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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding claims rejected under 35 USC 103:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kang (US 2015/0099467 A1).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-12, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishimoto (US 7,986,642 B2) in view of “Wi-Fi Protected Setup Specification Version 1.0h,” hereinafter “WPS,” and Kang (US 2015/0099467 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ishimoto discloses: A method comprising: receiving, by a wireless receiver of a controller (e.g., wireless device B in FIG. 9 of Ishimoto), broadcast information (e.g., broadcast challenge value and public key in SE1 in FIG. 9 of Ishimoto) transmitted by a transmitting device (e.g., wireless device A in FIG. 9 of Ishimoto), wherein the broadcast information includes (i) identifying information of the transmitting device and (ii) an invalid [identifier] that does not represent a device configured to communicate with a given controller (interpreted as being “unknown” or otherwise previously not registered or recorded to the network; as per at least Col. 13, Ll. 5-16 of Ishimoto, the device has not yet set up with the network, and its information is therefore unknown to the network);
Refer to at least FIG. 9 and Col. 13, Ll. 12-28 of Ishimoto with respect to sending broadcast information including the public key and challenge value from device A to device B.
transmitting, by the controller and without registering (i.e., taking place before registration step SE13 in FIG. 9 of Ishimoto) the transmitting device with the controller, a password request to the transmitting device in response to receiving the broadcast information;
Refer to at least SE3 in FIG. 9 and Col. 13, Ll. 42-54 of Ishimoto with respect to device B sending a reply to device A for continuing the process.
obtaining, by the controller and from the transmitting device responsive to the password request, password information that includes [encrypted] data generated by a[n] [encryption] algorithm operated by the transmitting device;
Refer to at least SE9 in FIG. 9 and Col. 14, Ll. 53-63 of Ishimoto with respect to device A sending an encrypted identifier and challenge value in response to SE3.
generating, by the controller, a[n] [encryption] result by applying the [encryption] algorithm to an identifier of the transmitting device; comparing, by the controller, the [encrypted] data received from the transmitting device to the [encryption] result generated by the controller;
Refer to at least SE10-SE11 in FIG. 9 and Col. 14, Ll. 64-Col. 15, Ll. 16 of Ishimoto with respect to decrypting the encrypted identifier and challenge value and comparison to an expected result.
updating, by the controller, a set of registered network devices based on comparing the [encrypted] data with the [encryption] result, including: registering, by the controller, the transmitting device in the set of registered network devices based on the comparison resulting in a match between the [encrypted] data and the [encryption] result; and omitting, by the controller, the transmitting device from the set of registered network devices based on the comparison revealing a lack of the match between the [encrypted] data and the [encryption] result.
Refer to at least SE11-SE13 in FIG. 9 and Col. 15, Ll. 1-43 of Ishimoto with respect to determining whether to store registration information of device A to memory of device B based upon whether the decrypted result was as expected. If the result is incorrect, then the process ends without storing the registration information. If the result is correct, the process ends with storing the registration information.
Ishimoto does not disclose: the invalid identifier further comprising an address; determining, by the controller, that the address is invalid by determining that the address represents neither the transmitting device nor a device configured to communicate with the controller; the encryption algorithm further including a hash algorithm, the encrypted data further including hash data, and the encryption result further including a hash / hashed result. However, Ishimoto in view of WPS discloses: the encryption algorithm further including a hash algorithm, the encrypted data further including hash data, and the encryption result further including a hash / hashed result;
Refer to at least page 34-35 of WPS with respect to sending hashed challenge/response information between devices for enrollment. For instance, E-Hash1, E-Hash2, and the HMAC value in M3; R-Hash1, R-Hash2, and the HMAC value in M4. E-Hash1-2 and R-Hash1-2 concern the respective device passwords; the HMAC further concerns a respective AuthKey. The hashes are compared to an expected value for enrollment to succeed (e.g., page 81 of WPS).
The teachings of Ishimoto and WPS both concern wireless devices joining wireless networks (e.g., Col. 1, Ll. 16-20 of Ishimoto) and the WPS protocol (e.g., Col. 1, Ll. 47-Col. 2, Ll. 30 of Ishimoto). As such, they are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Ishimoto to further implement a MAC address as an identifier and a hash algorithm as part of the encryption algorithm because the particular known techniques were recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (MAC addresses and hash comparison for verification).
Ishimoto-WPS does not disclose: determining, by the controller, that the address is invalid by determining that the address represents neither the transmitting device nor a device configured to communicate with the controller. However, Ishimoto-WPS in view of Kang discloses: determining, by the controller, that the address is invalid by determining that the address represents neither the transmitting device nor a device configured to communicate with the controller.
Refer to at least FIG. 6 of Kang with respect to a randomly generated address; the abstract, FIG. 7-8, [0050], [0084], and [0151] of Kang with respect to using the random address for encoding protocol information between sender and receiver, as well as the random address being generated to be distinct from another device configured to communicate with the receiver.
The teachings of Kang concern wireless network protocols and are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skillin the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Ishimoto-WPS to further implement the address field for use as a covert channel for additional information because the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 2, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above (i.e., the citations and obviousness rationale concerning Kang; at least pages 34-37 of WPS with respect to an enrollee’s MAC address being included in the description data sent in M1 WPS concerning a MAC address).
Regarding claim 3, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above (i.e., the citations to WPS; M1-M8 are the messages used in WPS-PIN).
Regarding claim 4, Ishimoto-WPS-Kang discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein generating the hash result by applying the hash algorithm comprises: hashing a MAC address of the transmitting device.
Refer to at least FIG. 10 and FIG. 12 of Ishimoto with respect to example registration data which is sent encrypted within, e.g., SE9 in FIG. 9 of Ishimoto. The registration data includes known MAC addresses, such as that of an own MAC address.
This claim would have been obvious for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Ishimoto-WPS-Kang discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the controller, user input requesting that the transmitting device be added as a node in a mesh network managed by the controller, wherein transmitting the password request is performed in response to receiving the user input.
Refer to at least FIG. 15, Col. 7, Ll. 9-12, and Col. 20, Ll. 17-31 of Ishimoto with respect to user input for addition of the registration data.
Regarding claim 8, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above (e.g., Col. 15, Ll. 44-64 and Col. 16, Ll. 66-Col. 17, Ll. 8 of Ishimoto concerning obtaining registration data for a wireless network at decentralized devices).
Regarding independent claim 9, it is substantially similar to independent claim 1 above, and is therefore likewise rejected.
Regarding claims 10-12 and 15-16, they are substantially similar to elements of claims 2-4 and 7-8 above, and are therefore likewise rejected.
Regarding independent claim 17, it is substantially similar to independent claim 1 above, and is therefore likewise rejected.
Regarding claims 18-20, they are substantially similar to elements of claims 2-4 above, and are therefore likewise rejected.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishimoto-WPS-Kang as applied to claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-20 above, and further in view of “Wi-Mesh Alliance Proposal for 802.11 TGs,” hereinafter “Wi-Mesh.”
Regarding claim 5, Ishimoto-WPS-Kang discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the identifying information of the transmitting device includes a device identifier;
Refer to at least FIG. 9 of Ishimoto concerning SE1 and the broadcast message contents.
Although Ishimoto-WPS-Kang concerns the WPS protocol, it does not specifically disclose: the identifying information further including transmitting device capability details. However, Ishimoto-WPS-Kang in view of Wi-Mesh discloses: the identifying information further including transmitting device capability details.
Refer to at least slides 40-44 of Wi-Mesh with respect to capability info as part of frames sent between devices for registering each other.
The teachings of Ishimoto-WPS-Kang and Wi-Mesh concern device discovery and registration and are considered to be within the same field of endeavor and combinable as such.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Ishimoto-WPS-Kang to further send capability information for at least the purpose of improving interoperability between devices.
Regarding claim 6, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5 above (i.e., the citations and obviousness rationale).
Regarding claims 13-14, they are substantially similar to claims 5-6 above, and are therefore likewise rejected.
Conclusion
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 VADIM SAVENKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-5751. The examiner can normally be reached 12PM-8PM.
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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469) 295-9235. 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.
/V.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2432
/SYED A ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights