DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 33-45, 47-57, and 59-61 are pending. Claims 44-45, 47-49, 52-54, 59, and 60 are elected and under consideration. Claims 33-43, 50-51, 55-57, and 61 are withdrawn. Claims 1-32, 46, and 58 are cancelled. Claims 44-45, 48-49, 52-54, and 59-61 are amended. This Office action is in response to Applicant’s request for reconsideration after non-final rejection filed on 1/8/2026.
Response to Arguments
The arguments of Applicant’s representative are discussed below.
Request for Information
In the previous Office action, Examiner requested clarification as to whether the Leuwer reference is considered prior art in light of its submission within the IDS dated February 5, 2025. In response, Applicant’s representative declines to provide such clarification until Examiner provides a rejection based on Leuwer. However, Examiner is declining to make such a rejection at this time because it would be a cumulative rejection.
Rejection of claims 44, 54, 59, and 60 under 35 U.S.C. 102
Applicant’s representative has amended claims 44, 54, 59, and 60 to recite new features and now argues that the previous cited prior art does not anticipate claims 44, 54, 59, and 60. Examiner agrees. Nonetheless, Examiner now rejects claims 44, 54, 59, and 60 under 35 U.S.C. 103, as discussed in the rejection below.
Request for Information
Applicant’s representative included the Leuwer reference (US 2021/0258352) in the information disclosure state (IDS) filed on February 5, 2025. The Leuwer reference was published on August 19, 2021, while the present application was effectively filed on August 25, 2021. Therefore, the Leuwer reference was published less than one year prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant’s representative please clarify whether Applicant’s representative intends to disqualify the Leuwer reference as prior art by invoking the “disclosures made 1 year or less before the effective filing date” exception of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) or 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B).
Relevant Prior Art
Rhee (US 2019/0104108) is directed to an automotive gateway that inspects packets for threat mitigation.
Claim Rejections: 35 U.S.C. 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 32, 44-45, 47-49, 53-54, and 58-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 because they are unpatentable over Su (US 2017/0171039) in view of the non-patent literature entitled “Scapegoat Trees” (hereinafter, “Galperin”), and in further view of either Pepper (US 2013/0124491) or de Wit (US 7,697,518).
Regarding claims 44, 54, and 59, Su teaches an apparatus for processing data units, comprising: a first number of input interfaces configured to receive protocol data units (A switching device has at least one interface for receiving a packet. See par. 88); a checking device configured to check at least one received protocol data unit (The switching device checks the packet to collect information about the packet, such as the size of the packet. See par. 94-95); and a processing device which is configured to perform, based on a PDU identifier associated with a received protocol data unit, a search in at least a first search tree including an allocation of in each case one PDU identifier to a connection identifier characterizing at least one data connection, wherein the search can be performed before and/or after and/or with an at least partial time overlap with the check (The switching device searches for a network flow identifier of the packet in a first search tree. The search must occur before and/or after and/or in parallel with the check because there are no other options. See par. 118).
However, Su does not teach that the first search tree that is searched by the processing device is a balanced search tree, and wherein the processing device is configured to generate based on the first software tree, via a software component of the processing device, a second search tree, separate from the first search tree, the processing device being further configured to balance, via the software component, the second search tree in relation to the first search tree, and to transmit a content and/or structure of the balanced second search tree to the first search tree to provide a balanced first search tree. Nonetheless, Galperin teaches a method of balancing a first search tree comprising copying all or a portion of the first search tree’s nodes into a linear list representation (i.e., a second search tree), balancing the second search tree by balancing the list of nodes, and returning a pointer to the root node of the balanced second search tree to the first search tree for splicing into the first search tree. See pg. 170, section 6.1.
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 Su so that the first search tree is balanced by generating, via software, a second search tree, balancing the second search tree, and transmitting at least a portion of the balanced second search tree to the first search tree for integration into and balancing of the first search tree, because searching a balanced search tree takes less time than searching an unbalanced search tree.
Lastly, Su and Galperin do not teach that the search of the first search tree is a hardware-based search. However, Pepper teaches a hardware-based binary search system. See par. 20-29. Similarly, de Wit teaches an integrated circuit search engine having a hardware implemented binary tree for use in packet routing. See col. 5, ln. 10-14; col. 2, ln. 28-33.
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 Su and Galperin so that the search of the first search tree is a hardware-based binary search, because a hardware-based binary search is faster than a software-based binary search performed by a general purpose processor running a binary search program.
Regarding claim 45, Su, Galperin, and Pepper/de Wit teach the apparatus according to claim 44, wherein the apparatus is configured to ascertain, based on the received protocol data unit, a connection identifier associated with the received protocol data unit, wherein the ascertainment can be performed before and/or after and/or after and/or with an at least partial time overlap with the check (Su teaches that the switching device searches the binary tree to ascertain the network flow identifier of the packet. The search must occur before and/or after and/or in parallel with the check because there are no other options. See par. 118).
Regarding claim 47, Su, Galperin, and Pepper/de Wit teach the apparatus according to claim 44, wherein the first search tree is a binary tree (As indicated above, Su teaches that the switching device searches a binary tree. See par. 118).
Regarding claim 48, Su, Galperin, and Pepper/de Wit teach the apparatus according to claim 44, wherein the processing device includes at least one software component, wherein the software component is configured to perform at least one of the following elements: a) at least temporarily forming the first search tree, b) at least temporarily modifying the first search tree, c) receiving the at least one protocol data unit from the checking device, d) performing a software-based, attack detection (Su teaches that the switching device contains a software module for modifying the binary tree to add a network flow identifier for a newly recognized network flow. See par. 119).
Regarding claim 49, Su, Galperin, and Pepper/de Wit teach the apparatus according to claim 48, wherein the at least one software component is configured to perform a specifiable response if no connection identifier associated with the received protocol data unit can be ascertained for the received protocol data unit because no connection identifier associated with the received protocol data unit is present for the received protocol data unit in the first search tree, wherein the specifiable response includes at least one of the following elements: a) discarding the received protocol data unit, b) assigning a configurable connection identifier to the received protocol data unit, c) setting or inserting a first item of information or a first item of control information for the received protocol data unit, wherein the first item of information and/or the first item of control information indicates that the received protocol data unit is to be subjected to a check (Su teaches that the software module assigns the new network flow identifier to the packet if no network flow identifier is already assigned to the packet. See par. 119).
Regarding claim 53, Su teaches the apparatus according to claim 44, wherein the checking device is configured to use the connection identifier for ascertaining a service and/or an identification associated with the at least one received protocol data unit (The switch uses the network flow identifier to identify the flow to which the packet belongs. See par. 115).
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 because it is unpatentable over Su, Galperin, and either Pepper or de Wit, as applied to claim 44 above, in further view of Zeng (US 2017/0339109).
Regarding claim 52, Su, Galperin, and Pepper/de Wit do not teach the apparatus according to claim 44, wherein a node structure for the first search tree includes an attribute that indicates whether a security check is to be performed for a relevant protocol data unit or for protocol data units associated with a connection identifier. However, Zeng teaches a switch comprising a flow table that contains a security control identifier (i.e., security attribute) indicating whether a security check is to be performed on a relevant packet. See par. 10, 12.
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 Su, Galperin, and Pepper/de Wit so that each node of the binary tree (which implements a flow table. See par. 117-118) includes a security control identifier which indicates whether a security check is to be performed on a relevant packet, because doing so allows the system to regulate the content of packets.
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 because it is unpatentable over Tokunaga, Galperin, and either Pepper or de Wit.
Regarding claim 60, Tokunaga teaches an automotive gateway, comprising: at least one apparatus for processing data units, including: a first number of input interfaces configured to receive protocol data units (An on-vehicle gateway receives a packet on a first interface connected to a first bus. See par. 21), a checking device configured to check at least one received protocol data unit (The on-vehicle gateway inspects the packet to determine whether it is safe to forward the packet via a second interface to a second bus. See par. 21), and a processing device which is configured to perform, based on a PDU identifier associated with a received protocol data unit, a search in at least a first search tree including an allocation of in each case one PDU identifier to a connection identifier characterizing at least one data connection, wherein the search can be performed before and/or after and/or with an at least partial time overlap with the check (The switching device searches for a network flow identifier of the packet in a first search tree. The search must occur before and/or after and/or in parallel with the check because there are no other options. See par. 118).
However, Tokunaga does not teach that the first search tree that is searched by the processing device is a balanced search tree, and wherein the processing device is configured to generate based on the first software tree, via a software component of the processing device, a second search tree, separate from the first search tree, the processing device being further configured to balance, via the software component, the second search tree in relation to the first search tree, and to transmit a content and/or structure of the balanced second search tree to the first search tree to provide a balanced first search tree. Nonetheless, Galperin teaches a method of balancing a first search tree comprising copying all or a portion of the first search tree’s nodes into a linear list representation (i.e., a second search tree), balancing the second search tree by balancing the list of nodes, and returning a pointer to the root node of the balanced second search tree to the first search tree for splicing into the first search tree. See pg. 170, section 6.1.
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 Tokunaga so that the first search tree is balanced by generating, via software, a second search tree, balancing the second search tree, and transmitting at least a portion of the balanced second search tree to the first search tree for integration into and balancing of the first search tree, because searching a balanced search tree takes less time than searching an unbalanced search tree.
Lastly, Tokunaga and Galperin do not teach that the search of the first search tree is a hardware-based search. However, Pepper teaches a hardware-based binary search system. See par. 20-29. Similarly, de Wit teaches an integrated circuit search engine having a hardware implemented binary tree for use in packet routing. See col. 5, ln. 10-14; col. 2, ln. 28-33.
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 Tokunaga and Galperin so that the search of the first search tree is a hardware-based binary search, because a hardware-based binary search is faster than a software-based binary search performed by a general purpose processor running a binary search program.
Conclusion
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 Andrew Georgandellis whose telephone number is 571-270-3991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30-5:00 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tonia Dollinger, can be reached on 571-272-4170. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW C GEORGANDELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459