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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Amendments and Remarks filed on 12/23/2025 for application number 18/657,978 filed on 05/08/2024, in which claims 1-20 were originally presented for examination. Claims 1, 13 & 19 are currently amended, and claim 21 has been added as a new claim depending on base claim 1. Accordingly, claims 1-21 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority of provisional patent application No. 63/465,612, filed on 05/11/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS(s)) submitted on 05/08/2024 & 05/27/2025 have been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed on 12/23/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §102(a)(1) and/or 35 USC §103: Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claims as being clearly anticipated by the prior art of Melman (US-2011/0144863-A1) have been fully considered. However, those arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that:
“In the present response, claims 1, 13, and 19 are independent. These claims are each amended to clarify that which is intended to be claimed. For example, claim 1 is amended to recite, among other features, "at least one firewall configured to define a secure communication environment for the first communication bus by allowing information to pass, via the gateway device, from the first communication bus to the second communication bus and selectively allowing information to pass, via the gateway, to the first communication bus from the second communication bus.” …
While Melman discloses secure communication via the gateway/firewall arrangement, Melman does not describe security-motivated permission rules, whitelisting, isolation of critical vs. non-critical domains, or diagnostic-port restrictions. Melman also does not describe the directional nature of the gateway - in that reference, a gateway is used for segmentation, not for protection of a particular bus portion. Given this, Melman cannot teach or suggest allowing information to pass from the first communication bus to the second communication bus while selectively allowing information to pass, via the gateway, to the first communication bus and from the second communication bus in the manner claimed.” (see Remarks pages 8-10; emphasis added)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are all focusing on new limitations added to the amended base claims 1, 13 and 19 apparently to overcome the current anticipation rejection under §102(a)(1) as recited in the Non-Final office action mailed on 08/27/2025.
Although the examiner does not necessarily agree with the applicant arguments, and in the interest of concluding the prosecution, other parts of the reference is/are introduced to teach some of the amended limitations as outlined in the prior art rejections below, i.e., Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been addressed in the new rejection outlined below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the base claims, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., security-motivated permission rules, whitelisting, isolation of critical vs. non-critical domains, diagnostic-port restrictions and/or the directional nature of the gateway) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
For at least the foregoing reasons, and the rejections outlined below, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 12, 14 & 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the gateway” in line 14. It should be “the gateway device”
Claim 2 recites “the gateway” in line 3. It should be “the gateway device”
Claim 12 recites “the gateway” in line 12. It should be “the gateway device”
Claim 14 recites “the gateway” in line 3. It should be “the gateway device”
Claim 21 recites “the gateway” in line 2. It should be “the gateway device”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC §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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC §102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10, 13, 17, 19 & 20 are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by PG Pub. No. US-2011/0144863-A1 by Melman (hereinafter “Melman”), which is found in the IDS submitted on 05/08/2024
As per claim 1, Melman discloses a vehicle control system for a recreational vehicle (Melman, in at least Abstract, Fig. 2 and ¶¶9 & 15-18, discloses system (and methods) for controlling vehicular functions), the system comprising:
a first communication bus configured to facilitate communication among one or more connected devices including a first vehicle controller that is configured to control a critical vehicle function (Melman, in at least Fig. 2 [reproduced here for convenience] and ¶¶15-18, discloses the first data communication bus (12) in communication with at least engine control unit);
a second communication bus configured to facilitate communication among one or more connected devices including a second vehicle controller that is configured to control a peripheral vehicle function (Melman, in at least Fig. 2 and ¶¶15-18, discloses the second data communication bus (40) in communication with at least Climate Control (18), and Instrument Cluster (24));
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
896
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Melman’s Fig.2 [emphasis added]
a gateway device connecting the first and second communication bus and enabling communication therebetween (Melman, in at least Fig. 2 and ¶¶15-18, discloses the central gateway (25) between the first data communication bus (12) and second data communication bus (40)); and
at least one firewall configured to define a secure communication environment for the first communication bus by allowing information to pass, via the gateway device, from the first communication bus to the second communication bus and selectively allowing information to pass, via the gateway, to the first communication bus from the second communication bus (Melman, in at least Fig. 2 and ¶¶9 & 15-18, discloses the central gateway (25) between the first data communication bus (12) and second data communication bus (40), and providing at least one firewall (14) in communication (and interrupts) with at least two data communication buses (12) & (40), and providing at least one firewalled controller in communication with the at least one firewall, wherein the firewalled controller allows a directive to the firewall through the at least one communication bus which controls the at least one vehicle device).
As per claim 5, Melman discloses the vehicle control system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Melman further discloses wherein the second vehicle controller is selected from a group consisting of a winch control system, lighting system, climate control system, and instrument/sensor cluster (Melman, in at least Fig. 2 and ¶¶15-18, discloses the second data communication bus (40) in communication with at least Climate Control (18), and Instrument Cluster (24)).
As per claim 6, Melman discloses the vehicle control system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Melman further discloses wherein the first vehicle controller is selected from a group consisting of a vehicle display device configured to provide information related to the vehicle’s performance and operating conditions, an electronic control module (ECM), and a vehicle control module (VCM) (Melman, in at least Fig. 2 [reproduced here for convenience] and ¶¶15-18, discloses the first data communication bus (12) in communication with at least engine control unit. Melman further discloses the instrument cluster is connected to the vehicle bus (12) and contains an LCD display capable of displaying various text).
As per claim 7, Melman discloses the vehicle control system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Melman further discloses wherein the first and second communication bus each form a controller area network (CAN) (Melman, in at least Fig. 2 and ¶¶4 & 15-18, discloses a plurality of modules communicate with each other with bussed communication networks like CAN (Controller Area Network), relaying data and commands to each other, at high speeds and high reliability, via a single wire or two wires only. Melman further discloses communications buses, by way of example, are Controller Area Network (CAN)).
As per claim 8, Melman discloses the vehicle control system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Melman further discloses comprising a third communication bus configured to facilitate communication among one or more connected devices (Melman, in at least Fig. 2, ¶¶15-18 and claim 3, discloses creating four data communications buses (12, 40, 15 and 17), and a central gateway (25) between the first data communication bus (12) and second data communication bus (40), wherein said central gateway is also claimed to be between a first data communication bus and a third data communication bus).
As per claim 9, Melman discloses the vehicle control system of claim 8, accordingly, the rejection of claim 8 above is incorporated.
Melman further discloses wherein the firewall is configured to define a secure communication environment for the first communication bus by selectively allowing information to pass to the first communication bus from the third communication bus (Melman, in at least Fig. 2, ¶¶9 & 15-18 and claim 3, discloses creating four data communications buses (12, 40, 15 and 17), and a central gateway (25) between the first data communication bus (12) and second data communication bus (40), wherein said central gateway is also claimed to be between a first data communication bus and a third data communication bus. Melman further discloses a firewall (14) that is in communication with the data communications bus (12) and creates at least two data communications buses (e.g. 12 and 15) from the at least one data communications bus (12). Melman also discloses providing at least one firewall (14) in communication (and interrupts) with at least two data communication buses (12), (40), (15) & (17), and providing at least one firewalled controller in communication with the at least one firewall, wherein the firewalled controller allows a directive to the firewall through the at least one communication bus which controls the at least one vehicle device).
As per claim 10, Melman discloses the vehicle control system of claim 8, accordingly, the rejection of claim 8 above is incorporated.
Melman further discloses comprising a second firewall configured to define a secure communication environment for the second communication bus by selectively allowing information to pass to the second communication bus from the third communication bus (Melman, in at least Fig. 2, ¶¶9 & 15-18 and claim 3, discloses providing at least one firewall (14) and/or (122) in communication (and interrupts) with at least two data communication buses (12), (40), (15) & (17), and providing at least one firewalled controller (26)in communication with the at least one firewall, wherein the firewalled controller allows a directive to the firewall through the at least one communication bus which controls the at least one vehicle device. Melman further discloses creating four data communications buses (12, 40, 15 and 17), and a central gateway (25) between the first data communication bus (12) and second data communication bus (40), wherein said central gateway is also claimed to be between a first data communication bus and a third data communication bus).
As per claims 13 & 17, the claims are directed towards methods of exchanging information with a control system for a vehicle that recite similar steps performed by the systems of claims 1 & 5, respectively. The cited portions of Melman used in the rejections of claims 1 & 5 disclose the same methods’ steps of claims 13 & 17. Therefore, claims 13 & 17 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claims 1 & 5 as outlined above.
As per claims 19 & 20, the claims are directed towards vehicle control systems for a recreational vehicle that recite similar limitations performed by the systems of claims 1 & 5, respectively. The cited portions of Melman used in the rejections of claims 1 & 5 disclose the same performed systems’ steps of claims 19 & 20. Therefore, claims 19 & 20 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claims 1 & 5 as outlined above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §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 USC §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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 2-4, 11, 12, 14-16 & 18 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Melman (US-2011/0144863-A1) in view of PG Pub. No. US-2018/0219878-A1 to Hirshberg et al. (hereinafter “Hirshberg”)
As per claim 2, Melman discloses the vehicle control system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
While Melman, in certain embodiments, implicitly requires further comprising information to pass, via the gateway, to the first communication bus (Melman, in at least Fig. 2 and ¶¶9 & 15-18, discloses the first data communication bus (12) in communication with at least engine control unit (42) & Instrument cluster (50), the second data communication bus (40) in communication with at least Climate Control (18), and Instrument Cluster (24) [implies telematic control unit (TCU), wherein TCU under BRI transmitting the readings of an instrument], and providing at least one firewall (14) in communication (and interrupts) with at least two data communication buses (12) & (40), and providing at least one firewalled controller in communication with the at least one firewall, wherein the firewalled controller allows a directive to the firewall through the at least one communication bus which controls the at least one vehicle device), it does not explicitly teach a telematic control unit (TCU).
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
614
944
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hirshberg’s Fig. 8 [emphasis added]
Hirshberg teaches, in Fig. 8 and ¶¶80 & 83 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle control systems, comprising a telematic control unit (TCU) … to the first communication bus from the TCU (Hirshberg, in at least Fig. 8 [reproduced here for convenience] and ¶¶80 & 83, teaches the network security system 730 that provides an access point to the networks of the vehicle, such as the CANs, LINs and other networks, monitor inbound and outbound traffic on those networks, and provides a firewall between those networks and different networks and systems within the vehicle. Hirshberg’s network security appliance 730 comprises a first processor 815 coupled with the first set of one or more internal network interfaces 820, wherein the first processor 815 comprises a Telematics Control Unit (TCU) which can also execute one or more applications providing network security on the first set of networks 825A-825C and the second set of networks 840A-840C within the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Melman in view of Hirshberg with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle control systems and the combination would protect the vehicle networks from different sources of attack from outside and inside the vehicle via components that are less secure like the infotainment system or diagnostic port (see at least Hirshberg’s ¶¶80 & 83).
As per claim 3, Melman discloses the vehicle control system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
While Melman, in certain embodiments, implicitly requires further comprising a (Melman, in at least Fig. 3 and ¶¶15-18, discloses at least one bus interface that is firewalled and at least one physical bus interface (e.g. 116 and 120) is in communication with the micro-control unit (124) and at least one network fail safe device (118) between a first bus interface (116) and a second bus interface (120) and the network fail safe device (118) would bridge the first bus interface (116) and the second bus interface (120). Melman further discloses the first data communication bus (12) in communication with at least engine control unit (42) & Instrument cluster (50), the second data communication bus (40) in communication with at least Climate Control (18), and Instrument Cluster (24), and providing at least one firewall (14) in communication (and interrupts) with at least two data communication buses (12) & (40), and providing at least one firewalled controller in communication with the at least one firewall, wherein the firewalled controller allows a directive to the firewall through the at least one communication bus which controls the at least one vehicle device), it does not explicitly teach a diagnostic port … to the first communication bus from the diagnostic port.
Hirshberg teaches, in Fig. 8 and ¶¶80 & 83 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle control systems, comprising a diagnostic port … to the first communication bus from the diagnostic port (Hirshberg, in at least Fig. 8 and ¶¶80 & 83, teaches the network security system 730 that provides an access point to the networks of the vehicle, such as the CANs, LINs and other networks, monitor inbound and outbound traffic on those networks, and provides a firewall between those networks and different networks and systems within the vehicle. In this way, the network security appliance can protect the vehicle networks from different sources of attack from outside and inside the vehicle via components that are less secure like the infotainment system or diagnostic port. Hirshberg’s network security appliance 730 comprises a first processor 815 coupled with the first set of one or more internal network interfaces 820, wherein the first processor 815 comprises a Telematics Control Unit (TCU) which can also execute one or more applications providing network security on the first set of networks 825A-825C and the second set of networks 840A-840C within the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Melman in view of Hirshberg with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle control systems and the combination would protect the vehicle networks from different sources of attack from outside and inside the vehicle via components that are less secure like the infotainment system or diagnostic port (see at least Hirshberg’s ¶¶80 & 83).
As per claim 4, Melman discloses the vehicle control system of claim 3, accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 above is incorporated.
While Melman, in certain embodiments, implicitly requires wherein the (Melman, in at least Fig. 3 and ¶¶15-18, discloses at least one bus interface that is firewalled and at least one physical bus interface (e.g. 116 and 120) is in communication with the micro-control unit (124) and at least one network fail safe device (118) between a first bus interface (116) and a second bus interface (120) and the network fail safe device (118) would bridge the first bus interface (116) and the second bus interface (120). Melman further discloses the first data communication bus (12) in communication with at least engine control unit (42) & Instrument cluster (50), the second data communication bus (40) in communication with at least Climate Control (18), and Instrument Cluster (24), and providing at least one firewall (14) in communication (and interrupts) with at least two data communication buses (12) & (40), and providing at least one firewalled controller in communication with the at least one firewall, wherein the firewalled controller allows a directive to the firewall through the at least one communication bus which controls the at least one vehicle device), it does not explicitly teach the diagnostic port.
Hirshberg teaches, in Fig. 8 and ¶¶80 & 83 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle control systems, wherein the diagnostic port is connected to the second communication bus (Hirshberg, in at least Fig. 8 and ¶¶80 & 83, teaches the network security system 730 that provides an access point to the networks of the vehicle, such as the CANs, LINs and other networks, monitor inbound and outbound traffic on those networks, and provides a firewall between those networks and different networks and systems within the vehicle. In this way, the network security appliance can protect the vehicle networks from different sources of attack from outside and inside the vehicle via components that are less secure like the infotainment system or diagnostic port. Hirshberg’s network security appliance 730 comprises a first processor 815 coupled with the first set of one or more internal network interfaces 820, wherein the first processor 815 comprises a Telematics Control Unit (TCU) which can also execute one or more applications providing network security on the first set of networks 825A-825C and the second set of networks 840A-840C within the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Melman in view of Hirshberg with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle control systems and the combination would protect the vehicle networks from different sources of attack from outside and inside the vehicle via components that are less secure like the infotainment system or diagnostic port (see at least Hirshberg’s ¶¶80 & 83).
As per claim 11, Melman discloses the vehicle control system of claim 8, accordingly, the rejection of claim 8 above is incorporated.
While Melman, in certain embodiments, implicitly requires wherein the third communication bus includes at least one of a connected (Melman, in at least Fig(s). 2 & 3, ¶¶9 &15-18 and Claim 3, discloses at least one bus interface that is firewalled and at least one physical bus interface (e.g. 116 and 120) is in communication with the micro-control unit (124) and at least one network fail safe device (118) between a first bus interface (116) and a second bus interface (120) and the network fail safe device (118) would bridge the first bus interface (116) and the second bus interface (120). Melman further discloses the first data communication bus (12) in communication with at least engine control unit (42) & Instrument cluster (50), the second data communication bus (40) in communication with at least Climate Control (18), and Instrument Cluster (24), and providing at least one firewall (14) in communication (and interrupts) with at least two data communication buses (12) & (40), and providing at least one firewalled controller in communication with the at least one firewall, wherein the firewalled controller allows a directive to the firewall through the at least one communication bus which controls the at least one vehicle device. Melman also discloses providing at least one firewall (14) and/or (122) in communication (and interrupts) with at least two data communication buses (12), (40), (15) & (17), and providing at least one firewalled controller (26)in communication with the at least one firewall, wherein the firewalled controller allows a directive to the firewall through the at least one communication bus which controls the at least one vehicle device. Melman further discloses creating four data communications buses (12, 40, 15 and 17), and a central gateway (25) between the first data communication bus (12) and second data communication bus (40), wherein said central gateway is also claimed to be between a first data communication bus and a third data communication bus), it does not explicitly teach diagnostic port.
Hirshberg teaches, in Fig. 8 and ¶¶80 & 83 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle control systems, connected diagnostic port (Hirshberg, in at least Fig. 8 and ¶¶80 & 83, teaches the network security system 730 that provides an access point to the networks of the vehicle, such as the CANs, LINs and other networks, monitor inbound and outbound traffic on those networks, and provides a firewall between those networks and different networks and systems within the vehicle. In this way, the network security appliance can protect the vehicle networks from different sources of attack from outside and inside the vehicle via components that are less secure like the infotainment system or diagnostic port. Hirshberg’s network security appliance 730 comprises a first processor 815 coupled with the first set of one or more internal network interfaces 820, wherein the first processor 815 comprises a Telematics Control Unit (TCU) which can also execute one or more applications providing network security on the first set of networks 825A-825C and the second set of networks 840A-840C within the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Melman in view of Hirshberg with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle control systems and the combination would protect the vehicle networks from different sources of attack from outside and inside the vehicle via components that are less secure like the infotainment system or diagnostic port (see at least Hirshberg’s ¶¶80 & 83).
As per claim 12, Melman discloses the vehicle control system of claim 8, accordingly, the rejection of claim 8 above is incorporated.
While Melman, in certain embodiments, implicitly requires wherein the vehicle control system is installed into a(Melman, in at least ¶¶8-9 & 15-18, control system for a vehicle), it does not explicitly teach an off-road vehicle.
Hirshberg teaches, in Fig. 8 and ¶¶80 & 83 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle control systems, connected diagnostic port (Hirshberg, in at least Fig. 8 and ¶¶15 & 80 & 83, teaches the network security system 730 that provides an access point to the networks of the vehicle, such as the CANs, LINs and other networks, monitor inbound and outbound traffic on those networks, and provides a firewall between those networks and different networks and systems within the vehicle. In this way, the network security appliance can protect the vehicle networks from different sources of attack from outside and inside the vehicle via components that are less secure like the infotainment system or diagnostic port. Hirshberg’s network security appliance 730 comprises a first processor 815 coupled with the first set of one or more internal network interfaces 820, wherein the first processor 815 comprises a Telematics Control Unit (TCU) which can also execute one or more applications providing network security on the first set of networks 825A-825C and the second set of networks 840A-840C within the vehicle, wherein the vehicle described herein includes any conveyance or model of a conveyance, where the conveyance was designed for the purpose of moving one or more tangible objects, such as people, animals, cargo, and the like. Hirshberg further teaches typical vehicles include but are in no way limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles, busses, automobiles, trains, railed conveyances, boats, ships, marine conveyances, submarine conveyances, airplanes, space craft, flying machines, human-powered conveyances, and the like).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Melman in view of Hirshberg with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle control systems and the combination would protect the vehicle networks from different sources of attack from outside and inside (see at least Hirshberg’s ¶¶80 & 83).
As per claims 14, 15, 16 & 18, the claims are directed towards methods of exchanging information with a control system for a vehicle that recite similar steps performed by the systems of claims 2, 3, 4 & 12, respectively. The cited portions of Melman & Hirshberg used in the rejections of claims 2, 3, 4 & 12disclose the same methods’ steps of claims 14, 15, 16 & 18. Therefore, claims 14, 15, 16 & 18 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claims 2, 3, 4 & 12 as outlined above.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Melman (US-2011/0144863-A1) in view of PG Pub. No. US-2022/0201000-A1 to Kim (hereinafter “Kim”)
As per claim 21, Melman discloses the vehicle control system of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
While Melman, in certain embodiments, discloses wherein selectively allowing information to pass, via the gateway, to the first communication bus from the second communication bus (Melman, in at least Fig. 3 and ¶¶15-18, discloses the first data communication bus (12) in communication with at least engine control unit (42) & Instrument cluster (50), the second data communication bus (40) in communication with at least Climate Control (18), and Instrument Cluster (24), and providing at least one firewall (14) in communication (and interrupts) with at least two data communication buses (12) & (40), and providing at least one firewalled controller in communication with the at least one firewall, wherein the firewalled controller allows a directive to the firewall through the at least one communication bus which controls the at least one vehicle device), it does not explicitly teach includes determining that a sender of the information at the second communication bus is included on a message whitelist.
Kim teaches, in Fig. 7 and ¶¶23-25 & 86-88 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle control systems, includes determining that a sender of the information at the second communication bus is included on a message whitelist (Kim, in at least Fig. 7 and ¶¶23-25 & 86-88, teaches autonomous vehicle security gateway, wherein the security gateway 710 provides the functionality of a router, a switch, or a firewall, or any combination of these, in the vehicle 700. Kim further discloses the security gateway includes a policy engine to enforce security policies that whitelist authorized communication traffic and/or allowed behaviors at a network level. In this context, a security policy is a set of rules that specifies tasks that a particular device (or a group of devices) is allowed to do. The tasks can include operations that can be performed by device, entities within the vehicle or outside the vehicle that the device can communicate with, or types of messages the device can send or receive, among others. The security policies act as a whitelist, where any task that is specified by a policy is allowed, while any task that is not specified by policy is denied).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Melman in view of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor - vehicle control systems and the combination would enhance security, wherein the security risks associated with having a centralized gateway for controlling all communications are mitigated while security policies that whitelist allowed behaviors is enforced at a network level (see at least Kim’s ¶¶23-25).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached and previously mailed PTO-892 forms.
Mark et al (US-20240406196-A1) discloses protecting vehicle buses, wherein hardware transceivers of CAN interfaces have included acceptance filters that prevent a device from receiving a CAN message its message identifier (ID) is not on a whitelist.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Elarabi whose telephone number is (313)446-4911. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 6:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached on (571)270-7016. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
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.
/Tarek Elarabi, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661