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
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but cannot be held as persuasive. Beginning on page 7, Applicant addresses the rejections made further in view of Li, arguing at the top of page 8 that utilization of Li “would require impressible hindsight”. To support this assertion, Applicant continues on pages 8 to 9 to argue that Li does not “determine, based on the information, that the user device is configured to generate randomized media access control addresses” because in Li, “there is no direct interaction between the determination of a type, brand, or model of a device and using that information to determine that a randomized MAC address is in use” and “Thus, it would require impermissible hindsight to modify . . . with Li to teach or suggest the features of claim 8”. Applicant’s argument cannot be held as persuasive as Li was not relied upon for teaching all of the claim language argued above; instead the features argued are anticipated by what a combination Lumbatis in view of McKibben and Li would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. Lumbatis, for example, is relied upon for showing use of information associated with a user device to determine that the user device is configured to generate an rMAC (see, e.g., the top of page 4 of the 10/23/2025 Non-Final Rejection). Li is merely relied upon for showing where “information associated with a user device” can include “information identifying one or more of a brand of user device, a model of the user device, or an operating system associated with the user device”. In other words, with regards to Applicant’s argument that
“There is no determination that a "user device is configured to generate a randomized media access control (MAC) address" that is "based on the [brand of a user device, model of the user device, or operating system associated with the user device]," as recited in claim 8.”,
that Li does not teach all of this language does not also support that Li does not show the subject matter which the reference was relied upon to teach. As noted above and in the pending rejections, Lumbatis shows making a determination that a user device is configured to generate an rMAC based on device information; Li is merely relied upon for showing where device information may include the brand, model, or operating system. Thus, 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). Applicant’s remaining arguments rely on the rationale addressed above, and thus are similarly unpersuasive.
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 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.
Claims 8, 10, 12, 21, 23, 25, 27, 30, 32, 34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lumbatis (US-20220053334-A1) in view of McKibben (US-20210036988-A1) and Li (US-20230319547-A1).
Regarding claim 8, Lumbatis shows a method comprising: receiving (Fig. 5 step 510, Fig. 6 step 610), by a gateway device ([44] discussing an access point being implemented by a gateway), information associated with ([46] discussing a user device probe received by an AP/gateway and [74] discussing data “received from a station”; the data being from a station/device and regarding said device is thus “associated with” the device, and as the device is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “product”, information regarding the device is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “product information”) a user device (represented by the station shown in Fig. 1 items 105 and discussed in [43]); determining, by the gateway device, based on the information associated with the user device, that the user device is configured to generate a randomized media access control (MAC) address ([46-47, 74-76] discussing where a user can transmit information including setting a particular bit that indicates it utilized randomized MAC addresses);
sending, to an application associated with the user device, an instruction for the application to send a unique identifier (ID) associated with the user device when the application sends at least one data packet to the gateway ([50,58,102] discussing a “unique identifier request message”); receiving, based on a request ([50,58]) for data associated with the application, a unique ID ([58,102], and data associated with the request ([59] discussing an “amount of time . . . [to expect the] unique identifier to be valid”). Lumbatis does not show also receiving a randomized MAC address associated with the user device; and sending, to a server device associated with at least one of the application or the gateway device, the unique ID and the data associated with the request. McKibben shows also receiving a randomized MAC address associated with the user device ([88-89]); and sending, to a server device associated with at least one of the application or the gateway device, the unique ID and the data associated with the request ([88-89]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the MAC randomization environment of Lumbatis with the transmission of the randomized MAC address suggested by McKibben in order to enable the network administrator to continue to track the user/device after the address assignment (or address rotation/re-randomization), enabling providing a desired quality of service by the network administrator, and thus facilitating continued use of the MAC address for its continued purpose (i.e., device identification). One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood that transmission/reception of both the unique identifier and current MAC address would enable tracking by both data points (e.g., the access point and the associated server), facilitating re-use of application logic reliant on MAC address for device tracking, thus lowering administrative overhead. The above combination does not show where the information associated with a user device received by the gateway device is information identifying one or more of a brand of user device, a model of the user device, or an operating system associated with the user device. Li shows a gateway device ([33], discussing a device identification process integrated into a gateway) receiving information ([26-30]) identifying one or more of a brand of user device, a model of the user device, or an operating system associated with the user device (Fig. 4, [33-35]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the MAC randomization identification and device information profiling of the above combination with the device identification techniques of Li in order to improve the reliability of device recognition in light of increased use of MAC randomization (Li, [2-8]).
Regarding claim 10, the above combination further shows wherein the server device is configured to cause the unique ID to be stored in a database associated with the server device (Lumbatis, [68] and McKibben, [86-90]).
Regarding claim 12, the above combination further shows determining, based on the unique ID, an identity associated with the user device, and wherein the gateway device is further configured to disregard the randomized MAC address received from the application. (Lumbatis, [65] noting that a “unique identifier” that the “requesting access point may use to identify the station without regard to the MAC address used by the station” and [70], noting a “unique identifier response”. . . “may be stored as an identifier to be used to identify the specific station”).
Regarding claim 21, the above combination further shows wherein the unique ID is determined by the user device based upon the application receiving the instruction to send the unique ID (Lumbatis, [58,102], where the user device/station software implicitly determines the unique ID as it shares it with the requesting gateway/access point) Regarding claims 23 and 32, the limitations of said claims are addressed in the analysis of claim 8.
Regarding claims 25 and 34, the limitations of said claims are addressed in the analysis of claim 10.
Regarding claims 27 and 36, the limitations of said claims are addressed in the analysis of claim 12.
Regarding claim 30, the limitations of said claim are addressed in the analysis of claim 21.
Claims 9, 11, 24, 26, 33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lumbatis in view of McKibben and Li, as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Montemurro (US-20220294787-A1).
Regarding claim 9, the above combination shows claim 8. The above combination does not show wherein the gateway device is configured to generate the unique ID, and wherein the method further comprises sending, by the gateway device, the unique ID to at least one of the application or the server device. Montemurro shows wherein the gateway device is configured to generate the unique ID, and wherein the method further comprises sending, by the gateway device, the unique ID to at least one of the application or the server device ([80]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the network administration and device identification functionality of the above combination with the ID generation of Montemurro in order to allow the network administrator more control over the mechanisms used for generating the IDs via placing their generation under the control over an administered device (i.e., an access point/gateway). Regarding claim 11, Lumbatis in view of McKibben and Li shows claim 8. The above combination does not show wherein the gateway device is configured to employ a protocol configured to determine the unique ID. Montemurro shows herein the gateway device is configured to employ a protocol configured to determine the unique ID ([78-80]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the network administration and device identification functionality of the above combination with the ID generation of Montemurro in order to allow the network administrator more control over the mechanisms used for generating the IDs via placing their generation under the control over an administered device (i.e., an access point/gateway).
Regarding claims 24 and 33, the limitations of said claims are addressed in the analysis of claim 9.
Regarding claims 26 and 35, the limitations of said claims are addressed in the analysis of claim 11.
Claims 13, 28, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lumbatis in view of McKibben in view of Li, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, further in view of Nainar (US-20230269219-A1).
Regarding claim 13, the above combination shows wherein the MAC address is a first randomized MAC address, the request is a first request, and the data is first data associated with the first request (Lumbatis, [46-47, 55, 58]).
The above combination does not show receiving, based on a second request for data received to the application, the unique ID, a second randomized MAC address associated with the user device, and second data associated with the second request. Nainar shows rotation of randomized MAC addresses ([16-17]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the network administration and device identification functionality of the above combination with the MAC rotation of Nainar, and thus repeat the process of the above combination when the MAC rotation occurs (and therefor perform receiving, based on a second request for data received to the application, the unique ID, a second randomized MAC address associated with the user device, and second data associated with the second request) in order to maintain the device identification functionality of the above combination in the MAC rotation environment of Nainar, thus continuing to enable the device tracking features and advantages of the above combination regardless of an applications address rotation, enabling support for more types of applications. Regarding claims 28 and 37, the limitations of said claims are addressed in the analysis of claim 13.
Claims 14, 29, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lumbatis in view of McKibben and Li, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, further in view of Shanley (US-20160323376-A1).
Regarding claim 14, the above combination shows wherein the gateway device is located at a premises associated with the user device (Lumbatis, Fig. 1 and [44] discussing a CPE AP (i.e., gateway)) and the server device (McKibben, Fig. 1B item 115). The above combination does not show a server device located external to the premises. Shanley shows a server device located external to the premises ([115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the network administration and device identification functionality of the above combination with the remote server communication noted by Shanley in order to enable communication and control over the network from a remote location, facilitating more management options, and to utilize basic Internet functionality (e.g., remote client/server communication).
Regarding claims 29 and 38, the limitations of said claims are addressed in the analysis of claim 14.
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 JOHN M MACILWINEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Glenton B Burgess can be reached at (571) 272 - 3949. 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.
JOHN MACILWINEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2442
/JOHN M MACILWINEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454