DETAILED ACTION
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 5/21/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/LYNN D FEILD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2431
This Office Action is in response to the Appeal Brief filed on 5/21/2026.
Claims 1-31 are pending for consideration.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 26, The term “representation of the counter value” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “representation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 16 and 28,
Claims 16 and 28 recite the limitation “computing the first counter value from the representation of the first counter value”. It is unclear how the first counter value is computed based on the representation of the counter value. The term “representation of the first counter value” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “representation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
Claims 16 and 28 recite the limitation “generating and storing a second counter value in a non-volatile memory”. It is unclear what information is used to generate the second counter value. Applicant’s specification does not clearly disclose how the second counter value is generated and stored. Clarification is required.
Dependent claims 2-15, 17-25, 27 and 29-31 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claims 1, 16, 26 and 28 (set forth directly above) and are rejected accordingly.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-13, 16-19, 21, 23, 26, 28 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glynn et al. (US 20250141687) (hereinafter Glynn) in view of Cosentino et al. (US 20230256936) (hereinafter Cosentino).
Regarding claim 1, Glynn discloses a transmitting node in a system of interconnected nodes configured to communicate over a bus according to a multi-drop scheme, the transmitting node comprising: a non-volatile memory (Glynn: paragraphs 0094, 0102, 0142 and 0165-0166, “Transmitting or transmitting device 1004 may be the same as, or similar to, one or more of the devices 102-114 discussed above with reference to FIG. 1”, “The memory 1204 may be a read-only memory, write-once read-multiple memory or read/write memory, e.g., RAM, ROM, and EEPROM, and the contactless card 902 may include one or more of these memories”); processing circuitry configured to:
generate a counter value (Glynn: paragraphs 0147, 0151-0152 and 0158, “The counter value may comprise a number that changes each time data is exchanged between the transmitting device 1004 and the receiving device”… “when the transmitting device 1004 is preparing to process the sensitive data with symmetric cryptographic operation, the sender may update a counter”);
derive, from a shared secret and the counter value, a temporary session key in accordance with a cryptographic function (Glynn: paragraphs 0151 and 0152, “The transmitting device 1004 may then encrypt the counter value with the selected symmetric encryption algorithm using the master symmetric key, creating a diversified symmetric key”); and
generate a secured message using the temporary session key (Glynn: paragraphs 0154-0161, 0166 and 0191-0192, “the diversified symmetric key may be used to process the sensitive data before transmitting the result to the receiving device 1008. For example, the transmitting device 1004 may encrypt the sensitive data using a symmetric encryption algorithm using the diversified symmetric key, with the output comprising the protected encrypted data”); and
communication circuitry configured to transmit the secured message to the bus (Glynn: paragraphs 0154 and 0195, “The transmitting device 1004 may then transmit the protected encrypted data, along with the counter value, to the receiving device 1008 for processing.”).
Glynn does not explicitly disclose the following limitations which are disclosed by Cosentino, the counter value and the shared secret being stored in non-volatile memory (Cosentino: see figure 1 and paragraphs 0025, 0029 and 0039, “The key device secret key 106 and the ECU secret key 122 can be stored in a non-volatile memory of the key device 104A and access control unit 120, respectively.”… “the access control unit 120 can maintain an ECU counter 124. The ECU counter 124 can initially be set to a starting value, e.g., 1, by the manufacturer of the access control unit 120. The access control unit 120 can increment the ECU counter 124 for each permission request.”); and the secured message comprising a plurality of fields, wherein a first one of the plurality of fields comprises a representation of the counter value (Cosentino: paragraphs 0019 and 0041, “The access control unit can request access by sending an access request to the coordinator. The access control unit's access request can include a cleartext (e.g., non-encrypted) representation of the counter value and a cryptographically-encoded representation of the counter value.”…“Alternatively, the coordinator service 304 can perform operation 334 in response to receiving a counter and encoded payload from the key device 306. To determine whether to perform operation 322 or 334 in response to receiving a counter and encoded payload, the coordinator service 304 can evaluate a sender identifier included in a received message or request associated with the received counter or encoded payload”).
Glynn and Cosentino are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, data protection. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Glynn and Cosentino before him or her, to modify the system of Glynn to include a counter value and a shared secret being stored in non-volatile memory and a secured message comprising a plurality of fields, wherein a first one of the plurality of fields comprises a representation of a counter value of Cosentino. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to prevent unauthorized devices from gaining access to functions protected by an access control unit/ECU (Cosentino: paragraph 0020).
Regarding claim 16, the claim 16 discloses a receiving node claim that is substantially equivalent to the transmitting node of claim 1. Therefore, the arguments set forth above with respect to claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 16 and rejected for the same reasons. Glynn as modified further discloses a first one of the plurality of fields comprising a representation of a first counter value that was used to derive a first temporary session key for generating the secured message in accordance with a cryptographic function prior to the secured message being received (Cosentino: paragraphs 0019 and 0039-0040, “The access control unit can request access by sending an access request to the coordinator. The access control unit's access request can include a cleartext (e.g., non-encrypted) representation of the counter value and a cryptographically-encoded representation of the counter value.”…“The ECU encoded payload 126 can be the same as the encoded ECU counter 128, or can include additional information, e.g., data type or size information for the encoded ECU counter”), generate a second counter value (Cosentino: paragraphs 0046-0047, “the coordinator service 304 can determine whether the first encoded counter is equal to the second encoded counter.”); determine a validity of the first counter value based upon (i) whether the computed first counter value matches the second counter value that is stored in the non-volatile memory of the receiving node, and/or (ii) whether the secured message is verified based upon a second temporary session key, which is derived from a shared secret stored in the non-volatile memory and the computed first counter value (Cosentino: see figure 1 and paragraphs 0025 and 0046-0047, “For example, if both the first and second encoded counters have the value of Hash(2|Key Device Secret Key), then the encoded counters are equal. If the first encoded counter is equal to the second encoded counter, then at operation 346 the coordinator service 304 can send, to the ECU, an indication that the request is granted.”); and accept or reject the secured message based upon the determined validity of the first counter value (Cosentino: see figure 1 and paragraphs 0025 and 0046-0047, “an indication that the request is granted. At operation 348, the ECU 302 can receive the indication and perform the requested operation. The ECU 302 can then perform operation 352, which can increment the ECU counter. Otherwise, if operation 344 determines that the first encoded counter is not equal to the second encoded counter, then at operation 350 the coordinator service 304 can send an indication that the request is denied to the ECU 302, and the ECU 302 can receive the indication and increment the ECU counter at operation 352. If the request is granted, the ECU 302 can perform the requested operation, or cause another component of the vehicle 102 to perform the requested operation. If the request is not granted, the ECU 302 does not perform the requested operation and does not cause another component of the vehicle to perform the requested operation.”).
Regarding claim 26, the claim 26 discloses a method claim that is substantially equivalent to the transmitting node of claim 1. Therefore, the arguments set forth above with respect to claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 26 and rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 28, the claim 28 discloses a method claim that is substantially equivalent to the transmitting node of claim 16. Therefore, the arguments set forth above with respect to claim 16 are equally applicable to claim 28 and rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 2, Glynn as modified discloses wherein the representation of the counter value in the secured message enables a receiving node to derive the temporary session key from the counter value and the shared secret (Cosentino: paragraphs 0019 and 0041-0047, “The access control unit can request access by sending an access request to the coordinator. The access control unit's access request can include a cleartext (e.g., non-encrypted) representation of the counter value and a cryptographically-encoded representation of the counter value.”…“Alternatively, the coordinator service 304 can perform operation 334 in response to receiving a counter and encoded payload from the key device 306. To determine whether to perform operation 322 or 334 in response to receiving a counter and encoded payload, the coordinator service 304 can evaluate a sender identifier included in a received message or request associated with the received counter or encoded payload”… “determine whether the first encoded counter is equal to the second encoded counter. For example, if both the first and second encoded counters have the value of Hash(2|Key Device Secret Key), then the encoded counters are equal. If the first encoded counter is equal to the second encoded counter, then at operation 346 the coordinator service 304 can send, to the ECU, an indication that the request is granted.”). The same motivation to modify Glynn in view of Cosentino, as applied in claim 1 above, applies here.
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Glynn as modified discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to compute an integrity check value (ICV) based upon at least the counter value, and generate the secured message having a second one of the plurality of fields comprising the ICV (Glynn: paragraph 0151, “the sender may update a counter. In addition, the transmitting device 1004 may select an appropriate symmetric cryptographic algorithm, which may include at least one of a symmetric encryption algorithm, HMAC algorithm, and a CMAC algorithm. In some examples, the symmetric algorithm used to process the diversification value may comprise any symmetric cryptographic algorithm used as needed to generate the desired length diversified symmetric key. Non-limiting examples of the symmetric algorithm may include a symmetric encryption algorithm such as 3DES or AES128; a symmetric HMAC algorithm, such as HMAC-SHA-256; and a symmetric CMAC algorithm such as AES-CMAC. It is understood that if the output of the selected symmetric algorithm does not generate a sufficiently long key, techniques such as processing multiple iterations of the symmetric algorithm with different input data and the same master key may produce multiple outputs which may be combined as needed to produce sufficient length keys”).
Regarding claim 5, Glynn as modified discloses wherein: the processing circuitry is configured to derive, from the shared secret and the counter value, a further temporary session key in accordance with the cryptographic function, the further shared secret being stored in the non-volatile memory, the temporary session key enables a receiving node to decrypt the secured message, and the further temporary key enables a receiving node to authenticate the secured message (Glynn: paragraphs 0143, 0152-0157 and 0187-0188, “the receiving device 1008 may then take the protected encrypted data and using a symmetric decryption algorithm along with the diversified symmetric key, decrypt the protected encrypted data”… “When using symmetric cryptographic algorithms, such as encryption algorithms, hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) algorithms, and cipher-based message authentication code (CMAC) algorithms, it is important that the key remain secret between the party that originally processes the data that is protected using a symmetric algorithm and the key, and the party who receives and processes the data using the same cryptographic algorithm and the same key.”).
Regarding claim 8, Glynn as modified discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: generate, for each one of a plurality of secure zones comprising a respective group of nodes, a respective temporary session key using a respective shared secret and a respective counter value in accordance with a respective cryptographic function, and generate, for a transmission to each respective group of nodes, a respective secured message comprising a plurality of fields, with a first one of the plurality of fields comprising a representation of the respective counter value, and wherein the communication circuitry is configured to transmit each respective secured message to each respective group of nodes from among the plurality of secure zones (Cosentino: paragraphs 0019, 0022, 0030 and 0072-0073, “The access control unit can request access by sending an access request to the coordinator. The access control unit's access request can include a cleartext (e.g., non-encrypted) representation of the counter value and a cryptographically-encoded representation of the counter value.”…“The key device 104 can include a radio transmitter or communication device (e.g., a Radio Frequency Identifier (RFID) tag) from which a signal is detectable when the key device 104 is in proximity to or inside the vehicle 102. The vehicle 102 can detect the signal from the key device 104 using antennas, and can perform triangulation to determine whether the key device 104 is located inside the vehicle 102, as shown by key device 104A, or outside the vehicle, as shown by key device”). The same motivation to modify Glynn in view of Cosentino, as applied in claim 1 above, applies here.
Regarding claim 9, Glynn as modified discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to increment the counter value in response to one or more predefined conditions being satisfied, and to generate, from the shared secret and the incremented counter value, an updated temporary session key in accordance with the cryptographic function (Glynn: paragraphs 0151-0152 and 0184, “the sender may select a symmetric encryption algorithm, and use a counter which updates with every conversation between the transmitting device 1004 and the receiving device 1008. The transmitting device 1004 may then encrypt the counter value with the selected symmetric encryption algorithm using the master symmetric key, creating a diversified symmetric key.”… “At this point, a counter value maintained by the contactless card 902 may be updated or incremented, which may be followed by “Read NDEF file.””).
Regarding claim 10, Glynn as modified discloses wherein the one or more predefined conditions comprise a number of secured messages being transmitted with the temporary session key in excess of a predetermined number of messages and/or an expiration of a predetermined time period (Cosentino: paragraphs 0035 and 0042, “The coordinator service 304 can also generate an expiration time for the encoded ECU counter 128. The expiration time can be, for example, a specific time in the future, e.g., 30 seconds, 1 minute, 5 minutes, or other suitable time in the future. The difference between the current time and the expiration time corresponds to a time to live of the counter value.”). The same motivation to modify Glynn in view of Cosentino, as applied in claim 1 above, applies here.
Regarding claim 11, Glynn as modified discloses wherein the non-volatile memory is configured to store a priority flag for a predetermined time period, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to increment the counter value in response to the one or more predefined conditions being satisfied further conditioned upon a presence of the priority flag stored in the non-volatile memory (Glynn: paragraph 0185, “In some examples, the MAC cryptogram may be transmitted as an NDEF tag, and in other examples the MAC cryptogram may be included with a uniform resource indicator (e.g., as a formatted string). In some examples, application 1302 may be configured to transmit a request to contactless card 902, the request comprising an instruction to generate a MAC cryptogram.”).
Regarding claim 12, Glynn as modified discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to increment the counter value as part of an atomic storage algorithm (Glynn: paragraphs 0147, 0151-0152 and 0158, “The counter value may comprise a number that changes each time data is exchanged between the transmitting device 1004 and the receiving device”… “when the transmitting device 1004 is preparing to process the sensitive data with symmetric cryptographic operation, the sender may update a counter”).
Regarding claim 13, Glynn as modified discloses further comprising: a volatile memory configured to store the temporary session key (Cosentino: paragraph 0025, “The key device secret key 106 and the ECU secret key 122 can be stored in a non-volatile memory of the key device 104A and access control unit 120, respectively. A key device 104A can be authorized to provide access to a vehicle 102, e.g., by the vehicle manufacturer or other trusted provider. A key device 104A that is authorized to provide access to a vehicle 102 is referred to herein as an authorized key device for the vehicle 102. The secret key 106 of a key device 104A that is authorized to provide access to a vehicle 102 has the same value as the ECU secret key 122 of the vehicle's access control unit 120.”). The same motivation to modify Glynn in view of Cosentino, as applied in claim 1 above, applies here.
Regarding claim 17, Glynn as modified discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to accept the secured message when the first counter value is valid as a result of the computed first counter value matching the second counter value (Cosentino: paragraph 0047, “if both the first and second encoded counters have the value of Hash(2|Key Device Secret Key), then the encoded counters are equal. If the first encoded counter is equal to the second encoded counter, then at operation 346 the coordinator service 304 can send, to the ECU, an indication that the request is granted.”). The same motivation to modify Glynn in view of Cosentino, as applied in claim 1 above, applies here.
Regarding claim 18, Glynn as modified discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine that the first counter is invalid and to conditionally reject the secured message when the computed first counter value is less than the second counter value (Cosentino: paragraph 0047, “Otherwise, if operation 344 determines that the first encoded counter is not equal to the second encoded counter, then at operation 350 the coordinator service 304 can send an indication that the request is denied to the ECU 302, and the ECU 302 can receive the indication and increment the ECU counter at operation 352. If the request is granted, the ECU 302 can perform the requested operation, or cause another component of the vehicle 102 to perform the requested operation. If the request is not granted, the ECU 302 does not perform the requested operation and does not cause another component of the vehicle to perform the requested operation.”). The same motivation to modify Glynn in view of Cosentino, as applied in claim 1 above, applies here.
Regarding claim 21, Glynn as modified discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: update the second counter value to match the computed first counter value when the second counter value is less than the computed first counter value (Cosentino: paragraph 0047); and not update the second counter value when the computed first counter value already matches the second counter value (Cosentino: paragraph 0047, “The ECU 302 can then perform operation 352, which can increment the ECU counter. Otherwise, if operation 344 determines that the first encoded counter is not equal to the second encoded counter, then at operation 350 the coordinator service 304 can send an indication that the request is denied to the ECU 302, and the ECU 302 can receive the indication and increment the ECU counter at operation 352. If the request is granted, the ECU 302 can perform the requested operation, or cause another component of the vehicle 102 to perform the requested operation. If the request is not granted, the ECU 302 does not perform the requested operation and does not cause another component of the vehicle to perform the requested operation.”). The same motivation to modify Glynn in view of Cosentino, as applied in claim 1 above, applies here.
Regarding claim 23, Glynn as modified discloses further comprising: a volatile memory configured to store the second temporary session key (Cosentino: paragraphs 0047 and 0074, “the computer system 1000 may include a processing device 1002, a volatile memory 1004 (e.g., random access memory (RAM)), a non-volatile memory 1006 (e.g., read-only memory (ROM) or electrically-erasable programmable ROM (EEPROM)), and a data storage device 1016, which may communicate with each other via a bus 1008.”). The same motivation to modify Glynn in view of Cosentino, as applied in claim 1 above, applies here.
Regarding claim 30, Glynn as modified discloses wherein the first one of the plurality of fields comprises the representation of the counter value as at least a portion of bits of the counter value (Cosentino: paragraphs 0019 and 0041, “The access control unit can request access by sending an access request to the coordinator. The access control unit's access request can include a cleartext (e.g., non-encrypted) representation of the counter value and a cryptographically-encoded representation of the counter value.”…“Alternatively, the coordinator service 304 can perform operation 334 in response to receiving a counter and encoded payload from the key device 306. To determine whether to perform operation 322 or 334 in response to receiving a counter and encoded payload, the coordinator service 304 can evaluate a sender identifier included in a received message or request associated with the received counter or encoded payload”). The same motivation to modify Glynn in view of Cosentino, as applied in claim 1 above, applies here.
Regarding claim 31, Glynn as modified discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to directly generate the one or more of the plurality of fields of the secured message using the temporary session key (Cosentino: paragraphs 0018-0019and 0031-0033, “To determine whether to perform operation 322 or 334 in response to receiving a counter and encoded payload, the coordinator service 304 can evaluate a sender identifier included in a received message or request associated with the received counter or encoded payload”… “he key device can establish its authenticity by cryptographically encoding the received counter value using the secret key. Thus, the coordinator can request that the key device provide the current counter value. In response, the key device can send the received counter value in clear text and in cryptographically-encoded form to the coordinator. The coordinator can then determine whether the same pair of cleartext and cryptographically-encoded counter values have been received from the access control unit and the key device. That is, upon receiving a cleartext counter and cryptographically-encoded counter from the key device, the coordinator can determine whether the same cryptographically-encoded counter was has been received from the access control unit in association with the same cleartext counter value.”). The same motivation to modify Glynn in view of Cosentino, as applied in claim 1 above, applies here.
Claim(s) 3, 6-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glynn in view of Cosentino, and further in view of Weis et al. (US 20110087878) (hereinafter Weis).
Regarding claims 3 and 20, Glynn in view of Cosentino discloses wherein the transmitting node is part of a secure zone comprising nodes within the system of interconnected nodes that are intended recipients of the secured message (Cosentino: paragraphs 0022, 0030 and 0072-0073, “The key device 104 can include a radio transmitter or communication device (e.g., a Radio Frequency Identifier (RFID) tag) from which a signal is detectable when the key device 104 is in proximity to or inside the vehicle 102. The vehicle 102 can detect the signal from the key device 104 using antennas, and can perform triangulation to determine whether the key device 104 is located inside the vehicle 102, as shown by key device 104A, or outside the vehicle, as shown by key device”).
Glynn in view of Cosentino does not explicitly disclose the following limitation which is disclosed by Weis, wherein a second one of the plurality of fields comprises a secure channel indicator (SCI) value that identifies the transmitting node (Weis: paragraphs 0013, 0021, 0030 and 0035, “A security indicator may be a secure channel indicator (SCI) in a Media Access Control Security (MACsec) packet. The encrypted network communication may be a MACsec communication as specified in IEEE Std 802.1AE and may be encrypted according to IEEE Std 802.1X.”).
Glynn in view of Cosentino and Weis are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, network protection. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Glynn in view of Cosentino and Weis before him or her, to modify the system of Glynn in view of Cosentino to include a second one of a plurality of fields comprises a secure channel indicator (SCI) value that identifies the transmitting node of Weis. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for enabling QoS for MACsec protected frames (Weis: paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 6, Glynn in view of Cosentino discloses wherein the system of interconnected nodes comprises a plurality of secure zones, each one of the plurality of secure zones comprising a respective group of nodes (Cosentino: paragraphs 0022, 0030 and 0072-0073, “The key device 104 can include a radio transmitter or communication device (e.g., a Radio Frequency Identifier (RFID) tag) from which a signal is detectable when the key device 104 is in proximity to or inside the vehicle 102. The vehicle 102 can detect the signal from the key device 104 using antennas, and can perform triangulation to determine whether the key device 104 is located inside the vehicle 102, as shown by key device 104A, or outside the vehicle, as shown by key device”), and
Glynn in view of Cosentino does not explicitly disclose the following limitation which is disclosed by Weis, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to generate the secured message having a second one of the plurality of fields comprising a secure channel indicator (SCI) value that indicates which one of the plurality of secure zones for which the secured message is intended (Weis: paragraphs 0013, 0021-0022, 0030 and 0035, “selectively forwarding the encrypted network communication. Selectively forwarding the encrypted network communication includes forwarding the encrypted network communication over a connection according to a QoS policy associated with a known security indicator. The security indicator identified in the encrypted network communication is used to match the security indicator to a known security indicator. T”).
Glynn in view of Cosentino and Weis are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, network protection. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Glynn in view of Cosentino and Weis before him or her, to modify the system of Glynn in view of Cosentino to include generating a secured message having a second one of a plurality of fields comprising a secure channel indicator (SCI) value that indicates which one of the plurality of secure zones for which the secured message is intended of Weis. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for enabling QoS for MACsec protected frames (Weis: paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 7, Glynn as modified discloses wherein the non-volatile memory stores, for each one of the plurality of secure zones, a respective shared secret and a respective counter value (Cosentino: paragraphs 0022, 0030 and 0072-0073, “The key device 104 can include a radio transmitter or communication device (e.g., a Radio Frequency Identifier (RFID) tag) from which a signal is detectable when the key device 104 is in proximity to or inside the vehicle 102. The vehicle 102 can detect the signal from the key device 104 using antennas, and can perform triangulation to determine whether the key device 104 is located inside the vehicle 102, as shown by key device 104A, or outside the vehicle, as shown by key device”). The same motivation to modify Glynn in view of Cosentino, as applied in claim 1 above, applies here.
Claim(s) 14-15, 24-25, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glynn in view of Cosentino, and further in view of Usui et al. (US 20200044842) (hereinafter Usui).
Regarding claims 14, 24, 27 and 29, Glynn in view of Cosentino does not disclose the following limitation which is disclosed by Usui, wherein the communication circuitry is configured to transmit the secured message in accordance with a communication protocol comprising one of a Controller Area Network (CAN) communication protocol, a Controller Area Network Flexible Data- Rate (CAN FD) communication protocol, a Controller Area Network Extra Long (CAN XL) communication protocol, or a multi-drop Ethernet communication protocol (Usui: paragraphs 0013, 0043 and 0064-0068, “a configuration of a CAN network of a vehicle system”… “ECU 104 transmits the generated M1, M2, and M3 messages to the CAN network. On the other hand, the ECU 102-A confirms the CAN-ID of the destination of the message transmitted on the CAN network and collects a message having a CAN-ID of a processing target”).
Glynn in view of Cosentino and Usui are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, data protection. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Glynn in view of Cosentino and Usui before him or her, to modify the system of Glynn in view of Cosentino to include a communication circuitry is configured to transmit a secured message in accordance with a communication protocol comprising one of a Controller Area Network (CAN) communication protocol of Usui. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to secure security strength against a cyber-attack to a vehicle, an encryption technology is used throughout an ECU (Usui: paragraph 0003).
Regarding claims 15 and 25, Glynn as modified discloses wherein the plurality of fields form at least part of a communication protocol frame, and wherein the communication protocol frame comprises one of a Controller Area Network (CAN) communication protocol frame, a Controller Area Network Flexible Data-Rate (CAN FD) communication protocol frame, a Controller Area Network Extra Long (CAN XL) communication protocol frame, or an Ethernet communication protocol frame (Usui: paragraphs 0044-0056, “a configuration of a data frame of a message in the CAN communication. Each field in FIG. 3 represents the following items.”). The same motivation to modify Glynn in view of Cosentino and Usui, as applied in claim 14 above, applies here.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art has been incorporated into the record and does not disclose, individually or in reasonable combination, the features disclosed in claim 22 as a whole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG T DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0740. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4 ET.
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, Lynn D Feild can be reached on (571)272-2092. 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.
/TRANG T DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights