DETAILED ACTION
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a module” for the determination of transmission aggregate in claim 8.
“a module” for the determining a reception aggregate for integrity check in claim 8
“a module” for checking end-to-end integrity in claim 8
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
For, “a module” for the determination of transmission aggregate in claim 8, the corresponding structure is interpreted as the module 20 of Fig. 1 and the description of this module’s hardware and software structure in ¶39-41.
For, “a module” for the determining a reception aggregate for integrity check in claim 8, the corresponding structure is interpreted as the module 36 of Fig. 1, and the description of this module’s hardware and software structure in ¶55-56.
For “a module” for checking end-to-end integrity in claim 8, the corresponding structure is interpreted as the module 38 of Fig. 1, and the description of this module’s hardware and software structure in ¶55-56.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATSON et al (NPL: “Dependability Analysis of the AFDX Frame Management Design”, Springer Nature, Switzerland, AG, 2018) in view of GADERER et al (US 2019/0327025)
Regarding claim 1, WATSON et al (NPL: “Dependability Analysis of the AFDX Frame Management Design”, 2018) A method for checking end-to-end integrity of a communication stream communicated within a time-sensitive network, the time-sensitive network being an avionics communication network, the method comprising:
a preliminary phase of virtual allocation of a virtual identifier to each of a plurality of communication streams communicated within the time-sensitive network (WATSON: Page 191, VLID is included in the header and the frames are encapsulated with the header allocating the VLID for the frame for the respective stream), the virtual identifier being used by each communication port, transmitter or receiver, located at one end of a communication stream (WATSON: Page 191, transmitting this message with the VLID);
a message transmission phase implemented by a transmitter communication port located at one end of a communication stream (WATSON: Page 191, the frame is transmitted by a transmitter communication port of the End System (transmitter)), the transmission phase comprising, for each message transmitted within the stream:
incrementation of the value of a counter of transmitted messages (WATSON: Page 191, once the frame is scheduled to be transmitted, a sequence number is appended to the frame);
determination of a transmission aggregate for integrity check obtained from:
the virtual identifier of the communication stream known to the transmitter communication port (WATSON: Page 191, VLID is added to the header as a validity/integrity check);
the value of the counter of transmitted messages (WATSON: Page 191, sequence number is added together with the header); and a payload to be transmitted (WATSON: Page 191, the message is included in the frame and the VLID and sequence numbers are added as encapsulation to form the frame); and
transmission of the message, within the stream, the transmitted message comprising at least the payload, the value of the counter of transmitted messages, and the transmission aggregate (WATSON: Page 191, Page 190, the frame that is transmitted (from the source End System/transmitter to the destination end system/receiver) includes the message (payload), the VLID and sequence numbers are added as encapsulation to form the frame); and
a reception phase of the message implemented by a receiver communication port located at the other end of the communication stream, the receiver communication port comprising a counter of received messages (WATSON: Page 192, the receiver end destination End System receives and verify the received frame by checking a sequence number (counter), during a reception of the frame), said reception phase comprising, for each message received:
reception of the message, within the stream, the received message comprising at least the payload, the value of the counter of transmitted messages, and the transmission aggregate (WATSON: Page 192, the receiver end End System receiving the transmitted frame with the VLID, sequence number (counter value) and the message (payload)),
determination of a transmission aggregate for integrity check, obtained from:
the value of the counter of transmitted messages, received within the received message (WATSON: Page 192, the integrity check is performed using at least the sequence number value); and
an end-to-end integrity check (WATSON: Page 192, accepts a packet that passes integrity check and rejects the packet that does not pass the integrity check).
WATSON remains silent regarding the virtual identifier known only to each communication port;
the reception phase comprising determination of a transmission aggregate for integrity check, the virtual identifier of the communication stream known to the receiver communication port; the value of the counter of transmitted messages. Received within the receiver message; and the payload received;
and the integrity check is by comparing the transmission aggregate with the reception aggregate, a difference between the transmission aggregate and the reception aggregate activating rejection of the received message, whereas on the other hand, when the transmission aggregate and the reception aggregate are identical, the received message is accepted.
However, GADERER et al (US 2019/0327025) discloses the virtual identifier known only to each communication port (GADERER: ¶79, exactly one link connected to exactly one port);
the reception phase comprising determination of a transmission aggregate for integrity check, the virtual identifier of the communication stream known to the receiver communication port; the value of the counter of transmitted messages, received within the receiver message; and the payload received (GADERER: ¶90, the data (aggregate/header+message) is determined at the receiver including the VLID known to the receiver (identifiable); the data also includes the sequence number, the payload of the frame and other information for verification of integrity);
and the integrity check is by comparing the transmission aggregate with the reception aggregate, a difference between the transmission aggregate and the reception aggregate activating rejection of the received message, whereas on the other hand, when the transmission aggregate and the reception aggregate are identical, the received message is accepted (GADERER: ¶52-53, ¶95, ¶112, the received aggregate/tuple data not matching the transmitted data indicates integrity is not preserved and the data is not outputted i.e. it is rejected by the receiving device; whereas, when the integrity is preserved and the data is matched/identical, the data is output).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of WATSON would have been motivated to use the teachings of GADERER as it provides data integrity checking with higher flexibility regarding the data to be checked, and with smaller memory consumption in the network device compared to solutions known from the state-of-the-art (GADERER: ¶10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of WATSON with teachings of GADERER in order to improve memory conservation at the network device.
Regarding claim 7, WATSON modified by GADERER discloses a method to claim 1. WATSON modified by GADERER remains silent regarding, however, in another alternative, GADERER discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium including a computer program including software instructions which, when executed by a computer, implement the method (GADERER: ¶59, ¶69, ¶72, ¶76, software modules/instructions implement by a computer to perform the functions of transmission, reception and error handling).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of WATSON would have been motivated to use the teachings of GADERER as it provides higher flexibility for reprograming the same module for a slightly or completely different function by simply reprogramming the software. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of WATSON with teachings of GADERER in order to improve flexibility of usage of the same hardware depending on the required implementation.
Regarding claim 8, WATSON modified by GADERER communication port of a time-sensitive network, the communication port being a transmitter or receiver, and configured to be located at an end of a communication stream communicated within the time-sensitive network (WATSON: Page 189, 191, 197, Fig. 1, AFDX being the avionics and time-sensitive network within which at least an ingress and egress port in the end-subsystem; WATSON: Fig. 2, Fig. 1, the communication port (equivalent to end-system device transmit chain and receiver chain) is of the AFDX (TSN) network), the communication port comprising a set of elements dedicated to implementing at least in part (WATSON: Fig. 2, Fig. 1, the communication port (end-system device) is of the network being an output (transmitting device) or an input (receiving device)), the method of claim 1, the set of elements comprising:
a memory storage space dedicated to the storage of a virtual identifier of each communication stream communicated within the time-sensitive network (WATSON: Fig. 2, Page 191, VLID is included in the header and the frames are encapsulated with the header allocating the VLID for the frame for the respective stream; these VLIDs are stored in at least the scheduler for scheduling the streams in an inherent memory for storing scheduling information with VL queues;); and
at least one of the following two devices:
a message transmission device transmitting at least one message within a communication stream (WATSON: Page 191, the frame is transmitted by a transmitter communication port of the End System (transmitter)), the transmission device comprising, for each message transmitted within the communication stream:
a counter of transmitted messages, the value of which is configured for being incremented at each transmitted message (WATSON: Page 191, once the frame is scheduled to be transmitted, a sequence number is appended to the frame);
a module for the determination of a transmission aggregate for integrity check obtained from: the virtual identifier of the communication stream known by the communication port in transmitter mode; the value of the counter of transmitted messages; and the payload to be transmitted (WATSON: Page 191, VLID is added to the header as a validity/integrity check; sequence number is added together with the header; the message is included in the frame and the VLID and sequence numbers are added as encapsulation to form the frame); and
a module for transmitting the message within the stream, the transmitted message comprising at least the payload, the value of the counter of transmitted messages and the transmission aggregate (WATSON: Page 191, Fig. 2, VLID is added to the header as a validity/integrity check; sequence number is added together with the header; the message is included in the frame and the VLID and sequence numbers are added as encapsulation to form the frame; the message is transmitted along with the aggregated information in the header); and
a message reception device, receiving at least one message within another communication stream (WATSON: Page 192, the receiver end destination End System receives and verify the received frame by checking a sequence number (counter), during a reception of the frame;), the reception device comprising, for each message received within the other communication stream:
a counter of received messages; a module for receiving the message within the other stream (WATSON: Page 192, the receiver end End System receiving the transmitted frame with the VLID, sequence number (counter value) and the message (payload)), the received message comprising at least the payload thereof, a value of the counter of transmitted messages, and a transmission aggregate ();
a module for determining a reception aggregate for integrity check (WATSON: Page 192, the integrity check is performed using at least the sequence number value), obtained from: the virtual identifier of the other communication stream; the value of the counter of transmitted messages, received within the received message; and the payload received (GADERER: ¶90, the data (aggregate/header+message) is determined at the receiver including the VLID known to the receiver (identifiable); the data also includes the sequence number, the payload of the frame and other information for verification of integrity); and a module for checking end-to-end integrity by comparing the transmission aggregate to the reception aggregate, a difference between the transmission aggregate and the reception aggregate activating the rejection of the received message, whereas on the other hand, when the transmission aggregate and the reception aggregate are identical, the received message is accepted (GADERER: ¶52-53, ¶95, ¶112, the received aggregate/tuple data not matching the transmitted data indicates integrity is not preserved and the data is not outputted i.e. it is rejected by the receiving device; whereas, when the integrity is preserved and the data is matched/identical, the data is output).
Regarding claim 9, WATSON modified by GADERER discloses communication port according to claim 8 wherein said set of elements may be activated/deactivated (WATSON: Page 189-191, the elements of End-System are activated upon generating data and transmitting; and the elements on the reception chain, are activated upon receiving data i.e. operation upon receiving data).
Regarding claim 10, WATSON modified by GADERER time-sensitive network, the time-sensitive network being an avionic communication network, wherein the network comprises at least two communication ports according to claim 8 (WATSON: Page 189, time-sensitive network AFDX, carrying time-sensitive traffic).
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATSON modified by GADERER as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of LABLANS (US 2016/0366109).
Regarding claim 2, WATSON modified by GADERER disclose method according to claim 1.
WATSON modified by GADERER remains silent, however, LABLANS (US 2016/0366109) discloses wherein the transmission aggregate and the reception aggregate are obtained using a same aggregate determination function, the aggregate determination function providing only irreversible aggregates (LABLANS: ¶122, ¶145, same hash function used at the receiver as used at the transmitter and is irreversible).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of WATSON modified by GADERER would have been motivated to use the teachings of LABLANS as it provides a protection against reconstruction and provides a high security to the data from prediction (¶122) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of WATSON modified by GADERER with teachings of LABLANS in order to improve security.
Regarding claim 3, WATSON modified by GADERER modified by LABLANS disclose method according to claim 2, wherein the aggregate determination function is a hash function (LABLANS: ¶122, hash function).
Regarding claim 4, WATSON modified by GADERER modified by LABLANS method according to claim 3, wherein the hash function is an SHA-1 function (LABLANS: ¶145, SHA-1).
Regarding claim 5, WATSON modified by GADERER modified by LABLANS method according to claim 3, wherein the hash function is an SHA-2 function (LABLANS: ¶145, SHA-2).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATSON modified by GADERER as applied to claim 1, further in view of RANA (US 2006/0056391) and still further in view of HUGHES (US 2007/0115812).
Regarding claim 6, WATSON modified by GADERER disclose method according to claim 1, wherein the reception phase further comprises checking the correct sequencing according to which, if a value based on the counter of transmitted messages is equal to the current value based on the counter of received messages, then the received message is accepted (GADERER: ¶53, ¶95, ¶112, when the integrity is preserved and the data is matched/identical, the data is accepted and outputted; the determined data tuples are equal)
WATSON modified by GADERER remains silent regarding, however, RANA (US 2006/0056391) disclose a value being the sequence number and if the value of the counter of transmitted messages is equal to the current value of the counter of received messages plus a range (RANA: Fig. 7, ¶35-36 if the sequence number of the received message is within an expected range), then the received message is also accepted and the current value of the counter of received messages is then updated by becoming equal to the value of the counter of transmitted messages (RANA: ¶36, changing/updating a value of the current counter of the receiver as the new sequence number and the expected to be as new sequence + 1 ).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of WATSON modified by GADERER would have been motivated to use the teachings of RANA as it provides recognizing and handling rogue RTP packets in the network (¶7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of WATSON modified by GADERER with teachings of RANA in order to improve authorized communication.
WATSON modified by GADERER modified by RANA remains silent regarding, however, HUGHES (US 2007/0115812) discloses the range including plus one or plus two (HUGHES: ¶55, sequence number of IP packet is two, the rang includes plus 1, which is 3).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of WATSON modified by GADERER modified by RANA would have been motivated to use the teachings of HUGHES (US 2007/0115812) as it reduces dropped packets by improving acceptable sequence number range dynamically. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of WATSON modified by GADERER modified by RANA with teachings of HUGHES (US 2007/0115812) in order to improve throughput.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMER S MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7524. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,W,Th: 10a-7p, Fri, 9a-12p.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/OMER S MIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
OMER S. MIAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2461