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
Applicant’s remarks filed on 02/10/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim[s] 1 – 5, 7 – 20, under the various obviousness rejections, applicant’s remarks are not persuasive, therefore, see the examiner’s response to such remarks in the office action below.
Regarding claim[s] 1 – 5 – 7 – 20, ***There is a new matter rejection issued on the claims. See the office action below.
The examiner will respond to all other remarks that do not concern the prior art rejections, if any, in the office action below.
Applicant states on page[s] 8 of the remarks as filed: “Applicant submits that Beals primarily teaches SSID-based zoning (separate guest SSID) and, at most, mentions the possibility that zones "may" share an SSID. Beals neither teaches nor suggests maintaining a plurality of concurrently active keys on a single SSID, with zone membership determined by which one of multiple keys is used (with "subsets" of keys per zone), as claimed. Rather, Beals' paradigm is SSID-driven assignment. Thus, Beals fails to teach the claimed subject matter.”
In response the examiner isn’t persuaded, the examiner points out that applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Beals neither teaches nor suggests maintaining a plurality of concurrently active keys on a single SSID, with zone membership determined by which one of multiple keys is used (with "subsets" of keys per zone)) are not recited clearly in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant states on page[s] 8 of the remarks as filed: “Applicant submits that Gu's zones are formed by SSID/Key pairs; zones are not formed on a single SSID with multiple concurrent keys as tokens for access-level selection. Moreover, Gu promptly updates all devices to a single common key, eliminating multiple keys rather than maintaining zone-specific subsets of keys.”
In response the examiner isn’t persuaded, the examiner points out that applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,…maintaining zone-specific subsets of keys…..) are not clearly recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant states on page[s] 8 and 9 of the remarks as filed: “Moreover, Combining Beals' occasional same-SSID notion with Gu's SSID/Key-pair zoning would require a substantive redesign: retaining multiple keys concurrently on one SSID and mapping those keys to zone subsets for access-level control, which Gu expressly teaches away from by propagating a common key. This is not a routine combination-Gu teaches consolidation into a common key, not the simultaneous, zone-specific key subsets required by the claims. As provided below, Olshansky fails to teach or suggest what is deficient in Beals and Gu. See pages 12-13 of the Office Action.”
In response the examiner isn’t persuaded, the examiner points out that applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,…This is not a routine combination-Gu teaches consolidation into a common key, not the simultaneous, zone-specific key subsets required by the claims….) are not clearly recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant states on page[s] 9 of the remarks as filed: “Furthermore, Applicant submits that Beals, Gu, and Olshansky not disclose "adjustable access rights" in the guest zone that "dynamically vary based on which access point within the location the device of the guest user is currently associated to," without requiring re-authentication.”
In response the examiner isn’t persuaded, the examiner points to the combination of the teachings of the prior art. Specifically, of Beal at paragraph: 0009, lines 8 – 12, Each of the device zones has a specific set of network access privileges. Different device zones can have different network access privileges and can provide isolation from other resources in the LAN to different degrees.
Where further of Beal, at paragraph: 0012, Typically, a gateway has one or two zones, e.g., a regular zone to which most of the client devices are assigned and a guest zone to which client devices that need temporary access to the external network are assigned. In some embodiments, by having an expanded zone, e.g., more than two device zones, and providing the ability to customize network access privileges for the various device zones, the gateway can provide better network security to the client devices in the LAN without compromising the network connectivity.
Further of Beal at paragraph: 0014, lines 6 – 9, The gateway 105 can be a wireless router, a wireless access point, a modem cum router, a set-top box, or any computing device that can provide access to the external network 110.
Then further of Olshansky, at paragraph: 0005, or example, a user is allowed to move from access point to access point within a zone without having to re-authenticate.
Thus, with combining the teachings of Beal and Olshansky, we arrive at applicant’s argued and newly added claim amendments of: “dynamically vary based on which access point within the location the device of the guest user is currently associated to," without requiring re-authentication.”
Applicant states on page[s] 9 of the remarks as filed: “The present claims recite that, within the second (guest) zone, access rights automatically vary based on the particular access point the guest device is currently associated to, and do so
"without requiring re-authentication." That fine-grained dynamic resource gating tied to AP association-implemented via frame-forwarding/SDN rules per access point (see SPEC 1 [0031], [0081]-[0084])-is absent from Olshansky.”
In response the examiner isn’t persuaded, the examiner points to the combination of the teachings of the prior art. Specifically, of Beal at paragraph: 0009, lines 8 – 12, Each of the device zones has a specific set of network access privileges. Different device zones can have different network access privileges and can provide isolation from other resources in the LAN to different degrees.
Where further of Beal, at paragraph: 0012, Typically, a gateway has one or two zones, e.g., a regular zone to which most of the client devices are assigned and a guest zone to which client devices that need temporary access to the external network are assigned. In some embodiments, by having an expanded zone, e.g., more than two device zones, and providing the ability to customize network access privileges for the various device zones, the gateway can provide better network security to the client devices in the LAN without compromising the network connectivity.
Further of Beal at paragraph: 0014, lines 6 – 9, The gateway 105 can be a wireless router, a wireless access point, a modem cum router, a set-top box, or any computing device that can provide access to the external network 110.
Then further of Olshansky, at paragraph: 0005, or example, a user is allowed to move from access point to access point within a zone without having to re-authenticate.
Thus, with combining the teachings of Beal and Olshansky, we arrive at applicant’s argued and newly added claim amendments of: “The present claims recite that, within the second (guest) zone, access rights automatically vary based on the particular access point the guest device is currently associated to, and do so
"without requiring re-authentication.”
***The examiners response above equally applies to the same or similar remarks made on page[s] 9, regarding the prior art of Beal and Gu in the remarks as filed.
Response to Amendment
Status of the instant application:
Claim[s] 1 – 5, 7 – 20 are pending in the instant application.
Regarding claim[s] 1 – 5, 7 – 20 under the various obviousness rejections, applicant’s claim amendments have been considered, however, they are not persuasive. Therefore, the examiner has addressed such claim amendments in the office action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim[s] 1 – 5, 7 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In for example, claim # 1, the newly added claim amendment of “….without requiring re-authentication..,” is not supported by the original specification as filed.
Appropriate action required.
***The examiner notes that applicant can overcome the rejection by pointing out in the original specification as filed where the new matter can be found.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim[s] 1, 7, 11, 13, 16 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim[s] 1, 2, 4, 5, 19, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11689925.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented subject matter and the subject matter of the pending application are not distinct, but the same or similar in scope in the following manner:
A Wi-Fi network as a multiple access zone. A first and second access zone. A request is issued by a user or guest to access the access zone. An SSID and password or key issued to access such access zones of the network. The user or guest makes a connection to the network to access the appropriate access zone.
Also, see the table below for a claim-by-claim comparison.
US Pending Application # 18/316469
US PAT # 11689925
1
1
7
2
11
20
13
4/5
16
19
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 7,10 - 14, 16 - 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beals et al. [US PGPUB # 2019/0044948] in view of Gu et al. [US PGPUB # 2014/0247941], further in view of Olshansky et al. [US PGPUB # 2011/0030037]
As per claim 1. Beals does teach a method [Beals, paragraph: 0009, lines 1 – 5, Embodiments are directed to a network gateway device (“gateway”) that provides various network management features, including a device zoning feature in which client computing devices (“client devices”) connected to the gateway are assigned to different device zones.] comprising:
receiving, by a device, a request to access a network associated with a location [Beals, paragraph: 0024, lines 7 – 22, The client devices can connect to the gateway 105 wirelessly using a service set identifier (SSID) of the wireless network of the gateway 105. Typically, a guest network of the gateway 105 has a different SSID from that of non-guest wireless networks of the gateway 105. When a client device connects to the gateway 105 using the SS ID of the guest network [i.e. applicant’s a network associated with a location], the client device is assigned to the guest zone 180. The guest zone 180 is typically for “guests,” that is, client devices that require access to the external network 110 temporarily.] from a guest user of the network, the network comprising a first access zone and a second access zone [Beals, paragraph: 0012, lines 1 – 4, Typically, a gateway has one or two zones, e.g., a regular zone to which most of the client devices are assigned and a guest zone to which client devices that need temporary access to the external network are assigned. ], the first access zone corresponding to a portion of the network for home users of the network, the second access zone corresponding to a portion of the network for guest users of the network [Beals, paragraph: 0012, lines 1 – 4, Typically, a gateway has one or two zones, e.g., a regular zone to which most of the client devices are assigned and a guest zone to which client devices that need temporary access to the external network are assigned.]……………………………that dynamically vary based o which access point within the location the device of the guest user is currently associated to [paragraph: 0009, lines 8 – 12, Each of the device zones has a specific set of network access privileges. Different device zones can have different network access privileges and can provide isolation from other resources in the LAN to different degrees.
Where further of paragraph: 0012, Typically, a gateway has one or two zones, e.g., a regular zone to which most of the client devices are assigned and a guest zone to which client devices that need temporary access to the external network are assigned. In some embodiments, by having an expanded zone, e.g., more than two device zones, and providing the ability to customize network access privileges for the various device zones, the gateway can provide better network security to the client devices in the LAN without compromising the network connectivity. Further of paragraph: 0014, lines 6 – 9, The gateway 105 can be a wireless router, a wireless access point, a modem cum router, a set-top box, or any computing device that can provide access to the external network 110.]…………………………………………..;
communicating, by the device, in response to the request, a Service Set Identifier (SSID) for the network and a key associated with the network, the key………. the second access zone [Beals, paragraph: 0024, lines 7 – 22, The client devices can connect to the gateway 105 wirelessly using a service set identifier (SSID) of the wireless network of the gateway 105. Typically, a guest network of the gateway 105 has a different SSID from that of non-guest wireless networks of the gateway 105. When a client device connects to the gateway 105 using the SS ID of the guest network, the client device is assigned to the guest zone 180. The guest zone 180 is typically for “guests,” that is, client devices that require access to the external network 110 temporarily. In some embodiments, by restricting the client devices in the guest zone 180 from accessing other client devices, e.g., using printers or sharing data with other client devices, the LAN 120 is more secure. The client device typically has to provide authentication information, e.g., a password, to access the guest network.]; and
establishing, by the device, a connection of a device of the guest user to the network, the connection being based on the SSID and the key, the connection corresponding to the second access zone of the network [Beals, paragraph: 0009, lines 15 – 19, In another example, a “printer zone” can provide a client device assigned to the printer zone full access to the external network but restrict the client device from accessing other resources in the LAN. ].
Beals does not clearly teach the claim limitations of:
“…..the network associated with a plurality of keys, the first access zone associated with a subset of plurality of keys, and the second access zone associated with another subset of plurality of keys;”
“….being a key within the other subset of the plurality of keys that are associated with………..”
However, Gu does teach the claim limitations of:
“….the network associated with a plurality of keys [paragraph: 0043, lines 1 – 8, In some alternative implementations, the access point device is preconfigured with a set of SSID/Key pairs for a variety of wireless enable devices. In these implementations, the access point device can use an internal registry of SSID/Key pairs to determine an appropriate key to use in connecting with different wireless enabled devices, e.g., in response to receiving an identifier from the wireless enabled device.], the first access zone associated with a subset of plurality of keys, and the second access zone associated with another subset of plurality of keys [paragraph: 0047, Other wireless enabled devices can have different SSID/Key pairs as described herein. These wireless enabled devices can be added to the secure wireless network using a SSID/Key pair preconfigured or obtained by the access point device, e.g., from the search provider system. In some implementations, each different SSID/Key pair is used to form a distinct zone. When a new wireless enabled device is added to the secure wireless network, it can be added to an existing zone or a new zone depending on its SSID/Key pair. New keys can be periodically propagated to wireless enabled devices belonging to one or more zones of the secure wireless network.];”
“….being a key within the other subset of the plurality of keys that are associated with……….. [paragraph: 0063, When the AP device 601 is configured as a router access point device, two subnetworks are present. A first subnetwork is the WiFi network established by the WiFi router 143, which includes a WiFi device 146. A computer 142 is wire-connected to the WiFi router 143 using an Ethernet connection 145. A second subnetwork is the secure wireless network established by the AP device 601 which includes wireless enabled devices 602-604. In this case, the DHCP server of the AP device 601 is enabled. The first subnetwork in this case can be updated to a different SSID and different common key than the second subnetwork. The SSID of the second subnetwork is provided along with the common key into all devices of the self-configuring secure wireless network 600. For security purposes, the SSID of the second subnetwork is preferably not broadcasted by the AP device 601. Wireless enabled devices 602-604 are configured to only connect to the SSID of the AP device 601. Therefore, they do not need to detect which networks are available to be connected to. Alternatively, multiple subnets can be present where each subnet is associated with a respective zone of one or more wireless enabled devices sharing a common key [i.e. applicant’s…….being….a key within the other subset of the plurality of keys that are associated with….].”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beals and Gu in order for the authentication of a requesting client device to a guest network thru an access point of Beals to include dynamic WiFi password augmentation of Gu. This would allow for the access point to be protected from man in the middle attacks thru the use of a compromised WiFi password. See paragraph: 0009 of Gu.
Beals and Gu do not clearly teach the claim limitation of: “….the second access zone comprising adjustable access rights to the portion of the network for guest user based on a current position within the location.”
“………without requiring re – authentication.”
“………wherein the SSID corresponds to both the first access zone and the second access zone.”
However, Olshansky does teach the claim limitation of: “….the second access zone comprising adjustable access rights to the portion of the network for guest user based on a current position within the location [paragraph: 0005, In an embodiment, access points are grouped into zones. In an embodiment, a zone includes one or more access points. In an embodiment, a network includes at least a plurality of zones. In an embodiment, a network administrator can configure access rules for allowing a user to move between access points within a zone and/or between zones [i.e. applicant’s first and second access zone]. In an embodiment, for example, a user is allowed to move from access point to access point within a zone without having to re-authenticate. However, a user may be required to re-authenticate when moving between access points associated with different zones. This can be useful, for example, when a user is required to pay different amounts to access the network through access points in different zones or where different zones have different security levels associated with them [i.e.. applicant’s adjustable access rights]. As used in the present specification, authentication can include, for example, a login, including a user name and/or password, the payment of a fee, the registration of a computer, entering a passcode or any other affirmative action taken by a user of a user device to gain permission to use a network.].”
“………without requiring re – authentication [paragraph: 0005, or example, a user is allowed to move from access point to access point within a zone without having to re-authenticate.].”
“………wherein the SSID corresponds to both the first access zone and the second access zone. [paragraph: 0044, lines 7 – 11, The Administrator setup page can also provide for temporary (or permanent) custom SSID's corresponding to a plurality of access points or zones. For example, a conference can be set up with a personalized SSID corresponding to a set of access points or zones.]”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beals as modified and Olshansky in order for the authentication of a requesting client device to a guest network thru an access point of Beals as modified to include dynamic authentication operation implementation policies of Olshanshy. This would allow for a more efficient authentication operation by authenticating based on domain - location requested as opposed to conventional username and password. See paragraph: 0004 of Olshansky.
As per claim 2. Beals does teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first access zone of the network includes functionality for unlimited access to capabilities of the network for the home users [Beals, paragraph: 0009, lines 12 – 15, For example, a “personal computer (PC) zone” can provide a client device assigned to the PC zone a full access to the external network and full access to at least some of the other resources in the LAN].
As per claim 3. Beals does teach the method of claim 1, wherein the second access zone of the network includes functionality for restricted access to capabilities of the network for the guest users [Beals, paragraph: 0009, lines 15 – 19, In another example, a “printer zone” can provide a client device assigned to the printer zone full access to the external network but restrict the client device from accessing other resources in the LAN.].
As per claim 4. Beals does teach the method of claim 3, wherein the restricted access corresponds to at least one of traffic amount, access time, physical location in a distributed Wi-Fi system [Beals, paragraph: 0024, lines 29 – 32, For example, when a guest user departs the guest network coverage area, the client device associated with the guest user is automatically disconnected after a specified period.], traffic prioritization, and time limit for access [Beals, Figure # 1, and paragraph: 0024, lines 22 – 29, Further, in some embodiments, the client devices in the guest zone 180 can be disconnected after a specified period, e.g., minutes, hours, days, and the client device has to authenticate itself if it has to connect to the guest network again. In some embodiments, a client device can be disconnected from the gateway 105 after a specified period of time with no connection to the gateway 105.].
As per claim 5. Beals does teach the method of claim 1, wherein the SSID corresponds to both the first and second access zones of the network [Beals, Figure # 3, and paragraph: 0044, lines 10 – 17, a subset of the device zones (e.g., two or more) has the same SSID, and at least one of the device zones, e.g., the guest zone 180, has a different SSID from that of the subset. The third client device 118 has to select one of the SSIDs to connect to the gateway 105 wirelessly. In some embodiments, all the device zones have the same SSID. The guest zone 180 may have the same SSID as that of the other device zones and not a different SSID.].
As per claim 7. Beals as modified does teach the method of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of keys is a password or certificate for accessing the network [Gu, paragraph: 0004, lines 5 – 9, In particular, the user interface provides means for a user to select an available WiFi network to connect to and means for the user to enter a WiFi key (also referred to as a network password) to access the selected WiFi network.].
As per claim 10. Beals does teach the method of claim 1, wherein the network is a Wi-Fi network, wherein the device is an access point device for the Wi-Fi network [Beals, Figure # 3, and paragraph: 0044, lines 1 – 9, At block 315, the communication component 210 receives a connection request from a client device, e.g., a third client device 118, for connecting to the gateway 105. The connection request can be received wirelessly or by wired means, e.g., Ethernet cable. The LAN 120 of the gateway 105 can include a wired LAN portion, which includes client devices connected to the gateway 105 via wired means, and a wireless LAN (WLAN) that includes client devices connected to the gateway 105 wirelessly.].
As per device claim 11 that includes the same similar claim limitations as method claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
***The examiner further notes that applicant’s recited “processor,” and “memory” is taught by the prior art of Beals at paragraphs: 0062, and 0060 - 0061, respectively.
As per device claim 12 that includes the same similar claim limitations as method claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
As per device claim 13 that includes the same similar claim limitations as method claim 4 and is similarly rejected.
As per device claim 14 that includes the same similar claim limitations as method claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
As per non – transitory storage medium claim 16 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
***The examiner further notes that applicant’s recited: “non – transitory computer-readable storage medium,” “computer-executable instructions,” and “device” are taught by the prior art of Beals at paragraphs: 0060 - 0062.
As per non – transitory storage medium claim 17 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
As per non – transitory storage medium claim 18 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
As per non – transitory storage medium claim 19 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 8, 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beals et al. [US PGPUB # 2019/0044948] in view of Gu et al. [US PGPUB # 2014/0247941] and Olshansky et al. [US PGPUB # 2011/0030037], further in view of Dahlberg et al. [US PGPUB # 2018/0375822]
As per claim 8. Beals and Gu and Olshansky do teach what is taught in the rejection of claim # 1 above.
Beals and Gu and Olshansky do not clearly teach the method of claim 1, wherein the network further comprises a portal connected to a cloud for collecting network activity data of the guest user upon the connection to the network.
However, Dahlberg does teach the method of claim 1, wherein the network further comprises a portal connected to a cloud for collecting network activity data of the guest user upon the connection to the network [Figure # 1, and paragraph: 0016, lines 9 – 25, These exemplary user networks 108a-108d can include a corporate network 108a, residential network 108b, public network 108c, and a cellular network 108d. User networks may include semi-public networks (such as networks with passwords provided to guests of a café or hotel), virtual networks, etc. For the purposes of illustrating networks 108a-108d, one or more representative users and one or more devices are shown for each network. Activity data from some or all of these users are collected by the email service provider 106, which can include its customers 110 that send email to users of the various networks 108a-108d via one or more mail transfer agents (MTAs) or one or more email servers 112. The provider 106 includes a data processor 114 that processes incoming email from users in networks 108a-108d. Additionally, the data processor 114 outputs one or more datasets 115 used by the mapping system 102.
Then further at paragraph: 0079, In some examples, some or all of the processing described above can be carried out on a personal computing device, on one or more centralized computing devices, or via cloud-based processing by one or more servers. In some examples, some types of processing occur on one device and other types of processing occur on another device. In some examples, some or all of the data described above can be stored on a personal computing device, in data storage hosted on one or more centralized computing devices, or via cloud-based storage.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beals as modified and Dahlberg in order for the authentication of a requesting client device to a guest network thru an access point of Beals as modified to include an authentication analytics threshold of Dahlberg. This would allow for the access point to quantify whether the presented authentication data matches a trusted authentication data for the requesting client device. See paragraph: 0010 of Dahlberg.
As per device claim 15 that includes the same similar claim limitations as method claim 8, and is similarly rejected.
As per non – transitory storage medium claim 20 that includes the same or similar claim limitations as method claims 8, and is similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beals et al. [US PGPUB # 2019/0044948] in view of Gu et al. [US PGPUB # 2014/0247941] and Olshansky et al. [US PGPUB # 2011/0030037], further in view of Verkaik et al. [US PGPUB # 2016/0198501]
As per claim 9. Beals and Gu and Olshansky do teach what is taught in the rejection of claim # 1 above.
Beals and Gu and Olshansky do not clearly teach the method of claim 1, wherein the network access zones of the network are administered from a cloud via automatic propagation by the cloud to the device.
However, Verkaik does teach the method of claim 1, wherein the network access zones of the network are administered from a cloud via automatic propagation by the cloud to the device [Figure # 1, and paragraph: 0033, To further illustrate, cloud 150 can provide specific services for client A. For example, cloud 150 can handle traffic, deploy a network or specific network components, configure links or devices, automate services or functions, or provide any other services for client A. Other non-limiting example services by cloud 150 can include network administration services, network monitoring services, content filtering services, application control, WAN optimization, firewall services, gateway services, storage services, protocol configuration services, wireless deployment services, and so forth.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Beals as modified and Verkaik in order for the authentication of a requesting client device to a guest network thru an access point of Beals as modified to include authenticating the user's by a cloud controller to a cloud network of resources of Verkaik. This would allow for the user to be authenticated and access a collection of dynamically created resources in the cloud on demand by a cloud management layer. See paragraphs 0026, and 0049 of Verkaik.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 DANT SHAIFER - HARRIMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7910. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9am to 5pm.
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, Kambiz Zand can be reached at 571- 272- 3811. 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.
/DANT B SHAIFER HARRIMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434