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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed 11/06/2025.
Claims 1-3 and 5-18 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 15-17 are independent claims. In Amendment, claim 4 is cancelled and claims 1 and 15-17 are amended. This Office Action is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 and 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 and 15-17 is/are directed to an abstract idea under the mental process wherein the limitations of “assigning a zero value…” and “assigning a non-vanishing value…” can be mentally done in human mind with pen and paper under Prong I step 2A. These assigning values process to an element can be easily done by one ordinary skill in the art by looking/observation the data/mode and then decide/evaluate whether to assign/judge a value to that particular mode. Under Prong II step 2A, other limitations in the claims including “providing…”, “processing data…”, “at least one device…” and “stored commands…” are considered as additional elements. However, these additional elements are merely the pre-activity solutions to transmitting the information over network and also utilizing high level generalized computer system components. Thus, these additional elements are not significantly amount to judicial exception and would not integrate into a practical application. Under step 2B, these additional elements are merely the pre-activity solutions to transmitting the information over network and also utilizing high level generalized computer system components as evidently seen in MPEP 2106.05(d) and (g).
Re claims 2-3, 5-12 and 18, these claims are similarly rejected since these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. All of these limitations in these claims are merely directing to providing additional information over the network or describing the data structure which would not integrate into the practical application.
Re claims 13-14, these claims are similarly rejected since these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as stated above. In addition, these claims have limitation directing to truncation which can also be mentally done in human mind under Prong I step 2A.
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 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 1-3 and 5-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haga et al. (U.S. 2018/0148006 A1) in view of Shin et al. (U.S. 9,806,851 B2).
Re claim 1, Haga et al. disclose in Figures 1-18 a computer-implemented method for processing data associated with a data frame that can be transmitted and/or has been transmitted via a bus system (e.g. abstract and Figures 1 and 3 wherein data frame is transmitted via a bus system), the method comprising the following steps: providing output data with a plurality of information elements in the form of a bit vector for a device configured to execute cryptographic functions (e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0035 and 0185] showing data frame which can be encrypted), wherein a first information element of the plurality of information elements has a length of 11 bits and characterizes first identification information associated with a data frame (e.g. Figure 15B with ID field 11-bits and paragraph [0070]), wherein a second information element of the plurality of information elements has a length of 18 bits and is configured to characterize optional second identification information associated with the data frame (e.g. Figure 15B with enhanced ID 18-bits and paragraph [0163). Haga et al. fail to explicitly disclose assigning a zero values to the second information element when the data frame has a base data frame format; and assigning a non-vanishing value to the second information element based on an identification extension when the data frame has an extended data frame format. However, Shin et al. disclose in Figures 1-56 assigning a zero values to the second information element when the data frame has a base data frame format; and assigning a non-vanishing value to the second information element based on an identification extension when the data frame has an extended data frame format (e.g. col. 36 lines 6-32 wherein disclose the concept of initialization mode of register or certain bits of data frame to “0” and other mode would be the non-zero values of the initialization mode). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add assigning a zero values to the second information element when the data frame has a base data frame format; and assigning a non-vanishing value to the second information element based on an identification extension when the data frame has an extended data frame format as conceptually seen in Shin et al.’s invention into Haga et al.’s invention because it would enable to efficiently processing the data frame in corresponding mode.
Re claim 2, Haga et al. disclose in Figures 1-18 using the output data (e.g. abstract, Figure 1, and paragraphs [0088-0089]).
Re claim 3, Haga et al. disclose in Figures 1-18 the data frame is a a link layer control (LLC) data frame according to CAN FD controller area network flexible data rate (CAN FD) protocol according to ISO 11898-1:2015 (e.g. paragraphs [0002-0003]).
Re claim 5, Haga et al. disclose in Figures 1-18 at least one of the following elements: a) providing the first information element in the first 11 bits of the bit vector including bit 0 to bit 10 (e.g. Figure 15B with ID field 0-10 as 11 bits); b) providing a third information element having three bits which characterizes a format of the data frame in bit 11 to bit 13 of the bit vector (e.g. Figures 15B with other fields including SOF, SRR, IDE in 3 bits); c) providing the second information element in bit 14 to bit 31 of the bit vector (e.g. Figure 15B with enhanced ID field in last 18-bits).
Re claim 6, Haga et al. disclose in Figures 1-18 at least one of the following elements: a) providing filler data in bit 32 to bit 38 of the bit vector (e.g. Figure 15B with RTR, R1, R0, DLC in 7-bits); b) providing an information element including data length code (DLC) information element (e.g. Figure 15B with DLC), which characterizes a length of data bytes of the data frame in bit 33 to bit 42 of the bit vector (e.g. paragraph [0073]); c) providing a bit rate switch (BRS) information element, which characterizes a switching of a data rate within the data frame in bit 43 of the bit vector; d) providing filler data in bit 44 to bit 63 of the bit vector (e.g. Figure 15B with data field).
Re claim 7, Haga et al. disclose in Figures 1-18 at least one of the following elements: a) providing a bit rate switch (BRS) information element, which characterizes a switching of a data rate, within the data frame in bit 32 of the bit vector; b) providing a data length code (DLC) information element which characterizes a length of data bytes of the data frame in bit 33 to bit 36 of the bit vector (e.g. Figure 15B with DLC and paragraph [0073]);; c) providing filler data in bit 37 to bit 63 of the bit vector (e.g. Figure 15B with data field).
Re claim 8, Haga et al. disclose in Figures 1-18 at least one of the following elements: a) providing the first information element in the first 11 bits of the bit vector from bit 0 to bit 10 (e.g. Figure 15B with ID field 0-10 as 11 bits); b) providing a third information element having three bits, which characterizes a format of the data frame, in bit 11 to bit 13 of the bit vector (e.g. Figures 15B with other fields including SOF, SRR, IDE in 3 bits); c) providing the second information element in bit 46 to bit 63 of the bit vector (e.g. Figures 15B and 16).
Re claim 9, Haga et al. disclose in Figures 1-18 at least one of the following elements: a) providing filler data in bit 14 to bit 30 of the bit vector (e.g. Figure 15B with enhanced ID); b) providing a data length code (DLC) information element (e.g. Figure 15B with DLC), which characterizes a length of data bytes of the data frame, in bit 31 to bit 34 of the bit vector (e.g. paragraph [0073]); c) providing a bit rate switch (BRS) information element, which characterizes a switching of a data rate within the data frame, in bit 35 of the bit vector; d) providing filler data in bit 36 to bit 45 of the bit vector (e.g. Figure 15B with control/data information in these bits).
Re claim 10, Haga et al. disclose in Figures 1-18 at least one of the following elements: a) providing 32-bit filler data in bit 64 to bit 95 of the bit vector in a third 32-bit data word of the bit vector (e.g. Figure 2 with 32 bits of data and Figures 15A and 15B); b) providing 27-bit filler data (e.g. Figure 15B with any data filler in these bits), wherein b1) the 27-bit filler data extend from bit 32 to bit 38 and from bit 44 to bit 63, or b2) the 27-bit filler data extend from bit 37 to bit 63, or b3) the 27-bit filler data extend from bit 14 to bit 30 and from bit 36 to bit 45 (e.g. Figures 15).
Re claim 11, Haga et al. disclose in Figures 1-18 providing one or more information elements for a security protocol associated with the data frame of a CANsec type according to CiA (CAN in Automation) 613-2 specification, from bit 64 or from bit 96 of the bit vector (e.g. abstract, Figures 2 and 15 with paragraphs [0074 and 0163]).
Re claim 12, Haga et al. disclose in Figures 1-18 providing a checksum of an integrity check value (ICV) type at an end of the bit vector (e.g. Figures 2 and 15 with CRC).
Re claim 13, Haga et al. disclose in Figures 1-18 truncating a checksum of an integrity check value (ICV) type, wherein a truncated checksum is obtained, and providing the truncated checksum at the end of the bit vector (e.g. Figures 2 and 15 with CRC).
Re claim 14, Haga et al. disclose in Figures 1-18 the truncating includes truncating the checksum to a length which is an integer multiple of 8 bits (e.g. paragraphs [0134 and 0156] with data field of 32 bits).
Re claim 15, it is a device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re claim 16, it is a bus device claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re claim 17, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re claim 18, Haga et al. disclose in Figures 1-18 the device is used for at least one of the following elements: a) providing the output data with the plurality of information elements in the form of the bit vector for the device configured to execute cryptographic functions (e.g. Figures 2 and 15 and paragraphs [0035 and 0185] showing data frame which can be encrypted); b) making possible an efficient use of a CANsec protocol for CAN FD (e.g. paragraphs [0002-0003]); c) optimizing a data format for an input vector for the device configured to execute cryptographic functions (e.g. paragraphs [0035 and 0185]); d) making possible a truncation of a checksum to a length of less than 64 bits (e.g. Figures 2 and 15 with CRC); e) making possible use of a CANsec protocol selectively for CAN FD and/or CAN XL (e.g. paragraphs [0002-0003]); f) making possible an efficient processing of different CAN FD identifier lengths of 11 bits and 29 bits (e.g. Figure 15B and paragraph [0163]); g) flexibly converting data associated with the data frame into at least one input bit vector for the device configured to execute cryptographic function (e.g. abstract and Figures 2 and 15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 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 PHUOC H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am -3:30 pm.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/PHUOC H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451