f 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5 August 2026 has been entered.
2. Claims 1-22 are currently pending and rejected.
Responses to the Argument
3. The applicant’s arguments filed on 5 August 2026 are moot in view of new ground of rejection rendered.
Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 as being unpatentable over Kiukkonen et al. (US Publication No. 20140068719), hereinafter Kiukkonen and in view of Conover et al. (US Publication No. 20210136575), hereinafter Conover and in view of Zhang et al. (CN Publication No. 107529161), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 1:
receiving a request for access by a guest device to a host Wi-Fi network, wherein the request is in response to a predefined event related to a guest associated with the guest device (Kiukkonen, ¶20-22, 47, abstract, ¶183, 186), wherein authorized device (predefined event related to a guest device) can only connect to the WI-FI., after verification check and passkey is provided to the device.
Kiukkonen in view of Conover does not explicitly suggest, the predefined event comprising a host making a command on behalf of the guest; however, in same field endeavor Zhang discloses this limitation (Zhang, page 6, para.2-3), wherein sending command on behalf of terminal.
Kiukkonen in view of Conover does not explicitly suggest generating dynamically, responsive to a network event associated with the host Wi-Fi network, an access code including a channel-list that matches a current configuration of the host Wi-Fi network subsequent to the network event; however, in same field endeavor Zhang discloses this limitation (Zhang, page 7, para.2, page 5, para.5-6) wherein parameter of password ( embedded channel) does not match the connection disconnect or if that match then it allows communication with the channel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of determining predetermine criteria for access of Kiukkonen in view of Conover with the router communication (sending command) to server on behalf the guest regarding guest access disclosed in Zhang to maintain secure access, stated by Zhang, at page 5para.6.
Kiukkonen does not explicitly suggest, and providing an access code to one or more of the guest device and the host Wi-Fi network in response to the request, the access code enabling the guest device to access the host Wi-Fi network and defining access limits and restrictions for the guest device; however, in same field endeavor Conover teaches this limitation (Conover, ¶19, 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of determining predetermine criteria for access of Kiukkonen with the selective access provision method disclosed in Conover to secure home and business network, stated by Conover, at para.1.
Regarding claim 2:
Kiukkonen does not explicitly suggest, wherein the access code is provided to both the guest device and the host Wi-Fi network, and the guest device utilizes the access code to access the host Wi-Fi network which utilizes the access code for the access limits and restrictions of the guest device, however, in same field endeavor Conover teaches this limitation (Conover, ¶7).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Kiukkonen and Conover applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3:
Kiukkonen does not explicitly suggest, one or more of visually displaying the access code on a display device, printing the access code via a printer code, and communicating the access code to the host Wi-Fi network, wherein the guest device is configured to scan the access code provided either by the display device or the printer, however, in same field endeavor Conover teaches this limitation (Conover, ¶15).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Kiukkonen and Conover applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4:
wherein the access limits include a time limit for the guest based on parameters of the predefined event (Kiukkonen, ¶146).
Regarding claim 5:
wherein the restrictions further limit the guest based on one or more predefined events including at least one of specific requests received from the guest and specific financial transactions associated with the guest (Kiukkonen, ¶20).
Regarding claim 6:
wherein the predefined event includes one or more of the guest making a request when the host Wi-Fi network is a publicly accessible network, the guest providing service subscription information, the guest providing membership information, or the guest making a purchase (Kiukkonen, ¶34).
Regarding claim 7:
Kiukkonen does not explicitly suggest, wherein providing the access code is presented as a Quick Response (QR) code to be scanned by the guest device, however, in same field endeavor Conover teaches this limitation (Conover, ¶15).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Kiukkonen and Conover applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8:
Kiukkonen does not explicitly suggest, wherein presenting the QR code includes displaying the QR code on one or more of a television screen, a dedicated display device, a Point-of-Sale (POS) device, and an electronic device associated with a host of the host Wi-Fi network, however, in same field endeavor Conover teaches this limitation (Conover, ¶15, fig. 1).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Kiukkonen and Conover applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9:
Kiukkonen does not explicitly suggest, wherein presenting the QR code includes displaying the QR code on one or more of a smart phone, tablet, or laptop, however, in same field endeavor Conover teaches this limitation (Conover, ¶15, Fig. 1).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Kiukkonen and Conover applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10:
Kiukkonen does not explicitly suggest, wherein presenting the QR code includes displaying the QR code on one or more of a dedicated display device that connects to the host Wi-Fi network via Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, however, in same field endeavor Conover teaches this limitation (Conover, ¶15).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Kiukkonen and Conover applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11:
wherein providing the access code is via communication using Near Field Communication (NFC) protocols (Kiukkonen, ¶73).
Regarding claim 12:
wherein the access code conforms to one or more of EasyConnect and Device Provisioning Protocol (Kiukkonen, ¶5).
Regarding claim 13:
Kiukkonen does not explicitly suggest, wherein the access code includes one or more properties including changing over time, provided only on demand, valid for a short time period, and unique to each guest device, however, in same field endeavor Conover teaches this limitation (Conover, ¶23).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Kiukkonen and Conover applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14:
wherein the access code includes a certificate or identifier that is loaded onto the guest device by the apparatus (Kiukkonen, ¶230).
Regarding claim 15:
Kiukkonen does not explicitly suggest, wherein providing the access code is via a picture and the guest device is configured to take a picture of the access code, however, in same field endeavor Conover teaches this limitation (Conover, ¶15).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Kiukkonen and Conover applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16:
wherein the method is performed by a cloud management system that is connected to multiple host Wi-Fi networks (Kiukkonen, ¶217, 281).
Regarding claim 17:
wherein the host Wi-Fi network includes multiple access points, and the multiple access points coordinate which access point responds to the guest device (Kiukkonen, ¶197).
Regarding claim 18:
Kiukkonen does not explicitly suggest, wherein the restrictions limit locations where the guest device can access the Wi-Fi network, however, in same field endeavor Conover teaches this limitation (Conover, ¶23).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Kiukkonen and Conover applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19:
Kiukkonen does not explicitly suggest, wherein reception of the access code further enables a host to determine proof of physical access based on the access code, however, in same field endeavor Conover teaches this limitation (Conover, ¶11, 23).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Kiukkonen and Conover applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20:
Kiukkonen does not explicitly suggest, wherein a host allows the guest device to serve as a chain of trust for subsequent guest devices, however, in same field endeavor Conover teaches this limitation (Conover, ¶9).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Kiukkonen and Conover applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 21:
Kiukkonen does not explicitly suggest, in which access is provided to a Wi-Fi network located in a home, hotel, coffee shop, lobby, waiting room, conference, or shared office space, however, in same field endeavor Conover teaches this limitation (Conover, ¶20).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Kiukkonen and Conover applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 22:
receiving a request for access by a guest device to a host Wi-Fi network, wherein the request is in response to a predefined event related to a guest associated with the guest device (Kiukkonen, ¶20-22, 47, abstract, ¶183, 186), wherein authorized device (predefined event related to a guest device) can only connect to the WI-FI., after verification check and passkey is provided to the device.
Kiukkonen in view of Conover does not explicitly suggest, the predefined event comprising a host making a command on behalf of the guest; however, in same field endeavor Zhang discloses this limitation (Zhang, page 6, para.2-3), wherein sending command on behalf of terminal.
Kiukkonen in view of Conover does not explicitly suggest generating dynamically, responsive to a network event associated with the host Wi-Fi network, an access code including a channel-list that matches a current configuration of the host Wi-Fi network subsequent to the network event; however, in same field endeavor Zhang discloses this limitation (Zhang, page 7, para.2, page 5, para.5-6) wherein parameter of password ( embedded channel) does not match the connection disconnect or if that match then it allows communication with the channel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of determining predetermine criteria for access of Kiukkonen in view of Conover with the router communication (sending command) to server on behalf the guest regarding guest access disclosed in Zhang to maintain secure access, stated by Zhang, at page 5para.6.
Kiukkonen does not explicitly suggest, and providing an access code to one or more of the guest device and the host Wi-Fi network in response to the request, the access code enabling the guest device to access the host Wi-Fi network and defining access limits and restrictions for the guest device; however, in same field endeavor Conover teaches this limitation (Conover, ¶19, 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of determining predetermine criteria for access of Kiukkonen with the selective access provision method disclosed in Conover to secure home and business network, stated by Conover, at para.1.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Monjour Rahim whose telephone number is (571)270-3890.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on 571-272-4219. 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 CANANDA) or 571-272-1000.
/Monjur Rahim/
Patent Examiner
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Art Unit: 2436; Phone: 571.270.3890
E-mail: monjur.rahim@uspto.gov
Fax: 571.270.4890
Prosecution Insights