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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant amendments/remarks received 06/24/2026. Claims 11 and 19 amended and claim 12 cancelled. Claims 1-11 and 13-20 remain pending.
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 1-2, 5-6, 8, 11, 14-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daugherty (US Patent No. 8208848 B2).
In re claim 1, Daugherty teaches A method, comprising:
monitoring, by a first wireless device (SEE FIG 1), a noise variance within a bandwidth of the first wireless device (Cols 3-4, lines 65-67 and 1-2: “In one embodiment, the mean and variance for each of the GSM bands (e.g., 450, 850, 900, 1800, and 1900) are calculated individually. This individual calculation allows for a determination as to whether a particular GSM band is being jammed.”);
determining, by a processing device of the first wireless device, that a jammer device is present in response to the noise variance within at least part of the bandwidth exceeding a threshold (Cols 4-5, lines 57-67 and 1-5: “FIG. 4 is a decision tree illustrating how decisions are made in the present disclosure by comparing the combinations of the numbers discussed above… There is also a determination as to whether the variance is less that the variance threshold in block 404. If it the variance is less that the variance threshold then there is no jamming as shown in block 410. Finally, in block 406 there is a determination if the mean/variance is greater than or equal to the inverse variance to mean threshold. If the mean/variance is not greater than or equal to the inverse variance to mean threshold, then there is no jamming as shown in block 410. If the mean/variance is greater than or equal to the inverse variance to mean threshold, then there is jamming as shown in block 408.”); and
transmitting, to a second wireless device, a distress signal indicating that the jammer device is present and disrupting communication of the first wireless device (Col 6, lines 1-9: “It is understood that the marking of channels will be useful to any wireless device, and may be used to promote wireless connections that are initiated by any wireless device, client 102, or gateway 104. The use of the marked wireless channels as jammed will allow any device to either avoid a channel that has been jammed, increase the wireless transmission power to overcome the jamming, as well as notify other wireless devices of the jamming so that they may take appropriate measures to increase power or avoid a channel.”).
System claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 1 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope; examiner notes a memory and processor is taught/shown in reference to FIG 6.
In re claim 2, Daugherty teaches wherein the distress signal is transmitted at a maximum transmission power of the first wireless device and at a reduced periodicity in comparison to a normal operation (Col 3, lines 35-44: “It is understood that if jamming has been determined to be present, a number of actions may be taken including, but not limited to, issuing alerts, marking frequencies as jammed, and increasing wireless power to overcome the jamming. Alerts that may be issued include visual and audio alerts that provide notification that jamming has been discovered. The marking of frequencies as jammed allows for frequencies that are currently jammed to be avoided. The increasing of the wireless power allows for a device to overcome detected interference.”).
Method claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 2 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 5, Daugherty teaches wherein the noise variance is measured based on at least one of time, the bandwidth of the first wireless device, or absolute power in view of the threshold (Col 3, lines 65-66: “In one embodiment, the mean and variance for each of the GSM bands (e.g., 450, 850, 900, 1800, and 1900) are calculated individually.”).
In re claim 6, Daugherty teaches wherein transmission of the distress signal is maintained based on at least one of:
a timer, such that the transmission of the distress signal stops upon expiration of the timer, or
a measurement of the noise variance within the bandwidth of the first wireless device being less than the threshold (Col 5, lines 28-29: “The smaller the variance, the more likely that the interference device 106 is present.”).
In re claim 11, Daugherty teaches A method, comprising:
monitoring, by a second wireless device (SEE FIG 1), a noise variance within a bandwidth of a first wireless device or the second wireless device (Cols 3-4, lines 65-67 and 1-2: “In one embodiment, the mean and variance for each of the GSM bands (e.g., 450, 850, 900, 1800, and 1900) are calculated individually. This individual calculation allows for a determination as to whether a particular GSM band is being jammed.”), wherein the first wireless device is associated with the second wireless device (SEE FIG 1);
determining, by a processing device of the second wireless device, whether a jammer device is present based at least on the noise variance exceeding a threshold or receipt of a distress signal from the first wireless device (Cols 4-5, lines 57-67 and 1-5: “FIG. 4 is a decision tree illustrating how decisions are made in the present disclosure by comparing the combinations of the numbers discussed above… There is also a determination as to whether the variance is less that the variance threshold in block 404. If it the variance is less that the variance threshold then there is no jamming as shown in block 410. Finally, in block 406 there is a determination if the mean/variance is greater than or equal to the inverse variance to mean threshold. If the mean/variance is not greater than or equal to the inverse variance to mean threshold, then there is no jamming as shown in block 410. If the mean/variance is greater than or equal to the inverse variance to mean threshold, then there is jamming as shown in block 408.”); and
transmitting, to a security entity (Col 1, lines 12-14: “Wireless networks are used to relay information for a number of different purposes. These purposes include, but are not limited to, the relaying of security information…”), in response to determining that the jammer device is present, a notification signal indicating that the jammer device is present and disrupting communication of the first wireless device or the second wireless device (Col 6, lines 1-9: “It is understood that the marking of channels will be useful to any wireless device, and may be used to promote wireless connections that are initiated by any wireless device, client 102, or gateway 104. The use of the marked wireless channels as jammed will allow any device to either avoid a channel that has been jammed, increase the wireless transmission power to overcome the jamming, as well as notify other wireless devices of the jamming so that they may take appropriate measures to increase power or avoid a channel.”) .”),
wherein determining whether the jammer device is present comprises determining whether the jammer device is present in response to the noise variance within at least part of the bandwidth exceeding the threshold (SEE ARGUMENTS BELOW IN ‘RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS’ SECTION, and Cols 4-5, lines 57-67 and 1-5: “FIG. 4 is a decision tree illustrating how decisions are made in the present disclosure by comparing the combinations of the numbers discussed above… There is also a determination as to whether the variance is less that the variance threshold in block 404. If it the variance is less that the variance threshold then there is no jamming as shown in block 410. Finally, in block 406 there is a determination if the mean/variance is greater than or equal to the inverse variance to mean threshold. If the mean/variance is not greater than or equal to the inverse variance to mean threshold, then there is no jamming as shown in block 410. If the mean/variance is greater than or equal to the inverse variance to mean threshold, then there is jamming as shown in block 408.”).
System claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 11 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope; examiner notes a memory and processor is taught/shown in reference to FIG 6.
In re claim 14, Daugherty teaches wherein the notification signal is transmitted over a wired connection (Cols 6-7, lines 63-67 and 1-4: “Such information, which may include data or instructions to be executed using processor 612 for example, may be received from and outputted to the network, for example, in the form of a computer data baseband signal or signal embodied in a carrier wave. The baseband signal or signal embodied in the carrier wave generated by the network connectivity devices 610 may propagate in or on the surface of electrical conductors, in coaxial cables, in waveguides, in optical media, for example optical fiber, or in the air or free space.”).
In re claim 15, Daugherty teaches wherein to determine whether the jammer device is present further comprising:
receiving, from the first wireless device, the distress signal indicating that the jammer device is present and disrupting communication of the first wireless device (Col 6, lines 4-9: “The use of the marked wireless channels as jammed will allow any device to either avoid a channel that has been jammed, increase the wireless transmission power to overcome the jamming, as well as notify other wireless devices of the jamming so that they may take appropriate measures to increase power or avoid a channel.”).
System claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 15 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daugherty (US Patent No. 8208848 B2), in view of Nordmark (US Patent No. 20160330069).
In re claim 3, Daugherty teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above but fails to teach wherein the distress signal is transmitted at different data rates and in different channels or frequency bands of the second wireless device.
However, Nordmark teaches wherein the distress signal is transmitted at different data rates and in different channels or frequency bands of the second wireless device (Para [0022]: “When jamming is detected during the frequency band scans, sending an alarm signal to the back-end service through an ultra narrowband network. This step may preferably comprise applying random frequency hopping and/or binary-phase-shift-keying modulation to the transmitted alarm signal. Preferably, this step comprises transmitting the alarm signal through a channel with a 200 Hz bandwidth or less.”).
Therefore, 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 Daugherty to incorporate the teachings of Nordmark to provide wherein the distress signal is transmitted at different data rates and in different channels or frequency bands of the second wireless device with the Enhanced Jamming Detection of Daugherty. Doing so enables a jamming detector that relies on an ultra narrowband network for alarm signal transmission in the presence of jamming, without affecting the normal operation of said security system when no jamming is present, as recognized by Nordmark (Para [0007]).
System claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 2 and method claim 3 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
Method claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as method claim 3 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
Claims 4, 10, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daugherty (US Patent No. 8208848 B2), in view of Hodge (US Patent No. 20200267500 A1).
In re claim 4, Daugherty teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above but fails to teach wherein the distress signal comprises a location of the first wireless device and a region of a location of the jammer device.
However, Hodge teaches wherein the distress signal comprises a location of the first wireless device and a region of a location of the jammer device (Para [0027]: “These alerts include details regarding the nature of the contraband detection, such as the detection time of a communication believed to originate from a contraband device, the location of the detecting device at the time of detection, received signal strength indicator (RSSI) information, an “angle of arrival” (AOA), a “time of arrival” (TOA), the location of the mobile device within the correctional facility such as “library” or “courtyard,” and audio or video sample recorded upon time of the detection.”).
Therefore, 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 Daugherty to incorporate the teachings of Hodge to provide wherein the distress signal comprises a location of the first wireless device and a region of a location of the jammer device with the Enhanced Jamming Detection of Daugherty. Doing so enables technologies to help correctional facility personnel determine the location or the user of a contraband device so that those devices may be confiscated and inmates that engage in such behavior may be disciplined, as recognized by Hodge (Para [0016]).
System claim 10, method claim 13, and method claim 18 are each rejected for the same reasons as method claim 4 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daugherty (US Patent No. 8208848 B2), in view of Chen (US Patent No. 20240396661).
In re claim 7, Daugherty teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above but fails to teach wherein a jammer signal from the jammer device comprises a jammer type signature corresponding to a non-data communication signal.
However, Chen teaches wherein a jammer signal from the jammer device comprises a jammer type signature corresponding to a non-data communication signal (Para [0035]: “As shown in FIG. 4, a single-tone jammer may produce a substantially uniform energy ridge 400, above a threshold power level, at a particular Doppler frequency across code phase (time) in a code phase search window. The single-tone jammer may flood an entire frequency bin. Techniques are known for removing energy from such a single-tone jammer by, for example, detecting such a substantially uniform energy ridge at a particular Doppler frequency above a threshold power level and filtering the particular Doppler frequency.”).
Therefore, 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 Daugherty to incorporate the teachings of Chen to provide wherein a jammer signal from the jammer device comprises a jammer type signature corresponding to a non-data communication signal with the Enhanced Jamming Detection of Daugherty. Doing so enables multi-tone jamming signals may be inhibited more efficiently than with prior systems, as recognized by Chen (Para [0020]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments received 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of applicant remarks, applicant argues claims 1, 11 and 19:
“In the cited columns and Figure 4, Daugherty illustrates a decision tree by comparing a plurality of numbers, including a mean value, a variance value, and a ratio of mean to variance (mean/variance) value, with various thresholds. In Daugherty, jamming is determined as present based on the mean value is greater than a mean threshold, the variance value is less than a variance threshold, and the mean/variance value is greater than or equal to an inverse variance to mean threshold. See Daugherty, column 4-5, lines 57-67 and 1-5 and Figure 4. Accordingly, Daughety at most discloses that determining jamming is present in response to a variance not exceeding a threshold, or in response to a ratio of mean to variance exceeding a threshold. However, Daughety fails to show or suggest determining that a jammer device is present in response to the noise variance within at least part of the bandwidth exceeding a threshold. Therefore, Applicant asserts that Daughety fails to disclose each and every feature of claim 1 in as exact detail as recited in claim 1. Thus, Daughety cannot anticipate claim 1 and as a result, claim 1 is allowable.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the rejection above, and further described here, Daugherty teaches at least in cols 3-4, lines 65-67 and 1-2 : “In one embodiment, the mean and variance for each of the GSM bands (e.g., 450, 850, 900, 1800, and 1900) are calculated individually. This individual calculation allows for a determination as to whether a particular GSM band is being jammed.” and further teaches in col 4, lines 49-56: “Once the mean and variance have been computed, these combinations may be compared to known thresholds. Known thresholds may be obtained through calculations similar to those shown above in environments where it is known that no jamming is present, and then determining an acceptable level of interference. An acceptable level of interference is a level which does not substantially inhibit or prevent wireless communication.” Therefore, Daugherty teaches determining variance within a GSM band mentioning “This individual calculation allows for a determination as to whether a particular GSM band is being jammed”, and goes on to say, “…variance have been computed, these combinations may be compared to known thresholds”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230238992 A1 teaches A transmitting (Tx) device transmits, to a receiving (Rx) device, a control message indicating a location of one or more noise spurs associated with wireless communications performed by the Tx device using a set of resources, where the location includes a frequency location of the one or more noise spurs in the frequency domain. The Tx device then generates a data message to be communicated using the set of resources associated with the one or more noise spurs based on transmitting the control message, and transmits the generated data message to the Rx device using the set of resources associated with the one or more noise spurs. By indicating the location of the noise spurs, the Rx device may be more able to more efficiently identify and address (e.g., filter out, ignore) the noise spurs within the data message.
US 20210306856 A1 teaches a wireless device comprises monitoring one or more aspects of signaling with a network for abnormal signals indicative of network jamming. The method comprises detecting, based on the monitored one or more aspects of signaling with the network, one or more abnormal signals indicative of network jamming.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES EDWARD MUNION whose telephone number is (571)270-0437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/JAMES E MUNION/Examiner, Art Unit 2688 08/26/2026
Prosecution Insights