicle” was meant to describe a process where a new derived position was determined using the distance and angle information of the neighboring vehicles, and a representation of this position was drawn on the grid map to aid in the position analysis and integrity determination process.
Applicant further argues that “the data is arriving too fast for this calculation to be performed in the human mind”. Examiner maintains that the claim does not describe a speed at which the data is arriving. The claims do not describe data arriving repeatedly, and a single snapshot of data could be received for use in position and integrity analysis. Applicant also argues that “the timing of the signals and the need to verify the integrity of GNSS signals, or create a replacement for the GNSS signals, are time critical processes. It is not practical to perform that type of math in the human mind that quickly.” Examiner maintains that the claims do not specify how long it should take to derive the positions and determine position integrities. Also, if the vehicles are moving, they could be travelling in the same direction and at the same speed, which would simplify the calculations.
Applicant further argues that “it is not a two-dimensional world; three dimensional calculations would be required which would be difficult using the description in the office action of drawing a grid map”. However, examiner maintains that the claims do not mention a 3-D requirement. Furthermore, while the calculations would be more difficult with a 3-D requirement, examiner maintains that a person is still capable of mentally, with the aid of a pencil and paper, performing the steps of position derivation and integrity analysis.
Applicant further argues that “the claims require receiving ADS-B data and radar reflections. This requires hardware and cannot be accomplished in the human mind.” Examiner acknowledges that the receiving of ADS-B and radar data is not part of the abstract idea, but examiner maintains that the steps are additional elements that amount to insignificant pre-solution data gathering steps.
Applicant cites an example in section 2106.04(a)(2) (III) (A) of the MPEP of a claim that does not recite mental processes because they cannot be practically performed in the human mind. The example describes “calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time of reception of satellite signals, where the claimed GPS receiver calculated pseudoranges that estimated the distance from the GPS receiver to a plurality of satellites”. Examiner maintains that the instant claims differ from the example in that the instant claims do not describe calculating a position “where the claimed GPS receiver calculated pseudoranges that estimated the distance from the GPS receiver to a plurality of satellite”. Instead, the instant claims describe deriving positions using received position and distance / orientation information.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103: Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered, and some are persuasive while others are not. Overall, the 103 rejections to claims 1, 6-9, and 15-20 are maintained, and the 103 rejections to claims 2-5 and 10-14 are withdrawn.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the claim “requires that the data received from the at least two neighboring vehicles include the integrity data; a measure of the trustworthiness or accuracy of the position data. This is not taught in either reference, alone or in combination”. Examiner acknowledges that neither of the cited references, Tel Oren or Kim, teach the limitations in question. However, examiner now relies on new reference Bennington et al. (US 20250216559 A1) (see paragraphs [0104] and [0122]) to teach this limitation.
Applicant further argues that Tel Oren “does mention a “quality metric”, but “this quality metric … is not based on a measure of the accuracy of the data that it is associated with. It is a qualitative metric based on, for example, past history”. Examiner maintains that the quality metric of Tel Oren is based on “a level of geographic reasonableness associated with a corresponding item of object first position information” (see Tel Oren [0076]-[0080]), and therefore represents a measure of the accuracy of the data.
Applicant further argues that “The Office Action misapprehends the meaning of “current path.” … it si not a measure of the current position. Rather, it is a representation of the path that the vehicle-of-interest intends to traverse. Paragraph [0119] of Tel Oren relates to a measure of the current position of the vehicle”. Examiner argues that the specification does not further define what is meant by “the current path”, and that without further definition, a current position of the vehicle reads on the current path language.
Applicant further argues that the cited art does not teach “the current position is calculated based on …: the direction of travel of the at least two neighboring vehicles and … the current path of the vehicle of interest”. However, examiner maintains that Tel Oren teaches deriving a position of the vehicle of interest based on first information, which includes position data of neighboring vehicles, and second information, which includes distance and direction data between the vehicle of interest and neighboring vehicles (see Tel Oren paragraphs [0007], [0036], and [0055]-[0057]).
Applicant further argues that the quality metric of Tel Oren does not teach “determining the integrity of the position received in the data from the at least two neighboring vehicles based on the calculated current position of the vehicle-of-interest and the determined distance to the at least two neighboring vehicles”. However, examiner maintains that the quality metric of Tel Oren does teach the amended language added to the independent claims concerning current position and determined distance (see 103 section below and Tel Oren paragraphs [0180] and [0207]).
Regarding claim 2, examiner agrees that the quality metric of Tel Oren is not determined based on a comparison of derived positions of neighboring vehicles with received position information from neighboring vehicles. Therefore, the 103 rejections to claims 2 and 10, and downstream dependent claims, are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10: “checking” does not match with “determining” from claim 9.
Claim 17: “the integrity of a position received in the broadcast data from the at least two neighboring vehicles” lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The term “vicinity” in claims 1, 9, 17, and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “vicinity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear which other vehicles besides the vehicle-of-interest would be eligible as the “at least two neighboring vehicles” of the claims. How close would the neighboring vehicles have to be?
Claims 2-8 are dependent on claim 1, claims 10-16 are dependent on claim 9, and claims 19-20 are dependent on claim 17. Therefore, these dependent claims inherit the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, claims 2-8, 10-16, and 19-20 are rejected under similar reasoning as claims 1, 9, and 17.
Claims 1, 9, and 18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention
Regarding claim 1 and 9, which state, “receiving data including … integrity that is broadcast from an ADS-B system from at least two neighboring vehicles” and “determining the integrity of the position received in the data from the at least two neighboring vehicles”, the relationship between the received integrity of the data including position and the determined integrity of the position received in the data are related.
Is the determined integrity of the position received in the data from the at least two neighboring vehicles supposed to be a new, unique position integrity compared to the received position integrity of the neighboring vehicles from the ADS-B data, or does the determined integrity represent an update or replacement of the received position integrity? Paragraph [0013] of the instant specification indicates that “The ADS-B data … includes … Position integrity/accuracy”. The “the” in front of “integrity of the position received in the data” indicates that an integrity of the position received in the data has already been introduced in the claim (the received integrity). Examiner requests clarification in the claim language on the relationship between the received and determined position integrities of the neighboring vehicles.
Claim 18 introduces the same issue concerning the relationship between the received position integrity and the determined integrity introduced in claim 17.
Claims 2-8 are dependent on claim 1 and claims 10-16 are dependent on claim 9. Therefore, these dependent claims inherit the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, claims 2-8 and 10-16 are rejected under similar reasoning as claims 1 and 9`.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 17 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a Process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Example: iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721.
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See claim 17 language below:
A method for determining a position of a vehicle-of-interest, the method comprising:
receiving broadcast data from an ADS-B system from at least two neighboring vehicles in the vicinity of the vehicle-of-interest;
receiving radar reflections from the at least two neighboring vehicles using radar on the vehicle-of-interest;
receiving a current path of the vehicle-of-interest;
calculating a current position of the vehicle-of-interest and an integrity of the current position based on the broadcast data from the at least two neighboring vehicles, the radar reflections from the at least two neighboring vehicles, and the current path of the vehicle-of-interest;
determining the integrity of a position received in the broadcast data from the at least two neighboring vehicles based on the calculated current position of the vehicle of interest and the determined distance to the at least two neighboring vehicles; and
broadcasting a message about the integrity of the position received in the broadcast data from the at least two neighboring vehicles.
The Process in claim 17, specifically comprising the limitations bolded and italicized above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind with the aid of a pencil and paper and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of determining a position and a position integrity of a vehicle of interest and determining position integrities of neighboring vehicles. This is equivalent to, having received ADS-B position information from two neighboring vehicles, radar data indicating distance and direction to two neighboring vehicles from the vehicle of interest, and a position of a vehicle of interest, derive a second position of the vehicle of interest. This could be accomplished by drawing a grid map, drawing markings identifying the position of the vehicle of interest and the positions of the two neighboring vehicles based on the received ADS-B position data and the received position of the vehicle of interest using the coordinate system of the map, and using the distance and angle radar information to draw a new marking identifying a derived position of the vehicle of interest on the map. If the received position of the vehicle of interest does not match the calculated position of the vehicle of interest, the integrity of the received position can be deemed low. Next, a similar process can be carried out to derive second positions for the neighboring vehicles based on the derives position of the vehicle of interest and the radar distances and angles. If those new derived positions of the neighboring vehicles do not match the received ADS-B positions of the neighboring vehicles, the integrities of the ADS-B positions can be deemed low. Furthermore, the process in claim 1 consisting of the limitations bolded above is a mathematical formula, represented by the function in claim [0016] of the instant specification.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements (underlined above) that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 17 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The step of “receiving broadcast data…”, “receiving radar reflections …”, and “receiving a current path of the vehicle-of-interest” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. Further, the limitation “broadcasting a message …” is also recited at a high level of generality and is merely transmitting data which is a form of post solutions actions (extra solution activity).
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 17 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well- understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Mere data communication steps that can be performed entirely on any one or more generic computer/-s have also been previously identified by the courts as an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception): (A) Receiving and/or transmitting data is considered to be well-understood, routine, or conventional at least as evidenced by MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i) "Receiving or transmitting data over a network", and (iv) "Storing and retrieving information in memory" and (B) Comparing the received data to other data is considered to be well-understood, routine or conventional at least as evidenced by MPEP§ 2106.05(d)(II)(ii) "Performing repetitive calculations".
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 17 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 17 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Additionally, Claims 1-3, 5-10, 15-16, and 18-20:
fall within one of the statutory categories (Claims 1-8, 18-20: Process; Claims 9-16: Machine)
directed toward an abstract idea (Mental Process and mathematical formula),
do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and
do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is clear that Claims 1-3, 5-10, 15-16, and 18-20 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 4 and 11-14 are not rejected under 101 because claims 4 and 11 (claims 12-14 are dependent on claim 11) recite “repeating the method to iteratively calculate the current position of the vehicle-of interest while excluding data from neighboring vehicles determined to have low integrity”, which represents an improvement to the technology of collecting neighboring vehicle data based on integrity level.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1, 6, 8-9, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tel Oren (US 20240385333 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20180217266 A1) and Bennington et al. (US 20250216559 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tel Oren teach A method for determining a position of a vehicle-of-interest (see at least FIG. 1A: vehicle 105), the method comprising:
ADS-B (see at least [0176]: “Other technologies … that can server for such sensors include … Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) systems 177.”);
receiving data (see at least FIG. 8A step 810: “Receive transmission, including item(s) of object first position information associated with object(s)”) including position (see at least [0036]: “the object first position information associated with the at least one object comprising GNSS position information of the at least one object.”), velocity (see at least [0097]: “the at least one item of first position information … are indicative of a speed of the at least one object”), heading (see at least [0096]: “the at least one item of first position information … are indicative of a direction of the at least one object”) (see at least [0345], FIG. 3A: receiver 178) from at least two neighboring vehicles (see at least [0047]: “the at least one object comprises a plurality of objects”) in the vicinity (see at least [0205]: “objects such as ships 192-197 indicates that vehicle 105 is in their vicinity.”) of the vehicle-of-interest;
determining a distance to, and a direction of travel of (see at least [0055]-[0057]: “the vehicle is associated with at least one sensor, wherein the second position information being based on sensor data obtained from the at least one sensor, wherein the second relative position comprising a range of the at least one object and at least one relative angle of the at least one object”), each of the at least two neighboring vehicles using radar (see at least FIG. 3A: RADAR 177, 389; [0058]: “the sensor(s) comprises at least one of: a Radio Detection and Ranging (RADAR) system”) on the vehicle-of-interest;
receiving a current path (see at least [0119]: “the reported position of the vehicle is based on at least one Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) signal received by at least one GNSS receiver associated with the vehicle.”) of the vehicle-of-interest;
calculating a current position (see at least [0007]: “determine a derived position of the vehicle, based at least on the first information and on the second position information”; [0207]: “Note in the figure that Ship 7 197 is shown as a dashed line. This schematically indicates that its reported absolute position, e.g. of 2-D coordinates (X7, Y7), is considerably far away … from the known position of vehicle 105. … Vehicle 105 may then ignore the data sent by 197 when determining vehicle position.”) of the vehicle-of-interest and an integrity (see at least FIG. 8D step 865: “Determining a deviation between the derived position and the reported position of the vehicle.”) of the current position based on (1) the data from the at least two neighboring vehicles, (2) the distance to, and direction of travel of, the at least two neighboring vehicles, and (3) the current path of the vehicle-of-interest;
determining the integrity (see at least [0076]-[0080]: “for each object of the plurality of objects, determining a quality metric associated with a corresponding item of object identification information; … the quality metric of each object is based at least on a level of geographic reasonableness associated with a corresponding item of object first position information of each object.”) of the position received in the data from the at least two neighboring vehicles based on the calculated current position (see at least [0180]: “determining a deviation between the derived position of the vehicle and the GNSS-reported position of the vehicle. … the vehicle can send a correction instruction and/or command, to correct the reported position of the vehicle. In some examples, the vehicle can navigate based on the corrected reported position of the vehicle.”) of the vehicle-of-interest and the determined distance (see at least [0207]: “Ship 7 197 is shown as a dashed line. This schematically indicates that its reported absolute position, e.g. of 2-D coordinates (X7, Y7), is considerably far away … from the known position of vehicle 105. … The transmission from object 197 is thus geographically unreasonable or illogical.”) to the at least two neighboring vehicles; and
However, Tel Oren does not explicitly teach receiving data including integrity from and ADS-B system;
broadcasting a message about the integrity of the position received in the data from the at least two neighboring vehicles.
Kim teach receiving data (see at least [0037]: “the ADS-B data is obtained by the first airplane 110 from the second airplane 110’”; “the latitude, longitude and height (LLH) data is obtained for the airplane 110′ via the ADS-B receiver 420.”) that is broadcast from an ADS-B system (FIG. 4: ADS-B RECEIVER 420);
determining the integrity (see at least FIG. 3 steps 300: slant range comparison [Wingdings font/0xE0] 310: tolerance check [Wingdings font/0xE0] 330: “flag all airplanes that do not pass the tolerance check as a potential target for GPS spoofing”) of the position received;
broadcasting (see at least [0020]: “The link 200 could be an element of data … broadcast”) a message about the determined integrity (see at least [0020]: “The link 200 is a stored quantity of data that indicates that vehicle 110 and/or vehicle 110′ is more likely to be a victim of GPS spoofing.”) of the position received in the data from the at least two neighboring vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tel Oren to incorporate the teachings of Kim to broadcast messages about vehicle position integrity. Doing so would “provide for … improved GPS spoofing detection for GPS receivers in vehicles”, as recognized by Kim in paragraph [0003].
Bennington teaches receiving data including integrity (see at least [0104]: “the input data includes … ADS-B integrity … the input data includes data collected for a plurality of aircraft.”; [0122]: “receiving at the cloud-based server ADS-B integrity and GNSS integrity data.”) that is broadcast from an ADS-B system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tel Oren to incorporate the teachings of Bennington to receive ADS-B integrity data. Doing so would “mitigate risks associated with spoofing”, as recognized by Bennington in paragraph [0050].
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Tel Oren, Kim, and Bennington teach The method of claim 1.
Tel Oren further teaches and further comprising:
calculating a GNSS-derived position (see at least [0119]: “the reported position of the vehicle is based on at least one Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) signal received by at least one GNSS receiver associated with the vehicle.”) of the vehicle-of-interest using data from a GNSS receiver; and
comparing (see at least FIG. 8D step 865: “Determining a deviation between the derived position and the reported position of the vehicle.”) the GNSS-derived position with the current position to determine the integrity of the GNSS-derived position.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Tel Oren, Kim, and Bennington teach The method of claim 1.
Tel Oren further teaches wherein calculating the current position of the vehicle-of-interest and an integrity o the current position comprises, for N neighboring vehicles, applying a function defined by:
Func
[
[Position of Vehicle 1; Position of Vehicle 2, . . .Position of Vehicle N] (see at least [0168]: “The transmission is associated with one or more objects.”; [0036]: “the object first position information associated with the at least one object comprising GNSS position information of the at least one object.”)
[Distance of Vehicle 1 from vehicle-of-interest; Distance of Vehicle 2 from vehicle-of-interest; . . . Distance of Vehicle N from vehicle-of-interest] (see at least [0189]: “the sensor is configured to provide information indicative of positions, e.g. ranges and angles, of one or more objects”; [0055]-[0057]: “the vehicle is associated with at least one sensor, wherein the second position information being based on sensor data obtained from the at least one sensor, wherein the second relative position comprising a range of the at least one object and at least one relative angle of the at least one object”)
[Velocity-Heading of Vehicle 1; Velocity-Heading of Vehicle 2; . . . Velocity-Heading of Vehicle N] ] (see at least [0097]: “the at least one item of first position information … are indicative of a speed of the at least one object”) ].
Regarding claim 9, Tel Oren teach A system for determining a position of a vehicle-of-interest (see at least FIG. 1A: vehicle 105), the system comprising:
ADS-B (see at least [0176]: “Other technologies … that can server for such sensors include … Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) systems 177.”);
an (see at least [0345], FIG. 3A: receiver 178) configured to receive data (see at least FIG. 8A step 810: “Receive transmission, including item(s) of object first position information associated with object(s)”) including position (see at least [0036]: “the object first position information associated with the at least one object comprising GNSS position information of the at least one object.”), velocity (see at least [0097]: “the at least one item of first position information … are indicative of a speed of the at least one object”), heading (see at least [0096]: “the at least one item of first position information … are indicative of a direction of the at least one object”) (see at least FIG. 1B: transmitter 179; [0345]: “the transmission is sent or broadcast by transmitters 179”) from at least two neighboring vehicles (see at least [0047]: “the at least one object comprises a plurality of objects”) in the vicinity (see at least [0205]: “objects such as ships 192-197 indicates that vehicle 105 is in their vicinity.”) of the vehicle-of-interest;
a radar (see at least FIG. 3A: RADAR 177, 389; [0058]: “the sensor(s) comprises at least one of: a Radio Detection and Ranging (RADAR) system”) configured to determine a distance to, and a direction of travel of (see at least [0055]-[0057]: “the vehicle is associated with at least one sensor, wherein the second position information being based on sensor data obtained from the at least one sensor, wherein the second relative position comprising a range of the at least one object and at least one relative angle of the at least one object”), each of the at least two (see at least [0007]: “second position information of the at least one object”) neighboring vehicles;
a storage medium (see at least FIG. 3B: Memory 317) configured to store a position derivation application (see at least [0147]: “The invention further contemplates a non-transitory computer-readable memory tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by the computer for executing the method of the invention.”); and
a processor (see at least FIG. 3B: Processor 314), in communication with the (see at least FIG. 3B: Transmission (AIS) input module 324), the radar (see at least FIG. 3B: sensor input module 322), and the storage medium, the processor configured to run the position derivation application, which, when executed by the processor causes the processor to execute (see at least FIG. 3B, [0290]: “This processing circuitry 312 may be, in non-limiting examples, general-purpose computer(s) specially configured for the desired purpose by a computer program stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.”) the method including:
receiving a current path (see at least [0119]: “the reported position of the vehicle is based on at least one Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) signal received by at least one GNSS receiver associated with the vehicle.”) of the vehicle-of-interest;
calculating a current position (see at least [0007]: “determine a derived position of the vehicle, based at least on the first information and on the second position information”; [0207]: “Note in the figure that Ship 7 197 is shown as a dashed line. This schematically indicates that its reported absolute position, e.g. of 2-D coordinates (X7, Y7), is considerably far away … from the known position of vehicle 105. … Vehicle 105 may then ignore the data sent by 197 when determining vehicle position.”) of the vehicle-of-interest and an integrity (see at least FIG. 8D step 865: “Determining a deviation between the derived position and the reported position of the vehicle.”) of the current position based on (1) the data from the at least two neighboring vehicles, (2) the distance to, and direction of travel of, the at least two neighboring vehicles, and (3) the current path of the vehicle-of-interest;
determining the integrity (see at least [0076]-[0080]: “for each object of the plurality of objects, determining a quality metric associated with a corresponding item of object identification information; … the quality metric of each object is based at least on a level of geographic reasonableness associated with a corresponding item of object first position information of each object.”) of the position received in the data from the at least two neighboring vehicles based on the calculated current position (see at least [0180]: “determining a deviation between the derived position of the vehicle and the GNSS-reported position of the vehicle. … the vehicle can send a correction instruction and/or command, to correct the reported position of the vehicle. In some examples, the vehicle can navigate based on the corrected reported position of the vehicle.”) of the vehicle-of-interest and the determined distance to (see at least [0207]: “Ship 7 197 is shown as a dashed line. This schematically indicates that its reported absolute position, e.g. of 2-D coordinates (X7, Y7), is considerably far away … from the known position of vehicle 105. … The transmission from object 197 is thus geographically unreasonable or illogical.”) the at least two neighboring vehicles; and
However, Tel Oren does not explicitly teach
an ADS-B receiver configured to receive data including integrity;
broadcast from an ADS-B system;
with the ADS-B receiver;
broadcasting a message about the integrity of the position received in the data from the at least two neighboring vehicles
Kim teach an ADS-B receiver (see at least FIG. 4: ADS-B RECEIVER 420) configured to receive data (see at least [0037]: “the ADS-B data is obtained by the first airplane 110 from the second airplane 110’”; “the latitude, longitude and height (LLH) data is obtained for the airplane 110′ via the ADS-B receiver 420.”) including position;
broadcast from an ADS-B system (see at least FIG. 6: ADS-B RECEIVER 420’; [0049]: “the ADS-B receiver 420 in the first vehicle 110 receives ADS-B data from an ADS-B receiver (or transceiver) 420′ in the nearby vehicle 110′”) from at least two (see at least FIG. 2: other vehicles 110’ and 110”) neighboring vehicles;
a processor in communication with (see at least [0047]: “a processor configured as the GPS spoof detector 400 to … obtain position information broadcast from another vehicle 110’ from ADS-B receiver 420”) the ADS-B receiver;
determining the integrity (see at least FIG. 3 steps 300: slant range comparison [Wingdings font/0xE0] 310: tolerance check [Wingdings font/0xE0] 330: “flag all airplanes that do not pass the tolerance check as a potential target for GPS spoofing”) of the position received;
broadcasting (see at least [0020]: “The link 200 could be an element of data … broadcast”) a message about the integrity (see at least [0020]: “The link 200 is a stored quantity of data that indicates that vehicle 110 and/or vehicle 110′ is more likely to be a victim of GPS spoofing.”) of the position received in the data from the at least two neighboring vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tel Oren to incorporate the teachings of Kim to broadcast messages about vehicle position integrity. Doing so would “provide for … improved GPS spoofing detection for GPS receivers in vehicles”, as recognized by Kim in paragraph [0003].
Bennington teaches receive data including integrity (see at least [0104]: “the input data includes … ADS-B integrity … the input data includes data collected for a plurality of aircraft.”; [0122]: “receiving at the cloud-based server ADS-B integrity and GNSS integrity data.”) that is broadcast from an ADS-B system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tel Oren to incorporate the teachings of Bennington to receive ADS-B integrity data. Doing so would “mitigate risks associated with spoofing”, as recognized by Bennington in paragraph [0050].
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Tel Oren, Kim, and Bennington teach The system of claim 9.
Tel Oren further teaches wherein calculating the current position of the vehicle-of-interest and an integrity of the current position when executed by the processor comprises, for N neighboring vehicles, applying a function defined by:
Func
[
[Position of Vehicle 1; Position of Vehicle 2, . . .Position of Vehicle N] (see at least [0168]: “The transmission is associated with one or more objects.”; [0036]: “the object first position information associated with the at least one object comprising GNSS position information of the at least one object.”)
[Distance of Vehicle 1 from vehicle-of-interest; Distance of Vehicle 2 from vehicle-of-interest; . . . Distance of Vehicle N from vehicle-of-interest] (see at least [0189]: “the sensor is configured to provide information indicative of positions, e.g. ranges and angles, of one or more objects”; [0055]-[0057]: “the vehicle is associated with at least one sensor, wherein the second position information being based on sensor data obtained from the at least one sensor, wherein the second relative position comprising a range of the at least one object and at least one relative angle of the at least one object”)
[Velocity-Heading of Vehicle 1; Velocity-Heading of Vehicle 2; . . . Velocity-Heading of Vehicle N] (see at least [0097]: “the at least one item of first position information … are indicative of a speed of the at least one object”)
].
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Tel Oren, Kim, and Bennington teach The system of claim 17.
Tel Oren further teaches wherein receiving broadcast data from an ADS-B system comprises receiving data including the position (see at least [0036]: “the object first position information associated with the at least one object comprising GNSS position information of the at least one object.”), velocity (see at least [0097]: “the at least one item of first position information … are indicative of a speed of the at least one object”), heading (see at least [0096]: “the at least one item of first position information … are indicative of a direction of the at least one object”)
However, the combination of Tel Oren, Kim, and Bennington does not explicitly teach receiving data including integrity.
Bennington teaches receiving data including integrity (see at least [0104]: “the input data includes … ADS-B integrity … the input data includes data collected for a plurality of aircraft.”; [0122]: “receiving at the cloud-based server ADS-B integrity and GNSS integrity data.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tel Oren to incorporate the teachings of Bennington to receive ADS-B integrity data. Doing so would “mitigate risks associated with spoofing”, as recognized by Bennington in paragraph [0050].
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tel Oren (US 20240385333 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20180217266 A1), Bennington et al. (US 20250216559 A1), and Heinrich et al. (US 9513376 B1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Tel Oren, Kim, and Bennington teach The method of claim 6.
However, the combination of Tel Oren, Kim, and Bennington does not explicitly teach and further providing the current position to one or more systems including flight controls, flight management system, landing receivers, enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS), ADS-B out, traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS), and Mode-S when the GNSS-derived position is determined to have low integrity.
Heinrich teach and further providing the current position to one or more systems including flight controls, flight management system, landing receivers, enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS), ADS-B out, traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS) (see at least (23) column 7 lines 55-63: “other positioning solutions calculated using available airborne and ground based signals may also be considered in 1) the detection of erroneous positioning signals”; “additional positioning information resources may also be used in back-up and recovery modes in the event that GNSS-based positioning signals are not available at the desired level of accuracy.”; (17) column 6 lines 20-26: “The additional positioning resources factored into the precision position determination may include … onboard positioning solutions calculated using signals from airborne resources (e.g., … TCAS positioning signals)”), and Mode-S when the GNSS-derived position is determined to have low integrity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tel Oren to incorporate the teachings of Heinrich to use TCAS for positioning when GNSS systems in inaccurate. Doing so would “improve[] the detection of erroneous GNSS positioning signals”, as recognized by Heinrich in (10) column 4 lines 37-39.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Tel Oren, Kim, and Bennington teach The system of claim 9.
However, the combination of Tel Oren, Kim, and Bennington does not explicitly teach and further including one or more systems including flight controls, flight management system, landing receivers, enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS), ADS-B out, traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS), and Mode-S that are configured to receive the current position from the processor.
Heinrich teach and further including one or more systems including flight controls, flight management system, landing receivers, enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS), ADS-B out, traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS) (see at least (23) column 7 lines 55-63: “other positioning solutions calculated using available airborne and ground based signals may also be considered in 1) the detection of erroneous positioning signals”; “additional positioning information resources may also be used in back-up and recovery modes in the event that GNSS-based positioning signals are not available at the desired level of accuracy.”; (17) column 6 lines 20-26: “The additional positioning resources factored into the precision position determination may include … onboard positioning solutions calculated using signals from airborne resources (e.g., … TCAS positioning signals)”), and Mode-S that are configured to receive the current position from the processor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tel Oren to incorporate the teachings of Heinrich to use TCAS for positioning when GNSS systems in inaccurate. Doing so would “improve[] the detection of erroneous GNSS positioning signals”, as recognized by Heinrich in (10) column 4 lines 37-39.
Claims 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tel Oren (US 20240385333 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20180217266 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Tel Oren teach A method for determining a position of a vehicle-of-interest (see at least FIG. 1A: vehicle 105), the method comprising:
an ADS-B system (see at least [0176]: “Other technologies … that can server for such sensors include … Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) systems 177.”);
receiving broadcast data (see at least FIG. 8A step 810: “Receive transmission, including item(s) of object first position information associated with object(s)”) from an (see at least [0345], FIG. 3A: receiver 178) from at least two neighboring vehicles (see at least [0047]: “the at least one object comprises a plurality of objects”) in the vicinity (see at least [0205]: “objects such as ships 192-197 indicates that vehicle 105 is in their vicinity.”) of the vehicle-of-interest;
receiving radar reflections (see at least [0055]-[0057]: “the vehicle is associated with at least one sensor, wherein the second position information being based on sensor data obtained from the at least one sensor, wherein the second relative position comprising a range of the at least one object and at least one relative angle of the at least one object”) from the at least two neighboring vehicles using radar (see at least FIG. 3A: RADAR 177, 389; [0058]: “the sensor(s) comprises at least one of: a Radio Detection and Ranging (RADAR) system”) on the vehicle-of-interest;
receiving a current path (see at least [0119]: “the reported position of the vehicle is based on at least one Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) signal received by at least one GNSS receiver associated with the vehicle.”) of the vehicle-of-interest;
calculating a current position (see at least [0007]: “determine a derived position of the vehicle, based at least on the first information and on the second position information”; [0207]: “Note in the figure that Ship 7 197 is shown as a dashed line. This schematically indicates that its reported absolute position, e.g. of 2-D coordinates (X7, Y7), is considerably far away … from the known position of vehicle 105. … Vehicle 105 may then ignore the data sent by 197 when determining vehicle position.”) of the vehicle-of-interest and an integrity (see at least FIG. 8D step 865: “Determining a deviation between the derived position and the reported position of the vehicle.”) of the current position based on the broadcast data from the at least two neighboring vehicles, the radar reflections from the at least two neighboring vehicles, and the current path of the vehicle-of-interest;
determining the integrity (see at least [0076]-[0080]: “for each object of the plurality of objects, determining a quality metric associated with a corresponding item of object identification information; … the quality metric of each object is based at least on a level of geographic reasonableness associated with a corresponding item of object first position information of each object.”) of a position received in the broadcast data from the at least two neighboring vehicles based on the calculated current position (see at least [0180]: “determining a deviation between the derived position of the vehicle and the GNSS-reported position of the vehicle. … the vehicle can send a correction instruction and/or command, to correct the reported position of the vehicle. In some examples, the vehicle can navigate based on the corrected reported position of the vehicle.”) of the vehicle-of-interest and the determined distance to (see at least [0207]: “Ship 7 197 is shown as a dashed line. This schematically indicates that its reported absolute position, e.g. of 2-D coordinates (X7, Y7), is considerably far away … from the known position of vehicle 105. … The transmission from object 197 is thus geographically unreasonable or illogical.”) the at least two neighboring vehicles; and
However, Tel Oren does not explicitly teach
receiving broadcast data from an ADS-B system;
broadcasting a message about the integrity of the position received in the data from the at least two neighboring vehicles
Kim teach receiving broadcast data (see at least [0037]: “the ADS-B data is obtained by the first airplane 110 from the second airplane 110’”; “the latitude, longitude and height (LLH) data is obtained for the airplane 110′ via the ADS-B receiver 420.”) from an ADS-B system (see at least FIG. 4: ADS-B RECEIVER 420) from at least two neighboring vehicles (see at least FIG. 2: other vehicles 110’ and 110”);
determining the integrity (see at least FIG. 3 steps 300: slant range comparison [Wingdings font/0xE0] 310: tolerance check [Wingdings font/0xE0] 330: “flag all airplanes that do not pass the tolerance check as a potential target for GPS spoofing”) of the position received;
broadcasting (see at least [0020]: “The link 200 could be an element of data … broadcast”) a message about the integrity (see at least [0020]: “The link 200 is a stored quantity of data that indicates that vehicle 110 and/or vehicle 110′ is more likely to be a victim of GPS spoofing.”) of the position received in the data from the at least two neighboring vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tel Oren to incorporate the teachings of Kim to broadcast messages about vehicle position integrity. Doing so would “provide for … improved GPS spoofing detection for GPS receivers in vehicles”, as recognized by Kim in paragraph [0003].
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Tel Oren and Kim teach The system of claim 17.
Tel Oren further teaches wherein receiving radar reflections from the at least two neighboring vehicles comprising receiving radar reflections that enable determining a distance to, and a direction of travel of (see at least [0055]-[0057]: “the vehicle is associated with at least one sensor, wherein the second position information being based on sensor data obtained from the at least one sensor, wherein the second relative position comprising a range of the at least one object and at least one relative angle of the at least one object”), each of the at least two neighboring vehicles.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Tel Oren and Kim teach The system of claim 17.
Tel Oren further teaches wherein calculating the current position of the vehicle-of-interest and an integrity of the current position comprises, for N neighboring vehicles, applying a function defined by:
Func
[
[Position of Vehicle 1; Position of Vehicle 2, . . .Position of Vehicle N] (see at least [0168]: “The transmission is associated with one or more objects.”; [0036]: “the object first position information associated with the at least one object comprising GNSS position information of the at least one object.”)
[Distance of Vehicle 1 from vehicle-of-interest; Distance of Vehicle 2 from vehicle-of-interest; . . . Distance of Vehicle N from vehicle-of-interest] (see at least [0189]: “the sensor is configured to provide information indicative of positions, e.g. ranges and angles, of one or more objects”; [0055]-[0057]: “the vehicle is associated with at least one sensor, wherein the second position information being based on sensor data obtained from the at least one sensor, wherein the second relative position comprising a range of the at least one object and at least one relative angle of the at least one object”)
[Velocity-Heading of Vehicle 1; Velocity-Heading of Vehicle 2; . . . Velocity-Heading of Vehicle N] (see at least [0097]: “the at least one item of first position information … are indicative of a speed of the at least one object”)
].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 11-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The reason for allowance over the prior art of record is based on the claims of 06/25/2026. The closest prior art is Tel Oren (US 20240385333 A1). Tel Oren discloses calculating a position and position integrity of a vehicle of interest based on received position data from neighboring vehicles and radar data collected about the neighboring vehicles (see paragraph [0007]) and determining integrity of neighboring vehicle positions based on vehicle of interest position and distances between the vehicle of interest and the neighboring vehicles (see FIG. 2, paragraphs [0076]-[0080] and [0207]). However, Tel Oren does not explicitly teach determining the integrity of the neighboring vehicles by deriving positions of the neighboring vehicles based on the position of the vehicle of interest and comparing the derived positions with the received positions of the neighboring vehicles.
Regarding claim 4, taken individually or in combination with other prior art, Tel Oren fails to teach or render obvious
The method of claim 3, and further comprising excluding the data from one of the at least two neighboring vehicles for use in calculating the current position of the vehicle-of-interest when the data has low integrity, and repeating the method to iteratively calculate the current position of the vehicle-of-interest while excluding data from neighboring vehicles determined to have low integrity.
Regarding claim 11, taken individually or in combination with other prior art, Tel Oren fails to teach or render obvious
The system of claim 10, wherein when the derived position and the position received from the respective one of the at least two neighboring differ by more than a selected threshold, the method as executed by the processor includes declaring that the data that includes the position received from the respective one of the at least two neighboring vehicles has low integrity, and repeating the method to iteratively calculate the current position of the vehicle-of-interest while excluding data from neighboring vehicles determined to have low integrity.
Regarding claim 12, taken individually or in combination with other prior art, Tel Oren fails to teach or render obvious
The system of claim 11, and the method executed by the processor further comprising excluding the data from one of the at least two neighboring vehicles for use in calculating the current position of the vehicle-of-interest when the data has low integrity.
Regarding claim 13, taken individually or in combination with other prior art, Tel Oren fails to teach or render obvious
The system of claim 11, wherein broadcasting the message as executed by the processor includes sending the message to a ground station or one of the at least two neighboring vehicles with the data that has low integrity.
Regarding claim 14, taken individually or in combination with other prior art, Tel Oren fails to teach or render obvious
The system of claim 11, wherein the radar comprises a Digital Active Phased Array Radar.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior art previously presented:
Andersson et al. (US 20110163908 A1) teaches a system that validates received position information by estimating a positions based on radio data and comparing received and estimated positions (see [Abstract]).
Korenciak et al. (US 20230343231 A1) teaches a system that validates intruder ADS-B position using radar scanning (see paragraph [0055]).
Johnston et al. (US 20260065787 A1) teaches a system that confirms ADS-B readings with radar (see paragraph [0131]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE ALCORN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30 am – 6:30 pm est.
Examiner Interview 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/GEORGE A ALCORN III/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights