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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/30/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 3/30/26 have been fully considered but they are moot due to new ground rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3, 9, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bansal (US 10630724 B2) in view of TASKIN (US 20180324668 A1).
For claim 1, Bansal discloses a method (FIG. 5) comprising:
communicating, by an STA, with a first Wi-Fi AP with messages secured utilizing a first security protocol (FIG. 1, STA 150 communicating one of Wi-Fi AP 160 and associated text, such as c12/l6-11 “Security protocol and encryption standards adopted by the Wi-Fi network 160 such as WEP/WPA/WPA2 or none and the advertised key strength. For weighing purposes, open networks and outdated WEP protocols have maximum security risk, while WPA2 has minimum security risk”);
while the STA is associated with the first Wi-Fi AP, requesting candidate Wi-Fi APs in which to connect as a STA roams (FIG. 1, STA 150 communicating one of Wi-Fi AP 160 and associated text, such as c14/l42-47 “Those skilled in the art will recognize various policies can be crafted and adjusted for each enterprise based on the security needs and the needs of its users with their roaming devices on the Wi-Fi networks 160. That is, the cloud-based system 100 can be multi-tenant (different enterprises each with their own configurable policies).”; note that roaming suggests the STA requesting candidate Wi-Fi APs as a STA roams);
receiving an identification of a second Wi-Fi AP utilizing a second security protocol, where the second security protocol is different than the first security protocol (c12/l6-11 “Security protocol and encryption standards adopted by the Wi-Fi network 160 such as WEP/WPA/WPA2 or none and the advertised key strength. For weighing purposes, open networks and outdated WEP protocols have maximum security risk, while WPA2 has minimum security risk”);
prior to disassociating from the first Wi-Fi AP, deriving one or more security keys for association with the second Wi-Fi AP based on the second security protocol (c12/l6-11 “Security protocol and encryption standards adopted by the Wi-Fi network 160 such as WEP/WPA/WPA2 or none and the advertised key strength.” and c14/l27-30 “The policy can also include preventing the user equipment from joining the Wi-Fi network 160 or if the user equipment has already joined the Wi-Fi network 160, causing the user equipment to disassociate.”; note that “key strength” suggests deriving one or more security keys); and
re-associating to the second Wi-Fi AP using a fast transition (c14/l42-47 “Those skilled in the art will recognize various policies can be crafted and adjusted for each enterprise based on the security needs and the needs of its users with their roaming devices on the Wi-Fi networks 160” and c14/l27-30 “The policy can also include preventing the user equipment from joining the Wi-Fi network 160 or if the user equipment has already joined the Wi-Fi network 160, causing the user equipment to disassociate.” And c12/l6-11 “Security protocol and encryption standards adopted by the Wi-Fi network 160 such as WEP/WPA/WPA2 or none and the advertised key strength.”; note that roaming suggests re-associating to the second Wi-Fi AP and disassociating the first Wi-Fi AP; and transition from the first Wi-Fi AP to the second Wi-Fi AP is fast because the security key for the second Wi-Fi AP has been obtained.).
Bansal does not specifically state, but TASKIN, in the same field of communication using Wi-Fi protocols, disclose using a fast transition that reuses at least a portion of an authentication state established with the first Wi-Fi AP to establish a connection with the second Wi-Fi AP without performing a full authentication exchange (“[0019] A virtual public Wi-Fi network that offers Internet access to any customer may be identified by one SSID (e.g., “SSID_public”) and a virtual private Wi-Fi network that offers Internet access to one specific customer may use a different SSID (i.e., “SSID_private”). This way, customers that have the credentials, namely the network password (i.e., key) that utilizes a security standard (e.g., 802.1x, WPA, WPA2, etc.), for the specific network SSID may gain access to the Internet when they are in the vicinity of a Wi-Fi network that has the appropriate service. As discussed herein, the vicinity or coverage of a Wi-Fi network may be an area around a broadcasting point, such as an AP, where a client or a station (STA), can connect to the AP.” and “[0024] As discussed herein, there may be systems, methods, and devices that manage client connections when clients can roam between physically different and spatially distributed networks, and where these networks employ both a common virtual Wi-Fi network identified by a common SSID (e.g. SSID_Public) network-password pair, and separate private virtual Wi-Fi networks identified by unique SSID network-password pairs …”l note that at least a portion of authentication state, such as SSID_public is reused for a connection with the second Wi-Fi AP without performing a full authentication exchange). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of TASKIN above to obtaining security keys by Bansal to yield a predictable result of fast roaming.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine Bansal and TASKIN for the benefit of fast roaming ([0024] of TASKIN).
Independent claim 9 is rejected because it is a computing apparatus that performs the method of claim 1 and has the same subject matter.
Independent claim 16 is rejected because it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that performs the method of claim 1 and has the same subject matter.
As to claims 3 and 11, Bansal in view of TASKIN discloses claims 1, 9 and 16, Bansal further discloses:
prior to a handshake with the first Wi-Fi AP, sharing information about security protocols supported by the STA within a Wi-Fi network; and establishing a connection with the first Wi-Fi AP (suggested by c14/l42-47 “Those skilled in the art will recognize various policies can be crafted and adjusted for each enterprise based on the security needs and the needs of its users with their roaming devices on the Wi-Fi networks 160. …”).
Claims 2, 4-8, 10, 12-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bansal (US 10630724 B2) in view of TASKIN (US 20180324668 A1). further in view of D1 (WO 2022259858).
As to claims 2, 10 and 17, Bansal in view of TASKIN discloses claims 1, 9 and 16, Bansal further discloses: informing entities within a Wi-Fi network that the STA requires roaming support that includes support for WPA-2 and WPA-3 security protocols in an association request message (c12/l6-11 “Security protocol and encryption standards adopted by the Wi-Fi network 160 such as WEP/WPA/WPA2 …”.
Bansal in view of TASKIN does not specifically, but D1, in the same field of endeavor of network communication using Wi-Fi, teaches WPA-3 (being a member of WPA security protocols by Wi-Fi network), discloses it in claim 1 “A communication device capable of executing authentication using the WPA (Wi-Fi Protected Access) 2 method and authentication using the WPA3 method”). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of D1 above to the security protocols by Bansal in view of TASKIN to yield a predicable result of enhancing security.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine D1 with Bansal in view of TASKIN for the benefit of enhancing security (claim 1 of D1).
As to claims 4 and 12, Bansal in view of TASKIN discloses claims 1, 9 and 16, and is silent but D1 , in the same field of endeavor of network communication using Wi-Fi, teaches: wherein the first security protocol includes a first AKM version and a first cipher suite and the second security protocol utilizes a second AKM version and a second cipher suite (p10, 6th para “The AKM Suite Count field 407 indicates the number of corresponding authentication methods. Specific values are shown in the AKM Suite List field 408 …” and p13, 2nd para “… the Multi-Link network construction setting is permitted, and only WPA3-SAE is added to the AKM Suite List field 408 included in the RSNE of Beacon or Probe Response or Association Response. …”; note that AKM Suite count field 407 and AKM Suite list field 408 may be used for both security protocol WPA2 and WPA3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine D1 with Bansal in view of TASKIN for the benefit of enhancing security (claim 1 of D1).
As to claims 5, 13 and 18, Bansal in view of TASKIN discloses claims 1, 9 and 16, and is silent but D1 , in the same field of endeavor of network communication using Wi-Fi, teaches:
prior to the re-associating to the second Wi-Fi AP, deriving keys to associate with the second Wi-Fi AP using a second AKM version (p13, 2nd para “… the Multi-Link network construction setting is permitted, and only WPA3-SAE is added to the AKM Suite List field 408 included in the RSNE of Beacon or Probe Response or Association Response. …”).
As to claims 6, 14 and 19, Bansal in view of TASKIN discloses claims 1, 9 and 16, and is silent but D1, in the same field of endeavor of network communication using Wi-Fi, teaches: determining to transition to the second Wi-Fi AP (suggested by p17, 1st para “… In the Security setting screen of FIG. 14, since Multi-Link communication is selected, WPA3 and OWE, which are authentication methods before WPA3, are not displayed, but WPA2 and OPEN are displayed. …”);
communicating with the first Wi-Fi AP in a BSS Transition response informing the first Wi-Fi AP that the STA is going to transition to the second Wi-Fi AP (suggested by p17, 1st para “… an example of transition to a screen for setting a security method when Multi-Link communication is selected. In the Security setting screen of FIG. 14, since Multi-Link communication is selected, WPA3 and OWE, which are authentication methods before WPA3, are not displayed, but WPA2 and OPEN are displayed. …”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine D1 with Bansal in view of TASKIN for the benefit of enhancing security (claim 1 of D1).
As to claims 7, 15 and 20, Bansal in view of TASKIN discloses claims 1, 9 and 16, and is silent but D1 , in the same field of endeavor of network communication using Wi-Fi, teaches:
receiving an action frame specifying the second Wi-Fi AP as a target to which to transition (p14, 1st para “… When the present invention is applied to the communication device 102, when searching for an AP, a connection request is transmitted only to an AP that builds a network that satisfies the above.”; note that a connection request is an action frame).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine D1 with Bansal in view of TASKIN for the benefit of enhancing security (claim 1 of D1).
As to claim 8, Bansal in view of TASKIN discloses claims 1, 9 and 16, and is silent but D1, in the same field of endeavor of network communication using Wi-Fi, teaches: wherein the receiving the identification of the second Wi-Fi AP utilizing the second security protocol includes receiving a plurality of Wi-Fi APs including the second Wi-Fi AP (suggested by p14, 1st para “… When the present invention is applied to the communication device 102, when searching for an AP, a connection request is transmitted only to an AP that builds a network that satisfies the above.” and p19 3rd para “Also, the opposite device that transmits the connection request in S1911 may be the AP. When constructing a network with a plurality of APs as Multi-AP communication, control may be performed only for WPA3 connection”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine D1 with Bansal in view of TASKIN for the benefit of enhancing security (claim 1 of D1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANYE WU whose telephone number is (571)270-1665. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8am-6pm.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571) 272-3927. 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.
/JIANYE WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights