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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 10-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/6/2026.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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, 8, 21 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monjemi, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2018/0295538) in view of Nayak, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2023/0073868; note also 63/242,314, with parallel citations).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Monjemi discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising and s computer-implemented system, comprising a non-transitory memory including instructions stored a processor operably coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to execute one or more of the stored instructions (paragraph 0064) comprising:
obtaining one or more attributes of a radio frequency (RF) environment of a user device and detecting that the user device is neither associated with any access point (AP) nor authenticated; (Monjemi discloses that a second access point detects that a user device is no longer associated with or authenticated by a first access point based on the overloading or failure of the first access point [paragraphs 0016, 0029]. This detection also obtains attributes of a RF environment of a user device, as the current channel is no longer usable if the radio or AP has failed or the channel may be overloaded depending on the failure type [paragraphs 0016, 0029].)
after the detection, stimulating the user device to be associated with at least one AP and authenticated (The second access point simulates the user device connection and association/authentication with the first access point by spoofing the BSSID of the first access point to take over the session and sending a CSA to adjust the original channel/frequency to a new operating channel/frequency [paragraph 0031].)
adjusting an RF link with which the user device is currently connected to operate at one or more different frequencies (paragraph 0031 – see (b).)
Monjemi fails to disclose responding to a ready-to-send (RTS) protocol data unit (PDU) with a clear-to-send (CTS) PDU receiving the CTS PDU and after the reception adjusting the link. In the same field of endeavor, Nayak discloses responding to a ready-to-send (RTS) protocol data unit (PDU) with a clear-to-send (CTS) PDU receiving the CTS PDU and after the reception adjusting the link. (Nayak discloses protecting IEEE management frame transmissions using RTS/CTS [paragraph 0095; note also 314, page 8).
Therefore, since Nayak discloses protecting frames using RTS/CTS, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the RTS/CTS of Nayak with the system of Monjemi by using RTS/CTS to secure the channel before transmitting the CSA to adjust the original channel/frequency. The motive to combine is to improve probability of successful CSA transmission by reserving the channel.
Regarding claims 8 and 28, Monjemi discloses before the stimulation is performed, determining whether a link involving the user device is operably capable of being at least one of maintained or established based on the one or more attributes. (The system of Monjemi determine if the link may be maintained by determining one or more attributes of the RF environment including determining that a second AP or transceiver exists to continue the link [paragraph 0029].)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monjemi, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2018/0295538) in view of Nayak, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2023/0073868; note also 63/242,314, with parallel citations) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Bhange, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2016/0127947).
Regarding claim 9, Monjemi discloses the adjustment causes an extending a range of the connection of the user device (see fig. 6, some of the switched client devices are farther from the new radio than the old).
Monjemi fails to disclose a cyber operation performed at a greater level of reliability notwithstanding reduction in throughput of the connection. In the same field of endeavor, Bhange discloses cyber operation performed at a greater level of reliability notwithstanding reduction in throughput of the connection. (Bhange discloses that if the channel is too poor (for example extended range) then the UE will fallback to a slower data rate for better reliability in performing cyber operations such as data transmission notwithstanding the throughput reduction [paragraph 0046].)
Therebefore, since Bhange discloses rate fallback, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the rate fallback of Bhange with the system of Monjemi by performing rate fallback on the new channel using an adjustment to extend the range of cyber data transmission at the expense of throughput. The motive to combine is to allow communication at the extended distances with the second radio.
Claim(s) 7 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monjemi, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2018/0295538) in view of Nayak, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2023/0073868; note also 63/242,314, with parallel citations) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kim, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2021/0099253 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 27, Monjemi as modified by Nayak fails to disclose obtaining, from the user device, an association request and responsive to the obtained request, generating and emitting an association response. (note that unlike claims 2 and 22, the claimed obtaining does not bear any relation to the detection and could be a part of any arbitrary process, such as a later association with the access point after disconnecting, movement, etc.) In the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses obtaining, from the user device, an association request and responsive to the obtained request, generating and emitting an association response (paragraph 0088 – association request/response as a part of normal AP connection in response to detecting and probing a new access point).
Therefore, since Kim discloses an association request/response, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the earlies effective filing date of the invention to further use an association request and response to connect to another access point or to re-connect to the second access point after disconnection. The motive to combine is to allow the UE to change access points based on circumstances.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Claims 2-6 and 22-26 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.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose a computer-implemented method, comprising:
obtaining one or more attributes of an RF link communicably involving a user device;
detecting that the user device is currently neither associated with any AP nor authenticated;
determining that a MAC address of the user device is predetermined to be of interest; and
after the determination, stimulating the user device to be (i) associated with at least one AP and (ii) authenticated at least by emitting an unsolicited authentication response causing the user device to transition to a state configured to operably respond to an RTS PDU.
The closes relevant prior art of record is that of Monjemi which discloses that a user is not associated or authenticated with and AP based on the failure of the prior access point. However, Monjemi discloses that the user device is switched to a new access point by access point spoofing specifically so that the UE does not need to perform new association with the access point. Therefore, Monjemi cannot be modified to perform a re-authentication without defeating the original purpose of the system of Monjemi, which is performing a seamless takeover. Furthermore, even if this were not the case, no art in which an unsolicited authentication response is used to connect to a new access point in the way described could be located. Therefore, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose all elements of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 22, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose the detection includes
obtaining, from the user device, a first probe request indicating non-association, wherein the first probe request comprises an extractable service set identification (SSID) of the at least one AP.
As an initial matter, it is noted that a mere probe request, on its own, cannot indicate non-association of the UE, as a probe request may be sent from any 802.11 state including state 3 in which the UE is currently connected to an access point and looking for a new access point. Therefore, art related to merely transmitting probe request does no indicate non-association of the UE and further explains why more general art related to probe request-response and normal association is not applicable to claim 2 or any other claim presented by the art. Although a probe request is a part of the detection of a user device that is not associated, the detection is a multi-step algorithm that further includes, for example, using RTS-CTS non-response as an indication of non-association (see, for example, paragaorh 0025 of applicant’s PGPUB). Therefore, general art related to probe request-response is not applicable to the claims at hand.
Furthermore, looking to the closest relevant prior art of record, Monjemi which discloses that a user is not associated or authenticated with and AP based on the failure of the prior access point. It is not clear how Monjemi would be modified to use a probe request-response model as the entire point of the Monjemi reference is to enable seamless transitions and performing an entire reconnect with probe requests and responses would defect this purpose and the UE would be better served by merely performing a general reconnect to whichever access point is best. Therefore, Monjemi cannot be modified to perform a re-authentication without defeating the original purpose of the system of Monjumi, which is performing a seamless takeover.
Therefore, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose all elements of claims 2 and 22.
Regarding claims 3-5 and 23-25, the claims depend from claims 2 and 22 and are allowable at least for the reasons stated with respect to those claims, supra.
Regarding claims 6 and 26, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose broadcasting one or more beacon PDUs comprising association information involving an AP with which the user device is previously determined to have been associated; and after the broadcast, obtaining, from the user device, at least one of a probe request for the previously determined association or an authentication request.
That is, as was the case with claims 2 and 22, there is no motivation to modify Monjemi in a way that causes complete reconfiguration of the connection. Furthermore, no other art in which a spoofed beacon related to a formerly associated AP is used in the way described could be located.
Therefore, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose all elements of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cui, et al. (Z. Cui, A. Arguala, WiFi Localization Based on IEEE 802.11 RTS/CTS Mechanism, pages 1-11, 2015) – disclosing using RTS/CTS for localizing user stations
Choi, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2018/0295538) – disclosing CSA spoofing for UE movement
Bumkar, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2019/0274079) disclosing spoofing access points for load balancing
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3989. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm 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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at (571) 272-7969. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights