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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on June 30, 2026, in response to the RCE Non-Final office action mailed on April 03 ,2026.
Remarks
Pending claims for reconsideration are claims 1-24. Applicant has
Amended claims 1, and 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 30, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues in substance:
In response to argument (Page 16, Para: last – Page 7, Para 1-3) - Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument that Hwang failed to disclose “protected request message” in regard to independent claims 1, 10 and 15. Hwang discloses reassociation request is performed by an authentication request frame i.e., a “protected management frame” using shared key algorithm (Para 0079-0080). Furthermore, Hwang discloses different types of frames such as association frames, reassociation frames, beacon frame etc. are disclosed (Para 0083).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 15-17, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. (US 2022/0287121 Al / or “Hwang” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses “A first device, comprising” (Fig. 3: STA i.e., a “first device”; and APS i.e., a “second device”):
“a circuit configured to provide at least one protected management frame to a second device after an event that affects a connection between the first device and the second device, wherein the event is one of” (Para 0140: reassociation connection request for updating parameters; Para 0079-0080, where reassociation request is performed by an authentication request frame i.e., a “protected management frame” using shared key algorithm):
“a reboot or refresh of a WiFi interface, a failed roaming attempt, a capability/parameter reconfiguration, or a multilink configuration change” (Para 0140: reassociation connection request for updating parameters; and Para 0149),
“wherein the at least one protected management frame comprises a protected reassociation request message for a multilink operation” (Para 0118-0119, multilink operation is performed; and Para 0079-0081, where reassociation request is performed by an authentication request frame i.e., a “protected management frame” using shared key algorithm; and Para 0083: different types of frames such as association frames, reassociation frames, beacon frame etc. are disclosed).
Regarding claim 2, in view of claim 1, Hwang discloses “wherein the at least one protected management frame is provided according to an 802.11 protocol and a connection is reestablished by using a reassociation operation” (Para 0079-0081, authenticated association and reassociation is performed based on 802.11 protocol).
Regarding claim 3, in view of claim 1, Hwang discloses “wherein the first device is a beacon protection enabled station (STA)” (Para 0079-0081, authenticated association and reassociation is performed based on 802.11 protocol).
Regarding claim 4, in view of claim 1, Hwang discloses “wherein the circuit is configured to receive a protected reassociation response message from the second device” (Fig. 3: STA i.e., a “first device”; and APS i.e., a “second device” establishes communication channel).
Regarding claim 5, in view of claim 1, Hwang discloses “wherein the second device is a beacon protection supported access point” (Fig. 3: STA i.e., a “first device”; and APS i.e., a “second device” establishes communication channel).
Regarding claim 6, in view of claim 1, Hwang discloses “wherein the circuit is configured to receive a protected reassociation response message from the second device and to provide an acknowledgement message in response to the protected reassociation response message” (Fig. 3: STA i.e., a “first device”; and APS i.e., a “second device” establishes communication channel).
Regarding claim 7, in view of claim 6, Hwang discloses “wherein the circuit is configured to provide the protected reassociation response message with information for links for the multilink operation” (Hwang, Abstract: in reassociation message multilink information is provided).
Regarding claim 8, in view of claim 7, Hwang discloses “wherein the information is for a reduced number of the links” (Para 0013).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is directed to a device corresponding to the device recited in claim 1. Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 11, in view of claim 10, Hwang discloses “wherein the at least one frame is provided according to an 802.11 protocol” (Para 0079-0081, authenticated association and reassociation is performed based on 802.11 protocol)
“and a connection is established by using an association or authentication operation and wherein the first device is a beacon protection enabled access point” (Fig. 3: STA i.e., a “first device”; and APS i.e., a “second device” establishes authenticated communication channel).
Regarding claim 12, in view of claim 10, Hwang discloses “wherein the at least one frame comprises information that indicates confirmation of reassociation of a connection between the first device and the second device” (Para 0021, and para 0150).
Regarding claim 15, Hwang discloses “A method of operating a first device, the first device having a connection with a second device, the connection having associated key information, the method comprising” (Fig. 3: STA i.e., a “first device”; and APS i.e., a “second device”):
“providing a protected reassociation request message using the key information across the connection from the first device to the second device after an event that affects the connection between the first device and the second device, wherein the event is one of” (Para 0140: reassociation connection request for updating parameters):
“a reboot or refresh of a WiFi interface, a failed roaming attempt, a capability/parameter reconfiguration, or a multilink configuration change” (Para 0140: reassociation connection request for updating parameters; and Para 0149),
“and receiving a protected reassociation response message for a multilink operation from the second device at the first device using the key information” (Para 0118-0119, multilink operation is performed; and Para 0079-0081, authenticated association and reassociation is performed).
Regarding claim 16, in view of claim 15, Hwang discloses “wherein the protected reassociation request message is a protected management frame” (Para 0079-0081, authenticated association and reassociation is performed based on 802.11 protocol).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is directed to a method corresponding to the device recited in claim 7. Claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19, in view of claim 15, Hwang discloses “wherein the event is the multilink configuration change” (Para 0118-0119, multilink operation is performed; and Para 0079-0081, authenticated association and reassociation is performed).
Regarding claim 20, in view of claim 15, Hwang discloses “wherein the event comprises roaming from the second device” (Para 0016: changing link).
Regarding claim 21, in view of claim 1, Hwang discloses “wherein the event is the reboot or refresh of the WiFi interface” (Para 0140).
Regarding claim 22, in view of claim 1, Hwang discloses “wherein the event is the failed roaming attempt” (Para 0208).
Regarding claim 23, in view of claim 1, Hwang discloses “wherein the event is the capability/parameter reconfiguration” (Para 0132: capability; and Para 0218: link reconfiguration).
Regarding claim 24, in view of claim 1, Hwang discloses “wherein the event is the multilink configuration change” (Para 0204: configuration change).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2022/0287121 Al / or “Hwang” hereinafter) in view of Huang et al. (IDP 202300184 A/ or “Huang” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 9, in view of claim 7, Hwang discloses multilink operation is performed and authenticated association and reassociation is performed (Para 0118-0119; and Para 0079-0081).
But Hwang fails to specially disclose providing reassociation messages based on link information.
However, Huang discloses “wherein the information is related to traffic identification to link mapping” (Huang, Para 008l; and Abstract).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of reassociation message with link information of Huang to the system of Hwang to create a system where “…the information is brought in to increase the flexibility of multilink formation…” (Huang, Abstract) and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to “number of links can be further established for the same radio, to help the radio perform fast switching between a number of links, thus avoiding the problem of relatively large delays that occur due to the switching performed after the link is re-formed later” (Huang, Para 010)
Claims 13-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Kamath et al. (US 10499282 B1/ or “Kamath” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 13, in view of claim 10, Hwang discloses multilink operation is performed and authenticated association and reassociation is performed (Para 0118-0119; and Para 0079-0081).
But Hwang fails to specially disclose providing reassociation messages based on link information.
However, Kamath discloses “wherein the circuit is configured to provide the at least one frame if the second device is on a list of associated devices stored on the second device” (Kamath, Col 14: 28-43, devices on a blacklist and a whitelist for connection re-establishment).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of reassociation message is provided based on a list of Kamath to system Hwang to create a system where devices are managed based on access list and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to secure access to network.
Regarding claim 14, in view of claim 10, Hwang in view of Kamath disclose “wherein the circuit is configured to not provide the at least one frame if the second device is not on a list of associated devices stored on the second device” (Kamath, Col 14: 28-43, devices on a blacklist and a whitelist for connection re-establishment).
Regarding claim 18, in view of claim 15, Hang in view of Kamath disclose “wherein the protected reassociation response message from the second device is provided if the first device on a list of associated devices stored on the second device” (see rejection of claim 13).
Relevant Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cam-Winget et al. (US 20090327736 A1) discloses:
[0039] At 306, the AP generates the MIC using the SK. At 308, the AP sends a protected management or control frame with the MIC IE. The MIC IE can be used by itself or be part of an MFP IE for protecting the frame. For example, the AP sends management frames such as beacons, probe/authentication/association requests and responses using a MIC IE or a MFP IE that protects the frames.
Huang et al. (US 20230125078 A1) discloses:
[0093] …The ML Reconfiguration Request/Response exchange are done as protected action frame to deliver the group keys encrypted. Support for protected management frame is only required for EHT AP in current 11be draft text. For this feature, it is proposed to mandate the support for protected management frame for the EHT STAs as well. The ML Reconfiguration Request frame is an Action frame of category Protected EHT. The ML Reconfiguration Response frame is sent by an AP MLD in response to an ML Reconfiguration Request frame received from a non-AP MLD to accept or reject request for adding and/or deleting links to the multi-link setup of the non-AP MLD.
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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH ALMAMUN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3392. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDULLAH ALMAMUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2431
/LYNN D FEILD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights