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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/31/2025 is entered and acknowledged by the Examiner. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/31/2025 with respect to pending claims above have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
(i) In response to the applicant’s remark: “As emphasized above, the cited passages of Subramaniyan describe caching a session identifier or ticket which are generated according to a prior SSL session established by the proxy. However, the cited passages are silent as to each access point maintaining the ticket in storage on the plurality of access points as recited in claim 1. In other words, while the cited passages of Subramaniyan describe a proxy maintaining a ticket in cache of a prior SSL session established by the proxy, the cited passages do not describe that each proxy (of a plurality of proxies) maintains the ticket in cache, or that the ticket which is maintained by each proxy corresponds to the request which is received to process for authenticating the connection.
In view of this deficiency, the combination of references cannot teach or suggest "locating. a plurality of access points across a plurality of groups of access points that each maintain the ticket in storage on the plurality of access points," because the combination of references does not teach or suggest that a plurality of access points each maintain the ticket in storage, or that the request is provided "to at least one access point of the plurality of access points located as recited in claim 1.” Page 3 Lines 22-36.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Additionally, Lowekamp (US 2011/0289313 A1) discloses a ticket being valid for a plurality of relays and nodes (access points) used as an authentication for a communication session [0068-0069], [0076-0078], [0030-0033].
However, Lowekamp does not explicitly disclose the functionality of the ticket being maintained/stored by the relays and nodes. Subramaniyan (US 2019/0014088 A1) was relied upon for the functionality of an access point having the capability to maintain the ticket in a storage such as the proxy/intermediary device using a cached or stored session identifier or a session ticket to pre-establish a communication session [0146-0147]. Therefore, Lowekamp discloses the structure of a plurality of access points along with tickets for authentication of a communication session, while being silent on the functionality of storing the ticket. Subramaniyan cures the deficiencies by caching the ticket on the proxy/intermediate device.
(ii) In response to the applicant’s remark: “As noted above, claim 6 is rejected based on Lowekamp in view of Subramaniyan, and further in view of Mityagin. The instant application was filed on April 26, 2022. Mityagin was filed on December 4, 2023, and claims priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 202211618693.1, filed on December 15, 2022. Therefore, the instant application was filed prior to the filing date of both Mityagin and the Chinese Patent Application to which Mityagin claims priority, and thus Mityagin does not qualify as prior art to the instant application.” Page 4 Lines 1-6.
In response to argument, examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument.
Applicant asserts that Mityagin does not qualify as prior art. However, it appears applicant has cited improper dates for Mityagin. Instead, Mityagin was filed on April 16, 2024 as an continuation of application PCT/RU2021/000442, filed on October 19, 2021. Therefore, Mityagin qualifies as a valid prior art.
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 of this title, 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 7, 13-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowekamp et al Pub. No.: (US 2011/0289313 A1) (hereinafter “Lowekamp”) in view of Subramaniyan et al Pub. No.: (US 2019/0014088 A1) (hereinafter "Subramaniyan”).
With respect to claim 1: Lowekamp discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors coupled to memory, a request to process a ticket used to authenticate a connection to a session between a client device and one or more servers (the ticket getting service receives a request for a communication session between a client A and client B, the ticketing service issues a ticket to client A based on the identify provided by client A [0030-0033], [0064], [0075-0078], a relay of client B receiving a request from client A to establish a communication session, the request includes a ticket to be processed to determine whether the session is authorized [0083-0084]. Clients may also be referred to as servers [0055]);
locating, by the one or more processors based on a function applied to an identifier of the ticket, a plurality of access points across a plurality of groups of access points (locating the relays and nodes required to communicate with Client B based on the ticket [0068-0069], [0076-0077]. The nodes may be a subset of the nodes allocated to the client [0023]);
providing, by the one or more processors, the request to at least one access point of the plurality of access points located based on the function to perform the process on the ticket (providing the request to a relay and/or nodes to establish a communication session with Client B [0025], [0069], [0083]);
However, Lowekamp does not explicitly disclose a plurality of groups of access points that each maintain the ticket in storage on the plurality of access points;
Subramaniyan discloses an access point that maintain the ticket in storage on the access point (proxies using a cache tickets to establish a session. The proxy may identify a secure connection to be established between the proxy and the server, by using a cached or stored session identifier or a session ticket for example [0145-0147]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lowekamp in view of Subramaniyan in order to maintain a ticket in storage of the access points;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would reduce latency from establishing multiple sessions [Subramaniyan: 0145].
With respect to claim 2: Lowekamp-Subramaniyan discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, further comprising:
However, Lowekamp does not explicitly disclose receiving, by the one or more processors, a response from the at least one access point indicating whether the client device is authorized for the connection to the session; and
transmitting, by the one or more processors, the response to the client device;
Subramaniyan discloses receiving, by the one or more processors, a response from the at least one access point indicating whether the client device is authorized for the connection to the session (intermediary device receiving a response after a successful validation and forwarding to the client device [0125], [0131], [Fig. 6B]); and
transmitting, by the one or more processors, the response to the client device (intermediary device receiving a response after a successful validation and forwarding to the client device [0125], [0131], [Fig. 6B]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lowekamp in view of Subramaniyan in order to transmit a response to the client device indicating the device is authorized;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide a secure access to the resources for the client device [Subramaniyan: 0125].
With respect to claim 3: Lowekamp-Subramaniyan discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, further comprising:
Lowekamp discloses receiving, by the one or more processors, the request to process the ticket (the ticket getting service receives a request for a communication session between a client A and client B, the ticketing service issues a ticket to client A based on the identify provided by client A [0030-0033], [0064], [0075-0078], a relay of client B receiving a request from client A to establish a communication session, the request includes a ticket to be processed to determine whether the session is authorized [0083-0084]);
determining, by the one or more processors, subsequent to processing the ticket, the one or more servers to host the session of an application for the client device based on the processed ticket (locating the relays and nodes required to communicate with Client B based on the ticket, and locating client B [0067-0069], [0076-0077]. Clients may also be referred to as servers [0055]);
establishing, by the one or more processors, the connection to the session of an application hosted by the one or more servers (providing the request to a relay and/or nodes to establish a communication session with Client B [0025], [0069], [0083]. Clients may also be referred to as servers [0055]).
With respect to claim 7: Lowekamp-Subramaniyan discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, further comprising:
Lowekamp discloses identifying, by the one or more processors, a plurality of cloud services associated with the plurality of groups (Cloud representing the services that are available to the clients [0060], TGS may be implemented by a single server, a cluster of servers and/or by a selections of peers in the cloud, which may include any or all of the relays [0086]);
establishing, by the one or more processors, responsive to processing the ticket for authentication, the connection to the session hosted by the one or more servers of a cloud service associated with the at least one access point of at least one of the plurality of group (providing the request to a relay and/or nodes to establish a communication session with Client B [0025], [0069], [0083]).
With respect to claims 13-15 and 19, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 1-3 and 7, respectively. Therefore claims 13-15 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1-3 and 7.
With respect to claim 20, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 1, respectively. Therefore claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowekamp et al Pub. No.: (US 2011/0289313 A1) (hereinafter “Lowekamp”) in view of Subramaniyan et al Pub. No.: (US 2019/0014088 A1) (hereinafter "Subramaniyan”) as applied to claims 1-3, 7, 13-15 and 19-20 above, further in view of Dinh et al Pub. No.: (US 2021/0136095 A1) (hereinafter "Dinh”) and Goyal et al Pub. No.: (US 2016/0028855 A1) (hereinafter "Goyal”).
With respect to claim 4: Lowekamp-Subramaniyan discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, wherein a first access point of the plurality of access points receives the request, the method further comprises:
However, Lowekamp-Subramaniyan does not explicitly disclose determining, by the one or more processors, that the first access point is an owner access point for the ticket; and
providing, by the one or more processors, an update to one or more remaining owner access points indicating the first access point processing the request;
Dinh discloses determining, by the one or more processors, that the first access point is an owner access point for the ticket (generating a ticket corresponding to an issue and transmitting to an API provider and/or API owner associated with the issue [0038]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lowekamp-Subramaniyan in view of Dinh in order to determine the owner for the ticket;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would identify the node to process the ticket [Dinh: 0038];
However, Lowekamp-Subramaniyan-Dinh does not explicitly disclose providing, by the one or more processors, an update to one or more remaining owner access points indicating the first access point processing the request;
Goyal discloses providing, by the one or more processors, an update to one or more remaining owner access points indicating the first access point processing the request (broadcasting a list to updates all the other nodes of the new owner [0423]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lowekamp-Subramaniyan-Dinh in view of Goyal in order to update the remaining owners;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would identify which node is processing a certain service [Goyal: Abstract].
With respect to claim 16, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 4, respectively. Therefore claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowekamp et al Pub. No.: (US 2011/0289313 A1) (hereinafter “Lowekamp”) in view of Subramaniyan et al Pub. No.: (US 2019/0014088 A1) (hereinafter "Subramaniyan”) as applied to claims 1-3, 7, 13-15 and 19-20 above, further in view of Dinh et al Pub. No.: (US 2021/0136095 A1) (hereinafter "Dinh”) and Milchtaich et al Pub. No.: (US 2020/0245149 A1) (hereinafter "Milchtaich”).
With respect to claim 5: Lowekamp-Subramaniyan discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, further comprising:
However, Lowekamp-Subramaniyan does not explicitly disclose obtaining, by the one or more processors, the function comprising at least a binding rule and a destination selection rule, the binding rule comprising one or more properties for assigning the plurality of access points to the plurality of groups, the destination selection rule indicating one or more owner access points of the plurality of access points assigned to the ticket;
Dinh discloses the destination selection rule indicating one or more owner access points of the plurality of access points assigned to the ticket (transmitting to an API provider and/or API owner associated with the issue [0038]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lowekamp-Subramaniyan in view of Dinh in order to indicate the owner for the ticket;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would identify the node to process the ticket [Dinh: 0038];
However, Lowekamp-Subramaniyan-Dinh does not explicitly disclose the function comprising at least a binding rule and a destination selection rule, the binding rule comprising one or more properties for assigning the plurality of access points to the plurality of groups;
Milchtaich discloses the function comprising at least a binding rule and a destination selection rule, the binding rule comprising one or more properties for assigning the plurality of access points to the plurality of groups (access point being assigned to a respective category based on geographical location, security, access point types, etc. [0202]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lowekamp-Subramaniyan-Dinh in view of Milchtaich in order to assign a plurality of access points to the plurality of groups;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide security to protect organization computing resources [Milchtaich: 0204].
With respect to claim 17, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 5, respectively. Therefore claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 5.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowekamp et al Pub. No.: (US 2011/0289313 A1) (hereinafter “Lowekamp”) in view of Subramaniyan et al Pub. No.: (US 2019/0014088 A1) (hereinafter "Subramaniyan”) as applied to claims 1-3, 7, 13-15 and 19-20 above, further in view of Mityagin et al Pub. No.: (US 2024/0282014 A1) (hereinafter "Mityagin”).
With respect to claim 6: Lowekamp-Subramaniyan discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above,
However, Lowekamp-Subramaniyan does not explicitly disclose further comprising identifying, by the one or more processors, the plurality of groups in an n-ary structure, each of the plurality of groups comprising at least one of the plurality of access points;
Mityagin discloses identifying, by the one or more processors, the plurality of groups in an n-ary structure, each of the plurality of groups comprising at least one of the plurality of access points (n-ary tree and subset of neighboring nodes [0022], [0038], [0052], [0069-0070]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lowekamp-Subramaniyan in view of Mityagin in order to identify a plurality of groups in an n-ary structure;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would estimate probabilities of information with the current node by the features extracted from the neighboring nodes [Mityagin: 0069, abstract].
With respect to claim 18, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 6, respectively. Therefore claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowekamp et al Pub. No.: (US 2011/0289313 A1) (hereinafter “Lowekamp”) in view of Subramaniyan et al Pub. No.: (US 2019/0014088 A1) (hereinafter "Subramaniyan”) as applied to claims 1-3, 7, 13-15 and 19-20 above, further in view of Chen et al Pub. No.: (US 2019/0334893 A1) (hereinafter "Chen”) and Ran et al Pub. No.: (US 2022/0141660 A1) (hereinafter "Ran”).
With respect to claim 8: Lowekamp-Subramaniyan discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, further comprising:
However, Lowekamp-Subramaniyan does not explicitly disclose receiving, by the one or more processors, a request to add an access point;
determining, by the one or more processors based on the function associated with one or more of the plurality of groups, a group of the plurality of groups to add the access point, the group comprising a first list comprising a plurality of indexes, each index associated with a respective access point;
determining, by the one or more processors, a first timestamp associated with the request to add the access point; and
generating, by the one or more processors, a second list for the group comprising the plurality of indexes and a new index of the access point, the second list associated with the first timestamp;
Chen discloses receiving, by the one or more processors, a request to add an access point (receiving a request to add an access point [0050-0052]);
determining, by the one or more processors based on the function associated with one or more of the plurality of groups, a group of the plurality of groups to add the access point, the group comprising a first list comprising a plurality of indexes, each index associated with a respective access point (determining the access point will be joining an access point group, and sending the access point identifier. The service center adds the access point to the list of indexes corresponding to the access point group [0053], [0229], [0292-0293]);
generating, by the one or more processors, a second list for the group comprising the plurality of indexes and a new index of the access point (includes a list of indexes for an access group [0029], therefore an access point added would require to be updated in the index which is a second list).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lowekamp-Subramaniyan in view of Chen in order to add an access point and have an index associated with an access point;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow the access point to securely join the access node group [Chen: abstract];
However, However, Lowekamp-Subramaniyan-Chen does not explicitly disclose determining, by the one or more processors, a first timestamp associated with the request to add the access point; and
generating, by the one or more processors, a second list for the group comprising the plurality of indexes and a new index of the access point, the second list associated with the first timestamp;
Ran discloses determining, by the one or more processors, a first timestamp associated with the request to add the access point (when accepting an access point to join, a timestamps of the authentication code is determined [0042], [Claim 4);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lowekamp-Subramaniyan-Chen in view of Ran in order to determine a timestamp associated with a request to add the access point;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would determine whether the access point may be accepted to join [Ran: 0042].
Claims 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowekamp et al Pub. No.: (US 2011/0289313 A1) (hereinafter “Lowekamp”) in view of Subramaniyan et al Pub. No.: (US 2019/0014088 A1) (hereinafter "Subramaniyan”) , further in view of Chen et al Pub. No.: (US 2019/0334893 A1) (hereinafter "Chen”) and Ran et al Pub. No.: (US 2022/0141660 A1) (hereinafter "Ran”) applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Madsen et al Pub. No.: (US 2010/0223239 A1) (hereinafter "Madsen”).
With respect to claim 9: Lowekamp-Subramaniyan-Chen-Ran discloses the method of claim 8 as set forth above, further comprising:
Lowekamp discloses receiving, by the one or more processors, the request to process the ticket (the ticket getting service receives a request for a communication session between a client A and client B, the ticketing service issues a ticket to client A based on the identify provided by client A [0030-0033], [0064], [0075-0078], a relay of client B receiving a request from client A to establish a communication session, the request includes a ticket to be processed to determine whether the session is authorized [0083-0084]. Clients may also be referred to as servers [0055]);
determining, by the one or more processors based on the function applied to the identifier of the ticket, the group assigned to the ticket (determining the relay and nodes assigned to create a session based on the ticket (locating the relays and nodes required to communicate with Client B based on the ticket [0068-0069], [0076-0077]);
However, Lowekamp-Subramaniyan-Chen-Ran does not explicitly disclose comparing, by the one or more processors, a second timestamp associated with when the ticket is created to the first timestamp; and
determining, by the one or more processors responsive to the comparison, to use the first list based on the second timestamp earlier than the first timestamp or use the second list based on the second timestamp at or later than the first timestamp;
Madsen discloses comparing, by the one or more processors, a second timestamp associated with when the ticket is created to the first timestamp (comparing timestamps of list and selecting the list with the most current timestamps [0071], [Claim 8]);
determining, by the one or more processors responsive to the comparison, to use the first list based on the second timestamp earlier than the first timestamp or use the second list based on the second timestamp at or later than the first timestamp (comparing timestamps of list and selecting the list with the most current timestamps [0069-0071], [Claim 8]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lowekamp-Subramaniyan-Chen-Ran in view of Madsen in order to compare timestamps and select the list with the most current timestamp;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would use the most updated version of the list [Madsen: 0069-0071].
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowekamp et al Pub. No.: (US 2011/0289313 A1) (hereinafter “Lowekamp”) in view of Subramaniyan et al Pub. No.: (US 2019/0014088 A1) (hereinafter "Subramaniyan”) , further in view of Chen et al Pub. No.: (US 2019/0334893 A1) (hereinafter "Chen”) and Ran et al Pub. No.: (US 2022/0141660 A1) (hereinafter "Ran”) applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Batchu et al Pub. No.: (US 2016/0373965 A1) (hereinafter "Batchu”).
With respect to claim 10: Lowekamp-Subramaniyan-Chen-Ran discloses the method of claim 8 as set forth above, further comprising:
However, Lowekamp-Subramaniyan-Chen-Ran does not explicitly disclose determining, by the one or more processors responsive to generating the second list, an expiration of the first list based on a duration from the first timestamp satisfying a threshold; and
removing, by the one or more processors, the first list responsive to determining the expiration;
Batchu discloses determining, by the one or more processors responsive to generating the second list, an expiration of the first list based on a duration from the first timestamp satisfying a threshold (determining an expiration of channels in the first list that have not expired to generate a second list [0035]);
removing, by the one or more processors, the first list responsive to determining the expiration (removing channel from the first list in which the timer has expired [0033]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lowekamp-Subramaniyan-Chen-Ran in view of Batchu in order to generate a second list and removing the first list based on an expiration;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would use the most updated version of the list [Batchu: 0069-0071].
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowekamp et al Pub. No.: (US 2011/0289313 A1) (hereinafter “Lowekamp”) in view of Subramaniyan et al Pub. No.: (US 2019/0014088 A1) (hereinafter "Subramaniyan”) as applied to claims 1-3, 7, 13-15 and 19 above, further in view of Chen et al Pub. No.: (US 2019/0334893 A1) (hereinafter "Chen”) and Fang et al Pub. No.: (US 2020/0287664 A1) (hereinafter "Fang”).
With respect to claim 11: Lowekamp-Subramaniyan discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, further comprising:
However, Lowekamp-Subramaniyan does not explicitly disclose receiving, by the one or more processors, a request to delete an access point;
determining, by the one or more processors based on the function associated with one or more of the plurality of groups, a group of the plurality of groups to delete the access point, the group comprising a list comprising one or more indexes, each index associated with a respective access point; and
deleting, by the one or more processors based on the function, the index associated with the access point from the group;
Chen discloses determining, by the one or more processors based on the function associated with one or more of the plurality of groups, a group of the plurality of groups to delete the access point, the group comprising a list comprising one or more indexes, each index associated with a respective access point (deleting the access points from the list of indexes corresponding to the access points of a group [0229], [0236]);
deleting, by the one or more processors based on the function, the index associated with the access point from the group (deleting the access points from the list of indexes corresponding to the access points of a group [0229], [0236]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lowekamp-Subramaniyan in view of Chen in order to have an index associated with an access point and deleting a group;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would remove access points that are no longer in service [Chen: 0235];
However, Lowekamp-Subramaniyan-Chen does not explicitly disclose receiving, by the one or more processors, a request to delete an access point;
Fang discloses receiving, by the one or more processors, a request to delete an access point (request to remove and access point[0043]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lowekamp-Subramaniyan-Chen in view of Fang in order to receive a request to delete an access point;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would remove access points that are no longer in service [Fang: 0101].
With respect to claim 12: Lowekamp-Subramaniyan-Chen-Fang discloses the method of claim 11 as set forth above, further comprising:
However, Lowekamp-Subramaniyan does not explicitly disclose determining, by the one or more processors, that the list of the group comprises one index associated with the access point; and
deleting, by the one or more processors based on the determination, the group from the plurality of groups;
Chen discloses determining, by the one or more processors, that the list of the group comprises one index associated with the access point (indexing corresponding to access points [0229], [0236]); and
deleting, by the one or more processors based on the determination, the group from the plurality of groups (deleting the access points from the list of indexes corresponding to the access points groups [0229], [0236]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lowekamp-Subramaniyan in view of Chen in order to have an index associated with an access point and deleting a group;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would remove access points that are no longer in service [Chen: 0235].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THAO DUC DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2350. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/T. D./
Examiner, Art Unit 2446
/BRIAN J. GILLIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446