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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to an election filed, without traverse, on 06/23/2026 of a divisional application filed in which claims 1-20 of the instant application are pending. Claims 1-2, 6-12, and 16-20 are being examined while claims 3-5 and 13-15 are considered withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-2, 6-12, and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,361,673. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,361,673, either singularly or in combination, contain each and every element and/or render each and every element of claims 1-2, 6-12, and 16-20 of the instant application obvious. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Since a computer-readable medium can be exemplified as a non-statutory signal, carrier waver, etc., the claim as a whole is non-statutory. “A transitory, propagating signal … is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” Those four categories define the explicit scope and reach of subject matter patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101; thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.” (In re Nuijten, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). The examiner suggests amending the claim to include a tangible computer-readable media, such as including the phrase “non-transitory” or amending it to read “computer-readable device”.
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 1-2, 6-12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jayaram (US 2022/0292785) in view of Goldman (US 2020/0094847).
As to claim 1, Jayaram teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, and the at least one processor is configured to ([0025]-[0026] and FIG. 3):
obtain a set of images associated with a camera-aided positioning session, wherein the set of images is captured using at least one first camera ([0025]-[0026] and FIG. 3; also see [0051], [0056], [0058]-[0060], [0070]-[0072], and [0084]-[0085]);
detect that at least one spoofing feature is present in the set of images during the camera-aided positioning session ([0025]-[0026] and FIG. 3; also see [0051], [0056], [0058]-[0060], [0070]-[0072], and [0084]-[0085]; [0072] – “Once the images have been registered, they can be used in conjunction with a 2D venue map to identify spectator areas as 3D volumes. The tracking and registration process can ignore these volumes and not attempt to use features within them as they will likely be obscured. Other problem areas (large waving flags, changing displays, vehicle traffic areas) can similarly be ignored”).
Jayaram does not explicitly teach storing or outputting an indication of the at least one spoofing feature based on the at least one spoofing feature being present in the set of images.
However, Goldman teaches storing or outputting an indication of at least one spoofing feature based on the at least one spoofing feature being present in a set of images ([0025], [0042]-[0044], [0052]-[0053], and [0055]; [0025] – “the acquired image can be used for spoofing detection. In an embodiment illustrated in FIG. 2, the camera 102 is a visible light camera and the image acquired by the camera 102 can be used for detecting spoofing attempt. The camera can be mounted on front, rear, top and sides of the vehicle depending on the technology requirement”; [0044] – “the camera 102 detects a pothole in front of the vehicle, and other sensors in the sensor group 100A do not capture such a pothole. The inconsistent sensor data generated by the camera 102 may be associated with another spoofing attempt”; [0055] – “the attack detection means 116 can use stored algorithm to compare an image captured by the camera 102 about a pothole and an image extracted from the traffic reference information associated with a reference pothole. The attack detection means 116 can identify if the captured image is authentic or includes false information. In another example, the attack detection means 116 can use pattern recognition to detect a spoofing attempt when an object is suddenly present or absent in a scene based on a signal received from a sensor in the sensor group 100A. When the object suddenly present or absent cannot be recognized by the attack detection means 116 through pattern recognition, a spoofing attempt may be detected”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Jayaram’s system with Goldman’s system in order to provide a method and an apparatus for detecting a spoofing attempt associated with an autonomous vehicle. The method includes acquiring, via interface circuitry of the apparatus for spoofing prevention, one or more sensor data from one or more sensors. The one or more sensor data is annotated to obtain sensor information. The sensor information extracts traffic information that the one or more sensor data carries. Abnormal sensor data that fails to capture surrounding traffic information is discarded. Furthermore, a spoofing attempt is determined based on a determination that at least one inconsistent sensor data is identified. The at least one inconsistent sensor data provides different traffic information compared to other sensor data of the one or more sensor data generated by the one or more sensors. The vehicle is therefore informed to ignore a portion of the sensor information associated with the spoofing attempt when the spoofing attempt is identified (Goldman; abstract).
As to claims 12 and 20, the aforementioned claims are rejected similarly as claim 1.
As to claim 2, the combination of Jayaram and Goldman teaches performing the camera-aided positioning session based on at least one non-spoofing feature, wherein the at least one non-spoofing feature is different from the at least one spoofing feature (Jayaram; [0025]-[0026], [0051], [0056], [0058]-[0060], [0070]-[0072], and [0084]-[0085]; Goldman; [0025], [0042]-[0044], [0052]-[0053], and [0055]).
As to claims 6 and 16, the combination of Jayaram and Goldman teaches wherein detecting that the at least one spoofing feature is present in the set of images comprises: estimating a first distance for at least one object in the set of images; adjusting a focal length of the at least one first camera; capturing a second set of images using the at least one first camera based on the adjusted focal length; estimating a second distance for the at least one object based on the second set of images; and determining the at least one spoofing feature is present if the first distance is different from the second distance by at least a distance threshold (Jayaram; [0042], [0058]-[0060], [0065]-[0066], [0070]-[0073], [0091], [0099], and [0107]; Goldman; [0025]-[0028], [0033]-[0037], [0041]-[0044], and [0051]-[0055]).
As to claims 7 and 17, the combination of Jayaram and Goldman teaches wherein detecting that the at least one spoofing feature is present in the set of images comprises: estimating a first distance for at least one object in the set of images; estimating a second distance for the at least one object using a non-camera sensor; and determining the at least one spoofing feature is present if the first distance is different from the second distance by at least a distance threshold (Jayaram; [0042], [0058]-[0060], [0065]-[0066], [0070]-[0073], [0091], [0099], and [0107]; Goldman; [0025]-[0028], [0033]-[0037], [0041]-[0044], and [0051]-[0055]).
As to claims 8 and 18, the combination of Jayaram and Goldman teaches wherein detecting that the at least one spoofing feature is present in the set of images comprises: estimating a first velocity for at least one object in the set of images; estimating a second velocity for the at least one object using a non-camera sensor; and determining the at least one spoofing feature is present if the first velocity is different from the second velocity by at least a velocity threshold (Jayaram; [0042], [0058]-[0060], [0065]-[0066], [0070]-[0073], [0091], [0099], and [0107]; Goldman; [0025]-[0028], [0033]-[0037], [0041]-[0044], and [0051]-[0055]).
As to claims 9 and 19, the combination of Jayaram and Goldman teaches wherein detecting that the at least one spoofing feature is present in the set of images comprises: estimating a first shape for at least one object in the set of images; estimating a second shape for the at least one object using a non-camera sensor; and determining the at least one spoofing feature is present if the first shape is different from the second shape (Jayaram; [0042], [0058]-[0060], [0065]-[0066], [0070]-[0073], [0083], [0091]-[0099], and [0107]; Goldman; [0025]-[0028], [0033]-[0037], [0041]-[0044], and [0051]-[0055]).
As to claim 10, the combination of Jayaram and Goldman teaches wherein the camera-aided positioning session is associated with an absolute position of the UE, a relative position of the UE, an orientation of the UE, or a combination thereof (Jayaram; [0025]-[0026], [0051], [0056], [0058]-[0060], [0070]-[0072], and [0084]-[0085]).
As to claim 11, the combination of Jayaram and Goldman teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: verify, based on the detection that the at least one spoofing feature is present in the set of images, that the at least one spoofing feature is a valid spoofing feature; wherein to store or output the indication of the at least one spoofing feature, the at least one processor is configured to: store or output the indication of the at least one spoofing feature based on verification that the at least one spoofing feature is the valid spoofing feature (Jayaram; [0025]-[0026], [0051], [0056], [0058]-[0060], [0070]-[0072], and [0084]-[0085]; Goldman; [0025], [0042]-[0044], [0052]-[0053], and [0055]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIHAN ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7284. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays 8:30am-5pm.
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, Christopher Kelley can be reached on 571-272-7331. 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.
/ZHIHAN ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights