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 .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to applicant’s amendment submitted on April 30, 2026. Claims 1-20 are still currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially createddoctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent theunjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patentand to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutoryobviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claimsare not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinctfrom the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipatedby, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir.1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d)may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutorydouble patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown tobe commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result ofactivities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign aterminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent 9,866,643 in view of Sakoda et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0351022 A1, hereinafter Sakoda). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Please see the following table for the claim 14 analysis (and similarly applied to claims 1 and 7 (claim 1 of 9,866,643)):
18/452,840
9,866,643
Claim Interpretation
14. A method comprising:
receiving wireless connection information for wireless devices comprising beacons;
updating, based on the wireless connection information, one or more entries stored in a database;
receiving, via a first device of a user, one or more instructions to provide connection information to a second device; and
providing, based on the one or more instructions and the one or more entries, first wireless connection information for a first wireless beacon device to the second device.
15. A computer-implemented method for providing location services, comprising:
receiving beacon information from a beacon system through an application programming interface, the beacon information comprising connection information for a plurality of beacons;
updating a beacon entry stored in a database based on the received beacon information, the beacon entry including a beacon location, beacon connection information, and beacon metadata;
determining a confidence rating for the beacon entry based on at least one of attributes of the beacon entry or the beacon metadata;
receiving a beacon request from a user device through the application programming interface, the beacon request indicating a user location;
selecting a first beacon from the plurality of beacons based on the beacon entry, the beacon request, and confidence ratings of the beacons; and
providing selected beacon information to the user device for registering the first beacon with the user device, the selected beacon.
As can be seen with the side-by-side comparison, the present application is a broader version of 9,866,643. More specifically, there are minor word changes and the present application is missing the “determining step” and “selecting step”. It is further noted that claim 8 of 9,866,643 teaches a “second user device”.
US 9,866,643 substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach receiving, via first device of a user, one or more instructions to provide information to second user device different from the first user device.
However, Sakoda teaches receiving, via first device of a user, one or more instructions to provide information to second user device different from the first user device (fig. 8, paragraph 130, read as the fourth wireless communication apparatus receives service discovery information from the seventh apparatus and then the fourth apparatus transmits/provides this information to a first wireless communication apparatus. In other words, Sakoda’s “fourth wireless communication apparatus” is read as the claimed invention’s “first user device” and Sakoda’s “first wireless communication apparatus” is read as the claimed invention’s “second user device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sakoda into the invention of 9,866,643 in order to increase the network coverage as nearby wireless communication apparatuses increase.
Please see the following table for the dependent claims:
18/452,840
9,866,643
Claim Interpretation
3. The beacon system of claim 2, wherein selecting the first beacon comprises selecting the first beacon from the set of devices based on a proximity of the first beacon to a location of the second user device.
5. The beacon registering device of claim 1, wherein selecting the first beacon comprises selecting a beacon based on proximities of beacon locations and a location of the user device.
No difference. This analysis is similarly applied to claims 9 and 16.
5. The beacon system of claim 2, wherein selecting the first beacon comprises selecting the first beacon from the set of devices based on a stored user preference associated with a user of the first user device.
6. The beacon registering device of claim 1, wherein selecting the first beacon comprises selecting a beacon having beacon metadata which satisfies user preferences associated with the beacon request.
No difference. This analysis is similarly applied to claims 11 and 18.
Claims 1, 7, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 15, and 19 of U.S. Patent 11,165,876 in view of Sakoda et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0351022 A1, hereinafter Sakoda). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Please see the following table for the claim 14 analysis (and similarly applied to claims 1 and 7 ((claim 1 of 11,165,876)):
18/452,840
11,165,876
Claim Interpretation
14. A method comprising:
receiving wireless connection information for wireless devices comprising beacons;
updating, based on the wireless connection information, one or more entries stored in a database;
receiving, via a first device of a user, one or more instructions to provide connection information to a second device; and
providing, based on the one or more instructions and the one or more entries, first wireless connection information for a first wireless beacon device to the second device.
15. A method for providing location services, the method comprising:
receiving beacon information comprising connection information for a plurality of beacons;
updating a beacon entry stored in a database based on the received beacon information;
receiving a beacon request from a first user device;
selecting a beacon from the plurality of beacons based on the beacon entry and the beacon request;
providing selected beacon information to the first user device for registering the selected beacon with the first user device, the selected beacon information including connection information for the selected beacon;
receiving from the first user device, a user message; and
providing content of the user message to a second user device in communication with at least one of the plurality of beacons.
As can be seen with the side-by-side comparison, the present application is a broader version of 11,165,876. More specifically, there are minor word changes and the present application is missing the second “receiving step” and the second “providing step”. It is further noted that claims 8 and 19 of 11,165,876 teaches a “second user device”.
US 11,165,876 substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach receiving, via first device of a user, one or more instructions to provide information to second user device different from the first user device.
However, Sakoda teaches receiving, via first device of a user, one or more instructions to provide information to second user device different from the first user device (fig. 8, paragraph 130, read as the fourth wireless communication apparatus receives service discovery information from the seventh apparatus and then the fourth apparatus transmits/provides this information to a first wireless communication apparatus. In other words, Sakoda’s “fourth wireless communication apparatus” is read as the claimed invention’s “first user device” and Sakoda’s “first wireless communication apparatus” is read as the claimed invention’s “second user device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sakoda into the invention of 11,165,876 in order to increase the network coverage as nearby wireless communication apparatuses increase.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 15, and 17 of U.S. Patent 11,785,103 in view of Sakoda et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0351022 A1, hereinafter Sakoda). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Please see the following table for the claim 14 analysis (and similarly applied to claims 1 and 7 (claim 1 of 11,785,103)):
18/452,840
11,785,103
Claim Interpretation
14. A method comprising: receiving wireless connection information for wireless devices comprising beacons;
updating, based on the wireless connection information, one or more entries stored in a database;
receiving, via a first device of a user, one or more instructions to provide connection information to a second device; and
providing, based on the one or more instructions and the one or more entries, first wireless connection information for a first wireless beacon device to the second device.
17. A method comprising: receiving beacon information comprising connection information for a plurality of beacons;
updating a beacon entry stored in a database based on the received beacon information;
receiving, from a first user device, instructions to provide beacon information to a second user device;
selecting a beacon from the plurality of beacons based on the received instructions and the beacon entry; and
providing selected beacon information to the second user device for registering the selected beacon with the second user device, the selected beacon information including connection information for the selected beacon.
As can be seen with the side-by-side comparison, the present application is a broader version of 11,785,103. More specifically, there are minor word changes and the present application is missing the “selecting step”.
US 11,785,103 substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach receiving, via first device of a user, one or more instructions to provide information to second user device different from the first user device.
However, Sakoda teaches receiving, via first device of a user, one or more instructions to provide information to second user device different from the first user device (fig. 8, paragraph 130, read as the fourth wireless communication apparatus receives service discovery information from the seventh apparatus and then the fourth apparatus transmits/provides this information to a first wireless communication apparatus. In other words, Sakoda’s “fourth wireless communication apparatus” is read as the claimed invention’s “first user device” and Sakoda’s “first wireless communication apparatus” is read as the claimed invention’s “second user device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sakoda into the invention of 11,785,103in order to increase the network coverage as nearby wireless communication apparatuses increase.
Please see the following table for the dependent claims:
18/452,840
11,785,103
Claim Interpretation
3. The beacon system of claim 2, wherein selecting the first beacon comprises selecting the first beacon from the set of devices based on a proximity of the first beacon to a location of the second user device.
6. The beacon device of claim 1, wherein selecting the beacon comprises selecting the beacon based on a proximity of the beacon to a location of the second user device.
No difference. This analysis is similarly applied to claims 9 and 16.
4. The beacon system of claim 2, wherein selecting the first beacon comprises selecting the first beacon from the set of devices based on a ranking of the first beacon.
15. The beacon device of claim 8, wherein the content of the user message comprises a ranking of the selected beacon.
No difference. This analysis is similarly applied to claims 10 and 17.
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wuellner et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0208337 A1, hereinafter Wuellner) in view of Sakoda et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0351022 A1, hereinafter Sakoda).
Consider claim 1. Wuellner discloses a beacon system (fig. 2, paragraph 39, read as access point recommendation system. It is further noted that Wuellner’s access point is a read as a beacon because access points transmit beacons and based on the way in which applicant is reciting beacon in the claims) comprising:
non-transitory memory storing instructions (paragraph 49, read as machine-readable medium (also referred to as a computer-readable medium) stores one or more sets of instructions); and
one or more processors programmed to execute the instructions to perform operations (paragraph 49, read as instructions also resides, completely or at least partially, within the main memory and/or within the processor during execution thereof by the computer system) comprising:
receiving wireless connection information for a plurality of beacons (fig. 4, paragraphs 24, 37, 40, read as receiving access point reports from a number of different reporting systems, where the access point report may include characteristics of the access point or any other information associated with the access point including information about the access point and the connection to a network, the name of the access point, a location for the access point, a signal strength associated with the access point, the connection type (e.g., 802.11 b/g/n), an average bandwidth as measured by other users, and the security protocols used by the access points (e.g., Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA) or Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP)));
updating, based on the wireless connection information, one or more entries stored in a database (fig. 4, paragraphs 24, 41, read as store the information in the access point report in a database using the access point identifier as a key);
receiving, via a first user device, one or more instructions to provide beacon information to a second user device (paragraph 42, read as the user transmits a request for access point recommendations to the access point recommendation system. It is noted that the claims do not distinguish the “first user device” being different from the “second user device”. As a result, the examiner is interpretating the “first user device” and the “second user device” as the same device); and
providing, based on the one or more instructions of the first user device and the one or more entries of the database, first wireless connection information for a first beacon to the second user device, the first wireless connection information enabling the second user device to register with the first beacon (fig. 4, paragraph 42, read as providing one or more access point recommendation to a client system based on the prioritization of the access points such that the access point recommendation allows the client system to connect to an available access point).
Wuellner substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach receiving, via first user device external to the beacon system, one or more instructions to provide information to second user device different from the first user device.
However, Sakoda teaches receiving, via first user device external to the beacon system, one or more instructions to provide information to second user device different from the first user device (fig. 8, paragraph 130, read as the fourth wireless communication apparatus receives service discovery information from the seventh apparatus and then the fourth apparatus transmits/provides this information to a first wireless communication apparatus. In other words, Sakoda’s “fourth wireless communication apparatus” is read as the claimed invention’s “first user device” and Sakoda’s “first wireless communication apparatus” is read as the claimed invention’s “second user device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sakoda into the invention of Wuellner in order to increase the network coverage as nearby wireless communication apparatuses increase.
Consider claim 2 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Wuellner and Sakoda discloses wherein providing the first wireless connection information comprises: determining a set of devices, comprising the plurality of beacons, based on the updated one or more entries and one or more other entries comprising connection information; selecting the first beacon from the set of devices; and providing, based on the selection of the first beacon, the first wireless connection information for the first beacon to the second user device (Wuellner; paragraphs 42, 44).
Consider claim 3 and as applied to claim 2. The combination of Wuellner and Sakoda discloses wherein selecting the first beacon comprises selecting the first beacon from the set of devices based on a proximity of the first beacon to a location of the second user device (Wuellner; paragraph 44).
Consider claim 4 and as applied to claim 2. The combination of Wuellner and Sakoda discloses wherein selecting the first beacon comprises selecting the first beacon from the set of devices based on a ranking of the first beacon (Wuellner; paragraph 31).
Consider claim 5 and as applied to claim 2. The combination of Wuellner and Sakoda discloses wherein selecting the first beacon comprises selecting the first beacon from the set of devices based on a stored user preference associated with a user of the first user device (Wuellner; paragraphs 23, 24).
Consider claim 6 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Wuellner and Sakoda discloses wherein the first wireless connection information comprises security information that enables the second user device to connect to the first beacon (Wuellner; paragraphs 29, 37).
Consider claim 7. Wuellner discloses or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (paragraph 49, read as machine-readable medium (also referred to as a computer-readable medium) stores one or more sets of instructions that resides, completely or at least partially, within the main memory and/or within the processor during execution thereof by the computer system. It is further noted that Wuellner’s access point is a read as a beacon because access points transmit beacons and based on the way in which applicant is reciting beacon in the claims), cause operations comprising:
receiving wireless connection information for wireless devices comprising beacons (fig. 4, paragraphs 24, 37, 40, read as receiving access point reports from a number of different reporting systems, where the access point report may include characteristics of the access point or any other information associated with the access point including information about the access point and the connection to a network, the name of the access point, a location for the access point, a signal strength associated with the access point, the connection type (e.g., 802.11 b/g/n), an average bandwidth as measured by other users, and the security protocols used by the access points (e.g., Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA) or Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP)));
updating, based on the wireless connection information, one or more entries stored in a database (fig. 4, paragraphs 24, 41, read as store the information in the access point report in a database using the access point identifier as a key);
receiving, via a first user device, one or more instructions to provide connection information to a second user device (paragraph 42, read as the user transmits a request for access point recommendations to the access point recommendation system. It is noted that the claims do not distinguish the “first user device” being different from the “second user device”. As a result, the examiner is interpretating the “first user device” and the “second user device” as the same device); and
providing, based on the one or more instructions and the one or more entries, first wireless connection information for a first wireless beacon device to the second user device.
Wuellner substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach receiving, via first user device, one or more instructions to provide information to second user device different from the first user device.
However, Sakoda teaches receiving, via first user device, one or more instructions to provide information to second user device different from the first user device (fig. 8, paragraph 130, read as the fourth wireless communication apparatus receives service discovery information from the seventh apparatus and then the fourth apparatus transmits/provides this information to a first wireless communication apparatus. In other words, Sakoda’s “fourth wireless communication apparatus” is read as the claimed invention’s “first user device” and Sakoda’s “first wireless communication apparatus” is read as the claimed invention’s “second user device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sakoda into the invention of Wuellner in order to increase the network coverage as nearby wireless communication apparatuses increase.
Consider claim 8 and as applied to claim 7. The combination of Wuellner and Sakoda discloses wherein providing the first wireless connection information comprises: determining a set of devices, comprising the wireless devices, based on the updated one or more entries and one or more other entries comprising connection information; selecting the first wireless beacon device from the set of devices; and providing, based on the selection of the first wireless beacon device, the first wireless connection information for the first wireless beacon device to the second user device (Wuellner; paragraphs 42, 44).
Consider claim 9 and as applied to claim 8. The combination of Wuellner and Sakoda discloses wherein selecting the first wireless beacon device comprises selecting the first wireless beacon device from the set of devices based on a proximity of the first wireless beacon device to a location of the second user device (Wuellner; paragraph 44).
Consider claim 10 and as applied to claim 8. The combination of Wuellner and Sakoda discloses wherein selecting the first wireless beacon device comprises selecting the first wireless beacon device from the set of devices based on a ranking of the first wireless beacon device (Wuellner; paragraph 31).
Consider claim 11 and as applied to claim 8. The combination of Wuellner and Sakoda discloses wherein selecting the first wireless beacon device comprises selecting the first wireless beacon device from the set of devices based on a stored user preference associated with a user of the first user device (Wuellner; paragraphs 23, 24).
Consider claim 12 and as applied to claim 7. The combination of Wuellner and Sakoda discloses wherein the first wireless connection information comprises security information that enables the second user device to connect to the first wireless beacon device (Wuellner; paragraphs 29, 37).
Consider claim 13 and as applied to claim 7. The combination of Wuellner and Sakoda discloses wherein the first wireless beacon device comprises a first wireless transmitter for a first wireless protocol and a second wireless transmitter for a second wireless protocol different from the first wireless protocol (Wuellner; paragraph 37).
Consider claim 14. Wuellner discloses a method (fig. 4, paragraph 39. It is further noted that Wuellner’s access point is a read as a beacon because access points transmit beacons and based on the way in which applicant is reciting beacon in the claims) comprising:
receiving wireless connection information for wireless devices comprising beacons (fig. 4, paragraphs 24, 37, 40, read as receiving access point reports from a number of different reporting systems, where the access point report may include characteristics of the access point or any other information associated with the access point including information about the access point and the connection to a network, the name of the access point, a location for the access point, a signal strength associated with the access point, the connection type (e.g., 802.11 b/g/n), an average bandwidth as measured by other users, and the security protocols used by the access points (e.g., Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA) or Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP)));
updating, based on the wireless connection information, one or more entries stored in a database (fig. 4, paragraphs 24, 41, read as store the information in the access point report in a database using the access point identifier as a key);
receiving, via a first device of a user, one or more instructions to provide connection information to a second device (paragraph 42, read as the user transmits a request for access point recommendations to the access point recommendation system. It is noted that the claims do not distinguish the “first user device” being different from the “second user device”. As a result, the examiner is interpretating the “first user device” and the “second user device” as the same device); and
providing, based on the one or more instructions and the one or more entries, first wireless connection information for a first wireless beacon device to the second device (fig. 4, paragraph 42, read as providing one or more access point recommendation to a client system based on the prioritization of the access points such that the access point recommendation allows the client system to connect to an available access point).
Wuellner substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach receiving, via first device of a user, one or more instructions to provide information to second user device different from the first user device.
However, Sakoda teaches receiving, via first device of a user, one or more instructions to provide information to second user device different from the first user device (fig. 8, paragraph 130, read as the fourth wireless communication apparatus receives service discovery information from the seventh apparatus and then the fourth apparatus transmits/provides this information to a first wireless communication apparatus. In other words, Sakoda’s “fourth wireless communication apparatus” is read as the claimed invention’s “first user device” and Sakoda’s “first wireless communication apparatus” is read as the claimed invention’s “second user device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sakoda into the invention of Wuellner in order to increase the network coverage as nearby wireless communication apparatuses increase.
Consider claim 15 and as applied to claim 14. The combination of Wuellner and Sakoda discloses wherein providing the first wireless connection information comprises: determining a set of devices, comprising the wireless devices, based on the updated one or more entries and one or more other entries comprising connection information; selecting the first wireless beacon device from the set of devices; and providing, based on the selection of the first wireless beacon device, the first wireless connection information for the first wireless beacon device to the second device (Wuellner; paragraphs 42, 44).
Consider claim 16 and as applied to claim 15. The combination of Wuellner and Sakoda discloses wherein selecting the first wireless beacon device comprises selecting the first wireless beacon device from the set of devices based on a proximity of the first wireless beacon device to a location of the second device (Wuellner; paragraph 44).
Consider claim 17 and as applied to claim 15. The combination of Wuellner and Sakoda discloses wherein selecting the first wireless beacon device comprises selecting the first wireless beacon device from the set of devices based on a ranking of the first wireless beacon device (paragraph 31).
Consider claim 18 and as applied to claim 15. The combination of Wuellner and Sakoda discloses wherein selecting the first wireless beacon device comprises selecting the first wireless beacon device from the set of devices based on a stored user preference associated with the user (Wuellner; paragraphs 23, 24).
Consider claim 19 and as applied to claim 14. The combination of Wuellner and Sakoda discloses wherein the first wireless connection information comprises security information that enables the second device to connect to the first wireless beacon device (Wuellner; paragraphs 29, 37).
Consider claim 20 and as applied to claim 14. The combination of Wuellner and Sakoda discloses wherein the first wireless beacon device comprises a first wireless transmitter for a first wireless protocol and a second wireless transmitter for a second wireless protocol different from the first wireless protocol (Wuellner; paragraph 37).
Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art
Marin et al. (US 2015/0139210 A1) is relevant prior art not applied in the rejections above. Marin discloses a method for access parameter sharing. An access point receives a first message from a second apparatus, the first message comprising an information element indicating if access credentials may be requested for the access point. The apparatus determines, based on the first message, whether access credentials of the access point may be requested. In response to detecting that the access credentials may be requested, the apparatus transmits a request message for requesting the access credentials of the second apparatus. The access credentials are received from a third apparatus, different from the access point.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher M Brandt whose telephone number is (571) 270-1098. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30a.m. to 5p.m..
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, Anthony Addy can be reached on (571) 272-7795. 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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights