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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bradley (US 2013/0279698).
Regarding claim 1, Bradley discloses a first device (paragraph 74, line 1: “accessory”), comprising:
a circuit (FIG. 3: (302) “processor”) configured to provide at least one frame across a connection to a second device (paragraph 74, line 4: “controller”) in response to an unprotected broadcast probe request message (paragraph 74, lines 6-7: “the accessory can listen for and receive a browsing probe request … probe requests arc broadcast in the clear”), wherein the at least one frame comprises an unprotected (FIG. 6, (606) and (612): encryption keys are generated after sending the probe response) unicast probe request message (paragraph 75, lines 4-5: “The probe response can be addressed to the controller from which a probe request was received.”).
Regarding claim 2, Bradley discloses that the frame is provided according to an 802.11 protocol and the connection is established by using an association or authentication operation (paragraph 30: “IEEE 802.11 standards provide that messages are sent in structures called “frames.””; paragraph 78: “the accessory … can use the keys to decrypt and authenticate the message”; paragraph 126: “authentication key associated with the pairing”).
Regarding claim 3, Bradley discloses that the first device is a beacon protection enabled access point (paragraph 126: “sender (which can be either the accessory or the controller) to send a message to a recipient device that is paired with the sender”; paragraph 127: “the sender can send a probe (which can be a probe request or probe response) that includes the encrypted message”).
Regarding claim 4, Bradley discloses that the circuit is configured to provide a protected unicast probe response message across the connection to the second device in response to a protected unicast probe request message (paragraph 37, lines 1-3: “direct communication link (also referred to as a pairing) 112 by exchanging messages embedded in probe requests and probe responses. The term "probe" is also used herein to encompass both probe requests and probe responses interchangeably”).
Regarding claim 5, Bradley discloses that the second device is a beacon protection supported station device (paragraph 88, lines 1-4: “Once a secure pairing link has been established using processes 600 and 700, any type of information can be communicated via the link, subject only to implementation-dependent bandwidth constraints. In some embodiments, the accessory can use the pairing provided at block 614 to obtain credentials for a wireless network (e.g., a name and password or key for a protected IEEE 802.11 network) from the controller; the accessory can then use these credentials to join that network.”).
Regarding claim 6, Bradley discloses that the circuit is configured to provide a security association query request message in response to an unprotected unicast probe request message from another source (paragraph 33, lines 1-2: “the secured message content exchanged between the devices can include credentials needed to join a secure wireless network, such as the network name and password or key.”).
Regarding claim 7, Bradley discloses that the circuit is configured to provide an unprotected unicast probe response message (paragraph 127: “the sender can send a probe which can be a probe response”) in response to expiration of a timeout period (paragraph 126: “recipient device that is paired with the sender) after the security association query request message is sent.
Regarding claim 8, Bradley discloses that the circuit is configured to provide an unprotected unicast probe response message in response to expiration of a timeout period after a security association query request message is sent (paragraph 119, lines 9-12: “The requesting device can use the specified timeout to determine how long to wait for a response before resending a request or aborting a process. This allows a responding device to perform computations that may take more time than the default timeout period; the responding device can send a probe response within the timeout period to indicate that the requesting device should wait for the complete response.”).
Regarding claim 9, Bradley discloses a first device (paragraph 126: a sender which can be the accessory”), comprising:
a circuit (FIG. 3, (302): “processor”) configured to provide at least one frame across a connection to a second device (paragraph 128: “recipient which can be the controller”) in response to a protected (paragraph 127: “encrypted message”) unicast (paragraph 126: “recipient device that is paired with the sender”) probe request message (paragraph 127: the sender can send a probe which can be a probe request), the frame comprises a protected unicast probe response message (the encrypted message, the recipient device that is paired with the sender where the sender sends a probe which can be a probe request).
Regarding claim 10, Bradley discloses that the frame is provided according to an 802.11 protocol and the connection is established by using an association or authentication operation and wherein the first device is a beacon protection enabled access point (paragraph 30: “IEEE 802.11 standards provide that messages are sent in structures called “frames.””; paragraph 78: “the accessory … can use the keys to decrypt and authenticate the message”; paragraph 126: “authentication key associated with the pairing”).
Regarding claim 11, Bradley discloses that the circuit is configured to provide an unprotected unicast probe response message across the connection to the second device in response to an unprotected broadcast probe request message (paragraph 37, lines 1-3: “direct communication link (also referred to as a pairing) 112 by exchanging messages embedded in probe requests and probe responses. The term "probe" is also used herein to encompass both probe requests and probe responses interchangeably”).
Regarding claim 12, Bradley discloses that the circuit is configured to provide a security association query request message in response to an unprotected unicast probe request message, and wherein the circuit is configured to provide an unprotected unicast probe response message in response to expiration of a timeout period after the security association query request message is sent (paragraph 119, lines 9-12: “The requesting device can use the specified timeout to determine how long to wait for a response before resending a request or aborting a process. This allows a responding device to perform computations that may take more time than the default timeout period; the responding device can send a probe response within the timeout period to indicate that the requesting device should wait for the complete response.”).
Regarding claim 21 Bradley discloses a first device (paragraph 74, line 1: “accessory”), comprising:
a circuit (FIG. 3: (302) “processor) configured to provide at least one frame across a connection to a second device (paragraph 74, line 4: “controller”) in response to an unprotected broadcast probe request message (paragraph 74, lines 6-7: “the accessory can listen for and receive a browsing probe request … probe requests arc broadcast in the clear”), wherein the at least one frame comprises an unprotected (FIG. 6, (606) and (612): encryption keys are generated after sending the probe response) unicast probe request message (paragraph 75, lines 4-5: “The probe response can be addressed to the controller from which a probe request was received.”) after the connection is established by an association or authentication operation according to an 802.11 protocol (paragraph 30: “IEEE 802.11 standards provide that messages are sent in structures called “frames.””; paragraph 78: “the accessory … can use the keys to decrypt and authenticate the message”; paragraph 126: “authentication key associated with the pairing”).
Regarding claim 22, Bradley discloses that the first device is a beacon protection supported access point (paragraph 126: “sender (which can be either the accessory or the controller) to send a message to a recipient device that is paired with the sender”; paragraph 127: “the sender can send a probe (which can be a probe request or probe response) that includes the encrypted message”).
Regarding claim 23, Bradley discloses a first device (paragraph 74, line 1: “accessory”), comprising:
a circuit (FIG. 3, (302): “processor”) configured to establish a connection between the first device and a second device (paragraph 74, line 4: “controller”);
receive an unprotected broadcast probe request message across the connection from the second device (paragraph 74, lines 6-7: “the accessory can listen for and receive a browsing probe request … probe requests arc broadcast in the clear”); and
provide an unprotected (FIG. 6, (606) and (612): encryption keys are generated after sending the probe response) unicast probe response message from the first device to the second device (paragraph 75, lines 4-5: “The probe response can be addressed to the controller from which a probe request was received.”).
Regarding claim 24, Bradley discloses that the circuit is further configured to provide beacons across the connection from the first device to the second device; and receive a protected unicast probe request message from the second device (paragraph 37, lines 1-3: “direct communication link (also referred to as a pairing) 112 by exchanging messages embedded in probe requests and probe responses. The term "probe" is also used herein to encompass both probe requests and probe responses interchangeably”).
Regarding claim 25, Bradley discloses that the circuit is further configured to: provide a protected unicast probe response message to the second device (paragraph 37, lines 1-3: “direct communication link (also referred to as a pairing) 112 by exchanging messages embedded in probe requests and probe responses. The term "probe" is also used herein to encompass both probe requests and probe responses interchangeably”).
Regarding claim 26, Bradley discloses that the second device is a beacon protection supported station device and the first device is a beacon protection enabled access point (paragraph 126: “sender (which can be either the accessory or the controller) to send a message to a recipient device that is paired with the sender”; paragraph 127: “the sender can send a probe (which can be a probe request or probe response) that includes the encrypted message”).
Regarding claim 27, Bradley discloses that the second device is a beacon protection supported station device and the first device is a beacon protection enabled access point (paragraph 126: “sender (which can be either the accessory or the controller) to send a message to a recipient device that is paired with the sender”; paragraph 127: “the sender can send a probe (which can be a probe request or probe response) that includes the encrypted message”).
Regarding claim 28, Bradley discloses that the circuit is further configured to complete association connection between the first device and the second device after the unprotected unicast probe response message is sent from the first device (paragraph 30: “IEEE 802.11 standards provide that messages are sent in structures called “frames.””; paragraph 78: “the accessory … can use the keys to decrypt and authenticate the message”; paragraph 126: “authentication key associated with the pairing”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that claim 1 recites providing a frame between a first device and a second device that have already established a connection and providing a unicast probe request message after sending a broadcast probe request message.
Examiner respectfully points out that these limitations do not appear in claim 1. Therefore, they cannot be read into the claims. Examiner suggests that applicant amend claim 1 to specifically recite these limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SAM BHATTACHARYA whose telephone number is (571)272-7917. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays, 9-5:30.
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, Matthew D. Anderson can be reached at (571) 272-4177. 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.
/SAM BHATTACHARYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights