DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s 08/24/2026 Amendments/Arguments, which directly traversed the rejections of the claims of the 06/30/2026 Office Action are acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-2, 4-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmack et al (US 10,466,700 which was cited in previous Office Action(s)).
PNG
media_image1.png
704
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
454
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, and similarly claims 1 and 19, Carmack et al disclose in Fig 3, 10 above, as well as Fig 11-13 a mobile device (i.e. UAV 300) for determining a location resistant to Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) spoofing, the mobile device comprising:
at least one antenna configured to receive GNSS signals (i.e. GPS receiver 304) (i.e. “…the UAV 300 may include a number of navigation devices, sensors, antennas, communication links, and other systems to aid in navigating the UAV 300. Such components may also be housed under the top cover 350. In an example, a GPS receiver 304 may be installed. GPS data received by the GPS receiver 304 from a source external to the UAV 300…”) (col 14, lines 47-53);
at least one memory (i.e. management system 302) (i.e. The management system 302 may include an onboard computer system hosting a management module for autonomously or semi-autonomously controlling and managing various operations of the UAV 300…”) (col 14, lines 34-38); and
at least one processor communicatively coupled with the at least one antenna and the at least one memory (i.e. management system 302) (i.e. The management system 302 may include an onboard computer system hosting a management module for autonomously or semi-autonomously controlling and managing various operations of the UAV 300…”) (col 14, lines 34-38), wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
receive a GNSS signal via the at least one antenna “…the UAV 300 may include a number of navigation devices, sensors, antennas, communication links, and other systems to aid in navigating the UAV 300. Such components may also be housed under the top cover 350. In an example, a GPS receiver 304 may be installed. GPS data received by the GPS receiver 304 from a source external to the UAV 300…”) (col 14, lines 47-53) (Fig 10 – 1002; Fig 11 – 1102; Fig 12 – 1202; Fig 13 – 1302; ; col 28, lines 21-28; col 31, lines 33-40; col 33, lines 28-36; col 37, lines 48-56);
detect a spoofing condition based on a signal strength of the GNSS signal (Fig 10 – 1004-1010; Fig 11 – 1104-1110; Fig 12 – 1204-1210; Fig 13 – 1304-1310; col 28, line 29 – col 30, line 23; col 31, line 41 – col 32, line 64; col 33, line 37 – col 37, line 19; col 37, line 57 – col 39, line 41), and
responsive to detecting the spoofing condition, provide an indication of the GNSS signal as a spoofing signal (Fig 10 – 1012; Fig 11 – 1112; Fig 12 – 1212; Fig 13 – 1312; col 30, lines 31-62; col 32, line 65 – col 33, line 5; col 37, lines 20-28; col 39, lines 42-61).
Carmack et al do not explicitly disclose the spoofing condition comprising: an increase in the signal strength above a GNSS signal strength level corresponding to an open sky condition, an increase in a noise floor related to a measurement of the signal strength, or a combination thereof as claimed. Instead, Carmack et al teach in the same field of endeavor the spoofing condition comprising: the signal strength exceeding a threshold value (Fig 10 – 1004-1010; Fig 11 – 1104-1110; Fig 12 – 1204-1210; Fig 13 – 1304-1310; col 28, line 29 – col 30, line 23; col 31, line 41 – col 32, line 64; col 33, line 37 – col 37, line 19; col 37, line 57 – col 39, line 41). However, as described in Applicant’s disclosure, the spoofing condition can be detected with several embodiments based on a signal strength of the GNSS signal. Such spoofing condition can be detected by an increase in the signal strength above a GNSS signal strength level corresponding to an open sky condition, the signal strength exceeding a threshold value, an increase in a noise floor related to a measurement of the signal strength, or a combination thereof (emphasis added) (Applicant’s specification – Abstract, para [0095]). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to detect spoofing condition by an increase in the signal strength above a GNSS signal strength level corresponding to an open sky condition, an increase in a noise floor related to a measurement of the signal strength, or a combination thereof as claimed (emphasis added), since Applicant has not disclosed that such detection of spoofing condition solves any stated problem. It appears that the invention would perform equally with the spoofing condition comprising: the signal strength exceeding a threshold value as taught by Carmack et al for properly detecting spoofing (emphasis added) (i.e. support of such design choice for detecting spoofing condition was described in Applicant’s disclosure as stated above).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claims 2, 4-6, 8, 11, 13-15, 17, and 20, Carmack et al do not explicitly disclose the spoofing condition as claimed. Instead, Carmack et al teach in the same field of endeavor the spoofing condition comprising: the signal strength exceeding a threshold value (Fig 10 – 1004-1010; Fig 11 – 1104-1110; Fig 12 – 1204-1210; Fig 13 – 1304-1310; col 28, line 29 – col 30, line 23; col 31, line 41 – col 32, line 64; col 33, line 37 – col 37, line 19; col 37, line 57 – col 39, line 41). However, as described in Applicant’s disclosure, the spoofing condition can be detected with several embodiments based on a signal strength of the GNSS signal. Such spoofing condition can be detected by an increase in the signal strength above a GNSS signal strength level corresponding to an open sky condition, the signal strength exceeding a threshold value, an increase in a noise floor related to a measurement of the signal strength, or a combination thereof (emphasis added) (Applicant’s specification – Abstract, para [0095]). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to detect spoofing condition as claimed, since Applicant has not disclosed that such detection of spoofing condition solves any stated problem. It appears that the invention would perform equally with the spoofing condition comprising: the signal strength exceeding a threshold value as taught by Carmack et al for properly detecting spoofing (emphasis added) (i.e. support of such design choice for detecting spoofing condition was described in Applicant’s disclosure as stated above).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Carmack et al do not explicitly disclose utilizing a PGA for determining spoofing condition c as claimed. However, Carmack et al teach in the same field of endeavor other conditions for determining spoofing condition based on the comparison of the signal strength(s) to the threshold value(s) (Fig 10 – 1004-1010; Fig 11 – 1104-1110; Fig 12 – 1204-1210; Fig 13 – 1304-1310; col 28, line 29 – col 30, line 23; col 31, line 41 – col 32, line 64; col 33, line 37 – col 37, line 19; col 37, line 57 – col 39, line 41). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to utilize a PGA for determining spoofing condition comprising signal strength exceeding the threshold value as claimed, since Applicant has not disclosed such PGA/condition for determining spoofing condition solves any stated problem. It appears that the invention would perform equally well with the conditions for properly determining spoofing condition based on the comparison of the signal strength(s) to the threshold value(s) as taught by Carmack et al.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Carmack et al disclose monitoring the signal strength of the GNSS signal over a time period to detect the spoofing condition based on the signal strength of the GNSS signal (i.e. “At operation 1006, the signal strength of the received GPS data may be compared to the expected signal strength obtained at 1004. In an example, the UAV may compare signal strengths of GPS data to expected signal strengths at particular points in time. This may represent a comparison to detect a direct or instantaneous discrepancy between the two types of data. For instance, a signal strength of the GPS data at a particular time may be compared to an expected signal strength at that particular point in time and/or corresponding to a same location. In another example, the UAV may compare the signal strength of the GPS data over time to the expected signal strengths. These comparisons may indicate a discrepancy over time.”) (col 29, lines 15-27).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Carmack et al (US 10,466,700) as rejected above.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12,092,746 discloses a GNSS receiver includes a demodulation module, a position calculation module, a storage, and a determination module. The demodulation module receives the GNSS signal and acquires a navigation message. The position calculation module performs positioning calculation based on a propagation delay which is a time until a GNSS signal transmitted from a GNSS satellite reaches an antenna. The storage stores reception timing (reference timing) of a message of a predetermined type in the navigation message. The determination module determines that a GNSS signal including the navigation message is a spoofed GNSS signal when the difference between the reception timing of the next and subsequent messages of the same type predicted from the reference timing and the reception timing of the same type of message received after the reference timing is outside the scope of the time threshold.
US 11,733,389 discloses a technique that can provide one or more countermeasures against spoofers. A beamformer can control an antenna pattern of a CRPA to generate a survey beam. The survey beam is swept across space to determine a characteristic signature based on carrier-to-noise ratios (C/No) for particular space vehicle signals. Matching C/No signatures can be used to identify the existence of spoofers and invoke a countermeasure, such as nulling.
US 11,460,586 discloses a system and method for detecting a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) spoofing attack on a protected vehicle. The method includes receiving at least one GNSS signal; identifying a plurality of characteristics associated with at least one received GNSS signal; analyzing the plurality of characteristics; and determining, based on the analysis of the identified characteristics, whether the at least one GNSS signal is a spoofed signal.
US 9,849,978 discloses techniques for determining whether data associated with an autonomous operation of an unmanned vehicle may be trusted. For example, a first set of data may be provided from a source external to the unmanned vehicle. A second set of data may be accessed. This second set may be provided from a source internal to the unmanned vehicle and may be associated with the same autonomous operation. The two sets may be compared to determine whether the first set of data may be trusted or not. If untrusted, the autonomous navigation may be directed based on the second set of data and independently of the first set.
CN 111337953 discloses global navigation satellite positioning technology field, specifically relates to a satellite fraud detection method, apparatus, device and storage medium. the method comprises a step S1: obtaining the satellite positioning signal, step S2: mobile information by the auxiliary device, obtaining the satellite positioning terminal preset time, step S3: according to the satellite positioning signal, obtaining the mobile information terminal in the preset time of the satellite positioning, step S4: the mobile information according to the obtained auxiliary equipment, and according to the consistency of the movement information obtained by the satellite positioning signal, judging whether the satellite positioning signal is abnormal. Satellite positioning signal using the method, it can judge whether the received abnormal and improve the accuracy of satellite positioning.
CN 108693543 discloses a method and system for fraud detection signal. According to some embodiments, fraud detection method may include receiving one or more indications of the vehicle in the first position of the first time of the position signal, the method can further comprise: receiving one or more indications of the vehicle in a second position of the first time of the reference signal, the method further comprises: determining that the first position and the second position of the position error, the method may further include: determining whether the position error exceeds the predetermined tolerance, the method may further comprises: informing a vehicle positioning system.
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 CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights