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 § 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 1-4 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baum (2016/0234678) in view of Lee (2010/0118847).
Regarding claims 12-14, Baum discloses a mobile device (See figs. 1-2), comprising: a memory; a processor device communicatively coupled to the memory and operable to: establish, with a remote computing system (i.e. post-configured device 154), a secure channel protected via encryption (See fig. 7, step 210 and par [0032]); receive, from the remote computing system via the secure channel, encrypted Wi-Fi authentication credentials for a Wi-Fi access point that implements a LAN (See fig. 7, step 212 and par [0045]); decrypt the encrypted Wi-Fi authentication credentials to generate decrypted Wi-Fi authentication credentials; and generate, based on the decrypted Wi-Fi authentication credentials, network information to enable the mobile device to authenticate to the Wi- Fi access point without user input and thereby connect to the Wi-Fi access point (See fig. 6, fig. 7 step 214 and par [0032, 0045, 0050]). However, Baum does not explicitly mention that the remote computing system is not directly connected to the LAN, wherein the mobile device was provisioned by an entity that operates the remote computing system, and the mobile device is operable to receive, from the computing system, the encrypted Wi-Fi authentication credentials for the Wi-Fi access point via secure channel of a cellular network. Since Lee suggests that a mobile device is operable to receive, from the remote computing system (i.e. a position data server or MBMS server), the Wi-Fi authentication credentials for the Wi-Fi access point via a channel of a cellular network (See fig.1, fig. 7 steps 112-120 and par [0046-0047], fig. 13 steps 214-216), wherein the remote computing system (i.e. position data server or MBMS server) is not directly (i.e. via a base station) connected to the LAN and wherein the mobile device was provisioned by an entity (i.e. service provider) that operates the remote computing system (See par [0052, 0055]); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify, as suggested by Lee, the Baum’s system such that the mobile device is also operable to receive, from the remote computing system such as data server of the network, the encrypted Wi-Fi authentication credentials for the Wi-Fi access point via secure channel of the cellular network, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the system to various ways and/or methods to provide encrypted Wi-Fi authentication credentials for the Wi-Fi access point to users.
Claims 1-3 and 11 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 12-14, as method.
Regarding claim 15, Baum & Lee disclose as cited in claim 12. Baum further discloses the processor device is further operable to: prior to receiving the encrypted Wi-Fi authentication credentials, send, to the remote computing system, a public key of a public key/private key pair generated by the mobile device (ECDHE-ECDSA cryptography) (See par [0021]); subsequent to receiving the encrypted Wi-Fi authentication credentials, decrypt, using a private key of the public key/private key pair (i.e. multi-bit shared key is derived from the private key from the ECDHE-ECDSA cryptography), the Wi-Fi authentication credentials to generate a decrypted service set identifier (SSID) and a decrypted SSID password; and wherein to generate the network information to enable the mobile device to authenticate to the Wi-Fi access point without the user input, the processor device is further operable to generate the network information using the decrypted SSID and the decrypted SSID password (See fig. 6, fig. 7 step 214 and par [0032, 0045, 0050]).
Claim 4 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 15, as method.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 5-10, Baum & Lee disclose as cited in claim 1. However, they fail to disclose that prior to establishing the secure channel: receiving, by the mobile device from the computing system, a verification value; generating, by the mobile device, a public key/private key pair; encrypting, by the mobile device, the verification value using the private key of the public key/private key pair to generate an encrypted verification value; sending, by the mobile device to an attestation service, the encrypted verification value and information identifying characteristics of the mobile device; receiving, by the mobile device from the attestation service, an attestation token that includes the encrypted verification value; and sending, by the mobile device to the computing system, the attestation token and the public key of the public key/private key pair.
Claims 16 and 18-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter have been indicated in the Office Action mailed on 12/10/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 TUAN A TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 AM - 5:00 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/TUAN A TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights