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 .
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
Priority
The claim for priority from KR 10-2023-0159095 filed on 16 November 2023 is duly noted.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 4: “a CAN data frame” is unclear if it relates to “a CAN data frame” (claim 1, lines 2-3) and should read –the CAN data frame–.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 communication unit, an attack-type classification unit, a filtering unit in claim 14.
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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20160104936 A and Kim hereinafter) in view of Matsubayashi et al. (US 2023/0247035 A1 and Matsubayashi hereinafter).
As to claims 1 and 14, Kim discloses a system and method for detecting vehicle intrusion, the system and method having:
receiving a CAN data frame (page 1, lines 2-3);
analyzing the CAN data frame through a pre-learned intrusion detection systems (IDS) model to classify an attack-type of the CAN bus (page 3, lines 30-31, 39-40).
Kim fails to specifically disclose:
filtering the classified attack type based on a pre-established rule.
Nonetheless, this feature is well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Kim, as taught by Matsubayashi.
Matsubayashi discloses a system and method for attack detection, the system and method having:
filtering the classified attack type based on a pre-established rule (0019; 0020).
Given the teaching of Matsubayashi, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Kim with the teachings of Matsubayashi by filtering the attack type based on a rule. Matsubayashi recites motivation by disclosing that filtering attacks based on rules aids in improving the detection accuracy of attacks (0009). It is obvious that the teachings of Matsubayashi would have improved the teachings of Kim by filtering attack types based on rules in order to improve detection accuracy of attacks.
As to claims 2 and 15, Kim discloses:
wherein the attack type comprises at least one of a DoS (Denial-of-Service) attack, a spoofing attack, and a fuzzy attack (page 5, lines 27-28).
As to claim 3, Kim discloses:
wherein the filtering comprises accumulatively counting the number of attacks by message ID of the corresponding CAN data frame whenever the classified attack type is the DoS attack (page 5, lines 27-28).
As to claim 13, Kim discloses:
A computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program for performing the method of claim 1 (page 1, line 22 – page 2, line 4).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Matsubayashi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (WO 2023/121148 A1 and Choi hereinafter).
As to claim 9, Kim in view of Matsubayashi fails to specifically disclose:
wherein the filtering comprises, even if the CAN data frame is classified as normal in the classifying, if the message ID of the corresponding CAN data frame is not included in a message ID set of normal data prepared in advance for real-time control of a vehicle, finally determining the attack type of the corresponding CAN data frame as a fuzzy attack.
Nonetheless, this feature is well known in the art and would have been an obvious modification of the teachings disclosed by Kim in view of Matsubayashi, as taught by Choi.
Choi discloses a system and method for adversarial feature selection considering attack function of vehicle CAN, the system and method having:
wherein the filtering comprises, even if the CAN data frame is classified as normal in the classifying, if the message ID of the corresponding CAN data frame is not included in a message ID set of normal data prepared in advance for real-time control of a vehicle, finally determining the attack type of the corresponding CAN data frame as a fuzzy attack (page 3, lines 15-17).
Given the teaching of Choi, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the teachings of Kim in view of Matsubayashi with the teachings of Choi by determining a fuzzy attack. Choi recites motivation by disclosing that determining the attack type can aid in classifying the attack (page 3, lines 14-20). It would have been obvious to apply the teachings of Choi to the teachings of Kim in view of Matsubayashi by determining the attack type as a fuzzy attack in order to aid in classifying the attack.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 10-12 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.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iyengar et al. (US 2015/0281272 A1) discloses a system and method for HTTP-body DoS attack prevention with adaptive timeout.
Kim et al. (JP 2025066622 A) discloses a system and method for controller area network intrusion detection.
Lee et al. (US 2024/0031404 A1) discloses a system and method for counterattack against hacked node in CAN bus physical layer.
Murphy et al. (US 2023/0315852 A1) discloses a system and method for threat mitigation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH SU whose telephone number is (571)270-3835. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 AM - 3:00 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, Lynn Feild can be reached at 571-272-2092. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARAH SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431