Tammara PeytonNotice 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tobias Belitz -
“The Art of Networking (Series 6): MACsec and CANsec – Layer 2 Security for High Performance Networks
Principal Engineer,” Published: December 6, 2021, https://www.renesas.com/en/blogs/art-networking-series-6-macsec-and-cansec-layer-2-security-high-performance-networks?srsltid=AfmBOoovRTqeFWdd7CAyyaT9uALGZ0SADJeVUOszfFp5hgvj8uqV3n_e
At the outset, Applicant is reminded that claims subject to examination will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). With this in mind, the discussion will focus on how the terms and relationships between the terms in the claims are met by the references.
As per claim 1, Belitz teaches a computer-implemented method for processing data associated with a serial bus system (CAN, pg. 2, “…classical automotive protocols like LIN or CAN are using quite a short payload”, 2nd paragraph), the method comprising: providing an indication characterizing at least one aspect of a control plane (pg.2, “MACsec key agreement (MKA)”, 2nd paragraph for a security protocol (pg. 2, “CAN-XL, includes additional security information …can handle frames with bigger payloads”, 2nd paragraph) for the serial bus system; and transmitting the indication (pgs. 4-7, “..”..each application on the host gets a different SC (secure channels)..then, it also secures the applications among themselves,” note HOST A, B, C, and D in Figs. 5 and 6) on the bus system. Belitz discloses wherein the security protocol is a CANsec type that sends a signal (indication) to other CAN XL nodes (Figs. 5, 6, 8 and 9) whereas the control plane is a MACsec Key Agreement (MKA) type control plane. (Belitz, note entire document)
As per claim 2, Belitz discloses wherein the at least one aspect of the control plane includes at least one of: a) a type of the control plane (MKA), or b) a version of the control plane. (note TCI field of MACsec packet which may contain a version number, pg. 4, Fig. 3)
As per claim 3, Belitz discloses wherein the serial bus system is of the controller area network (CAN) type or based on the CAN type, and wherein the security protocol is of a CANsec type. Belitz discloses wherein the security protocol is a CANsec type that sends a signal (indication) to other CAN XL nodes (Figs. 5, 6, 8 and 9) whereas the control plane is a MACsec Key Agreement (MKA) type control plane. (Belitz, note entire document)
As per claim 4, Belitz discloses further comprising: providing an information element for the indication in a header (note MACsec packet which may consist of TCI/AN, short length (SL), packet number (PN), and an optional secure channel identifier (SCI) for secure data encryption and integrity, pg. 4, Fig. 3) of the security protocol.
As per clam 5, Belitz discloses wherein the providing of the information element for the indication in the header includes providing the information element adjacent to an information element associated with one or more reserved bits.
As per claim 6, Belitz teaches further comprising at least one of: a) determining at least one of a type or version of the control plane, or b) setting a value of the indication based on the determination of at least one of the type or version of the control plane, or c) omitting an information element of the header associated with a key number, based on the determination of at least one of the type or version of the control plane, or d) using an information element of the header associated with a key number for extending at least one further information element of the header based on the determination of at least one of the type or version of the control plane, or e) providing an information element of the header associated with a key number based on the determination of at least one of the type or version of the control plane. (note TCI field of MACsec packet which may contain a version number, pg. 4, Fig. 3)
As per claim 7, Belitz teaches: using at least a part of an information element of a header of the security protocol for providing the indication. (a header - note MACsec packet which may consist of TCI/AN, short length (SL), packet number (PN), and an optional secure channel identifier (SCI) for secure data encryption and integrity, pg. 4, Fig. 3) of the security protocol)
As per claim 8, Belitz teaches wherein using the at least a part of the information element of the header of the security protocol includes at least one of: a) using an information element of the header associated with a version number, or b) using an information element of the header associated with an add on type, or c) extending the information element. (note TCI field of MACsec packet which may contain a version number, pg. 4, Fig. 3)
As per claim 9, Belitz teaches: receiving the indication characterizing the at least one aspect of the control plane for the security protocol for the serial bus system over the serial bus system. Belitz discloses wherein the security protocol is a CANsec type that sends a signal (indication) to other CAN XL nodes (Figs. 5, 6, 8 and 9) whereas the control plane is a MACsec Key Agreement (MKA) type control plane. (Belitz, note entire document)
As per claims 10, 13, and 14, see the rejection for claims 1 and 6.
As per claim 11 and 12, see the rejection for claims 3 and 4.
As per claim 13, see the rejection for claim
RELEVENT ART CITED BY THE EXAMINER
The following prior art made of record and relied upon is citied to establish the level of skill in the applicant's art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c). 3. The following references Mutter (US 11,729,021) teaches using the user station in the bus system to maintain an arbitration known from CAN in a first communication phase and nonetheless once again significantly increase the transfer rate in relation to CAN or CAN FD (Abstract), Walker (US 12,074,627) and Mihalache (US 2023/0367737) both teaches using at least one CAN user station and/or at least one CAN FD user station is/are also present in the bus system, which transmit messages according to the CAN protocol and/or CAN FD protocol. (Abstract)
Conclusion
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R.I .Hi(c). In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMMARA R PEYTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4157. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, EST M-F. 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, Henry Tsai can be reached on 571-272-4176. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/TAMMARA R PEYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184 January 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights