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
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:
“security checker configured to store/extract/perform … “, recited in claims 1 and 17;
“the first security checker is configured to generate …” recited in claim 4;
“the GCU is configured to transmit/generate ..” , recited in claims 4-6;
“second security checker [] configured to store/extract/perform …”, recited in claim 7;
“the GCU is configured to generate …,,” recited in claim 8;
“second security checker [] configured to generate …,” recited in claim 9. ]
“the GCU is configured to [] omit authentication …,,” recited in claims 10 and 15;
“a central security checker configured to [] store/extract/perform …,,” recited in claim 11;
“the central security checker configured to [] generate …,,” recited in claim 12;
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.
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
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) 1-5, 13, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2024/0305474) in view of Ratnakar (US 2025/0088574)
Regarding Claim 1,
Wang (US 2024/0305474) teaches a security network system for a vehicle, comprising: a plurality of electronic control units (ECUs); a global bus; and a plurality of group control units (GCUs) connected to the global bus, wherein each GCU of the plurality of GCUs is connected to at least one ECU of the plurality of ECUs (Fig. 2B, teaches a plurality of ECUs connected to a ZME (i.e. GCU), wherein the each ZME is connected to at least one ECU by a bus)
wherein the GCU includes a first security checker configured to: store a plurality of ECU security information respectively corresponding to the plurality of ECUs (Paragraph [0038] teaches the authentication system integrated in each zone master ECU may include data stored in memory, including key share data, signature data and other data, also see Fig. 2A);
extract from the plurality of ECU security information a transmission ECU security information; and perform authentication based on the transmission ECU security information and the transmission ECU authentication value (Paragraph [0063-0064] teaches the zone master ECU validates the security of the plurality of primary ECUs)
Wang does not explicitly teach wherein a transmission ECU of the plurality of ECUs is configured to transmit a local data packet including and a transmission ECU authentication value to a GCU connected to the transmission ECU
,a transmission ECU identifier included in the local data packet
Ratnakar (US 2025/0088574) teaches wherein a transmission ECU of the plurality of ECUs is configured to transmit a local data packet including and a transmission ECU authentication value to a ECU connected to the transmission ECU
a transmission ECU identifier included in the local data packet (Paragraph [0045-0046] teaches a transmission ECU of a plurality of ECUs transmitting a packet including authentication value and a “ECU identifier”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang with the method of including a ECU identifier and authentication value in a data packet and the results would be predictable (i.e. an ECU identifier and authentication value would be contained in a data packet sent from the ECU to the GCU)
Regarding Claim 2,
Wang and Ratnakar teaches the security network system of claim 1. Wang teaches wherein the transmission ECU is configured to generate the transmission ECU authentication value based on the plurality of ECU security information (Paragraph [0025] teaches authenticating each primary ECU using unique signature)
Regarding Claim 3,
Wang and Ratnakar teaches the security network system of claim 2. Wang teaches wherein the plurality of ECU security information stored in the first security checker is a collection of respective ECU security information stored in each ECU of the plurality of ECUs (Paragraph [0034] teaches each ECU or the plurality of key stores key shares).
Regarding Claim 4,
Wang and Ratnakar teaches the security network system of claim 1. Wang teaches wherein the first security checker is configured to generate a local authentication value based on the transmission ECU security information corresponding to the transmission ECU identifier and perform the authentication based on a comparison result of the transmission ECU authentication value and the local authentication value (Paragraph [0064] teaches wherein the unique signature is authenticated),
and wherein the GCU is configured to transmit a reception ECU corresponding to a reception ECU identifier included when authentication is successful and stop transmission of the local data packet when authentication is unsuccessful (Paragraph [0064] teaches successfully verified signature provides functionality to the reception ECU, and when the signature is not valid transmission is not forwarded to the ECU and a security breach is determined).
Ratnakar teaches wherein the information is in the local data packet (Paragraph [0045-0046])
Regarding Claim 5,
Wang and Ratnakar teaches the security network system of claim 1. Wang teaches wherein, the GCU is configured to transmit to a reception ECU when the transmission ECU corresponding to the transmission ECU identifier and the reception ECU corresponding to a reception ECU identifier included are commonly connected to the GCU and authentication is successful (Paragraph [0064] teaches successfully verified signature provides functionality to the reception ECU)
Ratnakar teaches wherein the information is in the local data packet (Paragraph [0045-0046])
Regarding Claim 13,
Wang and Ratnakar teaches the security network system of claim 1. Wang teaches wherein the GCU is a domain control unit (DCU) to which ECUs performing similar functions are connected, or a zone control unit (ZCU) to which ECUs included in a same physical zone of the vehicle are connected. (Fig. 2B, teaches a plurality of ECUs connected to a ZME (i.e. Zone Master ECU), wherein the each ZME is connected to at least one ECU)
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is similar in scope to Claim 1 and is rejected for a similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 18-19,
Claim 18-19 are similar in scope to Claims 1, 4 and are rejected for a similar rationale.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2024/0305474) in view of Ratnakar (US 2025/0088574) in view of Galula (US 2018/0351980)
Regarding Claim 14,
Wang and Ratnakar teaches the security network system of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach wherein the first security checker includes: a log storage configured to store a history of authentication of the local data packets.
Galula (US 2018/0351980) teaches a log storage configured to store a history of authentication of the local data packets (Paragraph [0040] teaches a ECU authentication logs)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang and Ratnakar with the log of the history of authentication and the results would be predictable (i.e. there would be a log of the authentication history)
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2024/0305474) in view of Ratnakar (US 2025/0088574) in view of Tsuchiya (US 2023/0306796)
Regarding Claim 16,
Wang and Ratnakar teaches the security network system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the GCU further includes:
a queuing circuit configured to store a plurality local data packets, including the local data packet, transmitted to the GCU;
and a control logic circuit, wherein the control logic circuit is configured to adjust a processing order of the plurality local data packets by the GCU using priority information included in the local data packet.
Tsuchiya (US 2023/0306796) teaches a queuing circuit configured to store a plurality local data packets, including the local data packet, transmitted to the GCU (Fig. 2, ZoneECU Data aggregation unit);
and a control logic circuit, wherein the control logic circuit is configured to adjust a processing order of the plurality local data packets by the GCU using priority information included in the local data packet (Fig. 2, ZoneECU, Data Identifier Assignment Unit)(Paragraph [0063] teaches arranging packets by priority)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang and Ratnaka with a queue and control logic unit to prioritize the processing order of the packets and the results would be predictable (i.e. there would be a queue and control logic to prioritize order of packets)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12, 15, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRIS C WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1462. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, LUU PHAM can be reached at 571-270-5002. 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.
/HARRIS C WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439