DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04 September 2025 has been entered.
By the above submission, Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, and 11 have been amended. No claims have been added or canceled. Claims 1-7 and 9-12 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 (see pages 13-17 of the present response) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings for informalities is withdrawn in light of the amended drawings filed.
Specification
The objection to the disclosure for informalities is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the specification. Applicant’s cooperation is again requested in correcting any other errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 3, the comma at the end of line 1 (after “wherein”) should be replaced with a colon.
In Claim 6, line 2, the comma after “wherein” should be deleted. Further, line 3 should be indented for consistency in formatting.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 1-7 and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al, US Patent Application Publication 2014/0112187, in view of Narayanan et al, US Patent 9009349, and Kupfer et al, US Patent 10498749.
In reference to Claim 1, Kang discloses an intrusion prevention system (paragraph 0005) that includes an SDN-enabled switch installed in a network and configured to control a packet flow of an incoming packet by referring to an entry in a flow table (Figure 8, flow table 522; paragraph 0074) and an SDN controller configured to communicate with the switch and receive the packet (paragraph 0075, receive packet; paragraphs 0076-0082, performing actions), where the controller is configured to transmit the packet to an intrusion detection system to determine whether the packet is an intrusion packet, receive a command, and transmit the command to the switch to control a flow of the packet (paragraphs 0075-0082, performing actions according to flow matching rules). However, Kang does not explicitly disclose that the SDN controller or intrusion detection system are located remotely from a vehicle.
Narayanan discloses an intrusion prevention system that includes an SDN controller located remotely from the network (see Figure 2, SDN controller 220, and column 5, lines 45-60) where analysis is performed by an intrusion detection system (column 7, lines 9-15). Further, Kupfer discloses an intrusion detection system for in-vehicle network intrusion detection that includes an external intrusion detection system remote from the vehicle (see Figure 1, remote IDS computing system 104 remote from vehicle 102; see also column 4, lines 32-40; column 6, line 41-column 7, line 17, for example). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kang to include a remote SDN controller as taught by Narayanan, in order to allow remote control of the switching paths (see Narayanan, column 5, lines 45-48), and to include a remote external intrusion detection system as taught by Kupfer, in order to allow the remote system to control the intrusion detection (see Kupfer, column 1, line 35-column 3, line 38).
In reference to Claim 2, Kang, Narayanan, and Kupfer further disclose that the switch is configured to compare the incoming packet with rule fields of entries in the flow table and extracting, updating, and controlling a flow (Kang, paragraph 0074, flow matching rules).
In reference to Claim 3, Kang, Narayanan, and Kupfer further disclose that the switch is configured to receive a command and update the table (Kang, paragraph 0078, updating table).
In reference to Claim 4, Kang discloses a method that includes transmitting a packet-in message containing an incoming packet from an SDN-enabled switch to an SDN controller and to an intrusion detection system (paragraph 0075, receive packet); receiving a command based on a determination result from the IDS, and transmitting a packet-out message including the command and controlling packet flow according to the command (paragraphs 0075-0082, performing actions according to flow matching rules). However, Kang does not explicitly disclose that an external intrusion detection system remote from the vehicle is configured to perform the analysis.
Narayanan discloses an intrusion prevention system that includes an SDN controller located remotely from the network (see Figure 2, SDN controller 220, and column 5, lines 45-60) where analysis is performed by an intrusion detection system (column 7, lines 9-15). Further, Kupfer discloses an intrusion detection system for in-vehicle network intrusion detection that includes an external intrusion detection system remote from the vehicle (see Figure 1, remote IDS computing system 104 remote from vehicle 102; see also column 4, lines 32-40; column 6, line 41-column 7, line 17, for example). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kang to include a remote SDN controller as taught by Narayanan, in order to allow remote control of the switching paths (see Narayanan, column 5, lines 45-48), and to include a remote external intrusion detection system as taught by Kupfer, in order to allow the remote system to control the intrusion detection (see Kupfer, column 1, line 35-column 3, line 38).
In reference to Claim 5, Kang, Narayanan, and Kupfer further disclose extracting an entry from a flow table (Kang, paragraph 0074; Figure 8, flow table 522).
In reference to Claims 6, 7, 9, and 10, Kang, Narayanan, and Kupfer further disclose comparing the packet with rule fields of flow entries, extracting a matching entry and updating a rule (see Kang, paragraph 0074, flow matching rules; paragraph 0078, updating table).
In reference to Claim 11, Kang, Narayanan, and Kupfer further disclose forwarding the packet (Kang, paragraph 0081).
In reference to Claim 12, Kang, Narayanan, and Kupfer further disclose updating the flow table (Kang, paragraph 0078, updating table).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Guajardo Merchan et al, US Patent 11683341, discloses systems in which an IDS can run locally in a car or remotely.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights